 |
| Furey: "You have pension envy!" |
That's what my problem is?
 | |||||
Such were the words (and the gist behind them) of Torrance Mayoral candidate Pat Furey in a key debate a few months ago.
Furey has been endorsed by the Torrance Police and Fire Associations, too. No wonder he is defending their pay, benefits, and pensions from the envious public.
So, let me put it like this. . .
I am angry because the public sector employees, whether police or fire or anything else, are getting six figure sums, yet at the same time I do not have such a well-paying job, or no certainty of getting good benefits and a secure pension, and face almost no chance of getting terminated once they achieve a certain level of seniority or number of years on the job.
Pension envy?
How about -- righteous indignation!
Where do the city leaders think all of this money is coming from? Not from businesses, sales, or trade. This money comes from taxpaying residents and businesses.
How much longer do city leaders like Mr. Furey really think that voting taxpayers in the City of Torrance will put up with these unfunded liabilities?
Employees taking in more money than administrative staff because of overtime pay -- that is infuriating, Mr. Furey. Voters have a right to vent their fury at any city government, association or otherwise, which stands beside so extensive and expensive a redistribution of wealth.
The public workers do the same work, but get time and a half. They are getting more money without working more for it.
They secure a secure job, with very little risk of termination. Private sector employees have to perform, turn a profit, and if they fail, then they get disciplined or lose their jobs.
Where does the money come from in a private organization, anyway? From individual consumers or trading partners. If I fail to deliver a product or service, then I lose customer, business, money, and even my job.
If a civil servant does a bad job, they may get reprimanded, unless the unions step up staunch opposition to the effort.
Sometimes, the employee gets transferred to another department within an agency. In other cases, a bad employee, or an employee who engaged in some kind of misconduct may look forward to a promotion.
Public sector workers engage in a serious service for their cities, but for anyone working the same job and getting time and a half, plus benefits and other pay, all of which guarantee a greater pension. . .
Rage and upset at such unprecedented redistribution of wealth is not pension envy, but righteous indignation!
"Self-righteous", maybe. "Garden-variety asshole" more accurately describes you.
ReplyDeleteRather than read Arthur's anti-public employee and collective bargaining nonsense, take a look at Pat Furey's reasoned description of the challenges facing any city that values its public service employees and services. Arthur, of course, favors Ayn Randian-dystopia, and if his side had its way, you'd have to live under that dark, cynical cloud, too:
ReplyDelete"Much has been said and written recently about public pensions and the unfunded portion owed by cities and other municipalities to CALPERS. It is true that the unfounded pension liability has increased. However, what has been ignored is how things got to where they are and what the State of California and Torrance have been doing to remedy the situation.
The reason for CALPERS debt can be directly attributed to the 2008 recession. Instead of growth on the earnings, in 2008 the investments lost almost 5% and in 2009 the earnings lost 23.4%. Those losses were devastating – much as they were to individual and corporate investors.
But, the CALPERS investments have rebounded pretty well. The last fiscal year saw investment earnings of more than 13% and the investments have averaged almost 12% over the last 4 years.
A fact that is generally ignored and actually should be noted is that the average pension benefit under CALPERS is just a little over $3,000 per month. Critics always seem to ignore that fact and only refer to the higher pensions of long-term executive and safety officers.
Just a few weeks ago I sat and discussed the future of pensions in California with Rob Fechner, the President of CALPERS, and he explained what happened before he came on board. He personally assured me that prudent and conservative investments are now the mantra. And, considering the investments have bettered the 7.5% to 7.75% assumed return on investment, it seems to be correct.
The other major impact on CALPERS was in 2003 when more than 250 cities and other municipalities throughout California – including Torrance – agreed to increase the pension return to safety officers from 2% per year to 3% per year. Those increases were done when CALPERS was over-funded and done as part of the bargaining process, in lieu of wage and other benefit increases.
In 2011 Torrance did a major reform where new safety employees will be funding 9% of their pay toward their pension. Additionally, the State of California increased the age for retirement for safety officers. And, the state mandated additional payments by the employees, lowered the pension return to a maximum of 2.7% and raised the age of retirement to 57. Those reforms don’t cure the problem today, but futuristically they will."
Futuristically. . .a made up word speaking for "made up" solutions.
DeleteWe do not need "back to the future" flux capacitors. We need reforms which will curb the burdens on the city and the residents/taxpayers.
Great Recession of USA: 2008 -- no recovery under President Obama.
Great Deficit in Torrance, CA: 2014 -- $400 million pension liability.
That is the true dystopia.
And Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" commands no respect, and I do not espouse her philosophy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete