Agreed, 30 years of taxpayer funded pensions had to come to a screaming end. Anyone who relied solely on those pensions are fools.

It's not the fault of the public employees that the states have large deficits.

That was caused by the recession that was caused by the financial crash in 2008 that was caused by the reckless and and fraudulent activities of the investment banks and mortgage industry.

This is classic "divide and conquer" strategy by the rich: Get people angry at other working people like themselves and distract them from the real culprits: The 1%.

They are using the deficits that resulted from their own swindling in order to attack average working people's standard of living and role back all the gains that were made by poor and middle class people in the first half of the last century.

Don't fall for it.

Public employees are not your enemy.

Because it was part of the compensation package?? In other words, they (public workers) took a lower cash wage (usually) than a comparable job in the private sector and in return got a pension. Just because you didn't take lower wages/higher benefits as a form of compensation doesn't mean we have to race to the bottom with you.

Arch....The pension systems are unsustainable as is. Members need to get their fair share of the money left and start their own pension plan. Peoples pensions are going start getting cut. I tell my son in law to not count on a full pension. Have other retirement plans. Not his fault but it is a harsh reality.

The entire point of taking a govt job back in the day was lower wages but great benefits. People living longer hurts pensions and they are an easy target. If you told people 30years ago what the pension changes would be like you would have to pay more to hire them.

Are these politicians cutting their benefits first? Has there been one word about their pensions and health care benefits?

For all of you who really don't understand how public pensions work, employees contribute to their own pensions, comes right out of their gross pay. The problem has been that the politicians just can't see a pile of money without wanting to get their hands on it in some way. Same thing happening with Soc. sec.Also how is it going to benefit any of you if smeone else is taking a cut in wages or pension or health care. (don't say taxes, you're smarter than that) Being willing to see others on the chopping block just clears the way for your turn.

the pension systems are almost all dead broke; the collapse of the housing bubble, derivatives ,hedge funds all reduced the interest earned to less than 2 %, plus all the States borrowed from the funds to fund everything from highways to public schools; now they can not pay the piper; the employees paid into the system (from 4.5-7.6 5) plus the matching funds from the State and city's for the most part was just a IOU; problem, the workers did not pay into Social Security, therefore, with the massive cuts they are going to be severely hurt in their retirement income, New york was the worst run system, fireman retiring with 6 figure incomes, garbage men the same.

Mike...Thats why they should get their money now before the politicians spend it all.

Nowhere do you point out that most of the elected officials are also covered by those "juicy" plans.... We had that mess in PA when the legislature in a 2:00 am meeting raised salaries and pensions for themselves... and had to include the teachers and first responders (who are pretty much the ones who are bankrupting the system.... ).....

Too bad so sad, welcome to the real world public service unions! No one put a gun to your head and made you take a job in public service. Finally in Wisconsin, the (PSU's) need to chip in for their OWN health and retirement. They bitch and scream bloody murder! However they only pay about 1/2 as much as those of us in private industry, plus they get to retire at 55, me, not till 67. They don't realize how good they still have it. Cry Babies.

You are correct We did not have to have a government job, but we decided to serve the people. Not for you fine. I am sorry you hate the military,police , fire. WE dedicate our life to doing good, for a little money. That is our choice, but when all hell breaks loose in the world and at home who do yu turn too. The reason we retire at 55 isbecuae doing one of those three jobs destroy the body quicker than almost any job. Fire, disease, people, firing at you. Not typical. Yes we could do something else, but we believe in protecting even your ungrateful being. Our jobs are part of a modern society. Some have been to greedy, but most are not. I am sure we will adjust overtime, but lay off the working people. You had a chance to do our job.

The fact is that the vast majority of these State pension funds are far from being broke. Most have very nice surpluses that would sustain them for many years to come. The problem is "future liabilities" and the rules regarding proper funding. Many of these plans were making so much money off the markets, that there was no requirement to ever make any funding contributions to them. The problem came about when the held market assets dropped in value when everything crashed. So with the lowered total value of the plans, they now became "underfunded" according to the rules. These rules are fairly strict and they look far into the future and use current gain rates to project out whether or not they are appropriately funded.

In reality, as the markets have come back to pre-crash levels, these funds are in recovery, meaning their surpluses are coming back. Many of these technically underfunded plans currently have enough money to pay out benefits for 15-20 years. The key is earning more money than they pay out every year and keeping that substantial surplus for future liabilities.

When this problem first occurred, there have been a number of economist who suggested that contributions, technically required by the rules, could safely be waved, postponed or reduced. As the market situation improved and these plans start earning money again, they will get fully funded again. The key is being able to ride out the slump.

So the "unfunded liabilities" in many cases are exaggerated. But some State politicians have played the situation to the hilt all in an effort to eliminate having to pay a dime into these funds. They want to cut benefits and increase employee contributions to cover this temporary slump. In some cases, these funds were actually mis-managed by some political hack in charge of them who really didn't have the appropriate skills, but got a political appointment to put them there. Their goal of course was not always about doing what was best for the plan, but instead doing what offered the highest return so that no contribution was ever necessary by the State governments.

In the course of doing this, they took on high return, but also high risk assets. As the markets started going South in early to mid 2008, what they should have been doing was moving money around out of these high return but risky assets. Instead, many got caught with their pants down. Much the same as many people took big hits in their 401k's because they didn't have the smarts to see it coming. Well managed pension funds controlled by real professionals did better than many of these State funds. The State fund managers can blame the market conditions to some degree, but they also need to take some blame for mis-management. I suppose it may not matter all that much because regardless of who caused the problem, taxpayers need to make up the difference. Keep in mind, none of these problems had a single thing to do with the workers covered by the plans. Yet it is the workers who are expected to take the blame and pay for it. In a lot of cases, many of these plans were cost free for the States for several years or more because the market gains made, self funded the plans. Arguably, taxpayers were getting a "free ride" for quite a while. But nobody wants to talk about that now, they just want to talk about the greedy workers sucking the taxpayers dry.

Each of these plans ought to be evaluated by an independent body and where surpluses are adequate, maybe funding should be waived or deferred or at a minimum, reduced. The reality too is that virtually all these funds are in much better shape today than they were 3 years ago. But there is an incentive in a lot of cases to attacked the public sector Unions and play this pension problem card for all it is worth. And in almost all situations, the workers have little say in the decisions. This is not a universal problem and some funds got through this better than others. If all these funds were subjected to the same type of independent analysis, I think we would find some things that border on scandalous and some political hacks would find their jobs in jeopardy. But because it is the politicians that control the situation, you can be sure that any wrongdoing or mis-management aren't likely to be uncovered.

The thing is that these situations are being spun for a political agenda. Any Public Unions ought to be demanding independent analysis before they agree to painful cuts or increased individual funding. There is no doubt that these funds lost money during the market crash, however, the situation is being overblown. It is not anywhere near as bad as some are suggesting. There are viable "fixes" without screwing the workers who had no influence on what happened.

What do you mean "private sector"? You don't speak for everyone. My cousins, who worked for Otis Elevator, Conoco, and GE get better pensions than my Maryland Teachers' Pension -which includes no State health benefits whatsoever. It's not wrong that government workers get pensions: it's wrong that many private jobs stopped them, shifting 58% of the gain in American wealth to the top 1% since 1976.

The fact is that the VERY conservative magazine Forbes says that teaching is the 3rd lowest paying profession requiring a college degree INCLUDING the benefits despite the fact teachers work an average 300 hours per year MORE than the average full-time job. Teachers often start off being paid less than starting sanitation workers, but they take that pay because they're promised their sacrifice will be made up later by a pension. So governments effectively. for example, will effectively partly pay in 2030 many teachers for their work in 2012.

THAT is why cutting their pensions is despicable. It's like telling a painter, "Paint my house and I can only pay you $100 now and another $100 next year," then next year saying "I don't have the $100, so I have to cut it to $50."

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PAY IN,TOO. AND pay in for health care. Get your facts straight please.

The employees pay for the pensions, not the taxpayers. It is then invested in mutual funds and other securities, just like a 401k. Don't believe the Teabagger misinformation.

Its been more like 5 years and counting.

Yes, it's been down hill ever since democrats took over congress.

Bush coulda used his veto power.

If the unions were something other than just stormtroopers for the Democrat Party, they would have taken direct responsibility for their members' healthcare and pensions rather than sloughing that off onto the taxpayer. The union bosses could have taken direct responsibility for managing the retirement funds of their brothern and sistern. But no, they would rather be able to blame management, and rob the taxpayer.

Why is it that people don't seem to see the changes to our economy? Much of our economy is supported by our increased use of technology, greatly reducing our need for manual labor. And at the same time our population growth in the US is expanding faster than ever before.

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm

Firefighters are nothing but overhead?

Law enforcement are nothing but overhead?

Members of the armed forces are nothing but overhead?

Some federal employees are paid well, but state employees are usually underpaid compared with the comparable private sector job. I'm a state attorney, with the government for seven years after leaving private practice. I took the job, even though it was a pay cut, because the benefits and pensions were great, there is ample paid vacation and better job security than in the private sector.

With those advantages now disappearing, I am looking to return to the private sector. What we're going to see is a race to the bottom, as the quality of people working for state government begins to go down. This will result in more waste, more slow or poorly qualified workers and slower government.

Here's a thought, how about LESS federal employees at a higher wage? That way you could keep good talent and lose wasteful overhead. Of course unions won't go for this because it means less dues in their slush fund.

"Firefighters are nothing but overhead?

Law enforcement are nothing but overhead?

Members of the armed forces are nothing but overhead?"

Every time we talk about cuts liberals always bring out the socialist blackmail mantra. There is a real simple solution, for every cop/firefighter/etc. laid off 10 bureaucrats must go. I guarantee solutions will be found. Those fundamental services are just pawns used by the left to extort ever increasing money from the tax payer.

Also, police, etc. are necessary, huge pensions for former police, etc. are not. As Bloomberg once said, "I'm not paying for one police force, I'm paying for three! One active, two retired." This is simply unsustainable and even liberal lawmakers are now having to deal with reality.

Valhalla Phil

Working for the government, whether State or Federal, is a form of social welfare.

Most (not all but far too many) government jobs are Monday through Friday, 10 to 4 with a hour and a half off for lunch, weekends off, and ALL HOLIDAYS OFF!

A small part of me really wants what every TEA Bagger wants, NO GOVERNMENT. Then when your guns are out of ammo, your tainted food has killed half your family, and your Priest/Pastor/Pat Robertson has taken God with them to greener pa$tures, then and only then will you finally recognize that the Repuglican'ts and the uber wealthy have played you as a fool!

If you truly have half a brain, look at Germany and Italy during the 1930's and you will see what you want. A time when a minority party with 30% of the vote took over a nation and started a world war. If that is what you want then keep pitting workers against workers. It's called FASCISM and if you truly look at what the Right wing Tea Party/RepugliCON Party is preaching then you have the truth behind their rhetoric.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

my reply to Empty Mike-571674

consider the LADWP = City of Los Angeles, {California} Department of Water and Power.

These government employees are up all night, in the wind and the rain, trying to restore Electrical service to thousands of customers -- in the event of a Giant Storm, which has uprooted Trees, which have brought-down the power lines.

Oh yeah, don't forget about the water workers; they will be out there in the cold & snow, trying to stop the flooding due to a broken water main, then install a new pipe -- to try to restore running water to the hundreds of people who are affected.

Mon. - Fri., 10 AM - 4 PM, indeed !

www.android-usa.com watches

and then consider all the other forms of State and Federal Government jobs that do little or nothing, no motivation to succeed or accomplish anything (ever tried to get signage, planning, licenses, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, the lists are endless). There are exceptions to each scenario, it comes down to cleaning up government waste and government paid for accomplishing not just for showing up!

Are you seriously suggesting that the companies whose stock underperformed or the brokerages that sold the stock make up the shortfall in these pensions? And do you think brokerage firms are invading the principal of the pension fund investments to pay their bonuses? Tell me, please, that you aren't that obtuse. Guaranteed pension funds are underfunded because they are, and always have been, unrealistic in both expected returns and incredibly generous, long-lasting benefits. Investing is inherently risky. Nobody is guaranteeing my 401K returns, and I don't expect my broker or the businesses I invest in to come out of pocket if I make bad investment choices or if the bottom falls out of the market.

"Clearly stated - pension funds are under funded because Wall Street couldn't deliver. Every one is using the 'lotto' retirement plan - gambling our way to financial security in retirement."

Sorry, that's a lie. Wall street HAS recovered. At over 13,000 the financial sector has done it's job. It is the governments that have underfunded and over promised that are at fault. As an individual investor, I make well over 10%/year and have more than recovered from the recession. To say that I and millions like me can do it and wall street pension firms can't is absurd.

Investing is gambling ONLY if you don't do your homework. I and millions of other boomers successfully invest to supplement our SS funds. It's the difference between retiring comfortably and surviving.

@factcheckero -- I am suggesting that unearned income be taxed like any other income. Unearned income does not expand the economy - does not grow GDP - is an unproductive diversion of money out of our economy. I am suggesting that stock trades and speculative investing be taxed in order to return profits fraudulently obtained by Wall Street.

Those pension funds were specifically diverted to Wall Street. Those pension funds created a false demand on Wall Street - and - Wall Street responded with increasing management fees, transaction fees, and increasing speculation. The increase in Wall Street value has been caused by injecting retirement investing into the market - and - Wall Street has diverted those public fund investments to private profits.

The various governments have simply transferred those retirement funds from the workers to financial profit takers. Wall Street knew what it was doing - and - created inflated expectations on what Wall Street could deliver. Wall Street should return the profits it fraudulently obtained.

@Valhalla Phil -- You should thank a public employee. Your 'free enterprise' success was provided by a public worker's pension fund being used to subsidize your success.

Now that you 'have yours' - obviously it is time to make public employees pay the tab.

A defined benifit was doomed to die. Too many crooked deals to raise the pension levels before the last few years of retirement. Like undesrved promotions. Big salery level increases he last few years etc. etc.

Defined benifits should have been the stardard for all and it is the only way to ensure that you get a decesnt pension.

No input no pension, little input little pension. And than you are still victum of the crooks at Wall Street with your investemts.

Remember Wall Street is a zero sum game. For somebody to make money, somebody has to loose money. On top of that you have to deal with Crooks like Goldman& Sasch.

The liitle guy is not in good start from the very beginning. Also they should teach at school how to handle money.

Try asking a kid waht he would rather have a million bucks after 1 year or a penny doubled every day for a year.

I bet 99% will take the million

Nerm: Tax consumption, not income. That way everyone pays, including the drug dealers and illegals. Taxing the "seed corn" of income is a recipe for starvation.

Cynical: How is Wall Street a zero sum game? Take a company like Apple or Microsoft for example, companies that didn't exist thirty years ago and yet now are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it held by pensions, IRAs, and 401ks. Seems like starting at zero and turning into money like that is hardly a zero sum game.

@norm903 -- Only a 'free marketeer' would want to tax consumption - and - interfere with the supply/demand principles of capitalism. I would agree to a national consumption tax - if - you would agree that financial instruments and stocks are consumer goods. Buying a stock is no different than buying a washing machine. Fair?

Taxes are the government's method of moderating unproductive uses of new wealth created in the economy. If new wealth (capital) is simply used to create money from money - that weakens the economy by creating inflation - and the government should alter taxes to redirect capital to more productive uses that actually grow the economy.

Taxes also provide an incentive to guide government policy. Income taxes are an incentive for government to find ways to promote job creation and increase incomes - thereby increasing revenue. Consumption taxes are an incentive for government to create cheap credit and promote debt - to increase revenue.

Which incentive would you prefer to guide government policy? Increase incomes or increase debt? If consumption taxes were that great - the states would not be running budget deficits.

Progressive income taxes are an incentive for government to find ways to increase income - an incentive to increase the supply of 'seed corn'.

Nerm: Only a "statist" would believe "Taxes are the government's method of moderating unproductive uses of new wealth created in an economy." The government decides what is and is not an unproductive use of private capital? Is that what you're saying? Then you write, "Income taxes are an incentive for government to find ways to promote job creation and increase incomes..." Reread your own words, "taxes are an incentive for government to promote job creation..." Isn't that what private industry is supposed to do? When the goverment does it you wind up with Greece and Solyndra.

Finally, to your question about what incentive is best to guide government policy, increasing income or increasing debt, and your observation that states would not be running deficits if consumption taxes were that great, you improperly frame the question. A better question is, what tax system drives producers to produce?

And finally, the issue around state and federal debt is not one of a tax system but one of institutionalized corruption and graft centered around buying votes with the people's money and buying bribes- er, "contributions" wink wink to get reelected. We don't have a tax income problem, we have a spending problem. Eliminate ALL deductions, tax consumption, and level the playing field for everyone, achievers and non-achievers alike.

And what's wrong with being a free marketeer anyway? You make achievement and production sound like it is a bad thing, not what this country was built upon.

Nerm - I agree with your point that a consumption tax should tax all consumption. State sales taxes should cover everything that is purchased and not favor one type of purchase over another. If I buy a car and pay 7% tax, I should also pay 7% when I buy (or rent) a house, factory, or farm. Things like haircuts, insurance policies, stocks, bonds, prescription drugs, lap dances, mailorder and internet purchases, FedEx and UPS shipping charges, groceries - all should be subject to the same tax. Maybe it would be found that a 3% tax is sufficient to provide the funds needed for government - either have a sales&service tax, or don't.

In my state, there is a punitive tax for buying food in a restaurant. This victimizes persons who cannot or choose to not store and prepare their food themselves. Peanut butter and jelly sandwich at home, no tax - but 9% if purchased at a restaurant.

There were not right in Wisconsin or Indiana. It isn't ok for NY either. It is a race to the bottom to bust up the unions. The 99% just keep getting socked by the women-hating, union busting GOP.

The Repubs were so wrong in Wisconsin that it has already resulted in the recall of 2 incumbent Repub state legislators. There are recall elections scheduled for the Governor and 4 more Republ state legislators.

Taxpayers also saved in the salary vs pension issue. Lower wages meant lower Social Security taxes being paid by the employers.

In the current political climate, with Republicans so far to the right that they are in danger of falling off of the edge of the earth and Tea Partiers pushing them even further right, publc sector jobs should be avoided until sanity returns.

@oneiron-4324713

Despite your rant, you still can't bring yourself to admit that the DEMOCRATS in NY did EXACTLY what the Republicans did in Wisconsin, which is pension reform.

So, are the NY Democrats so far to the right now, that they actually agree with so-called Republican philosophy? Or, perhaps the NY Democrats finally had the blinders removed from their eyes & did the right fiscal thing by busting the unions.

So, who are you going to blame in New York? Who are you going to recall in New York? The DEMOCRAT who's the governor? Or, the DEMOCRATS in the NY Assembly? Sorry, you simply cannot blame the Republicans this time. Union public pensions are an anachronism in the 21st century that government simply cannot support any longer.

Sorry, the republicans WERE right in WI and IN. They just recognized the problem early, democrats were in denial until the problem could no longer be ignored. As said above, NY is now doing what WI had the foresight to do earlier, and the sooner you attack a problem the easier it is to solve. Hats off to WI and IN sanity.

This being a leftist website, the numbers must have been too embarrassing to the left to be included. As I quoted earlier, Bloomberg said he was paying for one active police force and two retired. Meaning 2/3 of his police budget was pensions.

I think some of these liberal states were hoping against hope that the democrats would have retained the house and in turn bailed them out. With republicans controlling the house there is no way that's going to happen so they're now forced to deal with reality. I think even if democrats had kept the house it would have been a real long shot. Can you imagine an Iowa democrat voting to bail out NY pensions????

That was in CA 90K is like 40k elsewhere. If you want to hit the alternative minimum tax and still not be rich move to NYC.

You also did not risk your life every 48 hrs with druggies,,or running into your homes to save you or your precious items in your home. NOt everybody makes 90,000 a year. Most are officers, and there are not a lot of them. Plus we tend to die soon after retirement because these jobs take more of a toll on the body than the average job. On top of that we generally put 25 to 35% of our check into the pension system. There has been some greed out there, but most public safety people do this for you the people with some compensation. Safer cities, better schools, draw more companies in to help economy. When will you guys figure that out.

Please tell me how law enforcement & firefighter jobs are SAFER now than they were 30 years ago??? All the gang violence that goes on now?????

Gangs are violent, members of the public are victims. That means cops spend more of their time taking reports and picking up the bodies. That cuts into their coffee and doughnut time. That makes them healthier. You didn't expect the cops to actually fight it out with the gangs, did you?

Actually that downfall started on WJC's watch.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

The downfall due to uncontrolled use of derivatives.

Where the hell do you see 3/4 of firefighters on disability. Most retire and then work at a smaller department to keep serving the people. And no they do not have a stae pension again. Most small departments are 401k. Why are you so angry with public safety. You that mad at military too. Becuse there might be a small federal retirement there too. And no, it is not safer, get out of the bubble. I will still protect you angry people with my life.

Yes. I have some contracts I entered into that are stupid too. I think I'll just quit honoring them.......because they're stupid. A promise is a promise, unless I decide it's stupid.

My experience with private sector employees tells me that they're every bit as dumb and lazy as any public sector employees. Large corporate bureaucracies are just as stupid and inefficient as public bureaucracies.

@ sam-298381

Please define "good jobs"?

Try overpaid, lazy, motivationless, Government Employees, as a description for "good jobs".

State and Federal Government Employees get their income from the private sector, not the other way around. The private sector can not keep up with and pay for a expanding and growing government!

"Try overpaid, lazy, motivationless, ......"

I work in the private sector for a fortune 500 company. We have plenty of those, too, and their pay and benefits dwarf public employee's compensation.

I'm not sure what "motivationless" is. Is that a new Republican word like "misunderestimated", and "nukular", or did you mean "unmotivated"?

sam-298381

"motivationless" - is a government employee who works about 5 hours a day, 10 to 4 with a hour and a half lunch, has weekends and ALL HOLIDAYS OFF, like so many in government, with no motivation to do their job, just "clocking hours" and getting paid!

I promise you one thing for certain, the "private sector" got rid of a lot of "dead weight" and has not hired those types back in the past several years. Unlike government, which keeps expanding, demands more taxes/income from the private sector, for working less.

Time to clean up "government waste" as well as the private sector!

What's changed? The private sector sucks now. "Globalism" has brought us wage competition with third world goat herders. We can't compete with Chinese making a dollar an hour.

Now all those crappy government jobs that nobody used to want, the jobs that had to have good beneifts packages to attract any applicants, those are now the "good" jobs, and the brainwashed teabirthers are jealous.

Don't worry. Mittens is going to be president and he is going to cut his own tax rate from 15% to 0%. It will all be better then.