Jim

Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... I think it is less of wanting to drag folks down to a common level than shared sacrafice during hard times. Working folks see what happens in their business - folks taking pay cuts to keep a team together, for instance. And they expect something similar with taxpayers money

Meanwhile, for those of us burdened with the less esoteric questions and answers.

Pithy. But nonresponsive.

Nah. No reason to consider alternatives.

Great. Just wait until that software problem happens to a computer earwig that burrows into someone's brain!

Oh, I'm ok with entertaining those issues. But they do little to help with a strained state budget today. The lack of any practical advice in dealing with real world governance says plenty. Seems like you don't like getting your hands dirty with any reality based solutions to address current state issues. In Decemeber the state legislature is going to meet again. I'm all for the sales tax increase the govenor has put forward. But she doesn't have the two-thirds vote she needs. I think the Tim Eiman rule is stupid - but it was democratically voted on and we have to work with it. So - next up will be the usual suspects for cuts - DSHS for starts, whose budget has been decimated. Next - the state health program for the poor - looks like that will be just eliminated. So rather that making some changes to the benefits and pension program we'll hack away at important social programs. And yes - we would have directly more money for these programs immediately if we made some changes to state worker benefits. So yea - go with the big ideas, but they are not going to aid WA any time soon, and decision have to be made in about 3 weeks.

Excellent! Problem solved with the usual rhetorical flourish.

Everyone with a little time can confirm that the part cited at link 2 isn't peer-reviewed, whereas link 1 is a list of Easterbrook's publications that contain none of the affirmations made at link 2. Gotta go with the j_b on this one. Throwing a laundry list of articles that do not appear related to the subject is chaff. Should have stuck to the Science article, which appears to have something to say on the subject of models. But that's how science works. Peer-reviewed tweaking of generally accepted work.

So, what ? Your browser is set to the National Inquirer and you just want to share? This constant chatter is about as lowbrow as the behavior you attempt to chastise. GAL already.

Any other earth-shocking headlines?

Points for applicability and vision. Triple points for a direct and concise reply. Happy TG. Done cooking.

Unfortunately - reality has to be dealt with. Given I can't figure out anything remotely applicable in that last post I'll ask the question as directly as I can. What would you do as govenor to stem the coming $50B hole in the state budget? Particularly give our recent loss in services from pervious cuts. Or does that just derail the "vision" discussion?

I know. Let's solve our immediate state budget by prompting Congress to cancel the joint strike fighter. I'm all for it. Meanwhile we have another $5B deficit hole coming up here in WA - and that is optimistic with the economy puttering along. Before the next legislative session convenes it is likely that the state will edit its revenue forecast down again. This is where the progress left fails for me. It all ends up arm waving with little pratical solution. Other than the obvious - cut services.

I'm not even saying anything about increases - Jesus - just keeping us from making the hole deeper with our limited existing resources. So your argument is let's keep digging because once we get the hole filled we might not get anymore dirt? Brillant.

Thanks. This is exactly what my concern is. We'll back the dumptruck of taxpayer revenue to backfill the hole rather than spend it on worthy programs - schools, medical care for the needy, and general social safety net programs. What - change anything?

Except - when you look at return on investment numbers more closely the difference between assumed and acutual returns is a bitch. From the Pew report: Still, some observers, including renowned financier and investor Warren Buffett,argue that current assumptions are too optimistic. From 1990 to 2009, states had a median investment return of 8.1 percent. But in the most recent decade, from 2000 to 2009, that figure was 3.9 percent - while assumptions were still 8 percent or higher. The stakes of this debate are high because when a state lowers its investment return assumptions, the projected value of its liabilities and the annual contributions required to meet them increase dramatically. This, in turn, expands the gap between liabilities and assets.

That's the average pension benefit for all living retirees and their widows/widowers. That includes people who stopped working *decades* ago. If you want a number that accurately reflects the dollar value of the pensions that recent and future retirees are entitled to, you need to get the data and determine the dollar value of pensions being paid to recent retirees. For a quick and dirty estimate of future liabilities, multiply that number times the compounded (n = number of years in the future) average wage growth in NY's public sector. Here's the stats San Jose: "Police and firefighters who retired in 2009-10 after at least 26 years of service collected an average starting pension of $119,000 a year. For other workers with similar service, the average was $63,500. The pensions come with a guaranteed 3 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment." That dollar value doesn't include retiree health insurance benefits. Just for fun, price out immediate annuities that feature survivor benefits and inflation protection at 3% and report back. Then you'll start to understand why the folks that are running the numbers (computing the total projected value of public employee contributions plus earning vs the value of pension obligations) are ringing the alarm bells. Here's a hint: the first value is significantly lower than the second. There's not enough money to fund the existing level of public services and pensions. Cutting services to fund pensions will only take you so far, because as in San Jose is projected to, you will arrive at the endpoint where pension payouts exceed all tax revenues. E.g. you cut all employees and the delivery of all services and there's still not enough money. Public employees should be *thankful* that people are pointing this out so they don't wind up the folks from Pritchard: http://www.cnbc.com/id/40791768/Alabama_Town_s_Failed_Pension_Is_a_Warning This is the heart of the issue. Do a little straight forward math and get labeled a regressive. With a little common sense here it could be made solvent and bring service levels (and jobs) up to a sustainable level.

While I would tend to look at things comprehensively, I can see why reasonable conservatives are quite leary of lumping revenues in before honest structual reform is tried. And yes, agree, the Bushie tax cuts for all need to go. That would be a start and should be a good place to begin. Ok - we let these lapse and it's time for some reform.

I'll avoid the cirle-jerk discussion that will ensue, but - it doesn't matter the cause of pension fund slides. States can't run a deficit so they have to deal. And so far the result is cutting sevices rather than scaling back on pensions, no matter what size, that you could not get by investing your own money and getting a reasonable return. Thanks taxpayers! The recokoning is on the way on the state level. Feds next.

Ah. So I guess this is where we part philosophically. While liberal socially I'm fiscally conservative - basically because I generally like the idea of accountability with tax payer money. And I want it to be used fugally so programs I support get their funding. So - no, I don't support the guaranteed benefits - at taxpayer expense, when said taxpayers have to figure their own way out.

Thanks for the cepr blog opinion post. Meanwhile, back to reality. NYT: No municipality will sustain more damage than New York City, which next year faces a mind-boggling pension tab of $8.35 billion - a 19% increase in one year - at a time when Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council are forced to hack away at practically every other expenditure. And the devastating drain will keep getting worse unless Albany lawmakers finally stand up to the public employee unions, dump the current retirement system and replace it with something taxpayers can afford. Until that day, the city faces agonizing tradeoffs. Take, for example, the Fire Department's boneheaded plan to charge drivers as much as $490 for responding to accident scenes. Is it any wonder, when the FDNY spends more on pensions and other fringe benefits than it does on salaries? Then there's Bloomberg's plan to shed 6,000 of the schools' 80,000 teachers, including 4,500 layoffs. The reduction is driven in large part by the almost $3 billion the city will owe the teachers' retirement fund next year. This is what happens when annual retirement costs mushroom to consume one out of every eight dollars in the city budget. That sum is enough to cover the entire annual budget of the State of Maine. And it's enough to make you sick - if you think about what else the city could be doing with that money. The year-to-year increase alone - $1.2 billion - would cover hiring 18,000 new teachers, 17,000 firefighters or 15,000 cops. Yea, why make structual changes that will reinforce sevices when you can just ignore it?

Yea, yea. We can trot out these dueling rags again. We've already done that - thanks Oregon Public Employees Fact(?)Sheet. Who paid for that? The problems with the Center for State and Local Excellence (uh-huh)report most often cited and the Rutgers study have been pretty well hashed out - under estimating benefit values, no merit comparision only time-in-grade; which I remember as a great euphemism in the federal government; greater job security as noted by much less percentage of job loss compared to private sector in this downturn; increasing benefit package value as medical costs increase; and percent return on pension "investments" compared to 401k returns - thanks taxpayers! In California, the state pays 100 percent of health care costs for retired state workers and 90 percent of costs for retirees' families. Whoot! That on top of generous pensions that you could never get a similar return even with 15% interest. Yea, no changes needed.

Don't get your shorts twisted son. Tweaks, such as going to all 401k plans, increased employee contributions for health care, and shaving off salaries at the top end would lend substantial savings. The present standard isn't sustainable.

Thanks. I have had about 5 years in federal employment and went running from it. It had a pretty good pay program, yearly boosts no matter how you performed, promotions on top of that, great benefits, and excellent pension. And it friggin' drove me crazy watching the deadwood get paid the same or better than me for just putting in time. Plus, it became obvious the crew I was working with just wasn't nimble enough or had the needed technical skills to do the sophisticated science the agency needed. So rather than manage consulting scientists I jumped at the chance to actually design and implement ecological studies. I just think some tweaks are necessary for the system, particularly with pensions and benefits.

We'll find out soon enough when the data are coughed up. Doubtful any folks who are humping their butts - such as teachers - are in the group - likely candidates from the District Office, however.