Jim

But did it find the planet of origin for Newt's wife? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/newt-gingrich-opens-up-ab_n_833418.html

The native way: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2722

Trip: Mt. Rainer - Mazama Ridge Date: 3/6/2011 Trip Report: Had a good tour up, and then down the length of the ridge to Reflection lakes. Best snow was in the trees were it was shaded, otherwise a thin sun crust over styrofoam, not so bad really. We chose this route rather than the ant march up to Muir. Nice moderate tour. Gear Notes: Phat skis Approach Notes: The usual down Paradise

I was at a conference near D.C. last week on conservation planning and one of the speakers was Dr. John Holdren - the presidental advisor on climate change. While I've done some reading on the subject in relation to estuarine restoration efforts and floodplain work - I was, well, stunned by the some of the data and projections. The issue will, by far, be the one that the coming generation will need to deal with. I was not aware of the extent of current sea level rise due to thermal expansion - it is quite depressing. For a primer I'd suggest the book Eaarth by Bill McKibben, who has been writing on the subject for 20 yrs.

What would be a good choice for an irony emoticon?

I don't think anyone would call it arguing after the first page or so -- as usual it quickly moves into arm-waving hysterical - characterized by or arising from psychoneurotic hysteria

Your poor rationalizations (corporatists are preventing the fed gov from bailing out the states) for your not wanting to cut the war budget, effectively tax the wealthy and corporations, cut all unnecessary corporate welfare are really irrelevant. Demagogues like you made it toxic for politicians to discus raising progressive taxation, yet you now blame politicians for their demagoguery and their passing the buck onto the future. Your argument is transparent and worthy of an anti-government zealot. Nice try, but I'm in front of the line for slashing the pentagon budget. Do we really need armed forces in 78 countries around the world or be out spending other countries in military budgets - combined - by 2x? No, of course not. But similarly you don't seem to grasp the need to be serious about fiscal responsible on the state level. Malfeasance on one level is not justification to apply it on another.

What hogwash! Let's seriously cut the war budget, take back the various corporate welfare that isn't doing anything worthwhile for the greater whole, effectively tax (because tax rates tell us nothing of actual taxation) corporations and the wealthy (in particular make war on tax heavens and close loopholes), and invest in the economy. Then, we'll see what we can afford to do or not, but not before we do all of it. I guess that pretty much sums up the difference between Jim and me. No. In general, I think what separates us is that I tend to stay on topic. The argument that because there are inequities on the federal level - military inflated budgets, federal tax breaks for the rich, etc. that that somehow absolves the states from taking responsibility for their actions - where the federal white knight is not going to come to the rescue - and that conservative - meaning reasonable - budget approaches should be implemented. In general I think the middle class is getting the big stick up the butt lately but mostly because of their laziness and and choice in leaders. But the left is winging itself by defending unsustainable policies veiled in class warfare. Seriously - grow up already, call a spade a spade, and I'm on board. I'm really tired of programs, such as government pensions, sucking funds from essential, and more worthy, progressive programs.

Public pensions are funded by employee contributions, employer contributions, earnings, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls. Employer contributions, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls = taxpayer money. Employee contributions and earnings = not taxpayer money. If public employee unions could be paid out with the contribution of employee contributions + earnings, there'd be no issue. They can't. Not by a long shot - which is why they'd go berzerk if someone proposed that their pension benefits be limited to those that could be financed by their contributions plus their earnings. Bear in mind that it takes $20-30,000 to cover every thousand dollars in inflation indexed pension benefits. Significantly more if you have a retiree significantly below the age of 65. That means it takes between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 to fund a $50,000 pension. That doesn't even consider health benefits, which are typically funded out of general revenues, with no money set aside to pay for them. Assuming that the pension is for 60% of the final year's pay, that means someone with a final three year's salary of ~$83K would get $50,000 per year. Play with the calculator I've linked below and see what kind of annual contributions and return rates it takes to get that kind of cash. Then ask yourself how likely it is that someone who retired at 83K could have ever made anything like the kind of annual contributions required to accrue that kind of balance. They haven't been. They won't be. It is going to take massive amounts of tax money to cover the difference. http://www.dinkytown.net/java/InvestmentReturn.html Math. It's a wonderful thing.

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless. My next post will be about organic vegetables. ...

Yea, not joke! Who wouldn't want a deal where you have to put in little or nothing towards your retirement and get a substantial payoff!! This is rich!! Oh yea - it's a great deal - for those receiving the benefits - not the taxpayers on the hook for paying the benefits. And because these pension funds are, well, so underfunded - the taxpayers are going to be asked again soon to fill up the trough. Hmmmm, where is that 3 billion WA owes going to come from? Newsflash - ever hear of no load mutual funds? Please educate yourself.

Unfortunately such flawed logic and absolution from the facts is one of the reasons why the dems are losing the public trust. Just friggin come clean, figure out a solution that the public will go along with, and implement it. But no. Just keep the train going as if there is no problem. While I'm in favor of unions and collective bargaining - I'm not in favor of debt obligations. So, as I've stated before, I'd favor moving to all 401ks for public employees.

Nobody claimed anything you said and you know it. You are starting to look like a sore loser on this. Doesn't the graph show a 4% return? the report never claimed that states based pension returns on 4%, Hmmm- Liar! So this is just a navel gazing existential exercise then?

You still haven't answered the question as to why securities have regained and passed their high values from 2 years ago and how that is sustainable. Talk about burying one's proverbial head in the sand ... Well that's acutually pretty easy - the government kept some large institutions afloat, the private sector cut back (some say too much) and reduced overhead, and the economy is picking up steam ever so slowly. The stock market is generally a predictor of future conditions - so is thus anticipating future growth. Now if you are some how making the convoluted argument that the government constantly goes into debt to uphold the stock market - and that debt is similar to the pension obligations of the states - well, that's an interesting take. Especially since the states can't sell bonds for that debt while the US government can - but you likely don't understand that state's cannot run deficits and the details of bond obligations. But by the way, now that I've addressed your question you can now explain how the 4% graph is related to the actual states' rate of return and/or assumptions and how the state's debt obligation and lack of fund for the past 15 years is not relevant.

Ah yes -reasonable assumptions - that being 1) that states were basing their projections on a safe 4% return - Which is false and 2) that though not addressed - that states were fully funding their debt obligations - also false. So much for that arm waving exercise. Nobody claimed anything you said and you know it. You are starting to look like a sore loser on this. Doesn't the graph show a 4% return? And yes, the article adroitly side-steps the issue of non-funding. Clever.

I heard that Martin Sheen was going to take over CA's pension fund.

4% return assumptions - that's rich!! fully funded pension obligations! Unfortunately this bury the head in the sand logic is what has led to the high debt obligations and ultimately will cause more problems for taxpayers and retirees in the future, than if the problems were dealt with in a sustainable manner today. I much prefer having control over my own retirement in a 401k than having to deal with such shenagigans.

$857 billion is the difference what these assets would be worth under reasonable assumptions and what they are worth today. I am sorry you can't see it. Your readers will have to assess your understanding of these things. I clearly already have. Ah yes -reasonable assumptions - that being 1) that states were basing their projections on a safe 4% return - Which is false and 2) that though not addressed - that states were fully funding their debt obligations - also false. So much for that arm waving exercise.

Baker got his numbers from figure(1) so I don't see what so arm wavy about it, nor is it hysterical to point out that you didn't understand figure(1) after claiming that you were some kind of expert (talk about shooting yourself in the foot). No he didn't -- Jesus Christ! - figure 1 is just a comparison against 1) a 4% return (which has nothing to do with state pension assumptions) and 2) real stock market returns. If you can't grasp this fundamental point then there is nothing to discuss. Don't you understand what this relatively simple graph is showing? No states were assuming such returns and actuary assumptions continue to be well above this - even in WA state. So somehow, thru waving of a magic wand, state are going to add the needed capital to meet debt obligations - especially in the even tighter budget conditions - and when they have not done so in the past???? Well that's airtight logic.

Ok, great - the funds would have been higher than before the crash. So what? The solvency question has to do with debt vs obligations - which this article doesn't even address. So what is your point of posting this blurb and that graph? Huh? Meanwhile in a fuller analysis: And notice this is with a rather rosy 8% return. Read here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1596679

Figure 1 shows this: the difference between a safe investment of 4% and the actual stock market returns over the same period. Newsflash: it says nothing about how states are managing their portfolios, nothing about how states are funding their pension funds, and nothing about how states make assumptions regarding their returns. So - assuming I'm talking to freshman economics 101 here - states are in trouble with their pension funds because of all three reasons where they have strayed -1) states managed their portfolios with too much risk - way above the 4% noted in the graph, 2) states consistently underfunded their pension obligations - this means that each year for the past 15 yrs or so, they have not put in the capital they needed to meet current and future retiree obligations, and 3) they assumed much higher returns than they acutally received. All of these combined to screw themselves, and the taxpayer or the retirees in the long run. As the Pew report notes - states acted as if they were making minimum credit card payments over the past 10 years. Arm waving isn't changing the numbers. But continue the hysterics at will.

Learn how to f****** read a friggin economic output report dude - this says nothing about the relative debt obligations of states - NOTHING. Here's a primer for you: Downloadable here: http://www.cheap-credit-cards.org/pension-news/u-s-state-pension-funds-in-1-trillion-deficit/ Seriously - if you want to argue this stuff get educated.

Exactly!

Actually that is what he says, without any supporting data - point me to the data please.

Seems pretty dang clear ---Pew report on pensions: