j_b

Apparently, Adolf and Benito didn't tell Peter Puget last time these guys had lunch together.

That statement doesn't need to be referenced as it is most certainly true and obvious. Are you contesting that observers have made these claims? liar.

The article and the relevant studies are clearly referenced. Your post is quite dishonest.

"States and localities have the next 30 years in which to remedy any pension shortfalls. As Alicia Munnell, an expert on these matters who directs the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, has explained, “even after the worst market crash in decades, state and local plans do not face an immediate liquidity crisis; most plans will be able to cover benefit payments for the next 15-20 years.” [5] States and localities do not need to increase contributions immediately, and generally should not do so while the economy is still weak and they are struggling to provide basic services." http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3372

All this is saying is that the pension program deficits did not cause the current big budget hole from the reduced revenue stream. Totally untrue, as any reading longer than the few minutes you spent is sure to reveal. The report clearly says the pension liability problem and risk of defaulting on bonds have been greatly exaggerated and that we would be better off addressing these issues when they aren't confused with the decreasing revenue generated budget shortfall: "Unlike the projected operating deficits for fiscal year 2012, which require near-term solutions to meet states’ and localities’ balanced-budget requirements, longer-term issues related to bond indebtedness, pension obligations, and retiree health insurance — discussed more fully below — can be addressed over the next several decades. It is not appropriate to add these longer-term costs to projected operating deficits. Nor should the size and implications of these longer-term costs be exaggerated, as some recent discussions have done. Such mistakes can lead to inappropriate policy prescriptions." untrue as well. The report clearly says that pension funds were paid in full up to 2000. You have no understanding whatsoever whether or not the current system of pension is sustainable, so I can clearly see the danger of having poorly informed people and people clearly meaning to hurt public employees decide on what to do when we are in the middle of major crisis used by neoliberals to remake the world in their own nasty image.

Unfortunately JayB's support for the current status quo concerning health care access (50 millions without health care coverage) and impossibly rising health care costs, is very revealing of what he considers "services that can be provided by the private sector". What a joke!

Nobody is going to stick it to bondholders and there is no immediate crisis due to public employee pensions despite the rumor mongering by JayB and Jim: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3372 Make sure you read this report if you are going to continue spewing falsehoods.

State bankruptcy most certainly means reneging on pensions to public workers and that isn't a strawman. You are still not acknowledging that addressing public pensions today will not significantly help with our problem and will most likely make it worse if austerity measures are part of the mix.

JayB is concerned about staffing at "public health" now. LOL

and? where are the "tossing disabled people off of medicaid, etc, en masse" or do you also expect me to make an argument for you?

quit lying: reneging on contracts with public workers will not prevent "tossing disabled people off of medicaid, etc, en masse".

And this is not something to worry about now? Friggin' A - it's sucking up capital from benefical programs. The social safety net is hacked to pieces and we don't need to fix this? Give me a break. fixing it now won't help solve the current crisis. Austerity will make the crisis worse by cutting benefits to people who spend it.

and your answer to the point is?

I was discussing states in general, not Washington in particular. I am sure you could find the numbers on line if you are interested, or you could follow the links I posted and read the analysis for yourself.

It IS a concern now - you don't seem to get the basic fact that the pension systems are paying out more than thy accure - it's basic math. WA is genreally better than most states and ours is around 75% funded - where do you think the money is coming from - fairy land? Reneging on pensions for public workers now will help almost none toward making states more solvent in the mid-term, little less in the short term, which is what we should be working on instead of playing disaster capitalism along with neoliberals to better bash on public employees who worked for these pensions (or most of them anyway). Shame on you for not distancing yourself from the partisans for the race to the bottom.

LOL one would think the problem was so urgent that JayB would have gone after the banksters' bonuses paid on the taxpayers' dime by now.

you still have as little credibility as you had when you claimed pension liability was a reason for concern NOW

yes, we have gone over this before and it is still not the moment to play disaster capitalism. Let's deal with the budget shortfall and address structural issues when the economy is better.

I guess contracts made with employees who chose better benefits over higher pay aren't sacrosanct, today at least .. What the hell, let's change the law to make it all possible. Like the Founding Fathers would have done. LOL

[video:youtube]pmEcQMwprIo

"When Egypt had parliamentary elections only two months ago, they were completely rigged. The party of President Hosni Mubarak left the opposition with only 3 percent of the seats. Imagine that. And the American government said that it was “dismayed.” Well, frankly, I was dismayed that all it could say is that it was dismayed. The word was hardly adequate to express the way the Egyptian people felt. Then, as protests built in the streets of Egypt following the overthrow of Tunisia’s dictator, I heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assessment that the government in Egypt is “stable” and “looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. I was flabbergasted—and I was puzzled. What did she mean by stable, and at what price? Is it the stability of 29 years of “emergency” laws, a president with imperial power for 30 years, a parliament that is almost a mockery, a judiciary that is not independent? Is that what you call stability? I am sure not. And I am positive that it is not the standard you apply to other countries. What we see in Egypt is pseudo-stability, because real stability only comes with a democratically elected government. If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer. People were absolutely disappointed in the way you reacted to Egypt’s last election. You reaffirmed their belief that you are applying a double standard for your friends, and siding with an authoritarian regime just because you think it represents your interests. We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans." A Manifesto for Change in Egypt by Mohamed ElBaradei http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/mohamed-elbaradei-the-return-of-the-challenger/

In this podcast, we will discuss misconceptions concerning bond debt, pensions and other challenges facing states with Senior Advisor Iris Lav. Iris, in a new paper you note that recent media coverage of the fiscal situation of states and localities has been confusing a number of issues and producing unnecessary alarm among policy makers and the public at large. What is the main misconception? The main problem is that the media and others have lumped together states current fiscal problems, which stem largely from the recession, with longer-term issues relating to debt, pension obligations, and retiree health costs. This has created the mistaken impression that drastic and immediate measures are needed to avoid an imminent fiscal meltdown. States and localities do face difficult choices. And they are using the tools they have — largely budget cuts and tax increases — to deal with their short-term, recession-induced challenges. This has very little to do with the longer-term issues, which states have several decades to address. You mentioned one long-term issue is bond indebtedness. Can you tell us about that? Sure. Recent claims that states and localities have run up massive bond indebtedness, and that a number of localities may default on their bonds, are greatly exaggerated. First, states and localities have issued bonds almost exclusively to fund infrastructure projects, not finance operating costs, as some have claimed. Second, the amount of outstanding debt has increased slightly over the last decade but remains within historical parameters. Third, municipal bond defaults have been extremely rare. And finally, there is no bubble in the municipal bond market, and no grounds for comparing it to the mortgage market before the bubble burst. What about claims that states and localities have $3 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities that may drive them into bankruptcy? These claims are exaggerated. The size of the unfunded liability is closer to $700 billion – which still sounds like a big number but is actually much more manageable. In most states, a modest increase in funding and/or changes to pension eligibility and benefits should be sufficient to remedy underfunding. A few states that have skipped contributions or increased benefits without increasing funding likely will have to make larger changes. But states and localities have the next 30 years in which to remedy any pension shortfalls; and in general, they actually should avoid increasing pension contributions as long as the economy remains weak and they are struggling to provide basic services. In your report you mention that exaggeration about these issues draws attention away from the need to modernize state and local budget systems. Can you explain? Sure. States suffer from “structural deficits.” That means that revenues don’t grow at the same pace as the cost of services, even during healthy economic times. Structural deficits stem in large part from out-of-date tax systems, which in many cases have remained largely unchanged for decades. For example, few states tax the sales of services on the same basis that they tax the sale of tangible goods. So while a person pays tax when they buy a lawn mower, they don’t pay tax when they hire a landscaper to come mow their lawn. State tax systems also haven’t adapted to the fact that purchases are increasingly taking place over the internet. All of these are serious challenges that states must begin to address as the economy recovers. Iris, what’s the bottom line? Overheated claims about state and local budget problems not only are inaccurate, but also could lead policymakers to take unwise steps such as allowing states to declare bankruptcy or forcing them to change the way they report their pension liabilities as a condition for issuing tax exempt bonds. That would be a huge mistake. http://www.offthechartsblog.org/category/state-budget-and-tax/

??? the pension liability is a long term issue that can be resolved by making adjustments whenever the economy won't be reeling, whereas the current budget shortfall is overwhelmingly due to loss of revenue because of the recession.

It should be used as a "see what happens when you shoot yourself in the foot" teaching moment. Unfortunately, as long as national Democrats prefer to argue that government should be "competitive", instead of discussing the role of government, taxation and regulation, we are pretty much condemned to having the anti-tax demagogues run roughshod over the needs of communities.

Since Red Counties Enjoy a Disproportionate Share of the State Budget, They Should Expect a Disproportionate Share of the Cuts