New Jersey’s warning for New York
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has faced heavy criticism since he announced that he’s deferring payments to the state’s pension system to balance his budget. But so far no one’s offering a real way out of Jersey’s pension dilemma.
Democrats blasted Christie for reneging on reforms passed in 2010 and 2011 to address the state’s massively underfunded pensions.
But they volunteer no reasonable alternatives to Jersey’s pension problems: Even more taxes on the rich don’t come near to fixing the mess.
Getting Jersey’s retirement system healthy is impossible without new ways of thinking about government in the Garden State — something that few in Trenton acknowledge.
Independent analysts rate the system as among the nation’s worst-funded, thanks to mismanagement and politically motivated self-dealing among politicians and union leaders dating back to the early 1990s.
The actual cost of beginning to pay down the state’s pension debt requires annual contributions of about $5 billion. But Jersey only collects about $32 billion a year in revenues. (Malanga/New York Post)
https://nypost.com/2014/06/05/
well the big wigs should of never taking money from the fund. what a scam.
Thank you Whitman,she was the first to start this game and our current governor keeps the ball rolling.
How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?
You’re only telling half of the story #1. The unions agreed to Whitman’s deal – she borrowed $2.75B from the fund at 7.6%. For that, the unions got annual pension contributions reduced from 5% to 4.5% for two years. In 1999, the police & fire got a deal allowing them to retire at 50% of final comp after 20 years which added $6.8B to the pension liability, and teachers got a 9% benefit increase in the early 2000s that added to the liability further. The unions agreed to all of this. They were part of the “scam” you refer to. The point is, there’s lots of blame to go around, including your union bosses. The solution will involve tax hikes, benefit reductions, and mandated state pension contributions. Otherwise it will be a bankruptcy proceeding like Detroit, maybe not now, but in the next 20 years.
Ahhh #4, how about producing proof to support the statement above?
Or did you think you could just lie and no one would call you out on it…..time to pony up your source for your allegations.
Pardon me for singing the same old song….If NJ got back 75 cents for every buck to DC instead of under 65 cents the gap would be plugged. Yes the pension system needs reform but it’s not easy when the red states are sucking us dry (as the governor rightly said, we are a DONOR state)… and, come to think of it, Sweeney country is sucking Bergen dry as well…the north south divide is a state as well as a federal issue…as in the south (US or NJ) being the REAL welfare queens….
Well #4 I am still waiting for you to produce proof to support your wild statement above…..
“The unions agreed to Whitman’s deal – she borrowed $2.75B from the fund at 7.6%. For that, the unions got annual pension contributions reduced from 5% to 4.5% for two years. In 1999, the police & fire got a deal allowing them to retire at 50% of final comp after 20 years”
Could you be having trouble finding anything to back up your claim……hmmmm.
Here are the sources #5: https://www.statebudgetcrisis.org/wpcms/wp-content/images/2012-10-22-New-Jersey-Report-Final.pdf and https://www.csinj.org/wp-content/uploads/CSI-NJ-Pension-Study-wCoverBleed-Rev.-1.20.14.pdf and https://newjersey.watchdog.org/2012/04/02/100k-club/ and
#8, Can you direct me to which report, specifically, that contains the statement ” In 1999, the police & fire got a deal allowing them to retire at 50% of final comp after 20 years”
And why didn’t you finish the sentence below?
“The unions agreed to Whitman’s deal – she borrowed $2.75B from the fund at 7.6%. For that, the unions got annual pension contributions reduced from 5% to 4.5% for two years.
Why didn’t you mention that Whitman’s legislation also allowed the state to take a ‘holiday’ from any contributions when the pension fund had more than 100 percent of the assets needed to pay its accrued liabilities. Thanks in part to the money from the pension borrowing, which made the pension system seem well-funded, the state reduced or completely eliminated its own contributions to from fiscal 1997 through fiscal 2003. The state, for instance, contributed no money at all to the Public Employees Retirement System and the State Police Retirement System in these years. Meanwhile, it contributed just twice, in 1997 and 1999, to the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund.
Did you leave that out for a reason…..well I know the answer to that,…… of course you left that out to mislead the readers!
Sure looks like #4 is trying to manipulate the info for his agenda.
Nice try attempting to hide the facts #4. Problem is you got caught cherry picking the facts!
#4 is probably Charlie Kime he was called out often on another blog, and posted numerous bits of misinformation.
#4 Just got BUSTED!!
Read page 31 of Volcker’s report, not sure why posters #9-13 disagree with the facts? Could it be that those changes benefit them?
Please read pages 11-12 of this report https://www.state.nj.us/benefitsreview/final_report.pdf “The most costly was provided by L. 2001, c. 133 (known as n/55), which increased PERS and TPAF pensions by 9.09%, while increasing pension liabilities by over $4.2B… L. 1999, c. 428, which provided enhanced pensions benefits including “20 and out” and “50% surviving spouse pensions” similar to the State Police for members of the PFRS, increased pension liabilities by over $500 million. Numerous other pieces of legislation were enacted that provided pension enhancements to prosecutors, workers compensation judges and others. Cumulatively, since 1999, these enhancements increased State and local pension liabilities by over $6.8B”
#13, here’s the actual law: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/9899/Bills/al99/428_.pdf read page 5. It says, “Any member of the retirement system as of the effective date of P.L. 1999, c. 428, who has 20 or more years of creditable service at the time of retirement shall be entitled to receive a retirement allowance equal to 50% of the member’s final compensation plus , in the case of a member required to retire pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, 3% of final compensation multiplied by the number of years of creditable service over 20 but not over 25.”
Sorry #16 that proposal was NOT signed into law. Nice try though.
#16 I am still waiting to hear why didn’t you finish the sentence below?
“The unions agreed to Whitman’s deal – she borrowed $2.75B from the fund at 7.6%. For that, the unions got annual pension contributions reduced from 5% to 4.5% for two years.
Why didn’t you mention that Whitman’s legislation also allowed the state to take a ‘holiday’ from any contributions when the pension fund had more than 100 percent of the assets needed to pay its accrued liabilities. Thanks in part to the money from the pension borrowing, which made the pension system seem well-funded, the state reduced or completely eliminated its own contributions to from fiscal 1997 through fiscal 2003. The state, for instance, contributed no money at all to the Public Employees Retirement System and the State Police Retirement System in these years. Meanwhile, it contributed just twice, in 1997 and 1999, to the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund.
Your silence on this is defending!
#18, read the first post in this chain… that was the other half of the sentence. Thanks for keeping up with the rest of us with your campaign of misinformation. As for post #17, read page two of this https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/sc0864-pfrs-tier-chart.pdf it’s pretty clear that “At least 20 years but less than 25 years of service credit, the Annual Benefit equals 50 percent of Final Compensation.” Nice try.