pensions and G20
Proposal would have state take over city pension plan. by Jeff Shields . July 4, 2009
Here is something to think about... Lots of talk about how leasing of the parking authority assets could be used to shore up the city's pension systems.. For all numbers I have heard on what the net payoff would be... give or take $200 million that is... the city's pension system would still be one of the worst funded in both the nation and across the state and would still be caught up under this plan. That amount would pretty much put the pension plan back where it was just 2 years ago. At that point the ICA at least was talking about it as: "At some point, it's impossible to catch up".
and the WSJ has a blurb on the upcoming G (20 minus 12) conference that is coming up with some discussion of what it means for the G20 conference here later on. Remember, these folks are coming here for real work, not sightseeing.
update: more on pensions. I just saw noticed this though it's clearly not new. An ammendment dated may 20 to the Act 47 has this little blurb in it:
changes in actuarial assumptions as further detailed below, a more current actuarial valuation would almost certainly find the total City retiree liability to be well above $1.0 billion. With the additional principal balance on pension obligation bonds issued in 1998 to help fund retiree benefits going forward, the City’s current overall retiree liability is believed to rise well above $1.25 billion. (emphasis added)
note the use of the word above.
Hmm..... And people think I'm pessimistic. Was that $1.25 billion number bantered about in the Act 47 debates down at city council? and the city vehemently disagreed with this post of mine where I pointed out the billion dollar bonus. In fact I think the city's position is still that any talk like this is "likened .... to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater."