Categories
Accountability government transparency moral hazard responsibility

Opaque Pension System

Requiring government transparency is as necessary in those areas where governments can grant special favors as in those where governments can inflict direct harm.

That is, it’s as important regarding government worker pensions as it is of the abuse of police power.

In Nevada, the legal requirement for the state’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), to disclose who gets what in pension payments was recently thwarted by PERS itself.

“By replacing names with ‘non-disclosable’ social security numbers in its actuarial record-keeping documents, PERS has attempted to circumvent the 2013 ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court requiring disclosure,” explained Joseph Becker of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

I’m quoting from NPRI’s July 6 press release. Most such publicity isn’t all that interesting, but this one catching government agencies deliberately working against their duties sparks a certain . . . interest. Wouldn’t you say?

Simply by altering how it keeps records, PERS officials hoped to stifle public . . . “spying.” It’s reasonable to prevent government from giving out public servants’ Social Security numbers, so PERS switched to listing information under those numbers, in so doing “violating both the letter and spirit of the Nevada Public Records Act,” explains Becker.

And thus undermining democracy — republican governance —  itself.

This public disclosure wouldn’t be an issue if the pension system were run privately, based on defined contribution funding. But that’s not how governments do things.

We must hold government’s proverbial feet to the fire — of public information — to make sure government employees and taxpayers are both treated fairly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

government, pension, transparency, Nevada, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability folly too much government

A Dog-Wagging Tale

In California and Rhode Island (to name just two states) cities are going bankrupt . . . or closing libraries and parks and cutting police and firemen to forestall going belly up. Meanwhile, they continue paying huge sums in employment benefits for folks who used to work at city hall, but have since retired into the politicians’ promised land.

Bankrupt cities don’t do so well at paying out those promises, though.

That’s why even many union members in San Jose and San Diego, California, supported the victorious citizen initiatives earlier this year that created a reasonable and workable pension program, and why serious pension reform passed through the legislature and was signed into law in deep-blue, heavily unionized Rhode Island.

In Los Angeles, former Mayor Richard Riordan’s Save Los Angeles campaign has worked mightily to prevent the city’s three pension systems from hitting the outrageous and piggy-bank breaking annual cost of $2 billion by 2017. Unfortunately, Riordan’s group abandoned a petition drive to place a reform measure similar to San Diego’s and San Jose’s on the Los Angeles ballot next Spring. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 721 claimed credit for blocking the initiative, claiming they convinced thousands of petition signers to withdraw their signatures.

Now, the Los Angeles Daily News reports that, “With no pension ballot initiative to fight, the unions can re-focus their energy and their money on the races for mayor, controller, city attorney and the City Council.”

“We are more freed up now,” said an anonymous union official.

And likely to have even more influence on how the city will be run and financed and managed.

Or should I say, “mis-managed”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption too much government

The Why of San Jose

You have no doubt heard about Obama’s recent “gaffe” about “the private sector’s doing fine.”

The private sector, of course, is not doing well, not at all — and it’s suffering from a public sector gone mad: Bailouts, increased spending, increased debt, increased regulation.

But our beleaguered and benighted president was trying to make the point that it’s our public sector that’s doing badly.Chance PENSION

And there is something to be said — carefully, with much caution — about public sector jobs. In many states and locales, government jobs are not increasing in number. Well, at least not increasing as fast as bailout mania might lead you to think.

And Josh Barro knows why. Public sector jobs are in decline because public sector compensation has been skyrocketing, depleting resources from state and municipal governments, preventing job increases.

San Jose, for instance, used to have 7.5 employees per 1,000 residents. Now the city’s down to 5.6 employees per thou, “with further cuts expected next year.” Why?

[C]osts for a full-time equivalent employee are astronomical and skyrocketing. San Jose spends $142,000 per FTE on wages and benefits, up 85 percent from 10 years ago. As a result, the city shed 28 percent of its workforce over that period, even as its population was rising.

Blame it on pensions, grossly over-promised.

It’s a problem politicians have: They like to dole out favors. And pensions are something they can promise without funding fully, making “future politicians” (uh, taxpayers) pay (like, uh, now). It’s the scandal of the age.

But I wonder if Obama would ever ’fess up to the real nature of the problem

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.