Well, that didn't take long. You might remember that in my next-to-last post, What's new from Wisconsin, the last line quoted a NY Times editorial about the results of the Wisconsin recalls: "...voters around the country who oppose the widespread efforts to undermine public unions — largely financed by corporate interests — should draw strength from Tuesday’s success, not discouragement."
It took less than 24 hours for the winds of change to reach from Wisconsin to Ohio. In a "hastily-called" news conference, Ohio governor John Kasich offered to modify some of the more draconian provisions of that state's "union-stripping" law, in return for calling off the November statewide vote on that law.
The law was put onto the November ballot by collecting over 900,000 valid signatures, almost four times the required number. It should be noted that current polling shows that Ohio voters will reject that law by a margin of 24 points. Proponents of repeal are turning a deaf ear to the governor's proposal.
If, earlier this year, you suffered through the wave of anti-teacher, anti-union laws as they were passed in several states, you deserve this "feel good" moment. Enjoy this clip from Wednesday's "Rachel Maddow Show." The first 3 minutes are a quick review of what happened in Wisconsin, then it's on to Ohio.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
"Hair-on-fire" emails revisited.
I spent 33 years in a classroom. My "stock in trade" was information, and I worked hard to make sure every bit of information I gave my students was correct. That's why misinformation offends me so deeply, as I said before in my first post about "hair-on-fire" emails, which can be found here.
I received another one of those "hair-on-fire" emails today. A member of our group received it from someone they know, and they passed it on to me thinking I might be interested.
I have removed all of the information from the "header" which might identify any of the individuals. You can click here to see the email as a pdf file.
I have seen this email before, but it looks like someone has added photos of a disfigured marine to add emotional emphasis to the piece.
This email happens to be one of the snopes.com "hot 25." Here's the link to their page concerning this email:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp
Snopes gives the full details, but here's the short version:
I received another one of those "hair-on-fire" emails today. A member of our group received it from someone they know, and they passed it on to me thinking I might be interested.
I have removed all of the information from the "header" which might identify any of the individuals. You can click here to see the email as a pdf file.
I have seen this email before, but it looks like someone has added photos of a disfigured marine to add emotional emphasis to the piece.
This email happens to be one of the snopes.com "hot 25." Here's the link to their page concerning this email:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp
Snopes gives the full details, but here's the short version:
1) Children and staff of U.S. Congressmen are NOT exempt from paying back student loans.
2) It is NOT true that members of Congress can retire at full pay after one term.
3) It is NOT true that members of Congress are exempt from paying into Social Security. [This claim is not made in this particular email, but there are several versions which do contain this claim.]
4) Members of Congress are NOT exempt from prosecution for sexual harassment.
5) Congress did NOT try to exempt itself from the health care reform legislation.
Most of these emails are passed on by well-meaning people who see a perceived wrong and want to help correct it. They probably received it from a friend or relative, and have no reason to doubt the claims being made. For a minority--I hope--the claims fit their world view and are passed on with glee.
Here's a rule I'd like to suggest: When you receive an email which you are asked to pass on, take the time to verify its truth yourself. If you find it's not true, or you don't have the time to check it out, don't pass it on.
It's 15 months until our next national election, and misinformation is all around us--from all political parties. I want to talk about the nuances of this misinformation in the next couple of blog posts.
Here's a rule I'd like to suggest: When you receive an email which you are asked to pass on, take the time to verify its truth yourself. If you find it's not true, or you don't have the time to check it out, don't pass it on.
It's 15 months until our next national election, and misinformation is all around us--from all political parties. I want to talk about the nuances of this misinformation in the next couple of blog posts.
What's new from Wisconsin?
I doubt that anyone reading this post is unaware of what has been happening in Wisconsin with regard to the collective bargaining rights of teachers and other public employees. If you've been on vacation in Antarctica, check out the blog posts from early June for details.
Over the past few weeks, there have been a series of recall elections. Three Democratic seats were in play, as were six Republican seats in the state senate. If the Democrats held onto their seats, and defeated three Republicans, control of the senate would shift to the Democrats. The assembly and the governorship would still be in Republican hands, but at least the Democrats would be able to prevent any additional damage.
All the Democrats held their seats, and two Republicans were defeated. Close, but no cigar? Maybe not.
There is one Republican in the state senate who is much closer to center than to the far right. He has indicated that he will not go along with far-out ideas such as privatizing Wisconsin's schools. He will be playing the part of Justice Kennedy. Going to the right on some issues, and agreeing with the left on others.
We need to remember that not all the citizens of Wisconsin could participate in these elections. Only the voters of specific districts could vote. All of the Republicans were from districts so bright red that they were elected in 2008 on the same day that Obama was winning Wisconsin by 14 points. Flipping 1/3 of those districts was an accomplishment.
160,000 voters voted Democratic. If 1,100 votes were switched, the Democrats would have had their third seat.
According to a NY Times editorial on the subject: "Republicans will not admit this, but the numbers showed significant strength for Democrats even in the districts they lost — strength that could grow if lawmakers continue cutting spending and taxes while reducing the negotiating rights of working families. In one rural senatorial district that had not elected a Democrat in a century, the Democratic candidate reached 48 percent of the vote. Another race was also close, and as Nate Silver noted in The Times, the overall results suggest that a contemplated statewide recall of Mr. Walker himself would be too close to call."
The Times concludes: "...voters around the country who oppose the widespread efforts to undermine public unions — largely financed by corporate interests — should draw strength from Tuesday’s success, not discouragement."
Over the past few weeks, there have been a series of recall elections. Three Democratic seats were in play, as were six Republican seats in the state senate. If the Democrats held onto their seats, and defeated three Republicans, control of the senate would shift to the Democrats. The assembly and the governorship would still be in Republican hands, but at least the Democrats would be able to prevent any additional damage.
All the Democrats held their seats, and two Republicans were defeated. Close, but no cigar? Maybe not.
There is one Republican in the state senate who is much closer to center than to the far right. He has indicated that he will not go along with far-out ideas such as privatizing Wisconsin's schools. He will be playing the part of Justice Kennedy. Going to the right on some issues, and agreeing with the left on others.
We need to remember that not all the citizens of Wisconsin could participate in these elections. Only the voters of specific districts could vote. All of the Republicans were from districts so bright red that they were elected in 2008 on the same day that Obama was winning Wisconsin by 14 points. Flipping 1/3 of those districts was an accomplishment.
160,000 voters voted Democratic. If 1,100 votes were switched, the Democrats would have had their third seat.
According to a NY Times editorial on the subject: "Republicans will not admit this, but the numbers showed significant strength for Democrats even in the districts they lost — strength that could grow if lawmakers continue cutting spending and taxes while reducing the negotiating rights of working families. In one rural senatorial district that had not elected a Democrat in a century, the Democratic candidate reached 48 percent of the vote. Another race was also close, and as Nate Silver noted in The Times, the overall results suggest that a contemplated statewide recall of Mr. Walker himself would be too close to call."
The Times concludes: "...voters around the country who oppose the widespread efforts to undermine public unions — largely financed by corporate interests — should draw strength from Tuesday’s success, not discouragement."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What's so bad about 401(k)-type plans?
The 401(k), otherwise known as a "defined contribution (DC) retirement plan, sounds like a good idea. You get to manage your own retirement funds, usually by picking from a limited number of mutual fund options selected by your employer. Your retirement vehicle is portable, i.e. you can take it with you as you move from job to job.
It's the big new thing in America, replacing the traditional pension ("defined benefit") plans people used to have. Everyone in the private sector seems to have one, so they must be a good thing. Right?
The cover story of the October 9, 2009 issue of Time was titled "Why it's time to retire the 401k." Here's some of what they had to say:
" Invented nearly 30 years ago as an executive perk — one more way to dodge Uncle Sam — the 401(k) was never meant to replace the employer-guaranteed pension fund, supplemented by Social Security, as the cornerstone of our nation's retirement system. But propelled by a combination of companies looking to cut costs and consumers who wanted control of their retirement destiny, that's exactly what happened."
"Congress was trying to close a loophole on executive bonuses when it created the 401(k). Most companies intended 401(k)s — which were originally called salary-reduction plans but then renamed for the portion of the tax code that makes them possible — to be a perk for highly paid executives, not a pension replacement. That's because lower-paid employees probably could not afford to defer a portion of their paychecks. So companies held on to their pension systems even as they added 401(k)s, which by law they had to make available to all employees. When the market took off in the 1980s, the rank and file clamored to get in....On the corporate end, a change in accounting rules made the growing cost of pensions more apparent to shareholders. Cutting the pension was a guaranteed way to improve the bottom line. The rise of the 401(k) began." [Emphasis mine.]"
In a defined benefit plan (traditional pension), you and your employer contribute money to a fund which is professionally managed and is responsible for paying you a monthly pension from the day you retire until the day you die. If you agree to take a slightly smaller monthly payment, you can even arrange for your benefit to continue for your spouse after your death. Managing the money to make this possible is the responsibility of the pension plan, not you.
In a defined contribution plan (401(k)), you--and perhaps your employer, but not always--contribute to a fund which you are responsible for managing. Whatever is there on the day you retire is what you have to live on for the rest of your life.
The NYS Teachers' Retirement System uses a recent study by the non-profit National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) to point out a fundamental flaw with defined contribution plans. Here is some of what they said:
"You may have seen or heard that public employee pensions are "too expensive" and should be replaced. The non-profit National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) is among the many groups that do not agree. Your defined benefit (DB) pension, NIRS argues, actually makes good fiscal sense for employers. "
"NIRS recently completed a series of studies designed to measure the cost and impact of DB plans throughout the country. For employers, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded DB plans deliver better "bang for the buck" than Defined Contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k) plans. According to the report, over the course of a member's working life, "the embedded economic efficiencies of DB plans make them nearly half the cost of DC plans."
It's the big new thing in America, replacing the traditional pension ("defined benefit") plans people used to have. Everyone in the private sector seems to have one, so they must be a good thing. Right?
The cover story of the October 9, 2009 issue of Time was titled "Why it's time to retire the 401k." Here's some of what they had to say:
" Invented nearly 30 years ago as an executive perk — one more way to dodge Uncle Sam — the 401(k) was never meant to replace the employer-guaranteed pension fund, supplemented by Social Security, as the cornerstone of our nation's retirement system. But propelled by a combination of companies looking to cut costs and consumers who wanted control of their retirement destiny, that's exactly what happened."
"Congress was trying to close a loophole on executive bonuses when it created the 401(k). Most companies intended 401(k)s — which were originally called salary-reduction plans but then renamed for the portion of the tax code that makes them possible — to be a perk for highly paid executives, not a pension replacement. That's because lower-paid employees probably could not afford to defer a portion of their paychecks. So companies held on to their pension systems even as they added 401(k)s, which by law they had to make available to all employees. When the market took off in the 1980s, the rank and file clamored to get in....On the corporate end, a change in accounting rules made the growing cost of pensions more apparent to shareholders. Cutting the pension was a guaranteed way to improve the bottom line. The rise of the 401(k) began." [Emphasis mine.]"
In a defined benefit plan (traditional pension), you and your employer contribute money to a fund which is professionally managed and is responsible for paying you a monthly pension from the day you retire until the day you die. If you agree to take a slightly smaller monthly payment, you can even arrange for your benefit to continue for your spouse after your death. Managing the money to make this possible is the responsibility of the pension plan, not you.
In a defined contribution plan (401(k)), you--and perhaps your employer, but not always--contribute to a fund which you are responsible for managing. Whatever is there on the day you retire is what you have to live on for the rest of your life.
The NYS Teachers' Retirement System uses a recent study by the non-profit National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) to point out a fundamental flaw with defined contribution plans. Here is some of what they said:
"You may have seen or heard that public employee pensions are "too expensive" and should be replaced. The non-profit National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) is among the many groups that do not agree. Your defined benefit (DB) pension, NIRS argues, actually makes good fiscal sense for employers. "
"NIRS recently completed a series of studies designed to measure the cost and impact of DB plans throughout the country. For employers, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded DB plans deliver better "bang for the buck" than Defined Contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k) plans. According to the report, over the course of a member's working life, "the embedded economic efficiencies of DB plans make them nearly half the cost of DC plans."
"To prove the point, an example was cited of a 62-year-old with a target retirement benefit of $26,684. Under the DB plan, annual contributions of 12.5% of payroll would be required and $355,000 would need to be set aside by age 62. In contrast, the DC plan would require annual contributions of 22.9% of payroll and $550,000 would need to be set aside by age 62. As stated in the report, "The DB plan can do more with less, providing the same benefit for nearly $200,000 less per participant."
"Here's how: DC plans are individual focused and, in order to ensure she/he does not outlive retirement savings, the individual must save enough to live to a very old age — typically 95 to 100. By contrast, a DB plan pools the contributions of many people, with a goal of saving enough for an average life expectancy for each member of the plan. An average life expectancy, which actuaries calculate with a high degree of accuracy, is much lower than 95 to 100— meaning it is necessary to set aside significantly less per DB plan member." [Emphasis mine.]
Here is the link to this information on the NYSTRS website:
How, then, can the defined contribution plan claim to be "less costly" for the employer? The only way this happens is if there is no attempt to create a plan which will pay the same benefit as the traditional pension.
And that's what the American public has yet to discover. When they do figure it out, there will be hell to pay.
And that, as I've said before, is why we're fighting so damn hard to preserve the NYS Teachers' Retirement System as a defined benefit plan.
Monday, August 15, 2011
And the myth-making continues.
After being away from home for two weeks, I'm wading through the mail that was held for me by the post office. Included in that stack are several copies of Time. While glancing through their special issue on the "debt debacle," I came across an article by Fareed Zakaria about "why the debt crisis has hurt growth and our position in the world."
Zakaria is certainly left-of-center in his political orientation, and that's why the following from his article hit me right between the eyes:
"In fact, because of weak accounting requirements, politicians at the state level have even resorted to a kind of budgetary magic to satisfy key constituencies. When public sector employees want pay raises, politicians provide just modest step-ups in salary but huge increases in pension and retirement health care benefits. That way, the (fraudulent) budget numbers don't look that bad until years later, when the politicians who did the damage have safely retired." [Emphasis mine.]
Perhaps this has happened somewhere else, but WNY retired teachers--to whom this blog is primarily directed--will see it another way. If I'm not mistaken, the day I began teaching I was told that my pension would be 2% of my final average salary for each year worked, and that I could retire at age 55.
I do not believe the state of NY ever "sweetened" that pot for me. In fact, I recall that the state created new tiers (2,3,4) for new teachers as the years went on which were less "sweet" than the previous tiers. Retirement age was increased as was the individual contribution required to the retirement system.
As for retiree health care, if you retired from a WNY school district which is still paying your health care premiums, that's highly unusual.
Zakaria is certainly left-of-center in his political orientation, and that's why the following from his article hit me right between the eyes:
"In fact, because of weak accounting requirements, politicians at the state level have even resorted to a kind of budgetary magic to satisfy key constituencies. When public sector employees want pay raises, politicians provide just modest step-ups in salary but huge increases in pension and retirement health care benefits. That way, the (fraudulent) budget numbers don't look that bad until years later, when the politicians who did the damage have safely retired." [Emphasis mine.]
Perhaps this has happened somewhere else, but WNY retired teachers--to whom this blog is primarily directed--will see it another way. If I'm not mistaken, the day I began teaching I was told that my pension would be 2% of my final average salary for each year worked, and that I could retire at age 55.
I do not believe the state of NY ever "sweetened" that pot for me. In fact, I recall that the state created new tiers (2,3,4) for new teachers as the years went on which were less "sweet" than the previous tiers. Retirement age was increased as was the individual contribution required to the retirement system.
As for retiree health care, if you retired from a WNY school district which is still paying your health care premiums, that's highly unusual.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The growing mythology surrounding public employee pensions.
According to a June 9 NY Times article: "Gov. Andrew Cuomo campaigned for office vowing to reduce the ruinous growth in New York State’s public pensions..."
On July 13, the same newspaper published an article which began: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, basking in the afterglow of a legislative session that he described as “unusually successful,” said Wednesday that his top priority next year would be limiting retirement benefits for new state and city workers. He said that his inability to win such an overhaul was the biggest failing of the session that just ended."
"Not my problem," you might say. "He wants to reduce benefits for NEW workers. Mine are protected by the state constitution." Just how long have you had your head buried in the sand?
While the short range goal might be to reduce retirement costs for new workers, don't believe for a minute that the retirement benefits of current retirees are not on plenty of radar screens.
We all know that often-repeated lies soon become "facts" in the minds of many low-information voters. Sadly, the low-information voter seems to be the norm, only beginning to pay attention near an election when their votes are determined by whichever focusgroup-tested TV ad hits one of their "hot buttons," reinforcing a "fact" that "everybody knows" that has stuck to their brain.
Currently, there is a body of mythology building through repetition concerning public employee pensions. Let's begin by addressing a few of these via a column by Earl Pomeroy and Cathie G. Eitelberg which appeared on the ABC News website in which they explode the myths that you will hear from your friends and neighbors.
1)" Myth: Public employee benefits are bankrupting states. Not so. According to publicly available data gathered from government websites, less than 4 percent of state budget expenditures go to funding pension benefits." (For a more complete analysis, see this article published in the McClatchey chain of newspapers on March 6, 2011.)
2) "Myth: Public pensions are overly generous. Hardly. The most recent U.S. census data reveals the average state employee has a retirement benefit of $22,000 per year." For a more complete analysis of the "public vs private" pay and benefits myth, click here to go to the blog post concerning that subject.)
3) "Myth: Public pension funds are going broke and will require billions in taxpayer bailouts. Nope, sorry....Some forecasts, discussed in certain academic circles and regurgitated unchallenged by the media, have many public pension plans running out of funds by 2020. But these estimates are based on flawed assumptions, such as no additional contributions and long-term low investment returns. And, that's to say nothing of the $3 trillion in assets public pension plans hold to pay future benefits."
To further address this last point, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, in its latest newsletter, quoted part of an article from the March 1, 2011 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review taking the NY Times to task for publishing a Feb. 28 article with the following lead paragraph: "Lawmakers and governors in many states, faced with huge shortfalls in employee pension funds, are turning to a strategy that a lot of private companies adopted years ago: moving workers away from guaranteed pension plans and toward 401(k)-type retirement savings plans."
The Times article gives the following as an example of the "huge shortfall": "Utah decided to adopt a 401(k)-type plan after the stock market plunge in 2008 caused the shortfall in the state's pension plan to balloon to $6.5 billion....Under the new plan...the state's retirement contributions for new workers will be roughly half that for current employees, potentially saving $5 million a year for every 1,000 new workers hired."
And now for the rest of the story. NYSTRS continues: "...the Utah pension fund, at the end of 2009, was about $2.8 billion in the hole. If it rose by 15% in 2010, which is a pretty reasonable assumption given the performance of the stock market, the gap is likely to have been eliminated. But even the gap at the end of 2009 was less than one-tenth of one percent of Utah's state income." [Emphasis mine.]
Wow! What a "huge gap!"
On July 13, the same newspaper published an article which began: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, basking in the afterglow of a legislative session that he described as “unusually successful,” said Wednesday that his top priority next year would be limiting retirement benefits for new state and city workers. He said that his inability to win such an overhaul was the biggest failing of the session that just ended."
"Not my problem," you might say. "He wants to reduce benefits for NEW workers. Mine are protected by the state constitution." Just how long have you had your head buried in the sand?
While the short range goal might be to reduce retirement costs for new workers, don't believe for a minute that the retirement benefits of current retirees are not on plenty of radar screens.
We all know that often-repeated lies soon become "facts" in the minds of many low-information voters. Sadly, the low-information voter seems to be the norm, only beginning to pay attention near an election when their votes are determined by whichever focusgroup-tested TV ad hits one of their "hot buttons," reinforcing a "fact" that "everybody knows" that has stuck to their brain.
Currently, there is a body of mythology building through repetition concerning public employee pensions. Let's begin by addressing a few of these via a column by Earl Pomeroy and Cathie G. Eitelberg which appeared on the ABC News website in which they explode the myths that you will hear from your friends and neighbors.
1)" Myth: Public employee benefits are bankrupting states. Not so. According to publicly available data gathered from government websites, less than 4 percent of state budget expenditures go to funding pension benefits." (For a more complete analysis, see this article published in the McClatchey chain of newspapers on March 6, 2011.)
2) "Myth: Public pensions are overly generous. Hardly. The most recent U.S. census data reveals the average state employee has a retirement benefit of $22,000 per year." For a more complete analysis of the "public vs private" pay and benefits myth, click here to go to the blog post concerning that subject.)
3) "Myth: Public pension funds are going broke and will require billions in taxpayer bailouts. Nope, sorry....Some forecasts, discussed in certain academic circles and regurgitated unchallenged by the media, have many public pension plans running out of funds by 2020. But these estimates are based on flawed assumptions, such as no additional contributions and long-term low investment returns. And, that's to say nothing of the $3 trillion in assets public pension plans hold to pay future benefits."
To further address this last point, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, in its latest newsletter, quoted part of an article from the March 1, 2011 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review taking the NY Times to task for publishing a Feb. 28 article with the following lead paragraph: "Lawmakers and governors in many states, faced with huge shortfalls in employee pension funds, are turning to a strategy that a lot of private companies adopted years ago: moving workers away from guaranteed pension plans and toward 401(k)-type retirement savings plans."
The Times article gives the following as an example of the "huge shortfall": "Utah decided to adopt a 401(k)-type plan after the stock market plunge in 2008 caused the shortfall in the state's pension plan to balloon to $6.5 billion....Under the new plan...the state's retirement contributions for new workers will be roughly half that for current employees, potentially saving $5 million a year for every 1,000 new workers hired."
And now for the rest of the story. NYSTRS continues: "...the Utah pension fund, at the end of 2009, was about $2.8 billion in the hole. If it rose by 15% in 2010, which is a pretty reasonable assumption given the performance of the stock market, the gap is likely to have been eliminated. But even the gap at the end of 2009 was less than one-tenth of one percent of Utah's state income." [Emphasis mine.]
Wow! What a "huge gap!"
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Back from the (low-tech) Adirondacks.
We've just returned from two weeks at the Adirondack camp owned by my wife and her siblings. It's on an island in the middle of a lake, reachable only by boat.
It's the definition of peaceful. The only TV is off-the-air. We're so far from the TV stations that even a big pre-amplified antenna brings in only one or two stations, which vary with atmospheric conditions. If you can watch the NBC Nightly News today, tomorrow NBC might be too weak to see, but CBS is now watchable. Usually, but not always, there is at least one watchable channel.
Cable doesn't come anywhere near the island, and satellite TV requires a clear view of the southern sky. When you're surrounded on all sides by 75-foot pines, you don't get a clear view of ANY sky!
We have all the latest conveniences: electricity, landline phone service, running hot and cold water, indoor plumbing, a reasonably modern kitchen and propane heat for those cold mornings. What we don't have is WiFi or, in fact, any access to the internet, and this makes it hell-on-earth for teenagers.
When teenagers arrive for a visit, they immediately turn to their cell phones and explode in shock. No bars! In panic, they run around the island looking for a "hot spot" where they can get a bar or two and reconnect with (their) civilization. Cell phone service has improved this year, and they can get weak signals, but not enough to support internet access.
Their next concern is how to get back to the internet and Facebook. "It's simple," we say, "just get in the boat, cross the lake to the mainland, get in a car and drive 12 miles north to the Old Forge Library where their is 24/7 WiFi access in their parking lot." Too young to drive? That's a problem!
Now we're back home, and taking a couple of days to deal with a two-week accumulation of mail and grass. Our rain gauge shows we received 5 inches of rain since we left, and our neighbor says most of it came in a single night!
During our time away, I ventured north to the library parking lot several times. It's an interesting place. The lot is filled with cars, and the cars have people using laptops, cell phones or iPods to pick up their email and browse the web. The rustic benches under the trees are filled with people using laptops. Every so often, someone actually goes into the library looking for an ancient artifact called a "book." I understand that this is a very exciting event for the librarian!
Anyway, we're back, so your inbox will again be filled with messages whose subject line begins with "WNY retirees." My first project will concern the coming attack on the NYS teacher pension system. How do I know it's coming? Because the governor said so. "Reform" of the public employee pension system is the one thing he identified as being sorry he couldn't get through the last legislative session, and it's his highest priority for the coming session.
Every attempt will be made to switch from a conventional "defined benefit" pension system to a 401-k-like "defined contribution" system. Here's the problem: a "defined contribution" system costs twice as much to provide the same benefit to the retiree as a "defined benefit" system. Can you see where this is going?
We'll start the discussion in the next day or so.
It's the definition of peaceful. The only TV is off-the-air. We're so far from the TV stations that even a big pre-amplified antenna brings in only one or two stations, which vary with atmospheric conditions. If you can watch the NBC Nightly News today, tomorrow NBC might be too weak to see, but CBS is now watchable. Usually, but not always, there is at least one watchable channel.
Cable doesn't come anywhere near the island, and satellite TV requires a clear view of the southern sky. When you're surrounded on all sides by 75-foot pines, you don't get a clear view of ANY sky!
We have all the latest conveniences: electricity, landline phone service, running hot and cold water, indoor plumbing, a reasonably modern kitchen and propane heat for those cold mornings. What we don't have is WiFi or, in fact, any access to the internet, and this makes it hell-on-earth for teenagers.
When teenagers arrive for a visit, they immediately turn to their cell phones and explode in shock. No bars! In panic, they run around the island looking for a "hot spot" where they can get a bar or two and reconnect with (their) civilization. Cell phone service has improved this year, and they can get weak signals, but not enough to support internet access.
Their next concern is how to get back to the internet and Facebook. "It's simple," we say, "just get in the boat, cross the lake to the mainland, get in a car and drive 12 miles north to the Old Forge Library where their is 24/7 WiFi access in their parking lot." Too young to drive? That's a problem!
Now we're back home, and taking a couple of days to deal with a two-week accumulation of mail and grass. Our rain gauge shows we received 5 inches of rain since we left, and our neighbor says most of it came in a single night!
During our time away, I ventured north to the library parking lot several times. It's an interesting place. The lot is filled with cars, and the cars have people using laptops, cell phones or iPods to pick up their email and browse the web. The rustic benches under the trees are filled with people using laptops. Every so often, someone actually goes into the library looking for an ancient artifact called a "book." I understand that this is a very exciting event for the librarian!
Anyway, we're back, so your inbox will again be filled with messages whose subject line begins with "WNY retirees." My first project will concern the coming attack on the NYS teacher pension system. How do I know it's coming? Because the governor said so. "Reform" of the public employee pension system is the one thing he identified as being sorry he couldn't get through the last legislative session, and it's his highest priority for the coming session.
Every attempt will be made to switch from a conventional "defined benefit" pension system to a 401-k-like "defined contribution" system. Here's the problem: a "defined contribution" system costs twice as much to provide the same benefit to the retiree as a "defined benefit" system. Can you see where this is going?
We'll start the discussion in the next day or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)