Where Is It? Accurate Data for Public Pension Defenders

SUBJECT: UNFUNDED LIABILITIES
Rob Fellner, the guest opinion writer of an article for Forbes cited in this post, brings up some interesting points in reference to projected budget shortfalls here in the City of Mesa for public employee pensions [including police and fire/medical unions], that were under discussion in last week's City Council meetings.
If you weren't attending the public meetings, or watched the proceedings, check out previous posts on this blogsite. The important thing to keep in mind is that one way or another taxpayers here in Mesa will be footing the skyrocketing costs unless there is some reform in the public pension system.

More discussion is needed, especially around some of the issues in Fellner's reporting and he should know - he's the director of research for TransparentCalifornia, the state’s largest database of public employee pay and pension information.
Now we all know that California and Arizona are way different states of mind, but's it's that 'Transparency Thing' that caught your MesaZona blogger's eye: it's not here yet in the State of Arizona or in the City of Mesa.
Questions that were not asked were
- What are the management fees for the equity firms?
- What are the payouts for retirees? [a huge number of people who retire after 25-31 years]
Yes these payouts are negatively effecting the city's budget
- It is important to accurately state how much public retirees are making
- Feller states that taxpayers in California are paying at least 2-3 times as much for public employees’ pensions than public employees themselves. Is this the case here in Mesa?
For example, California Highway Patrol officers contribute 11.5% of their pay towards pension costs, with taxpayers contributing a historical high rate of 46.7%, which will rise to 50% by 2019.
- Growing pension contributions are also crowding out education spending

Here's an excerpt from Fellner:
Without reform, costs would rise even more
With so much at stake, its unsurprising that the public pension industry funds an organization, the National Institute of Retirement Security (NIRS), to advocate on its behalf. One of NIRS’ main arguments, repeated by Hiltzik, is that “shutting down a pension plan actually costs taxpayers money” due to the loss of contributions from future employees.
Yet employees only pay half of the projected cost for their own, future benefit.
Precisely because taxpayers already bear the entire cost of paying down the unfunded liability, the “changing demographics” argument is invalid.
This is why a recent Mercatus Center study concluded that, “While converting public pension plans won’t make their unfunded liabilities go away, it will prevent the liabilities from getting worse. Arguments for maintaining failing pension systems due to perceived transition costs are not based on empirical reality.”
. . . Finally, Hiltzik cites three states that offered a 401(k)-style alternative and then experienced increased costs for their existing defined benefit plan. Left unsaid was that without reform, costs would have risen further.
If this is the best the public pension industry can offer in their defense, reform might just have a shot after all.
Public Pension Defenders Can't Stand Their Ground If They Used Accurate Data

Guest post written by Robert Fellner

Mr. Fellner is director of research for TransparentCalifornia, the state’s largest database of public employee pay and pension info.

Source: Forbes Capital Flows Opinion piece 30 Sept 2015