There is an easy solution. Either these unions agree to moving from their rediculas pension programs agreed to by idiots or have the state/cities go belly up. Then every union contract in the state can be ripped up! Then the unions can be disolved, employe 401k's started and if they don't like it, quit!

metOO, its either we break these public unions up or us tacpayers (including our kids) will be paying the union beast forever. We also need to take away the insane entitlement programs and boot every blook sucking illegal alien out of this country before we hit the iceberg and sink.
Or do you have a beter solution? I'm not paying more taxes thats for sure!

Maybe the authors of this article could better explain exactly how the pensions work?? My understanding is that money is contributed to investments over the life of the employee (in many cases, the employee does contribute to this fund). The money for the pension payouts is supposed to come from that fund. While the market was making money, municipalities were agreeing to these generous deals because they shortsightedly believed the money would never come from public coffers - that the bull market would continue forever. Now those same funds are expected to be short and, in some cases, municipalities are paying toward pensions now and everyone is screaming.

I understand people's concerns, but, like Rich said, these agreements were already made - when you tear apart the union you are attacking people's lives - the very same people you hope are going to show up when you have a fire or other emergency. The city of Brea just quietly re-negotiated all their contracts and were successful in reducing their pension liability. Maybe we could all take a page from this?

Perhaps this article should have been titled;
Politicians Underfunded Agreements Threatens Government Solvency

Sorry, but the public can't afford the deals made. Lost in the analysis is the fact that no politican, Demo or Repub, wants to go against law enforcement and fireman. All want to be viewed as staunchly in favor of public safety, no matter the cost. Deals were made based on political expediency, unrealistic assumptions about rates of return and failure of the politicians to really lookout for the public's interest. The situation was compounded by the failure of gov't bodies to properly fund their pension obligations. If they had, the true cost would have become apparent much faster and the public alerted much earlier to this ticking time bomb. Whether or not the pensions are deserved is now irrelevant. The question is can the entities that owe the pensions pay for them without heavily taxing the public? It appears the answer is no. As a result, pensions need to be phased out for all new employees, and for existing employees, a requirement that they contribute a lot more towards their pensions. MetOO will likely squawk at this and claim it is unfair, but that's life.

My understanding is that the pension deal was made because there was a legitimate fear that, in the absence of such a contract, Orange County would be unable to recruit sufficient numbers of police and firefighters, since there were better pay and pension packages available in other counties. Now, nearly a decade after the fact, I'm not so sure that this was ever the case, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Orange County made a very bad deal, and the courts have told us we are stuck with it. The real question is where we go from here. Money is going to have to be found to pay the pensions, and ways are going to have to be found to ensure that new hires do not receive similarly lucrative deals. It's a mess, all right, but at least Orange County is relatively well off, and if we can muster the necessary political will, we do have the means to pay and to avoid such disastrous financial mistakes in the future. Regrettably, that is not the case with many other counties around the U.S. that are facing even greater problems.

Before jumping to unfair conclusions about public pensions, read the just released report from the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems. http://www.ncpers.org/Files/2011_06_ncpers_public_fund_study.pdf It finds that public pension funds are experiencing a robust recovery from the historic market downturn of 2008-2009 – reporting strong investment returns, growing assets and funding levels on track to meet obligations. In addition, funds have responded to changes in the economic, political and social landscape by adopting substantial organizational and operational changes to ensure their long-term sustainability.
Despite the uproar over expensive pensions, 98% of state and local retirees have modest retirement benefits, far smaller than the $100,000 a year pensions that have become the boogeyman for public pension opponents. The average is $26,000 a year. Pensions for police and firefighters are larger than those for other public workers but for a sound reason: their work requires great physical stamina. Thus their pensions are structured to encourage them to retire before age lessens their abilities, leaving the work to younger public safety personnel.
Finally, as to bankrupting government: here in California at the state level, pensions account for just 3% of the budget. At the local level 180 city, county and special districts have negotiated significant changes that keep public pensions fair while reducing taxpayer costs.

The fact the report is issued by the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems may have something to do with the rosy outlook projected. Assuming the report is accurate, then pensions should be modified so that the public/taxpayers no longer guarantee the pensions. Additionally, cap the amount of money an employer has to contribute, e.g., 85% of a particular year, with no cola increases.

NCPERS has been around since 1941 and is widely regarded as a highly respected and unbiased source. As to unguaranteed pensions, that's the rathole down which private sector retirement savings disappeared. As a result of such a switch in the private sector, 80 percent of those workers have virtually no retirement savings. Many private sector workers are now looking at working years past 65 (or maybe not even being able to retire at all). And you may think that insecure 401k-type plans are cheaper but they aren't. Higher management costs make them more expensive than defined benefit plans. Even so, the data show that 401ks earn about 25% less on investments than do those in DB pension funds. Finally, you should note that taxpayers suply only a small fraction of public pension funding. Most comes from investments, with another chunk coming from the workers themselves. Many of the local level plans that once contributed both the employer and emplooyee shares are shifting or have alread shifted to a shared contribution from both, significantly reducing any cost to the taxpayer. Before you say, well the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay anything, take a look at the return they get on their investment. Because of investment earnings and pension payments received by local retirees, $6 comes back to the local economy for every $1 of taxpayer money that goes into the fund. Where else do you see that kind of return?

You're talking about back end return, I'm talking about front end payments.

I have no problem with reasonable pensions. However, when you have pensions over $70,000 a year (and many would say that's too high) that's a problem, when you get over $100,000, that is outrageous.

Who needs politicians?, i think the dialogue over the past two days has come very close to a resolve on this issue.