Perspectives/Retirement/Pension Challenges

Paring the benefits
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101027/OPINION/101026027/1004/Our+views++Paring+the+benefits+(Oct.+27)

Unions target your private retirement savings:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Unions-target-your-private-retirement-savings-1398118-106409193.html

WSJ: Are 401(k)s safe from congressional Democrats?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html

401(k) Foe Teresa Ghilarducci, the Most Dangerous Woman in America US News & World Report
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/29/401k-foe-teresa-ghilarducci-the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america

Aaron Deslatte- Orlando Sentinel 12-12-10

An employee-contribution requirement was repealed nearly 40 years ago, as an incentive to make low-paying state jobs more attractive. But Scott and GOP lawmakers have savaged the perk as being out-of-step with private-sector benefits. And during his campaign, Scott said the state could save $1.4 billion by making state workers – as well as the local teachers, police and firefighters who also participate in the state retirement system -- start paying into their pension plans.





Mike Thomas - Orlando Sentinel 12-12-10

Florida is not mentioned in the Times story. Imagine that, an epic states-are-doomed yarn with nary a word about good old Flori-duh.

We have one of the healthiest pension funds in the country following a scare during the 2008 market crash.

The lesson is to cash out while we can. This means putting new employees in 401K pension plans, requiring 5 percent contributions from state employees, and ending the sweetheart pension deals for public safety employees and politicians.

The other threat to state budgets is Medicaid. Again, we are further along than most in dealing with it, thanks to a cost-containing, managed-care pilot project that Jeb Bush started. It's not the final answer, but it provides the framework for one.

Hope nobody tells the Admin about this one, they dont need anymore bad ideas........

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/europe-starts-confiscating-private-pension-funds

Only in Frisco.........


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/18/BA791JUFU5.DTL

sc4ram wrote:


http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/07/mr-perry-social-security-is-no

The writer of this article seems to be even more uninformed than Rick Perry.

"Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats." -- Um, care to back that up with facts? The Social Security fund has moved loads of money into other areas over the years, but not by raids or theft or corruption, rather by buying bonds, i.e., investing it in the country. And they make interest on that money, so why shouldn't they do that.

Beware of hyperbole in these types of articles, on both sides of the aisle; the larger the figures, the more likely the writer doesn't have a clue about the facts.

Try these more sane writers for a more fact-based approach about Social Security, including the myth about "Social Security is broke":

"Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?"
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/money-life/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/2595/?tag=content;col1

"Social Security: NOT Going Broke"
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/financial-decoder/social-security-not-going-broke/2797/?tag=content;col1

So you can decide whose opinion you want to take seriously-- Shikha Dalmia, a reporter with no real money and investment credentials who occasionally pimps for Fox News, or the other two writers who actually have enough experience to speak sensibly about the subject.

In a nutshell: Don't believe the hype.

Well nancy, Im afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I refuse to accept the premise put forward by much of the media if you call SS a ponzi scheme that you are some kind of nut. I agree with the article/s premise that it is WORSE than a ponzi scheme, in that it is mandatory and the trust fund has been willfully raided by putting it "on budget" and counting its receipts with the general revenues. (which by any accounting standard would not of produced a balenced budget in the years our govt bragged about having one)

Yes there is a drawer full of IOU's (bonds) somewhere that are simply a "promise to pay" to the social security trust fund. These are the same promises to pay that were downgraded by S&P last month and are largely financed by forgien govts (the Chinese being the primary lenders) . Not to mention, with the current economic slowdown, high unemployment, perpetual payroll tax holidays, and the baby boomer bubble about to suscribe, the estimates of the "fund's" longevity are constantly being revised downward (after everybody said a few years ago that SS was "fine", Sen Schumer comes to mind as one of the loudest blow-hards on this) . Just last month there was a report that the SS Disability fund was broke as a result of the recession.

The last administration had a plan to reform it and nobody else in the leadership had the fortitude to proceed, the current Prez appointed the Simpson/Bowles comission to reccomend a solution (some of which I dont agree) and the current Prez couldnt bring himself to act. It is simply a case of kick the can so it doesnt collapse on his watch. To use a phrase, the "chickens will come home to roost" on this one.

IMO it is a ponzi scheme (although a well docmented one if anybody cares to read the info that is out there) and Im glad that there are people out there calling a spade a spade.