ARTICLE COMMENTS

Unfortunately, the Times article focuses on NYCERS, the best funded of the citys pension plans. Rather than the NYC teachers, fire and police plans.

And does not discuss retroactive pension increases, instead just mentioning politicians making promises. As if the pensions promised at the time of hire, in exchange for taking that job and choosing that career, and pensions retroactively increased as part of political deals, carry the same moral weight.

The focus is investment returns. Ive said for years the choices of union-backed Comptrollers and union-dominated boards have been disastrous, but even though returns for NYCs pension funds have lagged other pension funds over the long term, they have also exceeded the funds expected rate of return (at least until the latest stock market bubble unravels). Its like John Liu blaming bad returns for the pension hole in one report, and in another report claiming an optimistic expected return for the future is justified by a higher long term gain in the past.

The Times seems to credit actuary Robert North and Mayor Bloomberg for trying to safeguard the public from pension raids. I called for North to be fired for not publicly opposing all those retroactive pension increases over the years.

The only other person Ive publicly said should lose their job is former Governor Pataki. As for Mayor Bloomberg, my view of him changed quite a bit after that 2008 UFT 25/55 pension increase. The man did a lot of good, but the damage from that deal and other labor deals will in the end outweigh it all. As for Mayor Lindsay. The press investigation that needs to happen should be based on this post, and the data it references.

Michael M. (parent still)

Larry Littlefield

Ironic given the influx of faceless money into politics is clearly intended to shape debate. The public is well served to know who is funding this campaign.

I can tell them now. There are two choices: the executive/financial class, and the political union class. They are the ones who control the flow of propaganda. If you want to be heard, you have to come hat in hand to one or the other, and perhaps make a deal. Perhaps you favor one set of interests and one set of propaganda, over the other.

If you are opposed to the every growing grabs by both at the expense of ordinary people and the common future, and dont have a personal interest to advance by making a deal, your options are to rant on a blog and hand out flyers. This I know from personal experience.

There is one key difference today. You can put a bunch of facts up on a blog, even if the powers that be dont want to hear them. Until of course the two tribes of predators jointly agree to de-fund the facts to avoid stirring up the rabble.

Michael M. (parent still)