Six-Figure City Worker Pensions: Living High in Retirement

21 Responses to Six-Figure City Worker Pensions: Living High in Retirement

1. KK says:

   July 14, 2009 at 8:56 am

   Great artcile, Ron.
   To get clear what this really costs, the retired employee who receives $172,000 annually in pension would need a 4 million portfolio to throw off $172,000 annually for 25 years (retired at 55 and die at 80).
   The lowest employee mreceiving a $100,000 a year pension? He/she would need a portfolio of 2.5 million. And we aren’t even discussing COLA adjustments or health benefits or payments of Medicare Part B.
   New recruiting slogan: work for the city for 30 years and retire a multi millionaire.

   Reply
2. Anonymous says:

   July 14, 2009 at 1:44 pm

   Almost all male, too.
   Quite a Good Ole Boyz network of shame.

   Reply
3. Anonymous says:

   July 14, 2009 at 3:10 pm

   Mr. Ron Kaye, in your earlier post you posed the questions. “The question I raise is this: Who will make the first move to bring us together so we can create the New Spirit of LA?”
   It’s my opinion that people will not come together, participatory democracy, because the media sensors many important issues, but what’s more disturbing is when blogs also sensor differences of opinion. We the people need to determine what issues are really causing the city, county, state, and federal crisis and target the most important issues first.
   July 14, 2009
   Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks
   On the verge of going bankrupt with an astounding $26.3 billion deficit, the nation’s most populous state is considering saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually by cutting monthly welfare payments to illegal immigrants.
   The savings doesn’t even include the billions of dollars that California spends annually to educate, incarcerate and medically treat the 2.7 million illegal aliens (7% of the state’s population) who live in the state that has so generously offered them sanctuary for decades. It turns out that legislators are finally realizing that illegal immigrants are draining their precious Golden State.
   That’s why California officials, extremely generous with tax dollars in the past, are trying to find a way to eliminate welfare payments to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. The move, which has caused outrage among the state’s powerful open borders lobby, would save a much-needed $640 million a year.
   An example of who the state cuts the monthly checks to is an unemployed 43-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who gets $650 a month for each of her four children and about $500 in federal food stamps and other vouchers.
   Its still chump change compared to what the state spends—between $4 billion and $6 billion annually—on schools, jails and hospitals for illegal immigrants. That doesn’t even include other local government costs such as police and fire, road maintenance and other public services.
   The biggest chunk—$2.3 billion—goes to educating about 300,000 illegal immigrant children at public schools throughout the state. California expects to spend around $834 million to incarcerate nearly 20,000 illegal aliens in fiscal year 2009-2010 and well over $700 million to medically treat close to 800,000 illegal immigrants.
   More than half the healthcare money will go to emergency services but a substantial portion will pay for nonemergency health services such as abortions, prenatal and postpartum care and even nursing homes.
   Judicial Watch
   http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/illegal-aliens-get-monthly-welfare-checks-0

   Reply
4. Anonymous says:

   July 14, 2009 at 4:07 pm

   3:10 p.m. etc. – OK, but if half the money spent on illegals for healthcare goes to ER care, the most expensive kind, wouldn’t it make sense to fund more clinics? E.g. with nursing students and medical students, assistant trainees etc.? That’s win-win, for both sides — much cheaper and would offer training. And if we stop educating them, we’ll have a bunch of even more illiterates here.
   However, this does not mean that we should be building the most expensive LAUSD schools in areas with lots of illegals, e.g. Belmont, Performing Arts, Miguel Contreras, Bernstein, etc. While there are no new or even decent high schools on the westside, they’re all full of kids bused in. And those are the people paying the taxes. There’s also a concerted effort by LAUSD to block charters or to follow the 10-year old legal ruling requiring LAUSD to share space with charter schools. Partly because charter schools aren’t subject to UTLA rules on salaries and hiring/ firing/ seniority, etc. We also shouldn’t be giving free meals to anyone who shows up at any park or school all summer, when we can’t afford summer school largely because of the costs of all these illegals.
   While we shouldn’t cut all services as extremists want, it’s the skewed priorities which have made even middle class people angry, sadly polarizing our society into rightwing xenophobes and those on the other ideological extreme, with the middle too busy making a living to pay for private schools if they want to continue living in L A.. Many move out of the county and pay the same or less for safer streets and better schools, while those left are left to pay higher and higher taxes to make up for the fleeing middle class.
   And yet this group including my family does NOT subscribe to the rightwing talkshow kooks with their foul language and do-anything-for-ratings behavior, and are disappointed that even people like Ron Kaye do, so we have no voice. We like the diversity of L A and don’t want the whitebread, chain restaurant suburbs, but with our “leadership” being too polarized by rightwing rude chest-thumping buffoons and leftwing types and Latinos wanting to turn everything into T J for “social justice,” where do we look to for leadership?

   Reply
5. Anonymous says:

   July 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm

   Even Sean Hannity is not comfortable with cutting off money to support those 4 children who are American citizens. Since they never asked to be born, where is their crime?
   And, if you think you are safer and society is better off with uneducated children, or unwanted pregancies or sick new borns, which then turn into emergency services, I have a bridge for you to buy.
   If you want to talk about border security, great, we are in agreement. I have a great concern about the drug wars spilling into the US from Mexico.
   But scapegoating illegals and whining about media coverage? Take that sophistic argument back to Faux news where it belongs.

   Reply
6. KK says:

   July 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm

   4:07: Excellent, excellent post though I am unclear what you are saying about Ron.

   Reply
7. Anonymous says:

   July 14, 2009 at 6:20 pm

   Here’s some information to digest.
   Original intent of the 14th Amendment
   The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
   “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
   Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
   The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
   14th Amendment.US
   http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
   Illegal Aliens and American Medicine
   http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

   Reply
8. KK says:

   July 14, 2009 at 7:27 pm

   Thank God for anonymous 6:20. Now the Supreme Court doesn’t have to take up the issue of defining exactly what a person is (e.g., a corporation) because anonymous has defined the issue.
   Of course, there is still no answer to the question of what crime did the child commit and it is a long established view that children are not responsible for the behavior of their parents, but perphaps, 6:20 will give his/her august opinion on that!
   If you are going to continue to post this kind of xenophobic crap (thanks, 4:07 pm), man up with your name.

   Reply
9. Anonymous says:

   July 14, 2009 at 9:16 pm

   Ultimately, a nation that cannot control who enters the country and the people that make up the nation, won’t survive. At a time when the entire country is in dire financial straits, maybe headed towards a fiscal collapse, that so many people feel the U.S. is obligated to feed, shelter and medically care for non-citizens, shows that we are a state and a nation in decline.

   Reply
10. Anonymous says:

    July 15, 2009 at 7:28 am

    The ILLEGAL ALIEN ADVOCATES ACTUALLY DENY that L.A.’s sanctuary city policies and inclinations are a major cause of our current City’s financial disaster. THESE PEOPLE ARE A FRAUD.
    Too much of L.A. budget is used for illegal welfare programs, illegal’s housing, illegal’s clothing, illegal’s food, illegal’s training.
    SEE THE PROBLEM CLEARLY. VILLARAIGOSA IS ENCOURAGING MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR CITY AND HAS BROUGHT OUR CITY BEYOND THE BREAKING POINT.
    Now, look for apologists, like this KK Union hack, to respond to this fact with inaccuracies, disinformation, and accusations.

    Reply
11. Anonymous says:

    July 15, 2009 at 8:54 am

    Doubledipper Robert “Bud” Ovrum is listed as collecting a $172K pension AND is currently collecting a paycheck as a Deputy Mayor..what a waste of public funds!

    Reply
12. mm says:

    July 15, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Bernard Parks has a huge pension and a large city council salary to boot. How will city pay for all these pensions in the future, is a bankruptcy filing possible?

    Reply
13. david r2b says:

    July 15, 2009 at 9:51 am

    I am a “City Worker” employed at LAWA (Los Angeles World Airports) and believe me I feel most fortunate in every thing I receive (salary rate, health, pension, etc.); HOWEVER, a lot of things don’t add up or make sense. I do not have access to view other folks pay slips, but the amount they deduct from my pay check for pension/retirement is not any where near enough to eventually be in the position to then pay me a pension that’s been agreed to via Union contract. Even if the investment gurus at the Pension Board were receiving/making 10% + plus return year in year out, never will my contributions plus interest/investment income come close to what I’ve been promised I’ll receive when I retire.
    Therefore, if I’m correct, I see only one solution if I’m to receive in pension what I’ve been promised and that is for the Los Angeles Citizens/taxpayers to fork over those funds that are missing. This presents another problem and a mind set of many many City Workers: “that’s what they promised, so that’s what they owe!” I’ve been told but I can’t verify that only 17% of City Workers actually live within the city limits of the City of Los Angeles. So many of my co-workers actually live in Orange County, Manhattan Beach and the other beach communities, Culver City, Inglewood, Torrance and Glendale. I’ve also heard that the majority of LAPD Officers live in the Simi Valley. I happen to live within the LA city limits; therefore I along with my fellow Citizens would be responsible to assist in replenishing those funds that the pension system is short. But that leaves 80% of the folks receiving or will receive pensions as non-residents.
    There’s a problem here, if it’s not solved soon it will only drag down the rest. I’d be interested to hear possible solutions.
    Ideas anyone?

    Reply
14. Anonymous says:

    July 15, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    @ david r2b, Ideas anyone?
    Yes, david r2b, pick me, pick me. I have an idea.
    You take a voluntary 35% pay cut. If you refuse the pay cut, then you are furloughed for the equivalent time span to equate to that sum. Then, you refuse to pay Union dues. Then you sue, out of pocket, when the Union forces you to be fired from your job.
    How’s that, davey?

    Reply
15. Anonymous says:

    July 15, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Con Howe worked as a Planning Director for only 12 years. How did he manage to collect $165,000. City workers have to work for 30 years to collect 64%, averaging between $3-4,000 monthly. Need a new formula for these part-timers. They should not walk away with such huge sums. Their contribution to the retirement system was minimal.

    Reply
16. Anonymous says:

    July 15, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    City regulations clearly state that retired employees can work for the city only as elected officials. Under what regulations is Bud Ovram double dipping?

    Reply
17. kat says:

    July 18, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    I think the answer to the pension problem is to move all employees to a defined contribution system where the employee kicks in so much and the city kicks in so much. The taxpayer is not on the hook when the pension fund isnt able to deliver. Taxpayers should not be on the hook. Lots of cities will have to bankrupt themselves to get out of the obligations.
    If we think this is bad, wait until we see the social security and medicare stuff kick in as boomers retire. Thats another big gigantic mess facing the United States.

    Reply
18. anonymous says:

    July 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    9:43 P.M. – Bud Ovrum is a STAFF MEMBER of an elected office; not an actual elected official..big difference

    Reply
19. anonymous says:

    July 21, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    9:43 P.M. – Bud Ovrum is a STAFF MEMBER of an elected office; not an actual elected official..big difference

    Reply
20. Anonymous says:

    October 1, 2009 at 11:44 am

    I am a trade worker for the City of LA and I think we need to clarify a couple of points.
    1. the early retirement program is being paid over the next 15 years by the thousands of us left behind.
    2. we pushed back our raises for two years to give the economy a chance to recover.
    3. we are giving up 40 hours of holiday pay
    4. DWP has not given up a thing nor will they. They are essentially a private company with the LA City emblem on it building. so your comparing apples and oranges when you compare us to them.
    5. we are no longer going to get paid overtime, but given time off. Do any store you know take comp time in exchange for goods or services?
    6. Most of these salries are executive and office positions. The real quesition should be what are they giving up? Any trades person making 6 digits did so by waking up at night to take emergency calls or to make fixes that required an empty office building.
    7. The layoff and furlough deal is good only for 1 year. Next year management can layoff and start furloughs and take more benefits.
    8. Why do the executives seem to get their raises in one lump sum while the rest of us get it spread over 5 years? Why don’t they give back the same things we’re giving up.
    I know that the grass always seems greaner on the other side, and it usually isn’t. At the City you use to trade salary for benefits and security. That’s no longer the case. I took a $12 cut in pay to come here so I could spend time with my family. Now I need to try to find a part-time job to make up for the money that I will lose at my job and to make up for my wife who has been laid off 4 times in 2 years. That’s if they let me off with the mandatory over time they’re imposing once this new “deal”is signed
    So how’s the view from the “green grass”?

    Reply
21. Sajous@hotmail.com says:

    July 9, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Exceptional brief and this article helped me a lot. Say thank you We trying to find your details?-.

    Reply