So the same liberal fuckwads who want universal health care and comfortable retirement benefits for illegal immigrants can't even fund their own obligations as they stand now? What a bunch of FUCKING HIPPOCRITS!!!
S.F. incurs huge costs for public retirees
Governments begin to grapple with unfunded health care
Thursday, July 5, 2007
In San Francisco's effort to pay the soaring cost for retiree health benefits, it's $500,000 down, $4.9 billion to go.
The city, like most local governments and school districts in California, has put aside no money to cover the fast-growing cost of delivering on health care coverage promised to its workers once they hit retirement age.
But in San Francisco, the financial liability hanging over the city is one of the heaviest in the state, thanks in part to the generosity of its employee health care benefits.
"As this number keeps growing ... it can cripple our budget,'' said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who has taken the lead on trying to address the issue in the city's legislative body. "This will eat up all our discretionary income, the money we use for street repairs, parks and programs for the people of San Francisco.''
The $4.9 billion unfunded liability confronting San Francisco, California's only combined city-county, is bigger than that the city of Los Angeles ($3.2 billion), San Diego County ($1.38 billion) and San Mateo County ($469 million). But it trails the state of California at $48 billion, Los Angeles County at $16 billion and Los Angeles Unified School District at $10 billion in costs.
Now, however, governments across the country are being forced to acknowledge the approaching financial tsunamis. Beginning this fiscal year, a little-known agency, the Government Accounting Standards Board, will require them to at least spell out the amount of unfunded future health care benefits in their budgets.
In the coming fiscal year, San Francisco -- which until now has been satisfied to simply write bigger and bigger checks to cover the annual costs -- is poised to also start making down payments on those future expenses.
Elsbernd has worked with Mayor Gavin Newsom to create a new Retiree Health Benefits Fund, a pot where the city can stash money to pay for those future costs.
Newsom has included $500,000 for the fund in the budget he has submitted to the supervisors for the fiscal year that began July 1. It is an admittedly meager amount for a city where the annual cost of retiree health care has ballooned from $17 million in 1999 to about $150 million in 2007.
"The $500,000 is a drop in the bucket to address the problem of our unfunded liability,'' said Phil Ginsburg, Newsom's chief of staff. "But we're doing it ... to say we're serious about solving the problem.''
David Low, head of Californians for Health Care and Retirement Security, a coalition of government employee unions, is worried that government officials -- and voters -- will take the newly revealed numbers as evidence of looming financial disaster that can only be solved by slashing benefits for public employees. A statewide ballot initiative already is circulating that would cut both pension benefits and retiree health care for public workers in the state.
"The amount of those future costs hasn't changed by a penny,'' said Low. "The only thing that's changed is that the amount has been calculated and put on the books.''
San Francisco's future burden is particularly heavy. Part of the reason is that San Francisco's health care benefits are among the most generous in the state. After five years of service, city employees are guaranteed lifetime health benefits for themselves and 50 percent benefits for a spouse or domestic partner. The state of California, by contrast, provides 50 percent health benefits after 10 years of service and full benefits after 20 years.
"I came to work for the city in 2000 from a downtown law firm,'' said Ginsburg. "I could leave today, go back to a law firm and at age 50 begin collecting health benefits from the city.''
While there is very little the city can do to change retirement health benefits for current and retired city workers, changes can be made for new hires, Ginsburg said. In recent years, every agreement with city employee unions has included language about the need to find a solution to the growing health care cost crisis and discussions with the unions have begun.
Union leaders recognize that rising retiree health care costs pose a potential problem for the city, but any agreement is going to require commitments from both workers and the city, said Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council.
"We're fully aware that there are issues we're willing to look at ... but we also want to raise the pension benefit,'' he said.
The model the city would like to use is its successful pension plan, which has used combined city and worker contributions to fund the system. The money going in each year, combined with the investment growth of the pension fund, pays for retiree pension benefits, now and in the future.
The investment growth makes a difference. If the city can make regular contributions to the new retiree health care fund, the city's $4.9 billion liability, money the city must pay from its general fund over the next 30 years, drops to $3 billion, according to a 2006 study done for the city.
That means, however, that San Francisco will not only have to pay the growing annual cost of the retiree health benefits, but also find additional money each year to build up the health care fund.
"Creating the fund doesn't solve the problem,'' Elsbernd said. "The real problem now is deciding where the money comes from.''
One possibility is a city ballot measure. A charter amendment could go on the ballot next year that would toughen the current retiree health care eligibility rules for new city workers and require the new employees and the city to make contributions to the new fund.
"We could require prefunding by guaranteeing a certain percentage out of new employees' paychecks and a base-line contribution by the city each year,'' Elsbernd said.
Doing nothing is not an alternative, city officials believe.
There's a growing concern that the agencies that rate government bonds might downgrade bonds from cities with huge unfunded health care liabilities, making the bonds both harder to sell and more expensive for the cities.
While private companies across the country have been trimming back or eliminating health care benefits for their retirees, that's not a legal option for San Francisco, said Ginsburg, the mayor's chief of staff.
"At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to fund the vested rights and entitlements of our employees,'' he said.
Since the retiree health care benefits and city services all come out of the same general fund account, that means if the choice is between hiring police officers or paying the health benefits, the police lose.
That's not a choice that anyone in city government is eager to make, which is why even small steps like this year's $500,000 payment are important.
"We're moving forward,'' Elsbernd said. "Would I like to see us moving a helluva lot quicker? You bet.''
Governments begin to grapple with unfunded health care
Thursday, July 5, 2007
In San Francisco's effort to pay the soaring cost for retiree health benefits, it's $500,000 down, $4.9 billion to go.
The city, like most local governments and school districts in California, has put aside no money to cover the fast-growing cost of delivering on health care coverage promised to its workers once they hit retirement age.
But in San Francisco, the financial liability hanging over the city is one of the heaviest in the state, thanks in part to the generosity of its employee health care benefits.
"As this number keeps growing ... it can cripple our budget,'' said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who has taken the lead on trying to address the issue in the city's legislative body. "This will eat up all our discretionary income, the money we use for street repairs, parks and programs for the people of San Francisco.''
The $4.9 billion unfunded liability confronting San Francisco, California's only combined city-county, is bigger than that the city of Los Angeles ($3.2 billion), San Diego County ($1.38 billion) and San Mateo County ($469 million). But it trails the state of California at $48 billion, Los Angeles County at $16 billion and Los Angeles Unified School District at $10 billion in costs.
Now, however, governments across the country are being forced to acknowledge the approaching financial tsunamis. Beginning this fiscal year, a little-known agency, the Government Accounting Standards Board, will require them to at least spell out the amount of unfunded future health care benefits in their budgets.
In the coming fiscal year, San Francisco -- which until now has been satisfied to simply write bigger and bigger checks to cover the annual costs -- is poised to also start making down payments on those future expenses.
Elsbernd has worked with Mayor Gavin Newsom to create a new Retiree Health Benefits Fund, a pot where the city can stash money to pay for those future costs.
Newsom has included $500,000 for the fund in the budget he has submitted to the supervisors for the fiscal year that began July 1. It is an admittedly meager amount for a city where the annual cost of retiree health care has ballooned from $17 million in 1999 to about $150 million in 2007.
"The $500,000 is a drop in the bucket to address the problem of our unfunded liability,'' said Phil Ginsburg, Newsom's chief of staff. "But we're doing it ... to say we're serious about solving the problem.''
David Low, head of Californians for Health Care and Retirement Security, a coalition of government employee unions, is worried that government officials -- and voters -- will take the newly revealed numbers as evidence of looming financial disaster that can only be solved by slashing benefits for public employees. A statewide ballot initiative already is circulating that would cut both pension benefits and retiree health care for public workers in the state.
"The amount of those future costs hasn't changed by a penny,'' said Low. "The only thing that's changed is that the amount has been calculated and put on the books.''
San Francisco's future burden is particularly heavy. Part of the reason is that San Francisco's health care benefits are among the most generous in the state. After five years of service, city employees are guaranteed lifetime health benefits for themselves and 50 percent benefits for a spouse or domestic partner. The state of California, by contrast, provides 50 percent health benefits after 10 years of service and full benefits after 20 years.
"I came to work for the city in 2000 from a downtown law firm,'' said Ginsburg. "I could leave today, go back to a law firm and at age 50 begin collecting health benefits from the city.''
While there is very little the city can do to change retirement health benefits for current and retired city workers, changes can be made for new hires, Ginsburg said. In recent years, every agreement with city employee unions has included language about the need to find a solution to the growing health care cost crisis and discussions with the unions have begun.
Union leaders recognize that rising retiree health care costs pose a potential problem for the city, but any agreement is going to require commitments from both workers and the city, said Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council.
"We're fully aware that there are issues we're willing to look at ... but we also want to raise the pension benefit,'' he said.
The model the city would like to use is its successful pension plan, which has used combined city and worker contributions to fund the system. The money going in each year, combined with the investment growth of the pension fund, pays for retiree pension benefits, now and in the future.
The investment growth makes a difference. If the city can make regular contributions to the new retiree health care fund, the city's $4.9 billion liability, money the city must pay from its general fund over the next 30 years, drops to $3 billion, according to a 2006 study done for the city.
That means, however, that San Francisco will not only have to pay the growing annual cost of the retiree health benefits, but also find additional money each year to build up the health care fund.
"Creating the fund doesn't solve the problem,'' Elsbernd said. "The real problem now is deciding where the money comes from.''
One possibility is a city ballot measure. A charter amendment could go on the ballot next year that would toughen the current retiree health care eligibility rules for new city workers and require the new employees and the city to make contributions to the new fund.
"We could require prefunding by guaranteeing a certain percentage out of new employees' paychecks and a base-line contribution by the city each year,'' Elsbernd said.
Doing nothing is not an alternative, city officials believe.
There's a growing concern that the agencies that rate government bonds might downgrade bonds from cities with huge unfunded health care liabilities, making the bonds both harder to sell and more expensive for the cities.
While private companies across the country have been trimming back or eliminating health care benefits for their retirees, that's not a legal option for San Francisco, said Ginsburg, the mayor's chief of staff.
"At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to fund the vested rights and entitlements of our employees,'' he said.
Since the retiree health care benefits and city services all come out of the same general fund account, that means if the choice is between hiring police officers or paying the health benefits, the police lose.
That's not a choice that anyone in city government is eager to make, which is why even small steps like this year's $500,000 payment are important.
"We're moving forward,'' Elsbernd said. "Would I like to see us moving a helluva lot quicker? You bet.''
No comments:
Post a Comment