|
|
<< Unions Help Non-Union Workers II | Main | TX "Polluters & Predators Protection Act" >> September 17, 2003CALPERS: Don't Use Fund to Fire BeneficiariesCalifornia Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS), the nation's largest pension fund, had decided to look into restricting investments in companies that take over government services and thus could put some of CalPERS 1.4 million members out of work. What a concept-- not using peoples pension money to get them fired. Seems like a pretty common sense idea that my pension savings as an employee should not be used to fund my own unemployment. But critics think that CALPERS should sacrifice its beneficiaries' jobs "for the good of the taxpayer". See this editorial by the Sacramento Bee: The PERS broad, dominated by public employee unions, has a fiduciary responsibility to safeguard retirement funds of PERS members. But they have a responsibility to protect taxpayers as well.Why should public employees have to bail out the taxpayers at the sacrifice of their jobs using funds for their own retirement? Why do they have a "fiduciary" duty to screw themselves, while the wealthy aren't asked to step up and pay more taxes? It doesn't even make good economic sense. Privatization often takes jobs out-of-state and even out-of-country, further eroding job creation. CALPERS is serving both taxpayers and its own retirees by refusing to fund privatization of public service jobs. But watch something-- the same people who throw around the rhetoric of privatizing social security so retirees can "control their own money" will be the same people saying public employees in California should not be able to decide where their pension money is invested. Posted by Nathan at September 17, 2003 01:49 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsSounds like the Bee has a personal grudge against "The PERS broad", whoever she is. (Sorry.) They undermine their own case when they admit: Worth $144 billion, the fund is so massive that it can move markets. In which case, they have particular responsibility for their investments. Posted by: bad Jim at September 19, 2003 03:00 AM Taxpayers are the employers who are promising set benefits, and they make contributions in order to meet contractual obligations. Beneficiaries should not interfere with investment decisions that can reduce the rate of return and growth and, thus, put an additional obligation and cost on taxpayers to spend more money to provide the guaranteed benefits. Invesments are a means to an end. Money has to be invested and earn a profit in order for taxpayers to pay benefits to beneficiaries. What you are suggesting, is that the pension balance belongs to retirees, similar to a defined contribution (401K) type plan. You can't have both--either beneficiares accept a defined benefit, or they accept a defined contribution and can designate how the money is invested once the contribution is made for them. If beneficiaries want to money invested into lower-yielding stocks that match their ideals, then they get lower retirement benefits. Posted by: Marcia Fritz at September 28, 2003 06:38 PM Marcia- Apply your logic to Social Security and you of course oppose any individual control of social security investments, I assume? Posted by: Nathan at September 28, 2003 07:29 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|