BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Friday, September 27, 2013

Freezing pensions

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/detroit-eyes-freezing-pensions-amid-probe-as-evidence-of-possible-fraud-come-to-light/ Let's try to have a unbiased (try!!) discussion if Democratic overspending will affect LLNS pensions in the distant future. Fact: Federal government took in the most tax revenue ever and is still running an annual deficit of $650B. Fact: Because of the bad economy people need food stamps, etc... more than ever and social programs ARE needed. Fact: Not even counting pension deficits California is by some estimates $160-320B in the hole. There was an annual surplus this past year but guess what....they spent it and did not apply it to the debt. When will it end and will it inevitably affect a LLNL pension is the question?

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you talking about existing LLNL pensions, which are mostly, but not all from UC? Or LLNS pensions (TCP1)?

Anonymous said...

Do you want to talk about pensions or egregious spending of the Administration supported by the Senate, led by intellectuals like Ried? It is more than pensions here and everywhere that are a jeapordy. Vainglorious idealogy, like the "green economy farse" as a solution, are all part of the Hype in Chief Administration. LLNL supports this by rediculous science about global warming. Yes modeling on supercomputers of an ill-conditioned problem with ill-conditioned extrapalations out hundreds of years based on complex partial differential equations with questionable initial conditions, is nothing more than black magic. We learned several years ago that massaged input data (done in England) helped produce the desired results. It is amazing the computation converges on anything at all and not simply go wildely awry. However, that does not mean the solution bears any semblance to nature. Secretary Chu once said, "If we do not do something, the water will rise and coastal cities will be wiped out, I have seen the models." Ooops, this week we learned their is more ice in Antartica that ever. The explanation was that it was a momentary chill, perhaps do to wind, by one account. Ha. To answer the original question, the only warming is the pensions, they are toast. I await the greenies calling me ignorant and other names, the only defense they have. I just they all are heavily invested in green economics to make up for their flagging pensions.

Anonymous said...

Or LLNS pensions (TCP1)?
Poster:
Both but I believe being linked to the state UC is more vulnerable.

Please let's try to deal with the best facts available.

Anonymous said...


I like how you kick off your "unbiased discussion" by blaming things on democratic overspending.

Democrats and Republicans have both massively overspent, refused to make necessary changes in gov programs, entitlements, tax rates, etc. And both have frittered away precious time and opportunities scoring political points instead of doing real work.

CA fiscal situation (terrible) has no impact on the lab. The lab gets insignificant funds from the State, UC, etc. The democrats are to blame for the CA situation. They're in charge here and have been for a long time. That's all on them.

Anonymous said...

The LLNS (TCP1) pension is a closed system. Fewer and fewer people paying in, and eventually it will divest itself of all its assets as the last few surviving pensioners die. UC by contrast is an open and growing system. Because of its wide and diverse investment structure, its fate will be tied mostly to the US economy, not the economy of California. This presupposes that the CA state legislature does not try to grab UC's pension assets. That would ignite a legal battle of great proportions whose outcome is uncertain. According to 2011 valuation, UCRP is about 87% funded, the highest of the three major public pension plans in CA.

See http://www.dailycal.org/2013/08/12/fixing-retirement-something-something/ for some interesting recent history of the plight of UCRP.

Anonymous said...

Do not read the above article unless you want to feel sad at our broken system in California.

Anonymous said...

September 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Once you have taken your meds, get at least a spell checker. I am still trying to make the connection between Antarctica and the pension problem.

Anonymous said...

I think I will start wearing blinders and pretend these issues do not exist like the above post @5:14 and live in the fantasy world with him or her.

Everything is fine and trust me your pension is secure and has nothing to do with the government being $17T in debt.

It is a beautiful world and I do not need to be concerned about these issues.
Everything is fine it is ok.

Did I spell everything correctly?

Anonymous said...

I know its Rolling Stone, however It does connect alot of dots about how the gov. is allowing public pensions to be raided legally by wall street hedge funds. It even mentions the UC. Good Reading:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926

Anonymous said...

The lead poster asked for a non-partisan factual discussion. Is that no longer possible here? That is really sad. Are you convinced you won't learn anything new, or afraid you might?

Anonymous said...

I remember when United Airlines and the Steel Mills claimed bankruptcy their pensions were cut in half when transferred to the Public Pension Guarantee something.
I believe if we keep voting in the "spending like we are on crack" crowd whatever party, then at some point they will find a way to get to the pensions and UC is obviously more at risk.
Maybe a new political party could be to get the house in order.

I agree lets keep this non-partisan and WATCH YOUR SPELLING for 5:14 lol.

Anonymous said...

I believe the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) is currently 10s of billions in the red and will at some point itself require a bailout. If the PBGC takes over a pension, it may not be transparent to the pensioners. If the pensioner makes over ____ $ per year it will be capped. If the pensioner is under age 65(?) the pension is reduced. Too many important PBGC details to cover here. I would definitely do some individual research on the PBGC and not simply expect it to protect your pension as is typically described in annual pension asset/liability reports.

The LLNS pension as of a few years ago was one of the healthiest in the DOE complex. The UC pension not so much. Look at the significant 2 tier changes to the UC pension and retirement medical coverage that went into effect in July 2013. I believe service credit + age >= 50 as of July 1st, 2013 kept some UC employees on the old system.

The point here is to stay engaged in the management of the LLNS pension system. LLNS is the current contractor of LLNL. If another LLC contractor takes over, LLNS (collective) will not exist.

There still seems to be much concern over the differences between employee and employer contributions to the LLNS pension. Did LLNS management have the benefit of spinning a different future "asset/liability roulette wheel", or the same roulette wheel captured at a favorable point in time? What measures are now in place to ensure employee and employer pension contribution parity going forward?

Anonymous said...

The employee sure paid their contribution, in full, quick and up front, without the benefit of finagling the amount.

The employee 7%, after tax contribution, was double that amount in their paycheck deduction 14%. What did management do again?

Anonymous said...

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has minimum requirements for pension management. These requirements are worth reviewing before evaluating an employers pension management performance. Making informed distinctions between what employees want done with their pensions and what employers are required to do is important.

Having said that, employers should explain what might appear as pension "bait and switch" actions. This is best accomplished in a forum outside of an "all hands" meeting. LLNS pension managers themselves should address these concerns directly.

What body made the pension forecast and presented an action plan, and what body (if different) made the final decision implemented? Are these documents available to all LLNS employees? Have the LLNS pension viewgraphs ( slides A, B, etc.) referenced by employees been adequately addressed by LLNS management, or are there remaining unexplained pension plan contradictions?

Anonymous said...

The governing statute is the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Employee contributions at LLNL are around $20M/yr starting this year. They were less last year because the started later in the year.

Anonymous said...

Democratic overspending may have prevented the economy from descending into a total collapse of low demand and deflation.

Now if we also want facts, I can remember Republican Alan Greenspan warning that the Clinton administration was retiring too much federal debt.

Neither side has stepped up to pay for everything they want.

Anonymous said...

September 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM:

Anything to say about the pension question, or are you just feeling the need to spout off on politics, which is not welcome on this thread.

Anonymous said...

September 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM

What, you don't want to admit the Socialist Democartic Party is responsible for the counties demise. Shame on you trying to shut people up about socialism at its best. Remember, "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it ". Now you got it and Obamacare is going to make SS look lie a step-child.

Now back to hoping your pension is there when you need it.

Anonymous said...

September 29, 2013 at 4:21 AM:

Man, you just don't let up. Do you actually know any facts about the subject of discussion?

See Dilbert from 9/26/2013.

Anonymous said...

September 28, 2013 at 9:29 PM

"What, you don't want to admit the Socialist Democartic Party is responsible for the counties demise."

So which "counties" are dying, anyway? 50 states with lots of counties. Maybe we could do with a few less.

And what is this "Democartic Party" of which you speak? Do they place tickets on cars, or do they induce some kind of evil, socialist mandated cardiatic arrest?

I'm no fan of socialism, but could you at least have some thought about it that rise above such stale, cut-and-paste drivel?

Anonymous said...

September 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM:

Anything to say about the pension question...


Fair point. I meant to include a sentence that by perhaps preventing a depression and supporting the markets, the pension plan was shielded from a worse fate.

I use a lot of "maybe" when talking economics, because I think the system is too complex for anyone to know real time what the heck is going on. Plus we cannot run the control experiment.

Anonymous said...

I use a lot of "maybe" when talking economics, because I think the system is too complex for anyone to know real time what the heck is going on.

September 29, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Thanks for admitting that you don't actually know anything about your subject.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for admitting that you don't actually know anything about your subject.

September 29, 2013 at 7:23 PM

And we're all assuming YOU do, so lets hear it oh wise one so we can blow holes all in your assumptions.

Anonymous said...

"The Socialist Democratic Party"....
As opposed to the Facist Republican Party, which will leave ALL your concerns with huge corporations who only care about their bottom line and CEOs pay?

Anonymous said...

lets hear it oh wise one so we can blow holes all in your assumptions.

September 30, 2013 at 5:18 AM

Why do you believe there have to be assumptions? How about facts? Oh, wait, then your main goal of "blowing holes" wouldn't work.

Blog Archive