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?
Comments
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.
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.
See http://www.dailycal.org/2013/08/12/fixing-retirement-something-something/ for some interesting recent history of the plight of UCRP.
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.
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?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926
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.
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?
The employee 7%, after tax contribution, was double that amount in their paycheck deduction 14%. What did management do again?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Man, you just don't let up. Do you actually know any facts about the subject of discussion?
See Dilbert from 9/26/2013.
"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?
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.
September 29, 2013 at 7:02 PM
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.
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?
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.