New jersey pensions | Pension360

New Jersey Bill Would Make Corrupt Politicians Pay For Court Costs—From Their Pensions

In 2013, New York paid $600,000 in pension benefits to politicians who were occupying jail cells instead of offices.

That’s because New York’s constitution makes it nearly impossible to take away a person’s pension benefits—even if that person is a corrupt politician who was booted from office and sent to jail.

The same is true around the country, as at least six states protect pension benefits under their constitutions. It’s a well-meaning provision, but in the case of corrupt politicians it often has unintended consequences.

New Jersey has been paying attention to New York’s conundrum, and it wants no part of that game.

Three state legislatures (Sen. Christopher J. Connors, Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf and Assemblywoman DiAnne C. Gove) recently proposed two initiatives that would shield taxpayers from the expenses that come with corrupt politicians—and force those politicians to pay for their court costs, among other things, by garnishing their pensions. From The Sand Paper:

The delegation’s first reform measure would make public officers or employees convicted of crimes affecting their office or found at fault in certain civil actions liable for the cost of prosecution and legal representation if received through the expense of public funds. Under the legislation, convicted persons would be subject to pension garnishment to satisfy the liability.

The second measure would allow a public employer to levy a judgment for restitution of illegally obtained funds against a convicted public employee’s retirement allowance. Provisions of the legislation would apply to any official’s or employee’s pension contribution to principal state-administered retirement systems.

One interesting segment from the lawmakers’ joint statement on the initiatives:

“When holding public office, you are answerable to the people whose tax dollars fund the operations of government,” the statement said. “Therefore, it would be appropriate to garnish the public pension of convicted politicians as a means of recovering the cost of their prosecution and legal defense as well as funds illegally obtained through the use of their government position. To do so would mitigate the cost of corruption on taxpayers, whose interests should be put first as the victims of such crimes.”

Christie Vetoes Early Retirement Incentives for Teachers

Chris Christie used his conditional veto power to reject one portion of a broader bill that would make it easier for privately run schools to operate in New Jersey.

The portion of the bill vetoed by Christie would have given certain teachers–specifically, those likely to face layoffs in the near future–a range of perks to retire early. From NJ.com:

Gov. Chris Christie has rejected changes to the Urban Hope Act, specifically taking exception to language that would allow Camden public school teachers to retire early.

The change, he wrote in his conditional veto Monday, would put too much of a strain on an already floundering state pension system.

“The bill … authorizes early retirement incentives to certain school district employees, and may exacerbate the solvency of the pension system,” Christie wrote.

Christie asked the Legislature to reconsider the bill without the retirement incentives.

Specifically, the vetoed portion would have offered early retirement incentives to school employees in Camden, New Jersey.

The Urban Hope Act, if passed, would open the door for charter schools to operate in Camden. But the city has already had to lay off nearly 250 public school employees, and more layoffs are likely on the way.

That’s why public teacher’s unions negotiated the line item in the bill giving teachers a chance to retire early as opposed to being laid off. From NJ Spotlight:

The bill had included an expansive early retirement package that had irked some on both the Democratic and Republican sides.

Assemblyman Troy Singleton, D-Camden, had said the package was only fair in the face of expected layoffs and other cuts in Camden. The New Jersey Education Association supported the early retirement piece, but nonetheless opposed the bill overall.

But Christie called the early retirement package hypocritical at a time when the state is grappling with a pension liability crisis.

The bill now goes back to the Senate. If the legislature approves Christie’s changes, the bill will go back to Christie. He is expected to pass the bill if it stays intact.

Unions Rev Up New Appeal In New Jersey Pension Case – Read the Full Complaint Here

Unions lost the first round in the pension case playing out in New Jersey, when a judge ruled last week that New Jersey was too cash-strapped to make its full contribution to the pension system. The state instead diverted that money, totaling over $800 million, towards balancing the state budget.

Unions were hoping, and still are, for a court ruling that would reverse state Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to divert that money.

To that end, attorneys for the labor groups amended their court filings on Wednesday to update their argument that Christie broke the law when he slashed the state’s pension contribution.

The contribution, unions argue, was legally required due to a law that Christie himself signed in 2011. From the Asbury Park Press:

The updated court filings are a step toward a new hearing, expected in August, and fuller vetting of the issue by Jacobson, who said claims about the 2015 budget and pension payments needed time to become “ripe.” Christie made changes in the new budget days after Jacobson’s prior ruling.

“The amended filings reflect the fact that the governor didn’t make the full 2014 payment and made his changes in the 2015 budget,” said NJEA spokesman Steve Baker. “Other than that, there’s no substantive difference in the arguments we’ve had all along.”

Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts pointed to the Republican governor’s past comments on the court case, when Christie called the spending cut “one of the hard choices the people of New Jersey expect me to make.”

“For our state’s families who are already overburdened by high taxes, raising taxes even further would not solve a problem created by decades of neglect and irresponsibility,” Christie also said.

The unions will have to make a stronger argument to Jacobson about Christie’s ability as governor to set fiscal priorities for such things as hospitals, nursing homes, tuition aid and other programs. In the June court hearing, the unions also failed to force Christie to turn $300 million from state surplus as a down payment on the shorted pensions. “The governor determined it would be extremely unwise to not maintain that amount,” Jacobson told the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Read the full complaint here:

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Complaint – NJ Education Association on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/235461708/Complaint-NJ-Education-Association” style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Complaint – NJ Education Association</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/235461708/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_95456″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Chris Christie’s New Pension Proposal May Trigger Another Wave of Mass Retirements

Back in 2011, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed into law the state’s first round of pension reforms, a curious thing happened: state workers started heading for the exits. And they weren’t leaving for the weekend—they were leaving for good.

In fact, state workers retired in unprecedented numbers in 2010 and 2011, when the pension proposal was being discussed and passed through the legislature. Under the plan, workers have to contribute more of their paychecks to the pension system.

Now, Gov. Christie has announced he’s planning to propose a new set of pension reforms—and he’s made it clear that the benefits of workers will not come out unscathed.

With that news circulating, New Jersey is reporting that another wave of retirements is already in the making. The Star-Ledger reports:

As Gov. Chris Christie bangs the drum for a second round of pension reform in New Jersey, public officials and union leaders are bracing for another wave of public workers rushing to retire.

Employees in state and local government headed for the door in record numbers at the beginning of Christie’s first term, thanks in part to laws passed by the governor and state lawmakers asking public workers to pay a larger share of their health and pension costs. More than 20,000 retired in 2010, followed by 19,500 the next year.

After slowing the next two years, the pace of public worker retirements is picking up again, according to state Treasury Department figures.

A total of 11,916 employees are scheduled to retire through the end of this month — a nearly 9 percent spike from the same point in 2013. If the pace continues, about 17,000 may file papers by the end of the year. A total of 15,700 public workers retired last year.

The change comes as Christie gets ready to introduce further changes to the pension system, which is facing $40 billion in unfunded liabilities.

The Republican governor, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who rose to popularity partly because of his pension fights with public worker unions, said the previous changes didn’t go far enough. He has put curtailing the costs of public employee benefits at the top of his summer agenda, suggesting the state could go bankrupt without more action.

Union leaders have offered up various explanations for the spike. Some say the retirements are indeed caused by the virtual guarantee that workers will see their benefits decrease if they don’t lock them in by retiring.

But other union officials claim that the surge in retirements can be chalked up to random fluctuations. From NJ.com:

Some union leaders say more public workers may be planning to retire out of fear they could see their pensions and health benefits cut if they don’t get out now.

“There’s a feeling of unease about what’s going to happen,” said Pat Colligan, president of the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association. “People have left the past couple of months because they’re afraid. And there are people who have their finger on the retirement button.”

But Steve Baker, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state teachers union, said he’s not convinced this year’s 9 percent increase in retirements was caused by Christie’s warnings, saying numbers fluctuate from year to year.

“They may be on the higher end of the range, but they’re certainly within the range,” he said.

Hetty Rosenstein, director of the state chapter of the Communications Workers of America, said she would be upset if Christie’s talk caused more public workers to retire in the coming months.

“You have people who have dedicated their life to public service,” said Rosenstein, whose union represents more than 40,000 state workers in New Jersey. “It would be really terrible and shameful if people make their retirement decisions based upon fear that after 30 years their retirement isn’t secure.”

Among public workers, retirements for teachers and non-uniformed government workers are both up 12 percent so far this year, while police and firefighter retirements are down 14 percent. Retirements for the State Police dropped from 145 to 83, the figures show.

In the decade before Christie was governor, public workers retired at a rate of 13,656 a year. Since he took office, the clip is at 17,602 — a 29 percent increase.

Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said part of the problem is that Christie has yet to unveil any details of his plan to revise public worker benefits.

“There’s always fear of the unknown,” Dressel said. “There’s not a clear message coming from our state policymakers.”

Christie is currently holding a series of town hall meetings around the state addressing pension issues. He has not announced specific details of his latest pension reform proposal, but he says he will release the proposal to the public by the end of summer.

Christie Says New Pension Reform Plan Coming

Back in 2011, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed into law a pension reform measure designed to eventually fix the funding status of the state’s ailing pension funds.

A big part of that law was ensuring that the state gradually began making bigger annual payments to the System. But that part of the plan hasn’t worked out, as Christie decided this year to take the funds meant for the pension system and allocate them toward balancing the budget—a balanced budget is mandated by the New Jersey constitution.

The move was highly publicized and highly scrutinized. But Christie now says he is drawing up a new proposal for pension reform in New Jersey, and he is putting on a series of town hall meetings to introduce the plan. From NJ Advance Media:

Gov. Chris Christie came to the Jersey Shore today to kick off his “no pain, no gain” summer tour to introduce a pension reform proposal, but details of a plan were scant.

The governor promised to unveil a proposal by the end of the summer to tackle the state’s economic woes, promising that unless the Democratic-controlled state Legislature enact reforms, New Jersey is headed toward bankruptcy.

“We have to pare back benefits, that’s what we have to do,” Christie declared in Long Beach.

“You cannot raise taxes enough in New Jersey to pay for the pension hole that’s been dug over the period of time that these exorbitant benefits that have been promised to people,” he said. “No on in public office, believe me, myself included, wants to come out here and say ‘I have to pare back in public benefits.’”

Christie has said a specific plan is on its way — but it won’t be unveiled yet.

When pressed by a resident at the shore town hall to discuss his plan, Christie said his office is “looking at a bunch of different options right now,” but added it won’t be ready to be rolled out until the end of the summer.

“There are going to be some really difficult things,” he said. “There’s not a lot of places left to do things except to look at a whole different variety of ways to reduce benefits or to increase contributions by employees.”

Raising the retirement age again is also on the table for consideration, Christie said.

“But even then, the bottom line is that there will be a reduction in benefits,” he said. “It’s the only way to do this.”

It appears that details won’t be disclosed for the time being. The one detail that Christie seemed comfortable revealing was that New Jersey pensioners will be looking at smaller benefits moving forward. But come September, it will be interesting to see what Christie’s proposal consists of.

New Jersey Fund Rakes In Nearly 16 Percent Returns For Year

Amidst all the pension-related turmoil in New Jersey, a piece of bright(er) news: the state’s pension fund raked in double-digit returns for fiscal year 2013-14, which ended June 30. The fund returned more than double the actuarially assumed rate of return, although the S&P 500 returned about 25 percent over the same period.

From Bloomberg:

New Jersey’s pension fund return is expected to exceed 16 percent for fiscal 2014 on gains that include an unanticipated $6.1 billion, according to the state Treasury Department.

Data as of June 30, which exclude some investments reported on a delayed basis, showed returns of 15.9 percent, treasury officials said in a statement. The fund’s total value was $80.6 billion, up from $66.9 billion four years earlier. The state investment division will report the performance to its oversight council at a meeting tomorrow.

Interestingly, unions are now presenting the argument that the strong returns only further demonstrate the need for the state to make its full contributions into the system. From NorthJersey.com:

The impressive returns, however, highlight an argument from unions that New Jersey may have missed out on even bigger gains in recent years because state contributions into the pension fund have been reduced or cut altogether, including the payment Governor Christie slashed at the end of June. Christie said he cut that payment — from a planned $1.57 billion, to $697 million — to prevent tax hikes or funding cuts to schools, hospitals and other crucial services amid a $1 billion budget shortfall.

New Jersey’s actuarially assumed rate of return stands at 7.9 percent.

Pension Obligation Bonds Help Some Governments But Hurt Many More, Says New Report

New Jersey, Illinois, and California.

Those are the states that, more than any others, have frequently scrambled to pay down their pension obligations by issuing a financial tool called Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs). Over the last three decades, those three states have issued a total of $25 billion worth of POBs in an attempt to ease the heavy burden of their pension systems’ on state finances.

But what are POBs, and do they work as advertised? A new report from the Center for Retirement Research sheds light on that question and suggests that POBs may not be beneficial, after all. But first, what exactly is a POB? From Governing:

The tool, called Pension Obligation Bonds (commonly referred to as POBs), allows governments to issue taxable bonds for the purposes of putting money toward or fully paying off the unfunded portion of a pension liability. The proceeds from the bond issue go in the pension fund. The theory is that the rate of return on the investment will be greater than the interest rate the government pays to bond investors so that the transaction is favorable to the government; it makes money off the deal.

The concept is simple enough. And, in theory, it’s pretty clever. But in practice? Well, let’s just say timing is key. And many state and local governments have failed to get the timing right. It has cost them dearly, as Liz Farmer summarizes:

The report noted that the governments more likely to issue POBs are ones that have pension plans that represent “substantial obligations.” The governments have large outstanding debt and are short of cash. However, rather than necessarily relieving such governments of financial pressures, the bonds actually create a more rigid financial environment. Issuing bond debt to pay off a long-term obligation like a pension liability turns a somewhat flexible pension obligation into a hard and fast annual debt payment. Thus, “governments that have issued a POB have reduced their financial flexibility,” the study says.

POBs’ net returns (what the investment has earns after making bond payments) has varied, depending on when the bonds were issued. According to the center’s research, the net rate of return has averaged in the low, single digits for most years (the 30-year average is 1.5 percent). Governments that issued Pension Obligation Bonds in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2007 actually lost money on their investment. Detroit, for example, issued debt at the peak of the market in the mid-2000s to fund its pension plan and did so using a complicated interest rate swap deal. The result was that the deal went the wrong way for the city. Detroit was still on the hook to pay bondholders and though its pension was well funded, it had even less day-to-day cash to meet its financial obligations. That debt played a key role in Detroit’s decision to file for bankruptcy last July.

Illinois, New Jersey, Detroit—that’s not the kind of company you want to keep if you are a local government trying to curb the burden of pension obligations. Though, the reputation of POBs may not be completely deserved. After all, just because struggling governments use them unwisely doesn’t mean POBs aren’t an effective tool when used the right way.

Although examples are hard to come by, POBs can be used effectively. In 2002 and 2003, Winnebago County and Sheboygan County in Wisconsin issued POBs to the tune of $7 million. They paid a 3 percent interest on that debt, but earned 20 percent returns on investments made with the borrowed money. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work that way.

You can read the CRR’s full report on POBs here.

Photo by Miran Rijavec Stan Dalone via Flickr CC License

In New Jersey, the Pension Tension Is Rising

By now, you know the story: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s plan to cut pension funding by $2.4 billion over two years has been met with controversy, outrage, a string of lawsuits and numerous legal questions.

The answers to some of those legal questions may come as soon as Wednesday, when Christie’s plan will see its first day in court.

But outside the courtroom, a new bill is gaining steam among state lawmakers—a bill that finally puts a tangible, short-term solution on the table. And even if it doesn’t come without its kinks, it’s the first plan that has been offered up to counteract Christie’s measure. (More on the bill below).

Meanwhile, more data is emerging on the true costs of Christie’s plan. Spoiler alert: the snowball effect is real, and it’s prohibitively expensive.

Cuts Bring Consequences, Now and in the Future

Every passing day brings a bit more clarity as to just how expensive Christie’s plan to cut pension funding by $2.4 billion would be. In a bond disclosure released by the state, the ramifications of the cuts are outlined in four points.

The proposed reduction in contributions…could have the effect of (1) delaying the phase-in of the State’s full actuarially required contribution, (2) increasing the amount of such contribution, (3) increasing the size of the UAAL and (4) decreasing the percentage of the Funded Ratio of the Pension Plans once the phase-in is completed.

Indeed, New Jersey can expect all four of those points to materialize, some sooner than others. And when you attach numbers to them, the urgency of New Jersey’s upcoming fiscal situation really starts to set in. If Christie goes through with his plan, here’s what New Jersey could be facing in fiscal year 2019:

The state’s actuarially required contribution would be $4.8 billion—for context, that sum would represent 26 percent of New Jersey’s general fund budget, based on 2012 expenditures.

The unfunded liabilities of the state’s pension plans would total $46 billion. Christie could decrease these liabilities by $4 billion if he scrapped his plan to cut contributions by $2.4 billion in 2015-16.

The funded ratio of state plans would drop to 48.25 percent. The funded ratio sat at 67.5 percent in 2011.

Rest assured, Christie has seen these numbers—they came from his own financial team.

A New Bill Emerges in the Legislature

On Monday, news broke that New Jersey state legislature had agreed on an alternate budget proposal that would raise enough revenue to cover the state’s full contribution to the pension system, a payment that Christie’s plan had drastically cut.

Sources inside the legislature told the Star-Ledger that Democrats in the state Senate and Assembly had reached a deal to raise more than $1.3 billion in revenue—money that would cover the state’s full annual contribution of $2.25 billion to the pension system. Christie’s plan had cut that payment down to just $681 million.

The revenue would come from tax increases on high-income earners and businesses, among other things. From the Star-Ledger:

Under the Democrats’ budget:

• The marginal tax rate on income above $1 million would rise from 8.97 percent to 10.75 percent, retroactive to January of this year, netting $667 million.

• The corporate business tax would rise from 9 percent to 10.35 percent, yielding $375 million.

• The Business Employment Incentive Program (BEIP) of tax abatements would be suspended for a year, freeing up $175 million.

• A tax hike on income between $500,000 and $1 million that Sweeney had proposed would be scrapped, as Prieto suggested.

In addition, some new taxes or fees Christie proposed would be folded into the Democrats’ budget, such as a penalty for making bad electronic payments ($25 million) and a move to subject all online retailers to the state sales tax ($25 million).

Taxes Christie proposed on electronic cigarettes and the Urban Enterprise Zone program would be cut out of the budget under the Democrats’ deal.

Of course, the deal doesn’t come without its hitches. Despite the bill’s focus on raising revenue, it actually earmarks more money toward several of the areas that Democrats lost out on in the last budget dealings: the new bill restores funding for the Earned Income Tax Credit, nursing homes, legal services for the poor, and women’s health care centers.

Those are all items that deserve funding, but their inclusion makes the bill much less politically palatable to lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. Of course, it was already unpalatable to politicians who, on principle, oppose tax increases.

Indeed, state Republicans are none too happy about the proposed measure.

“It would be suicidal to…New Jersey’s economy,” said Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) during a Monday morning press conference.

The Democrats would likely be able to overcome Republican opposition. They hold 48 seats (60 percent) in the General Assembly, and 24 seats (60 percent) in the Senate.

The Senate and General Assembly are holding hearings on the bill Tuesday, and the measure is expected pass by vote through the two houses by Thursday.

Still, the chances that the bill becomes law in its current form, or at all, are slim. That’s because the buck stops with Gov. Christie, who has line-item veto power and has repeatedly states he will oppose any tax hikes on wealthy individuals or businesses.

Lawmakers have until July 1 to pass a new budget.

Photo by Jim Bowen and Marissa Babin via Flickr Creative Commons License

Reaction Roundup: Christie Draws Flack for Pension Put-Off

Facing a $1 billion budget deficit, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made the bold decision last week to reverse course on his previous pension reform efforts and divert the state’s upcoming pension contributions into the general budget to help cover its budget shortfall. All told, Christie will take $2.45 billion out of his state’s pension system over the next two years.

Journalists, politicians and commentators had much to say on the matter. Here’s a roundup of the most important reactions from around the country:

Wendell Steinhauer–President of the New Jersey Education Association:

“This much should be abundantly clear to every New Jersey resident: Gov. Christie is much better at making pension promises than keeping them. As a candidate, he pledged to educators that ‘nothing about your pension is going to change when I am governor.’ He broke that promise in 2011 when he signed a law that reduced pension benefits even for current retirees. In signing that law, he made a new promise that the state would slowly return to responsible pension funding practices by phasing in its contributions at a rate of 1/7 per year. Now he says he intends to break that promise, too. Gov. Christie’s illegal, irresponsible and reckless proposal to further delay a return to sound pension funding practices will irreparably harm New Jersey and cannot be allowed.” Click to read more.

Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss–The Nation:

“When Christie announced in May that he was unilaterally canceling more than $2.4 billion in state contributions to the public employee pension fund, he tore up his signature legislative achievement, a pension reform plan that he had hoped would be the basis for his run at the White House. On the one hand, that law was supposed to show his ability to work across the aisle to enact hard budget choices, since the legislation—which slashed benefits, hiked employee payments and raised the retirement age—had been rammed through with the help of a few Democratic party bosses allied to Christie. But it was also supposed to show Christie’s ability at sound economic stewardship by putting the state pension system on a sound footing. It might have done that, by 2018—had not Christie decided to take the money to balance the state budget, rather than raising taxes. (Raising taxes is poisonous for the chances for any GOP standard-bearer, in today’s toxic Republican party climate.) But shredding his great legislative achievement may now have also doomed his chances at being president.” Click to read more.

Barry Chalofsky–Times of Trenton:

“For four years, most of New Jersey’s economic problems were blamed on former Gov. Corzine. Now we are starting to see the governor blame public retirees’ pension and health benefits as the cause for the unfunded liability in the pension system. In 2011, when the pension reform act was passed, the governor took credit for restoring the pension plan. Now, only three years later, these reforms “are not enough.” The governor has made a lot of claims about the “New Jersey comeback,” but the reality is that we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (38th out of the 50 states, according to the U.S. Department of Labor) and have created far fewer jobs – only about half the jobs lost in the recession. Our overall economic growth, the engine that drives prosperity, is nowhere near as powerful as that of other states. Why? Because the governor has refused to see reality and finds more comfort in blaming others. But maybe there is more to the pension liability than the governor is admitting to.” Click to read more.

Charles Lane–The Washington Post:

“The conventional wisdom about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s political fortunes is that he still has a shot at the 2016 Republican presidential nomination — if he can just get past Bridgegate, the scandal over his aides’ allegedly politically motivated partial closure of the George Washington Bridge last year. In that regard, Christie’s fortunes have arguably improved since the memorable January news conference in which he condemned his aides but denied advance knowledge of their wrongdoing. No one has yet produced a “smoking gun” to disprove his version; polls still put him in the top tier of GOP contenders; and he’s resumed fund-raising for Republican candidates in 2014, with an itinerary that includes Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Alas for Christie, his problems go deeper than Bridgegate: Specifically, he’s governor of a state that may not actually be governable.” Click to read more.

Editorial Board–The Express Times:

“Faced with a $1 billion budget deficit, Christie decided to rob the pension-payment schedule of $2.43 billion over the next two years to meet current expenses and balance the budget. There’s little need to explain that New Jersey, like Pennsylvania, is rolling the dice in a game that threatens to impoverish future generations and diminish public services and jobs. As Christie announced his 180-degree turn on Tuesday, credit agencies warned of another downgrade in the state’s bond rating. On Wednesday, public unions followed through on a promise to sue to ensure the state makes its annual pension payments. Christie said the state can’t keep paying for “sins of the past” — and on that narrow point, he has a wholly defensible argument. But much of the current deficit — an $875 million shortfall in revenue — was caused by overly optimistic budgeting by the administration, coupled with a change in federal rules that reduced income tax projections.” Click to read more.

Photo Credit: Bob Jagendorf via Wikimedia Creative Commons

New Jersey, facing pension crisis, slapped with credit downgrade

Standard & Poors downgraded New Jersey’s credit rating today, and—surprise, surprise—the state’s pension funds were a major factor.

S&P downgraded New Jersey’s credit rating one notch. It has gone from what S&P considers a “high grade” (A+) to a “medium grade” (AA-).

The downgrade comes despite efforts by lawmakers, including Gov. Chris Christie, to curb the state’s pension woes. Those efforts included mandating higher annual payments by the state, raising retirement ages, freezing cost-of-living-adjustments and increasing employee contributions.

From the New Jersey Spotlight:

In explaining the decision to lower New Jersey’s credit rating from AA- to A+– a rating higher than only California’s A and Illinois’s A- among the 50 states – S&P’s analysis specifically cited a “trend of structurally unbalanced budgets that include only partial funding of pension obligations and the reliance on one-time measures that are contributing to additional pressure on future budgets; a large and growing unfunded pension liability; significant postemployment benefit obligations; and an above-average debt burden.

Notice the bolded statements—that’s a whole lot of ways for S&P to say that pensions are crippling the state’s finances.

And you can’t blame them. New Jersey’s pension fund remains underfunded by about $52 billion.

Photo Credit: Bob Jagendorf via Wikimedia Creative Commons

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712