Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
May 23, 2011
The Raimondo Roadmap
State General Treasurer Gina Raimondo unveiled her roadmap for pension reform today (ProJo covers here and WPRI's Ted Nesi is live-tweeting). Here's the report (pdf) and a new website, "Secure Path RI". Her report takes a "where we are now and how we got there" approach. Here are some ideas she's floating:
1) Set retirement age at 67.
2) Current accrual rate is in the 1.6 to 3% range (example: a 2% rate leads to a 70% pension benefit). Raimondo mentions that most private funds are 1%.
3) Deal with COLAs.
4) Look at hybrid plans (part defined-benefit, part defined-contribution).
5) Anti-spiking provisions to prevent "end-of-career increases in pension levels."
6) Coordinate with Social Security when determining pensions.
To stress: these are just ideas being floated, not concrete recommendations. A study group is going to be convened prior to the July budget submittal.
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
So workers who have done everything asked of them will now have to pay the price for the corruption on Smith Hill?
Time to break out the tar and feathers!!!
Posted by: Aldo at May 23, 2011 2:46 PMAldo, yes, they do. Break it out, I'll be right there with you, however I bet half of the people who screwed this up are already long dead.
Does "set retirement age at 67" mean that no one can collect until they're 67? So even if they started working for the state at 18, they have to wait 49 years to collect their pension? I'm all for that.
They should also add that there is no pension to anyone working full time and earning above a certain amount. Granted the age 67 thing will really cut down on the people who "retire" in RI after 20 years and then go to work in a town or in MA, but completely eliminate paying a pension while someone is still working.
Posted by: Patrick at May 23, 2011 3:12 PMNot going to be pretty when the mass protesting starts ala Wisconsin.
Posted by: bob at May 23, 2011 3:45 PMWonder if the "Independent Man" will survive the onslaught.
"So workers who have done everything asked of them will now have to pay the price for the corruption on Smith Hill?"
You do realize that "everything asked of them" was never enough to properly fund and provide for your retirement don't you?
Now, go find your union leaders who lied to you and hang them up by the b@lls, because they screwed you and lied to you!
Posted by: Mike Cappelli at May 23, 2011 3:53 PMSeems to me she is proposing to bring the public sector pension system in line with the private sector's and that is ABSOLUTELY FINE with me. After all, taxpayers have paid more into the public sector retirement system than those workers have.
I am retired on a defined benefit pension with no COLA and rely on my other retirement savings plans. Why can't state employees and teachers do the same?!
Posted by: George at May 23, 2011 4:32 PMSeems to me she is proposing to bring the public sector pension system in line with the private sector's and that is ABSOLUTELY FINE with me. After all, taxpayers have paid more into the public sector retirement system than those workers have.
I am retired on a defined benefit pension with no COLA and rely on my other retirement savings plans. Why can't state employees and teachers do the same?!
Posted by: George at May 23, 2011 4:33 PMGeorge is right. What's the difference between the retirement plan I have at my office where I have to contribute to it and my employer also contributes? The biggest difference is I'm not even guaranteed to get back what I put in, where all these state and city retirees are guaranteed to get back far more than they put in.
Posted by: Patrick at May 23, 2011 4:55 PMNot only do I contribute to my company's retirement plan, but I also contribute to my own "pension" also known as social security, and I also have other retirement plans that I've set up for myself on the side. Why can't the state employees do the same? The reason I always hear from the union leadership is that they gave something up at the negotiating table in return for that pension deal. What did they give up? Vacation time? Nope, they get that. Sick time? Nope, they get that. Ridiculously low salaries? No, it seems about market rate. Unsafe work conditions? Nope, they look pretty normal there too. So what exactly did they "give up" at the negotiating table in return for the pension deal?
"So workers who have done everything asked of them will now have to pay the price for the corruption on Smith Hill?"
Aldo,
Posted by: Max Diesel at May 23, 2011 4:57 PMHaving been a member of a bargaining unit many moons ago, I can tell you that everyone knew that the pension plan was seriously underfunded and they chose to blame the municipality and put their collective heads in the sand. Sound familiar? The end result was all participants were moved to the state system after an arbitration award at a loss of benefits. That's the problem with the union shop, everyone follows the leadership like lemmings. A little activism by the rank and file may have saved you some of this aggravation.
It's funny how these union stooges NEVER want to blame their union leaders for any part of this mess. I guess they just can't come to grips with the reality that they've been snookered all these years. Well deal with it you dopes. Your union leaders are just as much to blame as the slimy politicians they funded with YOUR union dues.
Posted by: Mike Cappelli at May 23, 2011 7:13 PM