Philadelphia Not Just Known for Brotherly Love

Posted on December 30, 2011 by brvanlanen

Apparently Philadelphia is also the place to collect a huge pension as an elected official while still working for the city.

City Councilwoman Marian Tasco will retire on Friday, collect a six-figure pension payment and then return to work after she is sworn-in on Monday to serve her seventh term.

Francis Bielli, executive director for the city’s Board of Pensions and Retirement, said he was recently notified that Tasco, who is enrolled in the controversial Deferred Retirement Option Plan, will retire on Friday and collect $478,057.

Tasco was reelected despite her participation in DROP, which drew public ire after elected officials entered the program, ran for re-election and retired for a day to get hefty pension payments, only to return to office.

Retiring Councilman Frank DiCicco, who is also in the program, considered running for re-election, but after controversy erupted over DROP, he decided not to. Retiring Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, who is also enrolled in DROP made a similar decision. Councilman Frank Rizzo lost reelection due in-part to his participation in DROP. Retiring members Jack Kelly and Council president Anna Verna are also DROP participants.

However Councilwoman Tasco isn’t the only elected official in Philadelphia “retiring” and returning to work the next day.

Another elected official set to return after collecting his DROP payment is Register of Wills Ronald Donatucci, who retired Dec. 23 and will also return on Monday, Bielli said. He collected $366,797.

Perhaps the coverage of this, coupled with new council members in January, will help Philadelphia mayor Nutter achieve his goal of abolishing the program.

Mayor Nutter has tried in vain to eliminate the DROP program. In September, Council voted to override Nutter’s veto of a bill, sponsored by Tasco that would preserve the DROP program, while reducing its cost.

Nutter has vowed to work “tirelessly” to abolish the program.

A prime example of elected officials looking out only for themselves, not the well-being of the citizens they represent.

H/T – The Daley Gator

Tasco to exercise controversial DROP payout (philly.com)
This Philadelphia Councilwoman Will Collect A $478K Pension Friday And Go Back To Work On Monday (businessinsider.com)
Double-dipping, Texas-style (norunnyeggs.com)

Your Public Sector Unions At Work

Posted on March 12, 2011 by brvanlanen

Once again Andrew Klavan nails it. This time concerning public sector unions.

Friends With Benefits: Why Private Sector Workers Should Care About Public Sector Unions (bigthink.com)
Thinking About the Politics of Wisconsin and Public Sector Unions (outsidethebeltway.com)

Taxpayers on hook for Teamsters’ shenanigans

Posted on August 24, 2010 by brvanlanen

Here’s the deal, as former Department of Labor official Vincent Vernuccio, now an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, tells Exchequer: Under the Democrats’ plan, the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which is basically a pension-insurance fund run by the federal government, would be able to receive tax dollars to bail out so-called orphan pensions — pensions for which employers have ceased making contributions, usually for reasons of insolvency. Under normal circumstances, PBGC does not use taxpayer money to bail out pensions; it charges an insurance premium to the funds it covers and uses that money to make good on pension obligations if a particular pension fund goes bankrupt. It’s like an FDIC for pension funds: If a fund is sufficiently mismanaged, PBGC can step in, take it over, and take care of its obligations.

The Casey bill would change all that, creating a “fifth fund” within PBGC that would receive taxpayer support. Currently, federal law carefully specifies that PBGC obligations are not obligations of the U.S. government. Casey-Pomeroy would reverse that, mandating that “obligations of the corporation that are financed by the [fifth fund] shall be obligations of the United States.” In other words: You, sucker, are paying the bill.

…

Second, Casey-Pomeroy almost certainly would lead to a broader union bailout. PBGC already has more obligations than it can meet, and its operations already are larger and more complex than most Americans imagine. According to its web site, “PBGC pays monthly retirement benefits, up to a guaranteed maximum, to nearly 744,000 retirees in 4000 pension plans that ended. Including those who have not yet retired and participants in multiemployer plans receiving financial assistance, PBGC is responsible for the current and future pensions of about 1,476,000 people.” Unsurprisingly, PBGC already is more than $20 billion in the red — which is to say, the guys who are supposed to cover you when your pension fund cannot cover its obligations cannot cover their obligations — and its own analysis suggests it will be $34 billion short by 2019. Guess who they’ll be going to for that money? (Source: National Review Online)

Are you really surprised the Democrats liberals socialists would propose something like this?

Now Democrats Want Another $34 Billion to Bailout Teamsters Pension (chicagonow.com)
Is The Government Bailing Out Union Pension Funds To The Tune Of $165 Billion? (businessinsider.com)
The next big government/Big Labor bailout (michellemalkin.com)

Budget deficit? Who cares?

Posted on June 17, 2009 by brvanlanen

State workers can’t deal with losses to their retirement funds. So taxpayers have to pay for an increase in the state’s contribution.

State government, school boards, municipalities and counties may have to increase contributions to employees pension funds by 0.6 percentage point.

The increase before the state Employee Trust Funds board would start in 2010 and affect about 90 percent of the 263,000 active workers in the state retirement system.

If approved, the base contribution rate would go from 10.4 percent to 11 percent, which is a 5.8 percent increase. Most employers, including the state, cover the entire amount, said board spokesman Matt Stohr.

The state has a fund set aside to pay for contribution rate increases, though it’s unclear how that will affect the state’s $6.6 billion budget shortfall. The governor’s budget director did not immediately return a message seeking comment Wednesday.

…

The increases are needed because of the recession, which resulted in a dramatic loss to the state’s retirement funds last year. The core retirement fund that all 146,000 retirees participate in lost 26.2 percent in 2008, while the variable fund, which about 25 percent of retirees participate in, lost 39 percent.

Core fund participants had a 2.1 percent pension cut while those in the variable fund lost 25 percent. (Source: Pension hike recommended for Wisconsin – Green Bay Press-Gazette)