Since then, Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, has filed for bankruptcy. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, has gone back to work as a shopping mall security guard to try to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport.
Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”
The situation in Prichard is extremely unusual — the city has sought bankruptcy protection twice — but it proves that the unthinkable can, in fact, sometimes happen. And it stands as a warning to cities like Philadelphia and states like Illinois, whose pension funds are under great strain: if nothing changes, the money eventually does run out, and when that happens, misery and turmoil follow.
It is not just the pensioners who suffer when a pension fund runs dry. If a city tried to follow the law and pay its pensioners with money from its annual operating budget, it would probably have to adopt large tax increases, or make huge service cuts, to come up with the money.
Current city workers could find themselves paying into a pension plan that will not be there for their own retirements. In Prichard, some older workers have delayed retiring, since they cannot afford to give up their paychecks if no pension checks will follow.
So the declining, little-known city of Prichard is now attracting the attention of bankruptcy lawyers, labor leaders, municipal credit analysts and local officials from across the country. They want to see if the situation in Prichard, like the continuing bankruptcy of Vallejo, Calif., ultimately creates a legal precedent on whether distressed cities can legally cut or reduce their pensions, and if so, how.
“Prichard is the future,” said Michael Aguirre, the former San Diego city attorney, who has called for San Diego to declare bankruptcy and restructure its own outsize pension obligations. “We’re all on the same conveyor belt. Prichard is just a little further down the road.”
In other words, cities are trying to figure out from a legal standpoint if they can just slash or eliminate completely pension checks to retirees. And before you say "Yeah, screw those guys" remember, these workers paid into pension funds for decades, on top of Social Security taxes. It would be like your employer of 30+ years saying "Sorry, we don't have the money to pay your 401(k). You're on your own. It's politically unpopular for us to pay it out to you in retirement and we're not going to raise 401(k) payments on our current workers to fund your bill. Go work at Wal-Mart."
Not exactly a situation you or a loved one would want to be in, yes? And yet over the next few years, local, county and state workers are going to find out the hard way the pensions they were promised and paid into for years aren't going to be paid back, and may not be paid back at all.
Think about that when you say "Better them than raise my taxes one dime."
Social Security is next.
[UPDATE] Ken at Down With Tyranny also sees the writing on the wall for public employee pensions.
The colleague who passed along this NYT story commented: "Prichard, Alabama is going to be used as a model for voiding contractual commitments made to retired public workers. Once again, contracts for working Americans are worth shit, unlike contracts for Wall Street executives who broke the economy."
Ain't that the truth.
Ed has the scent on how they're going to go about it, too. The post over at his place almost popped my bubble of glee yesterday.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/12/22/part-i-cutting-off-the-nose/
...these workers paid into pension funds for decades, on top of Social Security taxes. It would be like your employer of 30+ years saying "Sorry, we don't have the money to pay your 401(k). You're on your own. It's politically unpopular for us to pay it out to you in retirement and we're not going to raise 401(k) payments on our current workers to fund your bill.
ReplyDeleteAgain, another example of BS.
My father was a public school teacher for 30 years and he didn't pay into Social Security; that money went to the pension. In fact, there are a lot of government employees who don't pay into it and are not entitled to Social Security after retirement. (He will get some for paying into it when he had non-government jobs and when he did his two stints in the Army; military pays into Social Security.) That's the first bit of BS.
The second one is a doozy. Do you know what a 401(k) is? It ain't a pension; After a person retires, the 401(k) account is the retiree's alone and is completely detached from the employer. How the company does is immaterial to the 401(k) and the money a retiree receives from it. And as it stands right now, the government has nothing to do with 401(k) distributions.
So are you going to make a correction or let this BS stand as is? Have you ever held a job or owned a business? Because the way you discuss things, it doesn't appear you ever had.
HA! Oh, Steve, you are just delightful. You keep swingin' away, slugger, I'm sure you'll connect one of these days.
ReplyDeleteWell, first, my father was a state psychologist for 25+ years and paid both.
ReplyDeleteSecond, what part of "It would be like..." on the 401(k) thing do you not get?
Christ, you're sad.
Second, what part of "It would be like..." on the 401(k) thing do you not get?
ReplyDeleteExcept for the part where retirees can draw incomes from either a pension or a 401(k), they aren't a bit alike, that's why. They aren't even close. It's a rotten, stupid analogy.
It's like using the analogy that states' car insurance mandates justifies the federal health insurance mandate. Apples and oranges.
Doesn't accuracy enter into anything or do you use a dart board and use whatever the dart sticks to? Because you sure as hell don't try to hold yourself to the same standards as those you criticize.
*sigh* Z, I know I'm going to regret this. But, I'm bored, and if you're determined to see that Stevie-winkles gets fed, I suppose I could take a shift. It's Christmas, after all.
ReplyDeleteSteve: Matching 401(k). Homework: investigate and re-examine your previous blargles.
@lowkey
ReplyDeletewhy have i not heard of this gin and tacos blog? fucking excellent.
PS: steveAR is a douchebag.
@teadoust:
ReplyDeleteGlad I could throw Ed some eyeballs. I completely agree, he's a thought-provoking read, with a bonus battleaxe of snark from time to time.
Gin and Tacos is good times, but the last time I put it the blogroll, it triggered the pr0n filter at work.
ReplyDeleteGo figure. Ed does kick ass, however.
To be fair, SteveAR does have like a 2% chance of adding something useful to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you're looking for someone who really does have a "fact-checking" problem and never admits when they are wrong ever, allow me to introduce you to Megan McArdle.
To be fair, SteveAR does have like a 2% chance of adding something useful to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteZ, that's a mighty thin rate of return. You're more patient than I am.
the other 98% just makes my eyes bleed. yuck.
ReplyDeletehappy holidays in case i'm not around tomorrow.