"The Pew report relied on states' own assumptions about what it would take tofund their systems, including how much they will earn in investment returns. Overtime, Wisconsin expects to earn 7.2% a year in investment returns, compared tothe 8% that is typical
for most state pension systems, Draine said."(Is Mr. Draine a clueless dope?Or is he getting paid under-the-table by the WRS? The 8% number may have beencommon 5 years ago, but all systems are under pressure to lower it, and manyhave. But the implication is that 7.2% is a healthy number to use, which we allknow is nonsense and is a major problem in the structure of the system. AskMayor Bloomberg, or any national financial publication.)
Not only is the Wisconsin system not a ticking financial bomb, the state alsopays less into its system than most states.
Umm, the ticking financial bomb actually went off in 2008, that is why the totalnormal cost continues to rise and rise, and the WRS is in a funding problem ifall retirees get to that floor amount.
Apparently open-ended cost to fund thesystem is of no concern to these people.Then article goes on to claim that the cost to fund the system is less than otherstates. The metric used is "percent of government spending" instead of astraight percent of employee pay. What this means is that the more a statespends wildly on other programs, and employee benefits, well, the percent of whatthe pension directly cost, as a percent of total spending goes down. So, themore the state and local governments spend on various projects and goofyprograms, the percent spent on pension is smaller, so the pension amount must begood... "look how it is a small percent of public spending."
"But Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said that themost pressing retirement issue in Wisconsin is health care, not pensions."(Oh, great so now the WTA buys into all of this, which is demonstrativelyhogwash, and leave the pension alone, lets look at health care.)(For state employees (health care benefits), Marchant said the state'sobligations are essentially funded, which puts Wisconsin far ahead of manystates. However, at the local level, Berry said some school districts and otheremployers have made promises to pay all or part of the health care for theirretirees and haven't necessarily set aside any money to pay for those substantialcosts."(Oh, marvelous, here we go again, health insurance benefit for state workers isfully-funded,so leave it alone. Well, it was fully-funded when taxpayersflippedfor 100% of it as well, before ACT 10. This "fully-funded" diversion is nowgoing to be used for state worker health care benefits??That's not the issue, the issue is the cost to taxpayers, just as it is with thepension!!!!!!!!!!!!!")