Brown Responds to Civic Council Retirement Reform Move
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Mayor-Brown/i-L3qX6Qp/0/O/alvinispissed.jpg)
The following letter was sent in response to the Civic Council's communication to the City Council, apparently in an attempt to go around the Mayor's office to pitch policy directly to the Council. One gathers that the Mayor is unamused.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-oct-brown-responds-to-civic-council-retirement-reform-move
It's good to see him sweat a bit when challenged by people who know what they're talking about. It's also good to see him take time away from his busy schedule of attending fundraisers to at address at least a few points in the letter.
I haven't read the Civic Council report that this letter is in reference to, but I can say that describing Pew as "independent" as regards defined benefit (and especially public) pensions is quite a stretch. They and former Enron executive John Arnold have been working for a few years now to push gutting DB pensions, as described in Rolling Stone (http://"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926") and in this Institute For America's Future (http://"http://ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Plot-Against-Pensions-final.pdf") report. It's fine that they have a position on pensions, but to call them "independent" is ridiculous.
@jph, what is independent then? I agree, Pew and Arnold have a methodology in how defined benefits should function. Independent here means the direction was set by someone other than a local political entity. BTW: I don't agree with Pew/Arnold on their approach, but they do make a point on politicos over promising on defined benefits and then refusing to support them by kicking the can down the road. However they (Pew) swing a little to far to the other side by trying to either strip down the benefit or put it in the hands of someone willing to take more risks (ie: hedge funds). DB by their nature are risk adverse, but right now our culture won't accept retirement in a 2-4% growth environment. Something has to give. Not everyone can earn 15% in their pension plan and live like nothing changed.
Raise taxes to cover the pension. Lower the pension obligation. Do nothing and let someone else deal with it later.
I think its clear which one gets chosen first and second.