Local Prez 'says' what you were thinking...

[quote="Anonymous"]It is truly amazing how many instances there are on this blog where people are trying to put negative spin or put words in the mouth of virtually everything some members of the public share. quote]


Why is it that if we have a difference of opinion about something we're more intimately familiar with than you, you call it spin.

Calling every difference of opinion, "spin" is just that. Spin!

It's not about the differences of opinion it's about name calling, condescending comments, and attributing negative slants to other's positive opinions and suggestions. Except for FD Bro most replies have been quite kinda rude and and disappointing.

You know doubt know more about your side of the situation. But please also grant is the same respect for the same reason. Again, trying to offer support and suggestions that would help you gain greater public support for improved contracts. I know many people who read these blogs who are blown away by the attacks, judgements, and negativity about the publis. Maybe I'm wrong but morale seems low....and that's won't change by attacking the public side's opinions or suggestions. I'd put that energy toward the chief and or city hall. Only they can make the changes you seek. You do that and I think you will get greater public support!

"I'd put that energy toward the chief and or city hall. Only they can make the changes you seek. You do that and I think you will get greater public support!

The public you speak of dont care about what truly happens in this city. The Money and Power of the city are safe in Shore Acres and Snell Isle. They dont have to have any physical contact with anything South of Central. It is only a zoo like display for them

[Tom]

ita alot of smoke is looking at all the money that goes out the door for the benefit of a few special people.


We need to get a handle on this wasteful spending so that we can pay our city employees what they deserve.

[/url]

In the last year alone they have built a 5 million plus airport terminal, new waterfront park that nobody will use and forgave a mass amount of debt for the international museum.

The International Museum is an interesting story. The day before the council vote it popped up on page 1 in the Times along with an editorial. But a few details were left out.


[url]http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/blurbex/2007/12/21/yet-another-bailout-by-mayor-baker-and-the-st-pete-times/
[/quote]

[Tom]

I lost this link un the last post:
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/blu...st-pete-times/

In the last year alone they have built a 5 million plus airport terminal, new waterfront park that nobody will use and forgave a mass amount of debt for the international museum.

Thanks
ita alot of smoke, for reminding us of the excessive spending.

FD Bro'

You do good research. When you get tired of Mr. Swifts spin you can let us see the original letter that got so many good people upset. It does not look like he will ever post it.

You can also find the video of his speech last summer to city council. It may be available on StPete.org. I heard him and yes he did tear into our pensions. Please post the link to this.

I welcome you to post whatever meets your agenda. I choose to not publish my private correspondence without permission of the recipients.

To summarize events of this summer. A simple comment was made er by city council...something like "private and public benefits are comparable". I disagreed and and sent a letter to vocalize it. Does not mean I support cuts, just means I support providing the public facts. A benefits survey was done this summer by the city in attempt to show public & private benefits were comparable, Unfortunately they only chose to survey 5-7 large companies that offered benefits of similar value as the public sector. I would guesstimate that only a couple thousand citizens in St. Petersburg work for these companies they surveyed. An better survery would have sampled the large number of small and medium sized companies that dominate St. Petersburg's business district since this is where the majority of citizens work. This strategy would have provided a more accurate indication of on the actual value of benefits the average person currently receives from their employer.

Again, no one is promoting cuts...just factual information.

Below is an article that appeared in USA Today this year which you may find interesting.

"Pension gap divides public and private workers"
Published 2/21/2007 By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Johnnie Nichols, a civilian Defense Department employee, contributes to a federal pension that will let him retire at age 56, after 32 years of service.

His wife, Kimberly, a math teacher at a private business college, has no pension after two decades of teaching and running a horse farm. Their marriage reflects the new world of retirement: government employees who have secure benefits and private workers who increasingly are on their own.

"If we were both in her shoes, we'd be in a world of hurt," says Nichols, 45, an information technology manager in Middletown, Ind. "We wouldn't be able to retire until age 67."

As the first wave of 79 million baby boomers heads to retirement, the nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who have government benefits and those who don't. The gap is accelerating in every way — pensions, medical benefits, retirement ages.

Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more generous. The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.

Governments' generosity could have serious consequences for taxpayers and pensioners. Some states — including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia — have troubled retirement systems that may require huge tax increases, spending cuts or even defaulting on promised benefits. The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion).

The pension gap will continue to widen because governments pump far more money into employee pensions than companies do. Civil servants earn an average of $12.38 an hour in benefits, about $5 an hour more than private-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The difference was just $2.70 an hour in 1995.

Pension promises have "gotten out of hand," says Peter Hanson, 73, chairman of NAI James E. Hanson Inc., a real estate firm in Hackensack, N.J. His firm offers a healthy private pension — up to 25% of compensation, given to employee retirement accounts — but it is tied to profits and given as a lump sum, not a lifetime promise of benefits.

Supporters of government pensions say the decline in private pensions is the problem, not the generosity of public retirement plans. "Rather than lower the bar for public employees, we need to stabilize retirement programs for everyone," says Richard Ferlauto, director of pension and benefit policy for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union with 1.4 million members.

He acknowledges public pensions are getting more scrutiny. "People want to know, 'Why should you have more security than us?' " he says. "It's pension envy."

A sharp contrast

State and local governments have sweetened retirement benefits during the past decade at a time when corporations have soured on them because of their cost. Only 18% of private workers now have traditional defined benefit pension plans, compared with more than 80% of government employees.

Contrary to a widely held notion, the extra government benefits aren't compensation for lower pay. Most government workers are paid more than private employees in similar jobs, and the wage gap is growing.

A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference was $7,604 in 2000. The compensation advantage holds true for all types of public workers, from teachers to laborers and managers. Better benefits for government workers is the biggest reason for the growing compensation gap.

"The government is in direct competition with us for employees. It's hard to compete against these benefit packages," says James Bellis, owner of Tree Tech, a 120-worker tree trimming company in Randolph, N.J. His company has a 401(k) plan that matches up to 2% of employee pay.

By comparison, tree trimmers working for a government in New Jersey would get a pension benefit worth more than three times that.

Superior retirement benefits for civil servants can be traced to the establishment of Social Security, which originally did not cover government employees, says E.J. McMahon, a pension expert at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with economic policy. Today, three-fourths of government workers participate in Social Security, but their overall benefits have not been reduced accordingly, he says.

The boost in benefits since the 1960s reflects the rising power of public employee unions, which have thrived as industrial labor unions and the benefits they won have eroded, he says.

The growing benefit gap makes government an increasingly attractive employer.

Anneliese Crosby, 46, who codes medical records at a private hospital in Manchester, N.H., is trying to get a government job for financial reasons — better pay, benefits and job security. The hospital recently ended its pension plan for new employees. That didn't affect Crosby, but her retirement depends mostly on contributions to her tax-deferred retirement account.

"It's scary. I feel like I need a second job or to be on the lookout for a new job," she says. "I should put more in my retirement account, but I can't afford it."

Her solution: Apply for a similar job at a Veterans Affairs hospital. She'd get a pay raise, better benefits and a secure future. "My ex-husband keeps encouraging me to get a government job, and he's right about that," she says.

Pensions for civil servants often are superior to private pensions in subtle ways that make a huge financial difference. For example, government pensions:

•Generally base benefits on a worker's top three earning years. Private pensions typically base benefits on the top five years of pay, which lowers the average.

•Often let retirees add the value of overtime, unused leave and other benefits into the pension formula. The results can be extreme. Dover, N.H., Police Chief William Fenniman, 46, added more than $200,000 for severance, sick leave and other payouts into his three-year salary average when he retired in January. This will boost his retirement benefit to as much as $125,000 a year, more than he made as chief.

•Permit early retirement at age 50 or 55 with less of a benefit reduction than private pensions.

•Provide free or subsidized medical care for retirees under age 65 and supplemental coverage after that for those on Medicare.

•More often provide automatic cost-of-living increases to benefits.

Baby boomer retirements will force governments to confront the rising costs of civil servant benefits. The U.S. government's unfunded retirement obligation grew $200 billion last year to $4.7 trillion. That's the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning investment returns, to pay for promised retirement benefits.

'You have to be aggressive'

Before 1984, federal workers had a defined benefit plan and no Social Security. Today, new employees have Social Security and a pension that is part defined benefit plan (lifetime monthly payments) and part defined contribution (a lump sum at retirement).

The pension is more generous than most private pensions, but workers have to pay more to take advantage of the plan. "You have to be aggressive about making contributions if you want a good retirement," says Nichols, the Defense Department employee.

Unlike private pensions, though, the federal system still encourages early retirement. "The sweet spot for me is about age 56. When I run the numbers, the system almost forces me to retire" early, Nichols says. For example, he expects to qualify for a free supplemental annuity at age 56 that provides a benefit equal to what he'd get at age 62 under Social Security.

Another big incentive to retire early: Most governments offer health insurance to early retirees until they qualify for Medicare at 65. Massachusetts spent $377 million on retiree medical benefits last year. The state's unfunded liability for such costs is $13.3 billion, nearly as much as its actual debt of $18.5 billion, which is counted separately.

"It's a burden on taxpayers, of course," says Delores Mitchell, executive director of the Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission, which runs the program. But she doesn't foresee major benefit cuts. "States have a tradition of treating retirees well."

Medical insurance may be the most vulnerable benefit because it has fewer legal protections than pensions, which often are guaranteed in state constitutions. Orange County, Calif., recently slashed promised retiree medical benefits, cutting its liability from $1.4 billion to $600 million. The county hasn't done anything about its pension problem.

"Pension benefits are like a lobster trap. You can get in, but you can't get out," says John Moorlach, an Orange County supervisor who has tried to reduce retirement benefits for government workers.

He blames elected officials for awarding unsustainable retirement benefits to win support from employee unions. "Elected officials love to give generous retirement benefits because they don't cost anything today and they'll be out of office when the payments come due," Moorlach says. "And the public? Eyes droop with boredom when you bring up the topic."

Taxpayers on the hook

The financial soundness of civil servant pensions varies across the country. Government pensions are, on average, in a similar condition as private pensions — about 20% below the assets needed to be properly funded. But some states, especially in the industrial Midwest, have severely troubled pensions.

"The taxes needed to pay for these promises would push many of these states' economies into a death spiral," Chicago bankruptcy lawyer James Spiotto says.

He says public employee unions should not overestimate legal protections for pension benefits. Localities can shed their obligations in a bankruptcy filing, and states, as sovereign governments, can ignore the requirements, he says. "Unions can win all the litigation and still lose because the judgments can't be enforced," Spiotto says.

Tim Lee, executive director of the Texas Retired Teachers Association, says unions understand the cost of the retirement benefits. He says his association's top goal is improving the financial health of the pension fund, not winning new benefits.

As expensive as government pensions are to taxpayers, civil servants don't feel the benefits make them rich. Frank Caron, 49, maintains lab equipment at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He makes about $40,000 a year.

He has contributed heavily to his pension, including an extra $74 a week to restore pension credit for earlier government jobs. That will let him retire:

•At 55 with 47% of pay;


•At 60 with 72% of pay;


•Or at 65 with 103% of pay.


He also will have medical benefits and be eligible for Social Security at 62. "I've worked hard to have my ducks lined up in a row for retirement," he says.



Most Important Facts of the article



Only 18% of private workers now have traditional defined benefit pension plans, compared with more than 80% of government employees.


The pension gap will most likely continue to widen because governments pump far more money into employee pensions than private companies do. Civil servants earn an average of $12.38 an hour in benefits, about $5 an hour more than private-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The difference was just $2.70 an hour in 1995.


A typical full-time state or local government worker made $78,853 in wages and benefits in the third quarter of 2006, $25,771 more than a typical private-sector worker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The difference was only $7,604 in 2000.

Fire and Police risk their lives for our protection everday and deserve whatever it takes to attract and maintain the staff needed to protect the public. What is also necessary is that the value of compensation and benefits meet the needs of their families.

I've said this many times but will say again, I believe most of the citizens of St. Petersburg support you during contract negotiations. We just don't want to be told there is no benefits gap when the facts tell us otherwise.

If it takes more compensation or increased benefit coverage to meet the needs of Fire and Police to protect the public, I think most people would support it. However, we would then have to look to cut other items in the budget. Regardless, maintaining public safety has to always be the highest priority of any government body.

"I welcome you to post whatever meets your agenda. I choose to not publish my private correspondence without permission of the recipients."

Apparently the Councilman (who works for the citizens of this city) didn't see it that way. If you believed that your letter to him was private or privileged information, you should have made a phone call, told him to take notes and read it aloud to him.

For someone who wants to be something of a leader in CONA, you are starting out your career as something of a sneak.

Nothing about Police and Fire pensions being "sub-par" in this city has ever been hidden. Why should any attempt by you to make conditions worse for us, be hidden, either?

As others have said, it's obvious that you've got an agenda. I suspect that you were looking to set a bear trap and you ended up catching a weasel. Say, how's your foot?

This strategy would have provided a more accurate indication of on the actual value of benefits the average person currently receives from their employer.

Knowing that you believe that those of us who work in Public Safety are on par with the "average person" is important for everyone to see.

Even if you later claim otherwise, you ultimately want to see our pension plans watered down to whatever you do or don't have. A person like you shouldn't be ignored --- because you're a modern day SOCIALIST.

I read the article that you cut and pasted. It was a great example of a storyteller who was crying about what the other guy had. If in the story, instead of crying about what the defense contracter husband had and what his wife the teacher didn't have, maybe they should have pointed to the fact that if she'd been smarter with her career path, they'd both have a pension to retire on. Who's fault is that?

No more cut and paste. We like reading what a SOCIALIST thinks.