Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Har, Har, Har... typical Johnny Vegas answer. Deflect, change the subject, admit no fault. In changing the subject, what you're saying is that living expenses are exclusive to a legal education -- people not in law school don't need to pay them, right? Or are you simply padding your supposed costs? Oh, and Johnny, your own documents from Contra Costa County showed that your $200K/year bit is just so much more BS and exaggeration from you. Give it a rest. Sorry if your argument goes away with the real numbers.— January 3, 2009 6:32 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
JF, we were clearly referring to Aguirre's pension lawsuit-not lawsuits settled years ago. Why do you always compare apples to oranges? =================== Actually, at the time we weren't talking about any lawsuit, not about Aguirre's, not Corbett, not any of them. Go back and look for yourself. You read "Aguirre's lawsuit" into my comments and completely forgot about Corbett. Why do you always read into things and not look at the big picture? What does what a lawyer in New York make have to do with what a firefighter here makes? Why are you always comparing apples and oranges?— January 2, 2009 5:21 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
JF, SD has not lost any pesnion case, no case is won or lost until a FINAL ruling as been entered. There has beenno final ruling-everything is on appeal. ================== Really? So the city didn't lose the Corbett case? That's the one which granted 3% at 50, not MP1 or MP2. Corbett also validated DROP. Again, do you think that a bankruptcy judge will take actual court cases granting benefits into account versus a contract. The judge may be able to reverse contracts. I'm not so sure a judge can reverse the ruling of another court.— January 2, 2009 2:01 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Johnny, so by pension spiking, you mean the city losing a lawsuit which required it to increase benefits? Think maybe a BK judge might take that into account? Sorry, but in 1994 there was no cap here. Most/many folks retired at 100%+ rather than the 90% we're capped at now. Further, your own "evidence" shows that benefit increases were less than half of the deficit in 2003 and way less than half now.— January 1, 2009 8:47 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Johnny makes some interesting comments about OC. Know the one thing that wasn't cut at all? Yep, employee benefits. Here's an interesting thought. A couple of years ago the citizens passed a proposition requiring a vote before raising pension benefits. I wonder how the court would look at that when/if reducing benefits since benefits can no longer be raised by collective bargaining? Just one less option to consider...— January 1, 2009 5:49 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
(i) generally not paying its debts as they become due unless such debts are the subject of a bona fide dispute ================ Heck, by that definition, the city has been bankrupt for 20 years. The city has been cut off by many, many suppliers for non-timely payment. Makes me wonder just how well managed competition will work.— January 1, 2009 5:41 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Slowly now... we'll use your 2000 figure to tip the odds your way. That was 8 years ago. The average career is 25 years before retirement or DROP. 25 divided by 8 is 3 -- 1/3 a career. If we use the 1996 date we get 25 divided by 12 -- 1/2. Amazing. The pension fund would not be 41% higher funded now. All the recent dips in funding level have been caused by market losses. That 41% was based on the 67% funding level of 2003. 41% of 33% is 13.5%. So if we assume that SDCERS is 50% funded now, we'd be at 63%... gee, Johnny... still underfunded. Plus... that 41% was based on the 2003 date of that report. As mentioned, that number goes down as those affected retire. It's maybe 30% now. Probably less, considering all the recent market loss. Nice try.— December 31, 2008 10:10 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Interesting -- the very report that Johnny swears by states that benefit increases, including retroactive increases, account for only 41% of the deficit. The first of those increases was enacted in 1996. That means that most of those retiring now have been paying increased rates for 1/3 to 1/2 of their career. It's a self-mitigating problem as time goes by. Your argument was very valid 5-10 years ago. Not now. Incidentally, there are several "recommendations" in that report that are against state law. Maybe that's why the report states, "THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN PROJECTIONS, FORECASTS, ASSUMPTIONS, EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION, ESTIMATES AND OTHER BACKWARD-LOOKING RECONSTRUCTIONS OR FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS, ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT, AND ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY THIS CAUTIONARY STATEMENT." Poor English aside, it's interesting that they put that on each and every page. Oh, and it's my understanding that in Chapter 9 a judge cannot order tax increases.— December 31, 2008 5:49 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
And a Happy Holidays to you too, Johnny. Here's the thing you simply do not get, Johnny. It's not a function if whether or not YOU think we've earned our pensions or not. You can spout off all you want, but I have yet to see any actual action. If you truly feel that you as a taxpayer have been wronged, go ahead a file a lawsuit. Heck, team up with Richard Rider and his phantom cronies. Prove to me that the COURT thinks we didn't earn our pensions. In the meantime, Just Wondering seems to have captured my thoughts fairly well. The UAAL assumes payment for the probationary firefighters who entered city employment last week and won't retire for many, many years. The SDCERS funding ratio will come back as the market comes back. The bill to the city will likely be higher... in FY2011. We'll see how it goes between now and then. Oh... and BTW, I'm trying to push the union to negotiate part of what you've proposed. We'll see how it goes. Could be very profitable for me in the long run. Thanks for the idea.— December 31, 2008 12:42 p.m.
Dems and GOP fail to be frugal
All things in moderation...— December 12, 2008 6:11 a.m.