Ça fait un moment que Mish avertit de ce vautrage assuré.
Mais cette fois, ça sort dans le New York Times. Ça devient officiel. On commence à annoncer aux vieux américains qu'ils ne toucheront pas les grasses retraites qu'on leur avait promises :
“I have a special word for my fellow Democrats,” Crane told a public hearing. “One cannot both be a progressive and be opposed to pension reform.” The budgetary math is irrefutable: generous pensions end up draining money from schools, social services and other programs that progressives naturally applaud.
In California, which is in a $19 billion budget hole, Calpers is forcing hard-pressed localities to cough up an extra $700 million in contributions. New York State, more creatively, has suggested that municipalities simply borrow from the state pension fund the money they owe to that very fund.
Pension funds subsist on three revenue streams: contributions from employees; contributions from the employer; and investment earnings. But public employers have often contributed less than the actuarially determined share, in effect borrowing against retirement plans to avoid having to cut budgets or raise taxes.
They also assumed, conveniently enough, that they could count on high annual returns, typically 8 percent, on their investments.
assuming states make contributions at recent rates and assuming they do earn 8 percent, 20 state funds will run out of cash by 2025; Illinois, the first, will run dry in 2018.
if the unfinanced portion of all public pension obligations were converted to debt, total state indebtedness would soar from $1 trillion to $4.3 trillion.
Et toujours la même arnaque à l' "acquis social" qui garantit aux vieux qu'en cas de souci, ils n'auront pas à faire le moindre effort et que tout le poids de l'ajustement sera pour leurs enfants :
States really have no choice but to further cut spending and raise taxes. They also need to cut pension benefits. About half have made modest trims, but only for future workers. Reforming pensions is painfully slow, because pensions of existing workers are legally protected. There is, of course, no argument for canceling a pension already earned. But public employees benefit from a unique notion that, once they have worked a single day, their pension arrangement going forward can never be altered. No other Americans enjoy such protections. Private companies often negotiate (or force upon their workers) pension adjustments. But in the world of public employment, even discussion of cuts is taboo.
Voila quelque chose de plus qui vient contribuer au fait que les États américains soient ruinés. Du coup, ils coupent violemment dans les dépenses. Sans compter que comme pour les département en France, on a mis sur les États les dépenses comme le medicaid, impossibles à financer, que l'État baisse sa contribution et que comme en France, ils n'ont pas le droit de faire de déficits.
Et la facture des liabilities et des fausses promesses semble arriver plus vite que prévu :
Financially struggling states, already facing record budget shortfalls, are now confronting the possibility of losing out on billions of dollars in federal aid that they had been counting on, if Congress does not revive a jobs bill that stalled in the Senate this week.
“What we’re not willing to do, is use worthwhile programs as an excuse to burden our children and our grandchildren with an even bigger national debt,”
The additional federal aid for Medicaid was initially supposed to be $24 billion but was later scaled back to $16 billion in the bill that stalled on Thursday.
State revenues are expected to be up slightly in the coming fiscal year compared with the last, but are still expected to be down about $54 billion since the recession began, said Mr. Sigritz.
Most states are legally or constitutionally required to balance their budgets
“It’s going to be huge teacher layoffs, money to our universities, money to the counties and cities, municipal workers, firemen,” he said. “It would be enormously destructive.”
Sauf qu'aux USA, beaucoup plus que chez nous, y a quand même de sacrées marges à la taxation des riches (ça ne m'étonnerait pas qu'on retrouve pas mal de ces retraités d'ailleurs dans ces 10% les plus riches, ça reviendrait à leur faire accepter indirectement par plus d'impôt une baisse des pensions les plus élevées

)...