I haven’t been idle after my post on this topic some months back, but analysis hasn’t gotten to the point where it’s worth a full post. However, a notice in today’s paper made me think it’s time for a brief note, anyway.
Allen Domb, whom I admire purely for fulfilling the necessary role of a city council member who doesn’t need to take off his shoes to count to 20, proposed to abolish the egregious DROP program back in September. It was always going to be an uphill battle, but even as a symbolic move I applauded it. Today the Inquirer had a piece on the bill, mentioning among other things that the councilperson in charge of at least giving the bill a hearing has failed to do so. There was a lot of bowing to the political reality of election season, but the cowardice continues to astonish me. In a one-party city, people are still so terrified of losing their seat that they won’t do what’s best for the people because they’re afraid of the unions. Awful.
As it relates to my analysis, the article also noted that the current funding level of the city’s pension programs is somewhere around 45%. This isn’t much different than where we were 10 years ago. That’s the crux of my argument – over 10 of what must be the best years in the city’s history since 1945, we haven’t improved a basic measure of fiscal soundness. To an extent, this is untrue because we have at least made progress on the underlying assumptions that allow us to arrive at the 45% figure (i.e. a plan that is 45% funded with a reasonable return assumption is far, far better than a 45% funded plan with an outrageous, unrealistic return assumption). Yet the lack of progress needs to continue to be examined, and the willful ignorance or just plain cowardice of the city’s leaders continues to be a real shame.
smq.world 