Teachers Pensions and Misapprehensions

State-funded teachers pensions are in peril around the nation from a combination of State governments over-promising, union demands and refusals to recognize economic realities, and those economic realities.  Kentucky provides an example of that, without going into the relative impacts of those three factors to the overall outcome, and of a critical misapprehension.

Kentucky has more than 175,000 active and inactive or retired teachers in the State’s teacher retirement program, and it has a $14.5 billion funding deficit—more than $85,000 per teacher.  The State was able to cover 88% of its agreed contribution to its program in 2007 and now can only cover 56%.  In response, Governor Matt Bevin (R) has proposed

switch[ing] many longtime teachers into a riskier defined-contribution plan and put an additional 3% of current teachers’ salaries toward retiree health care.

That’s the misapprehension.  Defined contribution plans are not riskier than State-run defined benefit plans, whether or not a State government mandates a per centage of a paycheck go into the defined contribution plan.

The vast degree of risk from a defined benefit plan is demonstrated by the failure of them in the private economy: the failure of corporations to adequately fund their defined benefit plans is well publicized and underlies their move to defined contribution, 401(k)-like plans.  That State-run defined benefit plans are even riskier than private enterprises’ is empirically demonstrated by the failure of States like Kentucky, which is otherwise a fiscally responsible one (see Illinois for an even riskier example).

Defined contribution plans put the responsibility for the plan’s performance where it belongs: on the individual owning the plan.  That person, with his own skin in that game, will take—or can be expected to take—much greater care with his own money and his own future than can a nameless bureaucrat managing a large collection of nameless (to him) people’s money.  Even a dedicated, honest financial manager bureaucrat (stipulate the vast majority of them are) has his hands tied by fiduciary duty rules: because he’s handling OPM, he’s forced to be more conservative with his investment moves, excessively so, than the individual who is responsible only for his own money.

Finally, the economic risks are the same for both State-run defined benefit and individually run defined contribution plans.  The Panic of 2008 hammered both types of plans.  The critical difference here, though, is the economic blow hit all 175,000+ members of Kentucky’s defined benefit plan the same.  Had those 175,000 been in their individual defined contribution plans instead, each of them would have managed their plan individually and differently from the others.  Each of them would have been hit by the Panic in different ways and to differing degrees.  The only individual hurt by the Panic’s impact on the defined contribution plan would have been that plan’s owner, not all 175,000 of his fellows.

The Old Ball and Chain

Hillary Clinton made a speech in India in which she said some things that apparently she was too timid to say here in the US of A.  One thing she said was about white women:

…we don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.

Because white women who don’t toe the line and vote for Clinton (or now, presumably, for the Progressive-Democratic Party candidate, whomever she might be in whatever race) just can’t think for themselves, they’re just the medieval-esque property of their lord and master husband.  Or of their male child if they don’t have a proper life with a husband.

It’s plain why she didn’t dare say such a thing in Texas, or middle Oklahoma, or farmland Iowa, or anywhere else but the West Coast and the northeast.  Or in Tennessee.  Even Missouri, where a Progressive-Democrat Senator proclaimed her offense from Clinton’s spew.  Or in Wasilla, AK.

At least Clinton didn’t go after all the ditzy blondes that didn’t vote her way.

Oh, wait….

Discrimination and the Census Bureau

In a recent Wall Street Journal Letter to the Editor, a correspondent wrote regarding Edwin Meese III’s and Mike Gonzalez’ Trump Can Help Overcome Identity Politics

Another [excellent idea to eliminate identity politics] might be to not collect any ethnic, racial, or national descent information on US citizens at all.

Indeed. We’re all Americans; all other discriminants are deeply secondary to that.

Besides, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, the way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating. The Census’ plot to collect all of its identity politics data is just another attempt to discriminate.

Another Leak

The Wall Street Journal reported another leak concerning Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s pseudo-investigation of all things related to supposed collusion by President Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russia [emphasis added].

A meeting in the Seychelles weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration between a Russian executive and a top Republican donor close to the Trump transition team has drawn the scrutiny of special counsel Robert Mueller, who has heard testimony that appears to conflict with an account of the same meeting given earlier to House investigators, according to people familiar with the matter.

Specifically,

Mr Mueller’s investigators have heard testimony from a witness that the donor, Erik Prince, wasn’t introduced to the Russian by intermediaries from the United Arab Emirates, as he had told the House panel….

And

Mr [George] Nader told Mr Mueller’s investigators that he attended Mr Prince’s meeting with the Emirati delegation and that the Emiratis didn’t make the introduction between Mr Prince and Mr Dmitriev….

How—and why—are these leaks being made?  Can we even believe them, given the leaker’s dishonesty made manifest by the fact of his leaks?

…a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.

Not even to decry the leak.  But, then, of course not.  He’ll let the leak stand unaddressed.

“People familiar with the matter” include Mueller and his team.  Certainly, “people familiar” include folks other than Mueller or his team, but Mueller’s continued studied refusal to decry not only this leak but all of them is strongly indicative.

Mueller seems to be getting desperate to show something—anything—that would justify his having spent the millions of dollars he’s spent on his…investigation.

You Didn’t Earn That

The European Commission has criticized seven member states for “aggressive” tax practices, whereby governments try to undercut others to attract multinational companies.

Pierre Moscovici, European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation, and Customs doesn’t like competition; he actually thinks it interferes with the “integrity of the European single market.”

[T]hese practices have “the potential to undermine the fairness and the level playing field in our internal market and they increase the burden on EU taxpayers.”

This, of course, is nonsense on a number of fronts.  The Commission has yet to justify the high taxes of those member nations that are so put upon by the others’ low(er) tax rates.  The Commission has yet to say how competition is disintegrative.  The Commission has yet to explain why the playing field cannot be leveled by those high-tax nations lowering their tax rates and thereby also lowering the burden on those EU taxpayers who are citizens of those high-tax members.  The Commission has yet to demonstrate that tax competition creates, in any way, an uneven playing field—especially since the varying national tax rates are fully within the control of those nations.

Besides, that money belongs to EU Governance, not to the people who earned it or whose enterprises earned it.  And you member nations: your sovereignty belongs to us.