There were a lot of ads on the radio saying Houston needs to regain control of its pensions from the Legislature. I suspect the Legislature may have a lot of requirements for the pensions that put Houston in an unfavorable position. Since they were ads and not for a candidate, someone was paying for them and who knows their motive.ELB wrote:That's too bad. The Leg should make it clear NOW they are not going to bail out cities that can't control their spending and pensions.
As I don't spend anytime researching Houston's pension problem at all, I am just assuming we are underfunded and may have used the pension nest egg as a place to borrow money, just like Social Security and the Feds.
I also suspect that since such few people vote in these off year run off elections, the mayoral candidates can garner a big voting block by promising City employees more and more if they are elected. If you remember the Conservative candidate who said he would get the pension system under control was not supported by the police and fire organizations.
In addition, I believe our pension system promises employees an 8% return on their money. That may have been easy to do 15 years ago and was easy to promise back then, but is impossible today, unless you are really lucky or take a great deal of risk.
Something like 20% of the city budget is strictly for pensions, the percentage is growing every year. Couple that with the percentage that is simply to pay of previous debt and the City has little left for current operations. I have heard that we spend more for police who are retired than we spend for police who are working.
If anyone know the real situation please correct me.
All I really know is my property taxes go up 10% a year and now are the biggest expenditure I make every year.