Retirement Benefits

Why the Stockton California Bankruptcy Ruling Can't Stop Public Sector Pension Reform

A federal judge approved Stockton's bankruptcy exit plan which punts on pension debt. But other cities are free to tackle the problem, and they must.

|

SACRAMENTO — When it comes to pension reform, I've long been a pessimist given the realities in the Capitol and courts. A federal judge's decision in part two of the Stockton bankruptcy case last Thursday, approving an exit plan that doesn't chip away at the city's looming pension debt, at first seems to warrant even more negativism.

But it's probably not as bad as it seems for those who want these municipal debts tamed so that public services can be restored and residents aren't stuck with escalating tax burdens. Sure, Stockton officials chose not to reduce pensions, but other cities are free to address them in the future, thanks to the first part of the decision the judge issued early this month.

The fundamental problem hasn't changed. Even as liabilities have soared, state politicians have supported only superficial reforms. Courts have upheld the "California Rule," which means pensions cannot be reduced for current employees even on a go-forward basis. That leaves few options for hard-pressed cities.

Reformers had pinned their hopes on municipal bankruptcy – not because they want cities to go belly up, but because it would provide a day of reckoning. If pensions aren't safe in bankruptcy, that would give public-sector unions an incentive to support reforms to help keep their localities out of bankruptcy court.

On October 1, optimists were cheering. In a verbal ruling, Judge Christopher Klein ruled pensions could are fair game in a bankruptcy, despite the California Public Employees' Retirement Systems' insistence to the contrary. "Impairing contractual obligations – that's what bankruptcy is all about," the judge said.

But this week, in a decision cheered by California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and public-sector unions, Klein accepted the city's plan, which leaves pensions intact and balances the city's debts on the back of creditors. The real loser was Franklin Templeton, which will only be repaid 1 percent on the $36 million unsecured portion of its loan.

The judge was satisfied the city's plan would restore it to fiscal health, despite reports showing Stockton could face budget problems again in four years given the trajectory of pension debt. He thought it was the best the city could do, especially after a recent tax increase. Indeed, cities increasingly are turning to taxes to deal with their pension-related problems.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the pension obligations are driving the volume and amounts of tax-increase proposals and even many of the bond proposals," said Jon Coupal, president of the anti-tax-increasing Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in Sacramento. More local tax increases may be a side effect of Klein's ruling.

But the public-employee union officials and others who viewed Thursday's decision as a sign that pensions always are sacrosanct are kidding themselves. "Government pensions in California remain untouchable, at least for now …," concluded the Sacramento Bee.

In reality, the October 1 decision still is in force – and could still change the state's pension landscape. Even CalPERS officials recognized that fact after the verdict. Based on his earlier ruling, it's clear pensions are touchable. That has statewide importance even if Stockton chose not to take advantage of the opportunity offered to it.

"If you have a city that's not as dumb as the Stockton City Council and actually is looking out for its taxpayers, they can take advantage of the judge's willingness to impair PERS," said former Stockton Assemblyman Dean Andal.

Reacting to the city's "yee-haw reaction" to the verdict, San Joaquin County Taxpayers Association President Dave Renison wondered what the city got out of a process that cost $41 million: "It's a shame to waste a perfectly good bankruptcy." Californians in other troubled cities may have gotten something out of the process, though.

"It's a race to see which city will be the first to take a federal bankruptcy judge seriously," said Jack Dean, vice president of California Pension Reform. In other words, local finances might get bad enough that someday officials in some California city might be willing to challenge CalPERS. That leaves at least some reason to be optimistic.

NEXT: Associated Press to FBI: Stop Pretending to Be Us

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Steven Greenhut: Stockton Bankruptcy Ruling Not as Bad as It Looks

    Aw! But I wanted all of them to be sentenced to debtors’ prison! Including the voters who put those bums in office!

    Life is not fair!

  2. I see the decision as a disaster for the public employees’ unions. The only reason investors are willing to loan money to places like Stockton and others that have obviously bankrupt pensions is that investors figured that if the entity went bankrupt they would get priority on the tax income over the pensions. If the rule is going to be that the pensions will get paid and not the bond holders, then no one is going to buy a government’s bonds unless they think their pensions are not going bankrupt anytime soon. So only cities with sustainable pensions will be able to borrow money at anything but high rates of interests with short term repayment periods.

    Fiscally insolvent state and local governments have been running a ponzi scheme that has allowed them to stave off bankruptcy by borrowing money from investors who don’t care that their pensions are effectively bankrupt. The Stockton decision, if it becomes the general rule, will put a stop to that and hasten these cities into bankruptcy. Worse still, since the rule allows cities to screw their creditors instead of fixing their pension systems, bankruptcy won’t result in the cities being any more able to borrow money. Post bankruptcy the city will just have less bond debt. The pensions will still be bankrupt and no investor willing to loan to them as a result.

    1. The result will be that cities will have to actually deliver what they are chartered to do; police, fire, potholes. Set a budget, operate within that budget, and fulfill pension obligations. Art museums, aquariums, Human Rights offices, and all the other bullshit that is outside of the scope of the city charter needs to be jettisoned.

    2. I dumped my holdings in VCLAX (Vanguard California Long-Term Tax-Exempt Bond Fund) after that ruling. Good luck finding investors if your city isn’t AAA.

  3. Does the city have a plan to start printing Stockton Bucks?

    1. They’re going to be called “Stockton Assignats”

      1. Does this lead to guillotines too????

        1. All in good time, my brother. All in good time!

  4. Maybe the city government can get in on that nice little porn business that the Sons of Anarchy are building there.

  5. This isn’t rocket surgery.
    Existing employees must be paid based on the conditions agreed to when they were hired, including the pension promised.
    At any time the employer can take whatever actions are needed to alter the pension obligations for new employees.
    It will take a while for the new pension to kick in, savings-wise, but that is the result of making promises and not putting away enough money, to fulfill your obligations.

  6. Are you saying that this is what the law should be, or what the law is? Because it certainly isn’t what the law is. No one gets pensions based on what condItions were agreed to when they were hired. If they did, then there wouldn’t be a pension funding problem. Most long term and medium term tenured public employees in California had pension formulas and eligible pay adjusted significantly upward over the years, especially during the hot stock market years.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.