I just got an e-mail from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College touting this report. The Center takes a very pro-public employee, pro-senior citizen position: there is "no choice" but to cut benefits for future employees and defer needed funding from the past to burden future generations of taxpayers as public services melt away. No way anyone who benefitted from retroactively enhanced pensions should be asked to sacrifice. The title of the report is "Can State and Local Pension Plans Muddle Through."
Now I cited independent actuary John Bury's analysis of all state pension plans and major city plans that shows that the NYC Teacher pension plan is one of the most underfunded in the country. Now this from the CRR: assuming an 8.0% return (which is nonsense as I showed here), most plans have at least 15 years before running out of money under the termination concept and 30 years under the ongoing concept. "Notable" exceptions include eight plans mentioned, including the New York City Teacher's plan.
As I mentioned with regard to Bury's analysis, whatever your quibbles with his assumptions, he used the same ones for all plans. Once again, why won't anybody else talk/write about the irrevocable financial and educational consequences of the 2008 25/55 retroactive pension enhancement for NYC teachers? I'll re-attach my compilation of information on the subject.