Then Prichard did something that pension experts say they have never seen before: it stopped sending monthly pension checks to its 150 retired workers, breaking a state law requiring it to pay its promised retirement benefits in full.
Since then, Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, has filed for bankruptcy. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, has gone back to work as a shopping mall security guard to try to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport.
Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”
The situation in Prichard is extremely unusual — the city has sought bankruptcy protection twice — but it proves that the unthinkable can, in fact, sometimes happen. And it stands as a warning to cities like Philadelphia and states like Illinois, whose pension funds are under great strain: if nothing changes, the money eventually does run out, and when that happens, misery and turmoil follow.
It is not just the pensioners who suffer when a pension fund runs dry. If a city tried to follow the law and pay its pensioners with money from its annual operating budget, it would probably have to adopt large tax increases, or make huge service cuts, to come up with the money.
Current city workers could find themselves paying into a pension plan that will not be there for their own retirements. In Prichard, some older workers have delayed retiring, since they cannot afford to give up their paychecks if no pension checks will follow.
So the declining, little-known city of Prichard is now attracting the attention of bankruptcy lawyers, labor leaders, municipal credit analysts and local officials from across the country. They want to see if the situation in Prichard, like the continuing bankruptcy of Vallejo, Calif., ultimately creates a legal precedent on whether distressed cities can legally cut or reduce their pensions, and if so, how.
“Prichard is the future,” said Michael Aguirre, the former San Diego city attorney, who has called for San Diego to declare bankruptcy and restructure its own outsize pension obligations. “We’re all on the same conveyor belt. Prichard is just a little further down the road.”
Many cities and states are struggling to keep their pension plans adequately funded, with varying success. New York City plans to put $8.3 billion into its pension fund next year, twice what it paid five years ago. Maryland is considering a proposal to raise the retirement age to 62 for all public workers with fewer than five years of service.
Illinois keeps borrowing money to invest in its pension funds, gambling that the funds’ investments will earn enough to pay back the debt with interest. New Jersey simply decided not to pay the $3.1 billion that was due its pension plan this year.
Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota have all taken the unusual step of reducing the benefits they pay their current retirees by cutting cost-of-living increases; retirees in all three states are suing.
No state or city wants to wind up like Prichard.
Driving down Wilson Avenue here — a bleak stretch of shuttered storefronts, with pawn shops and beauty parlors that operate behind barred windows and signs warning of guard dogs — it is hard to see vestiges of the Prichard that was a boom town until the 1960s. The city once had thriving department stores, two theaters and even a zoo. “You couldn’t find a place to park in that city,” recalled Kenneth G. Turner, a retired paramedic whose grandfather pushed for the city’s incorporation in 1925.
Since then, Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, has filed for bankruptcy. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, has gone back to work as a shopping mall security guard to try to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport.
Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”
The situation in Prichard is extremely unusual — the city has sought bankruptcy protection twice — but it proves that the unthinkable can, in fact, sometimes happen. And it stands as a warning to cities like Philadelphia and states like Illinois, whose pension funds are under great strain: if nothing changes, the money eventually does run out, and when that happens, misery and turmoil follow.
It is not just the pensioners who suffer when a pension fund runs dry. If a city tried to follow the law and pay its pensioners with money from its annual operating budget, it would probably have to adopt large tax increases, or make huge service cuts, to come up with the money.
Current city workers could find themselves paying into a pension plan that will not be there for their own retirements. In Prichard, some older workers have delayed retiring, since they cannot afford to give up their paychecks if no pension checks will follow.
So the declining, little-known city of Prichard is now attracting the attention of bankruptcy lawyers, labor leaders, municipal credit analysts and local officials from across the country. They want to see if the situation in Prichard, like the continuing bankruptcy of Vallejo, Calif., ultimately creates a legal precedent on whether distressed cities can legally cut or reduce their pensions, and if so, how.
“Prichard is the future,” said Michael Aguirre, the former San Diego city attorney, who has called for San Diego to declare bankruptcy and restructure its own outsize pension obligations. “We’re all on the same conveyor belt. Prichard is just a little further down the road.”
Many cities and states are struggling to keep their pension plans adequately funded, with varying success. New York City plans to put $8.3 billion into its pension fund next year, twice what it paid five years ago. Maryland is considering a proposal to raise the retirement age to 62 for all public workers with fewer than five years of service.
Illinois keeps borrowing money to invest in its pension funds, gambling that the funds’ investments will earn enough to pay back the debt with interest. New Jersey simply decided not to pay the $3.1 billion that was due its pension plan this year.
Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota have all taken the unusual step of reducing the benefits they pay their current retirees by cutting cost-of-living increases; retirees in all three states are suing.
No state or city wants to wind up like Prichard.
Driving down Wilson Avenue here — a bleak stretch of shuttered storefronts, with pawn shops and beauty parlors that operate behind barred windows and signs warning of guard dogs — it is hard to see vestiges of the Prichard that was a boom town until the 1960s. The city once had thriving department stores, two theaters and even a zoo. “You couldn’t find a place to park in that city,” recalled Kenneth G. Turner, a retired paramedic whose grandfather pushed for the city’s incorporation in 1925.
12 comments:
pensions? Private sector workers don't get em! so why should those who live off those same private sector workers get em?
just one more bubble waiting to burst!
Because we signed legally binding contracts that said we pay into a pension system.
It's a form of deferred compensation. It's not a handout. People who paid money in should be able to get it back. You can be sure that someone in the private sector with some form of government contract is going to expect their money. It's a financial obligation like any other.
Yea thats great 2:46
What did you pay in 5% annually?Then you got out 2% per year of service. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the return from the pension plan is a ponzi scheme on the public.
I have a relative that received 66% of their salary for life after retiring at age 57. I can tell you any government will go broke paying out retirement like that.
2:40 Let me explain something here. As state employees we are underpaid to start off with. We are given nice benefits such as sick time and vacation as well as job security.
But unlike the private sector there is NO 401k option. No matching contributions from the corporate big wigs and never a Christmas bonus or any other kind of financial boost. It is what it is and one of the few things we have is a small (yes small) pension.
Most folks still have to go out and work another job.
What say you now?
What you are not seeing about this situation is the fact that the majority of pensioners are white, and the current population of this town is now 84%black, the entire city council is black. Go to the blog"The Other McCain" and see pictures of the council members who have decided to not fund these folks. And the imagine if an all white city council was denying retirement benefits to elderly black pensioners.
Wait and see what happens if the state of MD pushes 40% to 50% of the teacher's pensions back on Wicomico County.
when the County/State is destitute, and they can't send you a check, you'll get the message!
When that time comes don't say you weren't warned!
lol!
7:08
You almost made me fall out of my chair! Underpaid? Hah!
Underworked maybe!
Go get a job where you produce something instead of stealing from taxpayers!
6:57. Listen, I am a free market advocate but I recognize that there is a true place for govt employees. Until that changes there are places like social services, motor vehicle administration and universities that hire state employees. They are not rewarded for achievements nor given the options I mentioned above. They stay in these jobs for various reasons.
I AGREE that the workforce should be small and it's not but that does not negate the fact that there are retirees all over still working because the pension after 30 years is small.
Lets focus on the problem:
The pension funds have been mismanaged at best, and stolen at worst. It is criminal to "invest" (gamble) in the stock market with people's pension funds. Save the money you promised to save. Period.
Now think about our Social Security Trust Fund. The Congress "borrowed" money from our Trust Fund. They took our money by force (we do not willingly pay it - they take it or lock us up for refusing to pay it) and then they "borrow" the funds? For their pork barrel projects?
You can't borrow from a Trust Fund. You can only steal from a Trust Fund.
10:55. Thank you. Reform is imperative and should start out by eliminating or reducing the pension promise to state employees as well as reducing the workforce. The next step is to allow private investment in social security.
But you simply cannot take away from people who are moving into their twilight years the money they counted on having to live on. That is inhumane. But then again no one ever called a politician humane! Thief maybe!
Post a Comment