[specialist]

"...a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable..."

It's contract law. No admirable necessary.

Pensions etc are negotiated as part of the compensation package. Those former employees earned that money. It's not an entitlement, or charity.

Legitimate complaints would be gaming the pension system and chronic underfunding (kicking the can down the road).

[twoodfin]

They earned a promise from the government. That's not the same thing as earning the money, as many state and municipal employees will doubtless discover over the next few decades.

[eru]

Yes. The government should have been made to put that money aside when they promised it. (Or at least to keep the commitment honestly on their books, instead of hiding it.)

[twoodfin]

What you're describing is a defined-contribution pension plan (like a 401(k) or an IRA) rather than a defined-benefit pension plan.

As I understand it, public employee unions have not been big fans of defined-contribution, preferring the more generous promises. That is a risk that both the union and the government take together.

[eru]

You can still make it a defined-benefit plan. A defined benefit plan should be easy for the government to budget for---the benefits to be paid out are very easy to forecast. (And in essence equivalent to a bond, or perhaps annuity.)

[twoodfin]

"Budget" is the operative word there: Controlling the expenditure of tax dollars is one of the fundamental things elected officials do in a democracy. Thus current governments can't ever truly bind future ones.

Unless the money is in an account with your name on it, what you have is a political promise, not a contractual obligation or an asset.