pushed by those who wish to destroy public employee (i.e. union) pensions the way private industry destroyed their employees' pensions a generation ago.

It does represent debt that will most likely have to be paid over a 50-75 year time horizon.

However, it does not include the offsets for state contributions, employee contributions or investment income that is earned that time horizon. When those contributions are included in the calculations it is more on the order of a $2-$3 billion responsibility to the state each year during that time horizon. That is a burden that can be handled within the California economy.

The US Post Office got crippled in 2006 by the GOP forcing it to account, as current debt, 75 years worth of retirement benefits for each employee.

Kind of like how the US post office suddenly had a huge debt after they were forced to account for 75 years of benefits for each employee as debt.

Sadly, most Californians are all for slashing state government pensions. They don't realize the average state pension is only $13k/yr and state employees took a smaller salary than in the private sector in order to get that benefit. Private sector employees resent state employees' pensions because most private sector employees have no pensions.

Reminds of the old Russian proverb:
"My neighbor has a cow. I have none. I want his cow to die."

This is news I can use! Mahalo (thank you)!

Koch whores?

...is the amount anticipated as payout which is not covered by employee contributions, planned state contributions based on payroll, and accrued earnings. That amount is, of course, entirely unpredictable but it is not unreasonable to assume that it is zero.

"There's nothing available."

Instead of cutting our social programs such as state pensions. Many Californians sadly don't get it, cutting pensions is precisely what austerity advocates want in their quest to privatisation.