The Wichita Bureau on the 99 Percent

UB's Wichita Bureau is no fan of the one percent, but he directs his attention elsewhere:

When is the lower 99 going to figure out that we've been screwed by the 'greatest generation' - which having survived the war seems to have decided it was entitled to life time care - and proceeded to vote it. Aren't most of our real problems - public pensions, social security and Medicare (including long term care) - a result of the greatest voting themselves (and now the Boomers) a great retirement? I have only one friend who is willing to admit that he will take a cut in his pension to help out the fiscal problems - my brother (Retired CSRS annuitant) is adamant that he won't give up anything - he earned that pension.

I agree with a lot of this (and both Wichita and I are, of course, in different ways riders of this great wave).  But I can think of complications.   One, recall that the first pension train wreck involved not public pensions but private--or more precisely, "public company," as distinct from "sovereign." Indeed, I suspect one reason so many non-enjoyers are so shirty about sovereign pensions today is they saw their own (or their parents') dreams immolated in the notorious round of defined-benefit failures back in the 80s and 90s.  Two: whatever Wichita's brother may think, it ain't gonna happen.  Lots of public pensions are nominally a "fund"--a trove  of securities assembled as part of the the compensation package over a career.  Few or none of these funds are really solvent.  Degrees of solvency my run from "more or less, okay, maybe" down to "man the lifeboats!"  (Illinois).  Many/most also have a backup put option from the sovereign, but when time comes to honor the put the sovereign will find a way to say "no."  In counting pension largesse, I'd say we ought to mark to market.  On that standard, the greatest generation is not quite so great after all.