NJ has not made a pension contribution that was required of them for 17 years. The best they did was make a partial contribution. I am no expert on Oregon or California but I do know what the main source of the problem is in NJ.
For those who think the governor fixed it- the pension underfunding will be the same when he leaves office as when he took office. The governor just like the last republican governor pushed through a pension scheme that allowed him to make zero or reduced contributions while in office. I call that a fiscal con man he calls it being fiscally conservative.
"His departure from the workaday world is likely to be long and relatively free of financial concerns, after he retired last July at age 59 with a pension paying $174,308 a year for the rest of his life.
Such guaranteed pensions for relatively youthful government retirees — paid in similar fashion to millions nationwide — are contributing to nationwide friction with the public sector workers. They have access to attractive defined-benefit pensions and retiree health care coverage that most private sector workers no longer do.
Experts say eligible retirement ages have fallen over the past two decades for many reasons, including contract agreements between states and government labor unions that lowered retirement ages in lieu of raising pay." ...
"...An Associated Press survey earlier this year found the 50 states have a combined $690 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and $418 billion in retiree health care obligations."
I don't agree with Wisconsin's Governor actions toward his state's public employee's unions, However, I do understand the plight of government's budgets.
In Oregon, the PERS program is ~$12,800,000,000 ($12.8B) short, on a state population, ~3.9million. The shortfall has been continually growing and exacerbated by the credit bubble.
