Pension protesters are unrealistic-duh

  Thousands of union supporters hit the streets of Los Angeles, we're told.   
  Demonstrators appeared, yet again, in Madison, Wisconsin.
  They're protesting the loss of jobs and/or the possible decrease in pay and benefits, not to mention union busting.
  They want their pensions.
  It's hard to believe that so many people cannot see beyond their own immediate needs to save the future.
  Investors discusses the dangerous territory Florida is in and the measures being suggested to boost the returns, maintain the integrity of the funds:

The decision to avoid the extra upfront expense was, in effect, a government decision to borrow each dollar at a 7.75% rate, says American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Andrew Biggs. [SNIP]

Though Gov. Scott sought the study on the impact of lower return assumptions, he's not proposing a cut in Florida's assumption. The point was to show how much taxpayer money is at risk and to back his pension reform push. He wants 401(k) plans for new public employees and to require current staff to contribute 5% of payroll to their pensions.

  They may have to pay 5% of their salary for their pensions. Wisconsin union members were worried about having to pay 5% also.
  Note that in Ohio teachers' and state workers' pension plans are funded by 10% of the worker's salary, soon to be boosted to at least 13%. Employers contributed 14%.
  In California, employees have had a great deal in the past. At Calpensions:

The government employer pension contribution often is much higher than the employee rate. For most state workers the employer currently contributes 17 percent of pay and the employee 8 percent, changed from a 20-5 split by a recent labor agreement

  An increase in pension contributions will definitely hurt, considering how much it costs to live in California and all the, uh hum, non-contributing individuals who draw benefits from the state.
  But the truth is that thousands of government pensions are underfunded. 
  Make no mistake. 
  Let me be perfectly clear. 
  From the Washington Examiner, which declares that union members aren't being told the truth about their pensions (as if the truth would make a difference to the protesters):

Almost half of the nation’s 20 largest unions have pension funds that federal law classifies as “endangered” or in “critical” condition due to being underfunded, an Examiner review of federal actuarial reports shows.

Pensions with less than 80 percent of the assets needed to cover present and projected liabilities are considered “endangered,” while those that fall below a 65 percent threshold are classified as “critical” under the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

    From Northwestern/Kellogg and Reuters, we learn that many pension plans have rosy earnings projections which have enabled administrators to put off reform; the tsunami is coming.

Rauh estimates taxpayers will bear a large share of the financial burden of the $3 trillion in unfunded legacy liabilities associated with state pension plans. 

“This hidden debt will eventually force states and localities to choose among the unpalatable options of cutting services, raising taxes, attempting to reduce benefits owed to public employees, defaulting on other obligations, or seeking a federal bailout,” Rauh testified.  

  So they march in the cities, crying about changes  to their earning power and pensions. Can they retire at 52? Can they have the cadillac health care plans? 
  (The best example of what unions WON'T do for the country, particularly construction, can be found here.)
  Who's being mature here? Who's looking to the future? Who's more concerned about pension plans, the protesters or those trying to save the plans?
  Seems like if you really cared about the future, not only yours but your children's, you'd want the money to be there when you're old.
  Let me be perfectly clear.
  There's no more money.