*** UPDATE *** From a Teachers Retirement System press release…
The video’s script does not accurately describe the finances of Teachers’ Retirement System. TRS is not going broke and will have enough money to pay pensions for decades.
· The video’s script says: “This is how much money we have in the fund,” and a graphic showing “$31 billion” pops up.
o That number reflects the assets held by TRS last year. The current assets, thanks to a 24 percent return on investment for fiscal year 2011, total $37.5 billion.
· The script says: “This is how much we need to pay our current retirees.” A graphic of “$49 billion” pops up.
o This is an incomplete statement. What’s not said is that the $49 billion is the estimate of what’s needed to pay “current retirees” every year for the next 30 years. The actual cost of teacher pensions this year is $4.5 billion.
· The script then says: “This is how much we need to pay people like you.” A graphic of “$27 billion” pops up.
o Again, what’s not said is that this number reflects a 30-year estimate for teachers who are not even eligible for a benefit.
· The script barely mentions current revenues collected by TRS. Over the last two years, TRS revenue totaled $17.3 billion, from teachers, school districts, state government and investments. TRS benefit checks in the last two years totaled $8 billion.
· TRS currently carries an unfunded liability of $44 billion, but this is a number that never comes due at one point in time because only current retirees are eligible to be paid. TRS has carried an unfunded liability since at least 1953 and has never missed a pension check.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* IllinoisIsBroke.com has a new TV ad. It started last night on Chicago network and is also running on cable. It’ll play through the start of veto session. Rate it…
* The Tribune editorial board is all in with this theme, of course.
* By the way, the FiveThirtyEight blog had a pretty good two-part series on understanding how campaign ads work. The above spot is not a campaign ad, but let’s have a look at the piece anyway. This is from Part 1…
2. Campaign ads matter more when a candidate can outspend the opponent.
This simple fact sometimes gets lost because people fixate on the content of ads. But the volume of ads may matter more. Consider the 2000 presidential election. In the final two weeks of the campaign, residents in battleground state were twice as likely to see a Bush ad as a Gore ad. This cost Gore 4 points among uncommitted voters.
The same thing happened in 2008, when Mr. Obama vastly outspent his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain. According to some research, in counties where Mr. Obama broadcast 2,000 more ads than Mr. McCain, he received about 1 percentage point more of the vote than John Kerry did in those same counties in 2004. (That a difference of 2,000 ads only appeared to earn Mr. Obama a single point is a testament to the limits of campaign advertising when most voters already have opinions about the candidates.)
Of course, disparities like those between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, or Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, do not come along in every presidential race. If Mr. Obama and the Republican nominee decline public financing in 2012, expect fewer disparities. But the ultimate point is this: if the 2012 race is close, do not pay attention to every subtle or even subliminal message in the ads. Just look to see who is spending more. Spending more does not guarantee a victory, but it is more revealing than endless speculation about whose message is more effective.
