This time he suggests that the amount retirees’ cost of living adjustment was slashed might be just enough to afford the new fees being paid to the venture capitalists and hedge fund managers with whom Raimondo gambled the state’s pension fund.

The so-called “reforms” of the state pension in the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act of 2011, which include slashing the COLA, I’m told are projected to save $2.9 billion over 20 years. Suspension of the COLA is estimated to represent $2.3 billion of that savings.

I can tell you where that COLA savings is going—into the already-stuffed pockets of Wall Street’s most highly-compensated gamblers—almost dollar-for-dollar. By my estimate, $2.1 billion in fees (out of the $2.3 billion in COLA savings) will be paid by the pension to hedge, private equity and venture capital tycoons. That’s some “reform.” No wonder Wall Street is so eager to support this shameless public pension money grab.

Here are his other posts on Raimondo’s pension work:

• 22 Tough Questions For Rhode Island’s Pension ‘Reform’ Treasurer
• Rhode Island’s Scary State Treasurer
• Rhode Island Public Pension ‘Reform’ Looks More Like Wall Street Feeding Frenzy

Conventional wisdom, I explained to Ted in an email, is why I devote so many posts to critiquing the mainstream media (here in RI, one newspaper and one or two radio and TV stations each) and the marketplace of ideas (the rest of the collection of communicators who, from Twitter to TV, broadcast our thoughts): for good, bad or indifferent this relatively-random though not-all-that-eclectic chattering class is largely responsible for what the rest of the residents know about Rhode Island. We foment and solidify conventional wisdom.

Think about it: most Rhode Islanders don’t actually know the first thing about life on Smith Hill or local politics beyond the headlines, tweets and soundbites that the chattering class feeds them – some of whom themselves are getting their information second hand! I almost wrote a piece a few weeks back about how, of course, the media is responsible for Chafee’s approval rating – whatever it happens to be – the real question is whether he deserves the approval rating he has.

Conventional wisdom is also what makes Forbes blogger Ted Siedle’s posts on Raimondomania so politically consequential for Rhode Island. He wrote his first post in response to an Institutional Investor article that said she “defies conventional pension wisdom.”

But prior to the Siedle posts conventional wisdom in Rhode Island held that Gina Raimondo was a benevolent reformer who had enriched Rhode Island at the expense of the unions (which, by the way, the chattering class, as an organism, tries real hard to paint as Public Enemy #1). Sure, Mike Downey and I had publicly called her a Wall Street Democrat, but we’re part of what the chattering class by and large sees as the dastardly special interest known as labor. And, for what it’s worth, me and Mike are pretty easily dismissed by said chattering class…

…A Forbes.com columnist known as the Sam Spade of Money Management, not so much though.

The Siedle posts pointed out the indisputable fact that the manner in which Raimondo has invested the state’s pension fund will be a huge boon for the hedge fund managers and venture capitalists who get the work while many experts including Warren Buffett believe it is a bad bet for Rhode Island. That hadn’t been reported yet.

I believe the Siedle posts shifted the conventional wisdom on Gina Raimondo. Whereas it once held that she had taken from labor and given to the taxpayer, it now also holds that she then subsequently gambled that windfall with her Wall Street cronies who are the only guaranteed winners in ever-unfolding drama that conventional wisdom dubbed “pension reform” until Forbes.com called it “a money grab.”

New Ted (Siedle, of Forbes) wrote a post on Thursday saying Raimondo is recklessly investing Rhode Island’s pension fund. Old Ted (Nesi, of WPRI), to borrow a phrase, fired back on Friday. New Ted has since posted twice to accuse Old Ted of having a soft spot for Raimondo and – much more pointedly – accusing her of having a soft spot for Wall Street.

From Forbes.com on Saturday:

The fees related to conservative investing range from 1 basis point (one one-hundreth of a percent) to about half a percent. The high-risk alternative investments you have steered the pension into charge exponentially greater fees—fees of about 2% plus 20% of profits or more. Do the math and you’ll agree, the fees the pension will pay have skyrocketed. Mushroomed. Ballooned. Soared.

That’s good for your Wall Street pals, no-so-good for workers participating in the pension. It’s a little difficult to reconcile your opinion that the state’s pension system can’t afford to pay workers the benefits they were promised but, on the other hand, it can afford to pay Wall Street’s wildest gamblers one hundred times greater fees than it has in the past.

Tell Rhode Islanders precisely how much the fees have increased under your leadership (or give me copies of the money management contracts so I can) and let’s see how they feel about it.

Then yesterday:

Raimondo’s overhaul or reform of the state pension will, in the years to come—long after she’s moved on to higher political office, turn out to be disastrous for taxpayers and state workers, in my opinion. Hail Mary passes and other high risk gambles rarely succeed and, even if they do, are not appropriate for pensions thousands of state workers depend upon for retirement security.

New Ted publicly offered 22 questions for Raimondo to answer about how she has managed the state’s the money. Anyone want to bet her answers, or at least political statements tangentially related to these questions, will appear on Old Ted’s blog?

And those were among the kinder words he had for Raimondo and her pro-Wall Street prescription for pension reform.

There’s no prudent, disciplined investment program at work here—just a blatant Wall Street gorging, while simultaneously pruning state workers’ pension benefits. It’s no surprise that some of Wall Street’s wildest gamblers have backed her so-called pension reform efforts in the state legislature. Former Enron energy trader emerges as a leading advocate for prudent management of state worker pensions? That’s more than a little ironic.

Siedle, who bills himself as “the pension detective,” offers several critiques of how Raimondo is investing Rhode Island’s pension fund, saying her high risk strategy seems designed to benefit the financial industry more than retirees or taxpayers. He also writes, “The pension committed $5 million in 2007 to a Point Judith II venture fund managed by the soon-to-be Treasurer. Someone should take a close look at the merits related to the decision to invest in Point Judith II.”

And he offers particularly harsh criticism of Raimondo’s relationship with Engage Rhode Island:

Any connection, direct or indirect, between the pension and donors to this tax-exempt political organization backing the Treasurer should be investigated, in my opinion. The lack of transparency and regulation related to alternative investments gives rise to almost endless possibilities for abuse and I’ve learned to expect anything.

I thought this was one of his most interesting observations: “‘The cost of public employee benefits in most states and communities is unsustainable,’ says the foundation’s website. Not-so-sure about that; on the other hand, it is well-established that the cost and any short-term outperformance of hedge funds are unsustainable. The cure for unsustainable pensions is unsustainable investing?”

So what does sustainable mean? Is it what taxpayers can afford to spend, or what they want to spend?