Voters side with Jerry Brown on pensions
Jerry Brown made a rare gubernatorial appearance this month before a joint legislative committee that was delving — with obvious reluctance — into whether California’s public employee pension benefits should be overhauled.
While seeking his second stint as governor last year, Brown had pledged pension reform and has since offered a 12-point overhaul that attempts to strike a middle ground between the defenders of the status quo and the radical changes outside groups want.
State and local pension costs have been rising, due to sharp increases in benefits in the last decade and declines in the pension fund investments that were supposed to pay for those benefits at no cost to taxpayers.
The Legislature’s majority Democrats are clearly reluctant to enact more than superficial pension reforms because they are utterly beholden to public employee unions for campaign support. Many, indeed, are either former government union members themselves or were handpicked by union leaders.
Brown knows that, of course. He knows that he was also dependent on union campaign money last year. He knows that a big reason he couldn’t cut a budget and tax deal with Republicans this year was that unions were dead-set against the GOP’s pension reforms.
But Brown also knows that public pension reform strikes a strong chord with voters, especially during a period of economic malaise when education and other public services are being cut and when they are being asked to pay more taxes to shore up those services.
Brown told legislators, therefore, that if they want voters to approve higher taxes on next November’s ballot, they must prove that they are being tight with the public’s money, and that means they must make a significant dent in unfunded pension costs.
Brown finds support for that message in two recent statewide polls that legislators will ignore at their peril.
Last week, a Field Poll found that voters’ views of public pensions have evolved, that increasing numbers now see them as too generous, and that Brown’s approach enjoys strong support.
This week, a Public Policy Institute of California poll echoes those findings, with 83 percent of Californians seeing public pensions as a problem. Strong majorities believe that employees should pay more and that traditional “defined-benefit” systems should be changed to a “defined-contribution” system for new workers, similar to private workers’ 401(k) plans.
Perhaps most important, while union leaders resist such changes, PPIC found that strong majorities of public employees themselves favor them.
Persuading voters to pay higher taxes would be difficult, but if the Legislature tries to slough off pension reform, or enacts only token changes, it will give tax opponents a potent weapon.
Dan Walters is a columnist for the Sacramento Bee. Reach him as dwalters@sacbee.com
Short URL: http://www.dailyrepublic.com/?p=117501
Posted by Dan Walters
on Dec 16 2011.
Filed under State, national columnists. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
No question about it. We (Republicans) side with the Governor on ending the redevelopment FRAUD. We (Republicans) side with the Governor on public pension reform. We (Republicans) side with the Governor on his budget cuts to the massive overgrown State and Local Governments in California. We (Republicans) oppose any further economy wrecking tax hikes. Families and business are already fleeing the “State of Disaster”. Telling me to go away and move doesn’t solve your economic and security problems.
Defined contribution based pensions AND benefits are the only method fair to taxpayers and the only method that can be reliable in writing state and local budgets. I, for one, am voting a big fat NO on every single tax proposal unless there is serious reform. Funny thing is, every private sector individual I talk to says the same thing. If nothing else, I guess November will show whether public sector employees and their families have finally outnumbered everyone else. For the inevitable squeals of “but we were promised,” well, even us dumb private sector workerbees have labored for decades under implicit promises – that we could afford to go to college, that we could afford to see a physician, that our savings could help our own retirements, that if we worked hard and didn’t skip a beat we wouldn’t wind up penniless – and one by one we have seen these icons crash and burn. Telling me it’s Wall Street’s fault is fine but pointless – telling me does not fix one single thing and most certainly does not give me extra buck$ to burn.
I agree there are serious problems in the private sector up to and including stealing pensions from retirees. That is heinous and certainly should be illegal.
People that work in the Public sector HAVE been promised a retirement and work their lives counting on that. Most municipalities do not pay into SSI, so if an employee cannot afford to contribute to their deferred comp or 401 retirement fund, the company retirement is all they have. These are not fly-by-night, underhanded practices that nobody knew about. They were voted on and approved by city council and executive management. I don’t know anybody that will turn down a raise or refuse to act to supplement their future do you? Sorry for folks that are struggling, but retired public servants were promised, worked hard and relied upon that promise to survive. There needs to be changes to policy but you cannot take it out on those that have all ready become part of the retirement system. The next step will be forcing our older generation into the streets where they will die and/or become wards of the state. Nice.
SSI rules have changed along the way, CD, and not to the benefit of recipients. Give me just ONE good reason why public retirees and only public retirees should be immune to the economic devastation wrought by both Wall Street AND public employees? Yup, I work in the private sector. Many, many times I have had opportunities to fatten my wallet at the expense of others; I could have done so legally but unethically. So yes, I DO know someone who would refuse to act to supplement his future when doing so cheats and jeopardizes the payers!
In fact, I don’t see how anyone – be they Wall Streeters or union reps – rationalizes cheating the unsuspecting or ignorant. You both appear to be cut from the same greedy cloth.
You are obviously too absorbed in your anger to discuss this issue. Not sure why you feel you’d have been unethical, but if you had the legal means to improve yours and you family’s lot, then you are a fool for not doing so. Cheats and jeopardizes who? C’mon, that is hyperbole and you know it. I see where folks are upset now but when everything was rolling along just fine, they ignored the very open and legal process. SSI HAS changed and those that paid into it creating a financial burden upon them at the time, are now penalized because they receive a retirement.from a public agency. This is not greed, it’s simply determination to get what was promised and rightfully owed.