Guest Commentary
by Jan Goldsmith
In adopting AB 340, the pension reform measure, rather than using San Diego’s Proposition B as a model for real reform, the Legislature and Governor seem to have used San Diego’s Proposition D as the model. That was the proposed sales tax increase accompanied by hollow promises of reform. The difference is that voters scrutinized Proposition D in 2010 and rejected it, while the 2012 “pension reform” was drafted in secret and made public only days before its adoption, accompanied by lauding comments from California’s Sacramento media.
One exception is Dan Walters, whose experience allowed him to see right through this.
Another exception is Dan Borenstein, who has also raised serious issues about this legislation.
This should be called exactly what it is — a scheme dreamed up by the Governor, Democratic legislators and the labor unions to stop the pension reform movement at the grass roots and help pass the Governor’s tax hike without committing to meaningful reforms.
What little reforms that are included won’t help for many years and can easily be rescinded later after they have been used to convince voters to support more tax increases. In fact, AB 340 states that the legislature will adopt additional legislation next year to implement the plan. That legislation could easily water down these nominal “reforms.”
What’s more, even if every change remains in place, the rosy projections are realized and Borenstein’s problems are corrected, the changes will only cut the pension unfunded debt by at most 25 percent. What about the other $200 to $450 million in unfunded debt?
Last week, I attended the Republican National Convention. One of the benefits of attending a national convention is to interact with delegates from other states. I spent considerable time speaking with political activists from Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey about how they were able to elect strong fiscally conservative governors who then began turning their states around. I was jealous, but learned a lot. The common thread is that they told the truth about fiscal issues, didn’t back down and laid out clear and common sense alternatives. Then, they supported their new governors in their battles to enact and implement real reforms.
I look forward to attending a future Republican convention and speaking with delegates about how we elected a governor and achieved real reform.
# # #
Goldsmith, a former local elected official, assemblyman and superior court judge, is San Diego’s city attorney.
Comments 6
Your honor,
How big is your pension?
OK, Jefferson, I’ll play your game. But, I am not receiving a pension.
I have a 401(K) left over from my law firm. I have nothing from Poway and the state legislature since there were no retirement plans. I have a defined contribution plan from my time on the bench. You see, when I was in the legislature I helped craft a change to judicial pensions, from a defined benefit to a defined contribution for new judges. That was in 1996. I was appointed in 1998 and received the plan I helped craft.
Now, play my game. What is your response to Dan Walters and Dan Borenstein, two journalists who have been around Sacramento for decades and are not known to be partisan?
Jan Goldsmith
“Jefferson” (a deceitful pseudonym for a Big Government advocate) doubtless is a government employee or spouse, so it’s not hard to figure out his position on the thinking of these two centrist journalists regarding the bogus pension reform just passed.
And BTW, terrific article, Jan. Thanks for posting it.
If you can prove your are certifiably insane, you should run for governor. But then, simply running for governor of California is ITSELF proof that one is insane.
Thanks, Richard. But, I’m not that insane.
One correction in the article– the unfunded debt is in the billions, not the millions. So, even with this “reform”, we are left wondering what happens to the remaining $200 to $450 billion.
Richard,
Government should only be big enough to provide you with a Supply Officer job, your wife as a school teacher, and the City Attorney with — well — an entire career.
Your Honor,
Walters and Borenstein have been finding fault with the very existence of pensions for years. I am not surprised at their respective takes. I disagree with you that these two columnists haven’t been typecast. In fact, I would be surprised to ever see a column of theirs surface in which they ever say something positive about state government. But to the point you are trying to make …. why be so myopic about a step in the RIGHT direction when you and I both know that chasing after the benefits that are already earned and on the books is the only way to significantly reduce current liabilities. However, such a move is a fool’s errand, as you stated during your 2008 campaign. But you also promised not to involve yourself in setting policy, so forgive me for being unclear on your current positions.
Irrespective of whether you like/hate/go “meh” about pensions the sad and distressing point in all of this is that with such a complicated subject critics had only 48 hours or so to review, digest, and analyze the bill. It comes as no surprise that it doesn’t do good things – and indeed as the Bornstein discussion of public safety caps on contribution rates – could make things worse.
Mornings like this depress me about the future of the state. Oh well, just 2 more decades till retirement and I can load up the moving van and head north or east for more fiscally prudent places.