DeMaio Campaign Releases Second Ad on Peters’ Pension Scheme
San Diego – A week after Scott Peters was caught for making false statements trying to deny his role in the city’s pension crisis, the DeMaio campaign released a second ad slamming Scott Peters opposition to pension reform and his role in helping create the crisis that nearly bankrupt San Diego.
The ad shares outrageous government pension payouts that Scott Peters approved – such as the city librarian who retired on a $234,000 annual pension.
The ad also points out that Scott Peters, who is worth over $100 million already, voted to increase his own pension payouts and then took his pension early.
The spot closes by reminding San Diegans “Who pays for that? WE DO. No wonder Scott Peters fits right in in Washington.”
Comments 8
Crap. I misread the title of the article — I thought it said WHO GIVES A *LIBERTARIAN* A PENSION OF $234,000 A YEAR?
I was THAT close to switching my support to Scott Peters . . . wrongly assuming that I’D be the lucky recipient of this windfall. Darn.
BTW, what’s left out of this $234K retirement compensation is the 30 years of FULLY MATCHED “401k” contributions (called by the city the SPSP benefit). The annual dollar-for-dollar matching ceiling was 6% of pay — 7.5% if hired before 1982 or so.
With earnings it’s hard to say what that fund was worth upon retirement — I’d guess close to (if not more than) a million dollars. Assuming a million, that could be annuitized into a $50,000 or more annual payment — further boosting the $234K discussed above.
No, Scott Peters was not responsible for this idiotic full second pension plan (unique in San Diego County). But then, he didn’t do anything to end it either.
Indeed, Peters never did ANYTHING to reign in runaway city salaries and benefits. Carl did. Hence the slavish labor union devotion to Peters (they will be his primary funding source) — and commensurate union animosity to DeMaio.
Richard,
To be somewhat fair, if you want to count the City’s 401-K match, you also have to factor in the amount deducted from the employee’s paycheck that went to the pension and the fact that the City made no Social Security contributions on behalf of the employee. To be completely fair, you would have to point out that we are not talking about a librarian; we are talking about the head of the entire library system. Unfortunately, mentioning that would take a level of intellectual honesty that Mr. Demaio has always seemed to lack.
As for the Unions being Peters’ primary funding source. Perhaps, but I found it interesting that 100 PAC’s that supported Brian Bilbray in the previous election have already given $364,000 to Congressman Peter’s campaign.
http://inewsource.org/2014/08/28/pacs-back-incumbents-just-ask-scott-peters/
HQ, the 401k (SPSP) San Diego plan was NOT a replacement for social security, as you government worker apologists frequently infer. All but 3 San Diego County cities dropped their social security plan in the early 80’s — NONE of these cities set up an SPSP plan to replace it. The defined benefit pension plan these cities had/adopted was ALL that was necessary to op out of social security (IRS regs).
Moreover, in most cases, the city employees were GLAD to op out of social security payments — indeed, many ended up qualifying for a modest SS pension from other work (even high school summer jobs as teenagers count).
The San Diego city SPSP plan was a fantastic giveaway by the city, resulting in (assuming an 8% growth rate and annuitization of the SPSP plan) a combined payout of about 130% of a 30-year city employee’s highest salary – starting as early as age 55.
As to the fact the employee contributed tax-free half the proceeds — big deal. The employees contribute to the pensions as well (though less than 50%) — doesn’t make the deal any less sweet.
RE: “To be fair” — I DID say it’s a matching plan — everyone who reads this blog knows that means half the money is contributed by the employee. I even specifically described it as a “dollar-for-dollar matching” plan. But then, you knew that when you posted, didn’t you, HQ.
Contrary to your assertion, I hid nothing in my description of the SPSP plan. YOU, however, said I was not being fair. WRONG AGAIN, HQ. Now we know it’s YOU who are not being fair.
Yes, HQ, half or more of PAC money goes to Democrats — especially INCUMBENT Democrats. It’s “access and vote” buying. We all understand that.
Meanwhile 93% of the union money goes to Democrats (doubtless higher for Congress).
When the campaign is over, Peters will outspend DeMaio at LEAST 4 to 1 (counting IE’s). And most of that difference will be union money — which will total in the MILLIONS of dollars (assuming the race remains close).
Richard,
You mentioned that the 401-K was a matched plan, you did not say that about the defined benefit. You also failed to address the intellectual dishonesty of calling the head of the entire library system a “librarian.”
Even with the above, you gave a well-reasoned answer and you will get no argument from me that public employees have a very generous retirement plan.
After calling out your racist comments in the previous post, I owed you a softball response and you hit it out of the park. Well done.
One other point about this librarian. As chief librarian, she made $140,000 in her best year — something that SHOULD have been included in the article. Final pension? $234,000 — a breathtaking 167% of her highest salary. HQ thinks that’s great.
Moreover, she didn’t work as the head librarian for 30 years — most of the time she was just a lowly librarian — with both the city and her contributing to that subsistence salary. Well, not SUBSISTENCE, exactly, but a lot less than her $140,000 final salary.
Guess who pays the OVERWHELMINGLY majority (probably 85-90%) of the cost of that $234,000 pension. Hint — not her.
Did I already mention that SPSP thingy?
Richard,
“a breathtaking 167% of her highest salary. HQ thinks that’s great.”
Actually, what i said was “…you will get no argument from me that public employees have a very generous retirement plan.”
“Guess who pays the OVERWHELMINGLY majority (probably 85-90%) of the cost of that $234,000 pension. Hint — not her.
Technically correct, but you give the mistaken impression that the City (taxpayers) paid the overwhelming cost of that pension. In fact, the OVERWHELMING majority of the cost will be paid for by the investment earnings on the money both she and the City invested over her 36 years working for the City.