Your “10 Commandments” make it clear that these initiatives don’t go far enough. California taxpayers deserve complete reform of the current (not just future) pension contracts. Since the public employee unions will bankrupt the state soon enough, I say let’s get it over with so we can start over with sustainable solutions. This insanity has to stop.

What is the difference between the two initiatives?

Honor all pension contract – not possible when they are currently underfunded.
Death and disability benefits shall not be changed – why not? They can be changed in a private company to keep the company solvent.
Pension benefits must be fair and adequate – pension benefits should be equivalent to what one receives with Social Security based on years worked and salary taxed per year. Nothing further.
Pension benefits must be guaranteed – by whom? The taxpayer that does not have the same benefit.
Future generation should not pay for today’s workers – how is this possible if you want to HONOR ALL PENSION CONTRACTS and they are currently underfunded.
Retiree heath funds must not be diverted for other purposes – retiree health funds need to be capped, have the retiree contribute significantly towards the plan and not expect to receive anything more than what is given in Medicare. Rember this is the taxpayer paying for a benefit for a minority of persons. If the majority is not entitled to what the minority is, then this is discrimination.

Unfortunately I don’t think it will do the job. The only possible way to fix it is to retroactively roll back benefits, along with reducing public salaries to a sustainable level. If the state needs to go bankrupt and have a new constitution, then so be it. The math will prevail. Unless the market continues on its six sigma run into perpetuity, this will not be enough. Besides, most of these egregious benefits were given/negotiated under fraud and/or bribery, and should be considered illegal.

I agree with Commandment Nos. 6-10. I strongly disagree with No. 4. Why should public employees’ benefits be guaranteed when the benefits of the vast majority of employees in the private sector are not?

As for No. 3, I believe that the benefits of public employees should be AS FAIR AND ADEQUATE as the benefits the rest of us enjoy.

Therefore, as for Nos. 1 and 2, I believe that public employees should all be required to participate in Social Security, like the rest of us. Thus, pension funds such as CALPERS should be merged with the Social Security system.

There was a time over a decade ago when public employees’ benefits lagged behind those of society at large. However, that is no longer the case. Public employees now enjoy “gold plated” pensions and health care (and salaries) which far surpass what the rest of us get. This has contributed to the growing perception that government employees are an “elite” group which feeds, like a parasite, on the body politic.

I agree with the comments and support the two pensions and health care initiatives

I spent approximately 30 years paying 9% of my salary into my PERS retirement. (I also spent quite a few years paying 7% plus FICA in a non-sworn position). Those of us who understood the way things worked back then knew that we were being paid substantially less than those with comparable job descriptions in private industry. We knew that we were not making what we would have been paid for a similar job in private industry, but the promise of a relatively secure retirement and substantial benefits caused us to “suck it up” because we knew that the good stuff would show up at retirement.

The trade off was that the public employees unions attempted to make up the gap between private and public salaries by negotiating “benefits” to offset public employees lower salaries.

I am really tired of being characterized as some kind of leach on the public teat. I worked hard (probably harder) with less resources and salary than my counterparts in private industry. I know that 9% of my gross went to PERS every month.
Now it is time for public employees to get the hard earned and well deserved payoffs that their private sector brothers got throughout the early parts of most of their careers. We made a deal (through contract negotiations) with the government and held up our end of the agreement. It seems to me that some folks without all of the facts are attempting to renege on legally binding pacts made many years ago to save the taxpayers big money, and now some people who are missing the facts want to take away what we public employees have rightfully earned.

9% times 30+ years plus income determined through the actuarial process makes for a large pool of money that some people would love to raid. That money that I put into retirement would surely have helped my family to have a better life back in the day; I paid my fair (maybe even more than fair) share into PERS. Now, I have a comfortable (not opulent) retirement that I earned through hard work, and some jerks out there are trying to figure out how to steal it from me and my family.

State Treasurer Lockyer is a bit off of the mark (Do I hear elections coming up?), as PERS funds are not a part of the State treasury. How can PERS payments bankrupt the State when there is no tie in between PERS and the General Fund…Sounds like more politico stretching of the facts…

I hope that people understand that government retirees are not trying to get something that thaey have not earned..Every dime that we get is based on legally binding, long standing contracts that should not be questioned. Maybe there is Obama Stimulus money that can work in this case
Thadd

This insanity has to stop. While these people enjoy a life of luxury it is at the expense of millions of working class people who always have to work hard for what little they get. There is only so much in the pot. When you grab for more than your share, it takes away from the less fortunate. When you use your good fortune to stomp on the others to get that larger portion (such as cutting jobs to keep an outrageous pension) you are the problem. If 60% of the population can live on $40,000 a year, when they are stil working hard and supporting a family, why does a retiree need more than $100,000 a year?
If the avarage retiree lives on $20,000 a year, why do these other elitists need over $100,000 a year? The higher the pension, the less money avaliable for schools, roads,and social security. The higher the pensions the larger our California state debt.

One requires a simple majority voter approval for any benefit increases, the other requires 2/3 vote approval.

At this point, current laws require us to honor all contracts. Pension law for government workers is different than laws for private workers. Once granted, pension formulas cannot be reduced, and benefits can’t be frozen.

Once granted, current laws do not allow for pension formulas to be reduced

Our initiative only effects NEW employees, and we are very clear that all contracts must be honored, and that all benefits granted are guaranteed. HOWEVER, promises made cannot be sustained without disastrous impacts on state and local budgets because the actuary did not anticipate that average monthly wages would increase 89% since 1998. Pensions are based on final wages, and when the actuary estimated lower salaries over the years you worked, he did not require agencies to put in what is required to pay your retirement. Unless changes are made for NEW employees, we are concerned that plans may fail. The CalSTRS actuary and, most recently, the CalPERS actuary warn that something must be done. Current workers and especially retirees should actively support our sensible solution to ensure that promises made to them can be kept.

Marcia,

tell me, who are your clients backing this attack on employee benefits. I read from the blogs you are rather enjoying the fight and also want to take away benefits from current employees as well. Who is backing your signature collection drive?

At least there is one voice of sanity in this insane asylum. You could not have stated it better Thaddeus. Back a couple of years ago when these private sector folks were raking in 200-300 grand a year, you didn’t hear so much whining. PRIVATE SECTOR FOLKS OUT THERE, I HAVE AN IDEA. WHY DON’T YOU GET TOGETHER AND FORM A PRIVATE SECTOR DEFINED BENEFIT SYSTEM LIKE OUR CALPERS. INSTEAD OF WISHING YOUR POOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS ON US, WHY DONT YOU FOCUS YOUR ANGER AT THE RICH CORPORATIONS WHO SCREW UP THEIR PRIVATE RETIREMENTS AND FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY. MAYBE CALPERS CAN EVEN MANAGE YOUR RETIREMENT DOLLARS SO THE CORP’S CANT STEAL IT BACK. (Remember CalPERS does still have about 200 BILLION dollars in their bank account) Dont drag us down because we opted for security in leiu of the big bucks.

Whose benefits are we taking away? Our initiative only applies to new workers hired after June 30, 2011.

With market declines, we are headed for a crisis unless something is done immediately. Our initiative won’t stop municipal bankruptcies because it only applies to new workers hired to replace those who retire after June 30, 2011, but at least the problem won’t get worse.

Whay dont you all take a deep breath, stop througing bombs at public employees because they chose public service over the private sector jobs and JUST GET THE FACTS! Here, this will help you. http://calpersresponds.com/

BTW CALPERS assets stand at 200.1 Billion as of today. That is a 19.1 Billion dollar increase just in the last 106 trading days. So much for the crisis Marcia.

Remember we all have choices in life.

You guys shouda worked for the state so you could get a decent pension when you retire instead you got ripped off by the banksters mucking in you 401 k’s. i feel sorry for you because you made the wrong choice.
Pensions are good for ordinary workers.
The Average CalPers retirees penmsion is less thatn $30,000 (why do you always focus on the top 1/2%) the higher paid are people who would have earned much more had they taken their skills and talents to the private sector.
This is a competitive world and the state does employ attorneys, M.D.’s and talented organizational managers- they won’t work for nothin’ you know
What kind of a Civil Servant force do you envision for the 21’s century.
If you are Young get a state job and retire with a good pension and stop bitchin’. What’s stopping you from making the right decision for yourselves–Jealousy?

Serena,
Please check your facts. You state “why does a retiree need more than $100,000 a year?” The fact is that only 1% of PERS retirees make that much money. Here’s a link to the real statistics:http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/retiremem.pdf. Don’t believe the hype printed in some newspapers and biased web sites.

As previously stated, I have paid 9.6% of my gross salary for the last 20 years to fund my retirement. I did not have a choice in the matter; it was, and still is, a mandatory contribution. CalPers invests the 9.6%, on my behalf, to fund my retirement.

In the private sector, most all companies have an elective retirement contribution, meaning the employee dictates exactly how much they want to invest/contribute. Many employers even give the employee a choice in how their contribution is invested. If the employee makes a bad investment choice, his future retirement benefits suffer.

What the public may not know is that most Peace Officers and Fire Fighters in California cannot collect Social Security benefits… ever. As part of our retirement agreements, the municipality in which we work for collects all of our Social Security benefits. We will never receive on dime of it.

I worked in the private sector for 15 years prior to getting my current job. I must forfeit all of the money that I contributed to Social Security during that time in order to collect my retirement with CalPers. The county in which I am employed will receive my earned Social Security benefits from the time I turn 62 until I die, maybe longer if my death is not reported promptly to the Social Security Administration. If I should become disabled prior to age 62 and eligible for Social Security benefits, my employer will receive those benefits directly. I will never see a dime from Social Security, ever, for any reason.

I paid for my retirement out of my pocket. My contribution is privately invested. Like most employees working in the private sector, I negotiated for my benefits. If the private sector made bad choices, that is the fault of their unions, or their own bad judgment. Why am I being portrayed as the bad guy for making smart decisions about my retirement.

The public employees salaries are higher than private sector now.
Time has come to trim the lavish pensions that will collaspe the system
The unions = GREED

What does the administer get paid for overseeing the retirment funds? We as a
country to make it through these times we all have to make the changes necessary
to get through it. This means everyone CEO’s goverment workers, private sector.
But, what people foreget the private sector is were you get goverment money. And
I think it is drying up at this time, so we need to make all the adjustments now.

It amuses me how some of you misguided people think public employees are the problem. Have you read the papers lately? There is a recession occurring. Every city and state in the country is having financial issues. It has nothing to do with employee pensions. Of course it’s easier to balance the budget on a public employee’s back because nobody likes them anyway. Right?

Honestly if I were to start my adult life over, I would not choose law enforcement again. It is just not worth the financial, physical, and psychological harm. When kids approach me and tell me they want to be a cop, I try to talk them out of it. It’s a lousy job really.

According to the CalPERS’ actuary, the average safety worker’s wage increased 69% since 1998. Add to that a 50% increase in pension formulas plus reduced age for full retirement benefits to 50, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that safety pay and benefit increases have pushed many cities over the edge.

You will receive social security as long as you worked 10 quarters. Many safety workers who retire in their 50s have more than enough time to work a second job in order to qualify for social security benefits.

Safety workers retiring today in many cities average over $100,000 annually in retirement before reductions for survivor benefits. Nonsafety employees who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 are generally top management, lawyers, doctors, etc.

Many California government workers were given retroactive increases to their pensions midcareer, with very little “paid” in return for these enhancements. What did they do to earn these increases for years already worked? What did taxpayers and citizens receive for these increases, exactly?

CalPERS assets stand at $200 billion, but liabilities for service already rendered is about $65 billion MORE than that.

Our initiative does nothing to change benefits for current workers or retirees. Why do you consider this an attack on employee benefits?

State and municipal workers can say that they put 9.6% of their salary into CalPers. If their pension was based on this contribution alone, there would be no impact on taxpayers. It doesn’t do the job so taxpayers pay. Let’s do a little simple math. If we assume for ease of math that state/municpal workers put in 10% of their salary for 20 years that’s 200% of a yearly salary. If they get 80% of their final salary as a pension, then they put in enough for 2 1/2 years of retirement yet they retire for 30 years.

Or to put it another way, if they put in 10% of their salary for 20 years, then they should get a pension of 10% of their salary for 20 years (instead of 80%).

fritz has experienced a little taste of defeat lately and now realizes the Mt. Everest that she must climb fighting the unions that protect us. If she thinks we are going to give up what we’ve fought years to get, she’s got another thing coming. She sits behind a desk all day counting beans as a cpa and has no idea what it’s like to risk your life for a living. I feel the taxpayers will support public servants and protect us from some unscrupulous individuals and groups that are trying to undo everything we’ve been given by the California Legislature and Governors over the years. All I can say is thank God we have people like Police, Firefighters, CalTrans & Prison guards, just to name a few, that will do the these dangerous jobs for us. When we call 911, be glad there’s people that will come to help us. Don’t let these people degrade our public servants. I’m going to support them at all means. They’re proud & dedicated. The other idiot loose out there is the guy who wants to tax poor old retirees pensions and social security. How disgraceful. Its no wonder why he can’t get enough signatures on his initiative. Lets keep it that way. He should be ashamed of himself. A similar initiative was overturned by the Oregon Legislature and even Jerry Brown of California questions its legality.

Why, if these jobs are so dangerous and difficult, is there such a low turnover? The only folks who leave are those who retire. Why is that?