Los Angeles pensions are ‘unsustainable’ says city official; ballot measure being considered to scale back benefits
In a confidential memo sent to council members Tuesday, Los Angeles City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said the city’s current retirement system is “unsustainable” according to an article in today’s Los Angeles Times by David Zahniser and Phil Willon.
The city’s proposal is being debated at the same time that a sweeping pension plan is being pushed by the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, an advocacy group founded by former Assemblyman Keith Richman. That plan, being considered for the November statewide ballot, would reduce pension benefits and raise the retirement age for all new hires in city, county and state government.
“The public is getting the message,” Richman said. “People understand that they’re currently paying for two police departments or two fire departments — one that’s working and one that’s retired.”
To read the entire article “Los Angeles officials consider a ballot measure to scale back pensions” click here.
I agree that reform for new workers is not enough to close the gap today. However, a decisive win on our initiative would send a strong message to elected officials and may provide the backbone needed for our leaders to demand concessions from workers–whether it be in pay, fewer days off with pay, furloughs, layoffs, or a combination of all.
Why is it that Generation Greed, having taken unaffordable benefits for itself, always wants to make up for it at the expense of younger generations, and not given anything back? It’s the same when you look at Proposition 13 and all those debts — let the next generation pay.
If you can’t reduce the pensions of existing employees, you can certainly forced them to pay more in — and more than those coming after who would have less valuable pensions. If you can’t take away the pensions of existing retirees, you could certainly make them pay more for health care, or elimiate it for those eligible for health care.
Cutting the pay and benefits of future workers is called reform. I’m sure that increasing the pensions of existing workers and retirees retroactively was also called reform. Enacting a Medicare prescription drug plan was called reform. I’m sure that cutting federal retirement benefits for younger generations — who were generally denied pensions in the private sector and often health insurance as well — will also be called reform.
There is nothing to prevent your group from targeting the pain to those who have caused it, except self interest and a desire to placate those with the greatest sense of entitlement.
@Marcia Fritz
Thank you Marcia …..
My endless nudging seems to be having an effect (it IS well-intentioned). I still would have liked to have seen “pension reductions” specifically enumerated within your list of concessions from CURRENT workers …”whether it be in pay, fewer days off with pay, furloughs, layoffs, or a combination of all”
Say it a few times (“pensions reductions” for CURRENT workers) …. get over the hurdle … it will grow on you.