Opinion: Alter pensions, collective bargaining in California
By Allan Mansoor
Recent events in the Midwest have put a spotlight on one of the most volatile budget issues of the day: pensions for public employees.
Some have described the idea of requiring members of public employee unions to contribute a little bit more to their taxpayer-funded pensions as an assault on working families. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is this: Costs for public pensions have soared nationwide and will continue to soar unless reforms are made. Estimates vary, but they range anywhere from $200 billion to $500 billion in California alone. Last year, a Stanford University study estimated the state’s unfunded pension liability at $500 billion, or about six times the current state budget.
Even if the actual number is less, trying to find a couple hundred billion dollars is going to be tough. Taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference either through higher taxes or more cuts in services – or both.
Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa, is serving his first term in the California Legislature and represents the 68th Assembly District.
Public employees have no problem demanding the tax payers pay their salary, benefits (there’s a lot of them), pensions, and lately in this town a few even act as if they are owed a job regardless of how they talk about the tax payer and their employer. Every other worker in this country pays for social security out of our paychecks and we all believe it won’t even be there when we retire to draw from. We’re paying for something we probably won’t get.
These public employees demand, threaten, shout, and protest at the mere suggestion they should pay anything for a benefit they also demand should be there when they retire. They’ll be nothing to sue for if there won’t be any money.
Politicians, we didn’t elect you to protect the employees’ income or jobs, we elected you represent the public, our community. If you keep funding a few employees, it will be at the expense of our community, state and country. It’s not the public employees that need your help, it’s the public. Turn your attention away from their crys and listen to ours. You won’t see us protesting, we’ll be too busy looking for jobs and scrounging to make it. Public employees act like they never saw this coming, which only proves how far from reality they had their head buried and how little they cared or invested in the troubles of their community. Maybe had they pitched in a lot sooner we could have turned the corner a lot sooner.
Although everyone will agree that we must have more efficient government, there is no need to demonize the public employees. We know that our government at all levels must become more effective and utilize their resources better. You must remember that public employees are but one side of the contract. Government managers and politicians are the other side of the equation. They too, benefited from the high salaries, benefits and pensions. The difference is that those politicians who supported this extravagant spending are gone now. Enjoying their retirements on the taxpayer. The employees are left to take the blame.
Make everyone pay into the S.S. system, public employees included. This is one small step to make this system solvent, because we know the other one is not substainable.
Thank you dumfounded for the defense of public employees. Wow, really strange how this has turned into a bash the public employee forum. I myself am a former California government employee for 16 years, and I DID pay into social security, and I paid into my pension for the 1st 5 years. However, I do agree that the employee needs to pay into their pension (throughout their employment) and eleviate the taxpayers of these costs.
Lou, some public employees, such as public school “classified employees” (non-teaching positions) contribute 7% of their monthly paycheck to CalPERS IN ADDITION to paying Social Security. There is no choice – we must pay both.
Suppose that a person in private employment and his employer agreed that the employer would pay into the employee’s retirement fund in lieu of salary. It happens all the time with private sector executives and union members. Would you say that the employee is not contributing to his retirement? No – the retirement contribution is deferred compensation. If the private employer failed to contribute to the retirement fund, would you think it fair that the employee make up the shortfall, or that the employer does what he agreed to?
It’s no different with public employee pensions. These employees negotiated deferred compensation in lieu of salary. The problem is that the politicians who are ultimately their employers didn’t keep the agreement, and instead spent that money on other things. Only now that they’ve been caught do the politicians deflect the blame onto the public employees.
“…public employees demand, threaten, shout, and protest at the mere suggestion they should pay anything for a benefit…” – someone’s been watching a lot of Fox News!
We need to get away from the defined benefit mentality. Retirement benefits have to be based upon investment portfolio performance otherwise you are faced with the prospect of unfunded liabilities that are passed onto future generations. We need to return the public sector to the defined contribution concept that can then become a part of the compensation debate.
Defined retirement benefits in any form,including social security and medicare, are irresponsible fiscal policy. As a businessman I am astounded that elected officials, union representitves and yes public sector employees enter into employment contracts without knowing the true long term costs of these contracts.