Opinion: Court opens door to changing CalPERS
By Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee
California’s perpetual debate over public employee pensions has always revolved about what’s called the “California rule” – a series of court decisions that seemingly prohibit any changes in pension benefits once they are granted.
Dan Walters
The debate has intensified in recent years as the California Public Employee Retirement System and other state and local pension systems grapple with multibillion-dollar “unfunded liabilities” for pension benefits and increase mandatory payments from governments to reduce them.
The rule, first enunciated in a 1955 state Supreme Court case out of Long Beach, has often been cited by public employee unions and others as they resist efforts at state and local levels to overhaul pension programs and reduce their heavy costs.
It’s based on clauses in the federal and state constitutions prohibiting the “impairment” of contracts and the assumption that pension benefits are, in fact, protected contracts.
Socialized risk and individualized benefits are an insult to anyone who has funded their own retirement. Unlike government workers, we funded our own retirement and took risks, we didn’t have any guarantees. Why should government workers have guaranteed benefits and be immune from risk?
I don’t have anything against benefits, but I do have a problem with funding someone else’s guaranteed retirement benefits when mine are subject to risk and loss.
VOTE VOTE VOTE and get rid of these people.