Gov. Brown’s decent pension plan is a long shot

Despite some encouraging details in Gov. Jerry Brown’s recently announced pension-reform proposal, there’s virtually no chance the state will seriously reform — or even seriously attempt to reform — a system creaking under the weight of about $500 billion in unfunded liabilities.

The proposal isn’t bad. It doesn’t go far enough to fix the problem yet if implemented in its entirety, but it goes further than most pension reform advocates had expected from a Democratic governor who is a union ally. But the plan probably is dead on arrival in the Legislature. One might even argue that Brown is being cynical here — offering reasonably tough reform proposals that he knows will go nowhere. Then he can claim that he has tried to fix the problem but could not surmount the insurmountable.

On the budget, Brown has ended up like Arnold Schwarzenegger — kicking the can down the road. But he did pull out the stops for his tax-hike ideas. They are bad ideas, but he tried to get them approved. What are the chances he will try equally as hard on the pension matter given that these good ideas seem to go against his political nature? The ballpark chances are somewhere around zero.

On taxes, Brown only needed to overcome Republican opposition and win over a few legislators, but he failed. On pensions, he needs to shift the thinking of his entire party, including the two top Democratic leaders who have spent years working in the government employee union movement. As the Sacramento Bee reported, these leaders avoided the news conference and reacted “warily.”

You can’t really win over these defenders of the current system. The unions are trying to protect lavish compensation packages for themselves and their members and their legislative allies are supporting their benefactors. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” Upton Sinclair once wrote. How is Brown going to promote renewed understanding of the pension debt in light of this reality?

Regarding specifics, Brown would require public employees, including existing employees, to begin sharing in the cost of their own retirements. Another key component of the Brown plan is a hybrid system that combines a defined-benefit plan public employees currently enjoy (a guaranteed amount of benefits) with the 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan combined with Social Security that’s common in the private sector. Unfortunately, Brown would require a study to come up with the specifics and the devil always is in the details.

Brown would increase retirement ages, which is a great idea. He would require that pensions be based on the final three years’ work rather than on the absurd California-only policy of basing retirement pay on the final year. He would strip pensions from felons and require that pensions be based on regular pay rather than on pay and the padded benefits often included in the formula. He would stop the scam called “airtime,” in which public employees can buy additional retirement benefits often for pennies on the dollar. He would also ban the practice of granting pension increases retroactively.

These are all good reforms. But most of these items apply only to new hires, which does virtually nothing for the current pension debt because it doesn’t do much about current employees, who need to start accumulating pension benefits at a lower rate.

The real questions are more political than technical, though. Will the governor use his political capital on behalf of this proposal? Will Democrats in the Legislature face the pension mess and agree to these reforms? Probably not and definitely no. Only a naïve person would put much faith on Brown’s plan becoming reality.

Steven Greenhut is editor of www.calwatchdog.com; write to him at sgreenhut@calwatchdog.com.

Dan WaltersOp EdsOpinionSan Francisco

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

The City requires the recycling or reuse of debris material removed from a construction project site. <ins>(Emma Chiang/Special to S.F. Examiner)</ins>
<ins></ins>
Permits proposed for haulers of construction debris to achieve zero-waste

San Francisco plans to tighten regulations on the disposal of construction and… Continue reading

(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/TNS)
Newsom says California will review FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines before releasing to public

By Taryn Luna Los Angeles Times California will review the safety of… Continue reading

Rachael Tanner, left, testifies virtually before the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee Monday, October 19, 2020. (SFGOV courtesy art)
Rachael Tanner set to become SF’s next Planning Commissioner

Rachael Tanner is expected to serve as the newest member of the… Continue reading

People exercise along the closed Great Highway on Friday, Oct. 2, 2020. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Could the Great Highway become a great city park?

Permanent closure would require extensive public outreach, safety and traffic management plans

Flames and smoke overtake a tree as the LNU Lightning Complex fire spreads in Fairfield, California on August 19, 2020. (JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)
Many wildfires near full containment, but officials fear continuing hot weather

By Molly Burke The Sacramento Bee Thousands of firefighters continue to battle… Continue reading

Most Read