Email List

To join our e-mail list, please enter your e-mail address. You can unsubscribe at any time.






Thomas B. Elias, Columnist
Santa Monica Mirror Archives
Thomas B. Elias, Columnist

Opinion, Columnist, Government

Will Panglossian Poll Stymie Needed Pension Changes

Posted Aug. 11, 2012, 2:04 am

Tom Elias / Mirror Columnist

The Field Poll is rarely wrong in gauging public sentiment. Its final reading prior to a major election almost never deviates more than 4 percent or 5 percent from the final vote.

That’s why the poll’s midsummer finding that 53 percent of likely voters in California believe public employee pensions in the state are either about right or too low was the most surprising poll result yet in this highly political year.

The biggest problem with the poll:( It might give state legislators an excuse not to follow up on Gov. Jerry Brown’s pension reform proposals, which would reduce some future pensions a bit while also raising retirement ages and demanding higher pension contributions from most state employees.

Because legislators have not yet acted, the crisis in pensions goes on. Make no mistake, that crisis is directly related to the crisis in state and municipal finances, which has thus far this year seen the very, very different cities of Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino go bankrupt.

What made the poll finding most strange was the fact that when directly faced with pension questions, voters in two big cities – usually conservative San Diego and generally very liberal San Jose – both opted to impose conditions on local public employees very like what Brown proposes for the state. They did this by wide margins barely a month before the poll was taken.

Voters, said Democratic San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, “understand the connection between skyrocketing pensions and the cuts in services we’ve suffered.”

But the Field result gave those who want no change in public employee pensions reason to demur. “This poll shows voters are uneasy about radical pension cuts such as those being discussed in Sacramento to reduce retirement security for firefighters, school employees, teachers, police officers and other public workers,” said Dave Low, chairman of the anti-change group Californians for Retirement Security.

Exactly one day later came the surprise San Bernardino bankruptcy declaration.

Suddenly, even if voters felt as they told Field and not the way the real-life ballots went in San Diego and San Jose, everything changed.

Pensions were a major part of the San Bernardino problem. Yes, the city council there had been lied to for many years by former officials now replaced by a new city manager and finance director. Rising city worker pension costs, up $1 million – or about 16 percent – in just the last year, are only one factor there, along with other major items like the burst housing bubble, the closing of Norton Air Force Base in 1994 and an unemployment rate above 15 percent.

Combine the San Bernardino shock with the subsequent revelation that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System posted only a 1 percent return on all its investments during the last fiscal year, and it’s just possible that poll might have turned out differently if it had been taken a month later than it was.

For the lousy CalPERS investment performance means that cities, counties, special districts and the state will be dunned more than expected for pension costs later this year. This could push even more cities to the brink of bankruptcy, where they could renegotiate their obligations – salary, pensions and other benefits – with public employee unions.

If anything, the poll finding demonstrates many Californians remain in a state of denial about the fiscal troubles plaguing many pub

Post a comment


Aug. 13, 2012, 2:35:11 am

wolflen said...

we must remember unions could care less if a city goes bankrupt because of pension costs .. during and after reorganization .. they will be there demanding the same benefits that drove the city into the fact at a federal level and all states and local have to stop giving annual "cost of living adjustments" that are above the real economic a 4% adjustment year after year when the most you can get on a one year fed T-Bill is approx less than 2% .. will bring down the most well funded programs in short time.. perhaps if we tied all govt pensions and govt funded programs to the annual T-Bill rate .. which is saying..hey regular joe..this is all i can afford to give you on you investment to me..but unions seem to think they should get far more.. yes more cities will fall..something about not learning from history..and basic math..

SM Mirror TV