Former Republican Assemblyman Keith Richman is at it again. Richman is on the attack and attempting to cut the pensions of public employees who serve our communities and our state.
The Richman Initiative will cost firefighters, teachers, police officers and state workers millions to defeat. Political observers say that Richman and his supporters are well on their way to collecting the 694,354 signatures needed, by Jan. 10, 2008, to qualify the initiative for the June 2008 ballot.
The Public Employee Benefits Reform Act which many refer to, as the Richman Initiative, calls for dramatic reductions in pensions for all new employees and would cut health benefits for those who cannot work until age 65, punishing those who get sick or are injured before they retire. The initiative also calls for increasing the retirement age and lowering benefits for new state and local government employees hired after July 1, 2009.
For example, an employee who works 30 years and retires at age 60 would face a $10,000 reduction in annual pension, while getting no health benefits.
Having learned from his previous attempts to slash public employee pensions Richman is this time proposing that his initiative would only apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009. This forces public employees into a divisive two-tiered system, and would make it even more challenging to recruit state employees, firefighters, police officers, and teachers.
Let’s look for a moment at the people who serve the public.
The vast majority of state workers for example, make a lower middle-class to middle-class income. Contrary to popular belief they do not make a lot of money compared to the private sector. Most public employees understand that they could make significantly more money if they worked in the private sector; however, since many grew up believing in the concept of serving the community through public service they have opted to work in state government, or as a teacher, firefighter, or police officer. They understand that they will have a decent retirement, not a lavish one, when they retire, because they pay into their retirement system every month.
We all know that teachers deserve more pay than what they earn. I was quite surprised to learn from my mother-in-law, and sisters-in-law that they have to purchase supplies for school, since their schools do not provide all of the supplies needed for children. I realize I’m aging myself, but I don’t recall Ms. Chamberlin or Mr. Sousa having to purchase their supplies when I attended elementary school. This, on top of the long hours that they put in, for the love of children and learning…teachers do not need to be put in a position to defend their retirement. At a time California and the nation are facing a critical teacher shortage teachers should not have to fight to protect their retirement.
Then we have firefighters and police officers who put their lives on the line day in and day out. You mean to tell me that if they suffer a burn, or a critical injury that they are then going to be punished for having to take an early retirement?
Why should we punish the very people who do the hard work of serving our communities and our state?
According to the Sacramento Bee, Governor Schwarzenegger and the leaders of the Legislature appointed a bi-partisan commission early this year to study benefits and to propose long-term funding mechanisms for CalPERS. It would seem fiscally responsible for Richman to at least allow the bi-partisan commission to develop and propose solutions before subjecting public employees to yet another multimillion-dollar, divisive initiative campaign that’s going to require public employees to protect their retirement.
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the "crisis" [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
California’s Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is, in fact, quite healthy thanks to a record of double-digit growth in investment gains. In the past 12 months, CalPERS’ investment portfolio grew by more than 19 percent, the highest in nine years, and double the assumed rate. Many pension plans will be 100 percent funded. For decades about 75 percent of the cost of benefits has been funded by return on investments – public agencies and employees pay the rest.
The Bee quoted State Controller John Chiang as saying that, "it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now."
The Vanguard asks, why the attack on public employees? Why the attack when Richman is receiving his CA State Assembly Retirement? I’ve attempted to find out what his retirement will look like, but still haven’t found out what members of the Assembly receive for their retirement.
---Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald sitting in for Doug Paul Davis
The Richman Initiative will cost firefighters, teachers, police officers and state workers millions to defeat. Political observers say that Richman and his supporters are well on their way to collecting the 694,354 signatures needed, by Jan. 10, 2008, to qualify the initiative for the June 2008 ballot.
The Public Employee Benefits Reform Act which many refer to, as the Richman Initiative, calls for dramatic reductions in pensions for all new employees and would cut health benefits for those who cannot work until age 65, punishing those who get sick or are injured before they retire. The initiative also calls for increasing the retirement age and lowering benefits for new state and local government employees hired after July 1, 2009.
For example, an employee who works 30 years and retires at age 60 would face a $10,000 reduction in annual pension, while getting no health benefits.
Having learned from his previous attempts to slash public employee pensions Richman is this time proposing that his initiative would only apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009. This forces public employees into a divisive two-tiered system, and would make it even more challenging to recruit state employees, firefighters, police officers, and teachers.
Let’s look for a moment at the people who serve the public.
The vast majority of state workers for example, make a lower middle-class to middle-class income. Contrary to popular belief they do not make a lot of money compared to the private sector. Most public employees understand that they could make significantly more money if they worked in the private sector; however, since many grew up believing in the concept of serving the community through public service they have opted to work in state government, or as a teacher, firefighter, or police officer. They understand that they will have a decent retirement, not a lavish one, when they retire, because they pay into their retirement system every month.
We all know that teachers deserve more pay than what they earn. I was quite surprised to learn from my mother-in-law, and sisters-in-law that they have to purchase supplies for school, since their schools do not provide all of the supplies needed for children. I realize I’m aging myself, but I don’t recall Ms. Chamberlin or Mr. Sousa having to purchase their supplies when I attended elementary school. This, on top of the long hours that they put in, for the love of children and learning…teachers do not need to be put in a position to defend their retirement. At a time California and the nation are facing a critical teacher shortage teachers should not have to fight to protect their retirement.
Then we have firefighters and police officers who put their lives on the line day in and day out. You mean to tell me that if they suffer a burn, or a critical injury that they are then going to be punished for having to take an early retirement?
Why should we punish the very people who do the hard work of serving our communities and our state?
According to the Sacramento Bee, Governor Schwarzenegger and the leaders of the Legislature appointed a bi-partisan commission early this year to study benefits and to propose long-term funding mechanisms for CalPERS. It would seem fiscally responsible for Richman to at least allow the bi-partisan commission to develop and propose solutions before subjecting public employees to yet another multimillion-dollar, divisive initiative campaign that’s going to require public employees to protect their retirement.
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the "crisis" [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
California’s Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is, in fact, quite healthy thanks to a record of double-digit growth in investment gains. In the past 12 months, CalPERS’ investment portfolio grew by more than 19 percent, the highest in nine years, and double the assumed rate. Many pension plans will be 100 percent funded. For decades about 75 percent of the cost of benefits has been funded by return on investments – public agencies and employees pay the rest.
The Bee quoted State Controller John Chiang as saying that, "it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now."
The Vanguard asks, why the attack on public employees? Why the attack when Richman is receiving his CA State Assembly Retirement? I’ve attempted to find out what his retirement will look like, but still haven’t found out what members of the Assembly receive for their retirement.
---Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald sitting in for Doug Paul Davis
