THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Pension reform advocates want measure on ballot


image_pdfimage_print

By Joe Rodriguez, San Jose Mercury News

A pension reform coalition that includes former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed unveiled a pair of statewide ballot measures Monday to rein in retirement benefits for government employees.

The coalition, spearheaded by Reed and former San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio, wrote two propositions to improve its chances of winning a long-running battle with state Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose office is in charge of writing the titles and summaries of statewide ballot measures. The campaign plans to place only one measure on the November 2016 ballot after seeing how the attorney general summarizes them.

The coalition claims the Attorney General’s Office penned unfair summaries of previous measures it proposed because Harris, a Democrat, enjoys the political support of labor unions. Harris’ office denies this allegation.

Read the whole story

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (2)
  1. Tahoeadvocate says - Posted: October 6, 2015

    A retirement system which does not put the major burden on future residents of the State would be one which has 4 elements. First, every employee will pay into social security and be eligible to collect it when they retire. Second, the State will offer a 401K program to encourage each employee to invest a percentage of their salary into this tax deferred system. This could be done through a matching investment by the State up to some percentage of the employees income. Finally, there could be an actual pension based on the number of years the employee works and an average of the last 5 or 10 years of employment. These 3 retirement programs along with the employee’s own private savings should provide security in retirement.
    The issue with this however is that US Congress started dipping into the social security savings fund for things other than the employee’s retirement. This has to stop as those needs are not funded by the people receiving them. The US Congress should not take your savings and give it to someone else. If the need is there, then separate funding should be identified.

    With the above system, our children will not have to be unfairly burdened with pension plans.

  2. dumbfounded says - Posted: October 7, 2015

    I think that it is an unfortunate conundrum that the public has to pay for their own retirement as well as the retirement for public servants. Why do the citizens have to pay for their retirement as well as those who serve them? Especially considering the services that we get. Sometimes the servants act like the masters and demand only the best while the citizens get whatever is left. We pay for their poor decisions, we pay for their poor service, we pay for their excellent pay and benefits and then we pay for their retirement. Meanwhile, the legislators largely ignore the citizens in considering their work. They seem to pay far more attention to the special interest groups. Sigh.