My colleague Larry Gilbert has written a post fingering State Senator Lou Correa for authoring Senate Bill 400, way back in 1999. This bill allowed the now-infamous “3% at 50” pension spike – which has resulted in cops and firemen retiring at the very young age of fifty – and making a mint at our expense.
However, further review has revealed that while Correa did co-author the bill in question, he was one of several authors. And when the bill came to a vote, it passed because Republican legislators voted for it en masse.
You can see for yourself how the State Assemblymen voted at this link. Here are the Republicans who voted for the pension spike:
- Roy Ashburn
- Pat Bates
- Bill Campbell
- Bill Leonard
- Rod Pacheco
- Abel Maldonado
- Robert Pacheco
Now those are just the Assemblymen who voted for the pension spike. Here are the State Senators who did so as well (and for the record NO Republicans voted against this bill!):
- Ray Haynes
- Jim Brulte
- Dick Mountjoy
- Stephen Peace
- Chuck Poochigian
I probably missed a few that I did not recognize. See the full list at this link.
I expect Democrats to shill for unions, but when Republicans do it we all lose. That is what happened in this instance. A lot of Republicans ended up with blood on their hands.
It is unfair to try to pin the pension crisis on Correa. SB 400 passed in the end because Republicans embraced it. It is up now to our legislators to undo this damage. However, if Republicans are going to spend their time fingering Correa instead of working for a solution, we aren’t going to get anywhere.
If you are an advocate for local control vs. big brother in Sacramento dictating to local governkment as I am, then Correa’s legislation is no problem, as it is giving local elected officials more legal options. It does not require locals to do anything. You can’t be for local control yet against legislation like this. Your gripe is with the local officials who make decisions you dont’ like.
Been around a while.
Have you read the 1999 SB 400? If not let me suggest you do so before getting confused.
Larry,
I think that he is referring to the fact that this law allowed cities and other local agencies to pass the 3% at 50 statute. SB 400 did not force this on anyone. It just made it legal to do this.
So not only did a bunch of Sacramento Republicans vote for this, their local comrades followed suit.
Again, I expect this from Dems. I am disgusted when Reeps do the same thing. It is by far more vile. Small wonder that so many voters are going DTS or third party…
Art. If I am not mistaken I recall this legislation impacting the CHP (union) which is not a local agency
Larry,
It may have but if so then the Legislature and the Governor approved that CHP deal. And I bet a slew of Reeps joined the Dems in voting for that. So sad.
Mr. Gilbert – I have read it, and for local government I read it as providing another option, whether to use it or not is the decision of local electeds. Thus, I believe Mr. Pedroza has it correct and that you are apparently against local control when the local decisions do not suit you. Maybe the main problem is too darn many local electeds – too many redundant cities, perhaps counties too. We are at the point where we cannot afford all this government. However, if you like all these local entities then local decision making should come with it – otherwise, why have them at all.
BAW,
Don’t forget what term limits did – it turned lame local elected officials into legislators. So things got worse, not better…
BAW. I am a strong supporter of local control. The fact that I hold our local elected officials feet to the fire should not be misinterpreted.
I have lobbied for change both at the local level to our state Assembly and State Senate working with elected officials from BOTH sides of the aisle.
Two of the local politicians that Gilbert solidly supports voted to spike pensions from 2% to 2.7% in Mission Viejo back in 2002. Mr. Gilbert is always claiming we can’t afford these benefits, but he continues to support Ledesma and Reavis. What they should have pushed for instead was raisng the retirement age to something more appropriate like 65. And yet Gilbert has attacked the politician pushing for raising the retirement age.
LBM.
A few questions and facts. 2002
1. When did you begin reading Juice posts?
2. When was the Juice blog created?
3. When did Larry Gilbert join Art’s family of writers?
4. Do you know my policy thoughts from 8 years ago?
5. Have you seen anything written by me in 2002 addressing that pension spike?
6. As a first time candidate in Nov 2002 did Trish Kelley have anything to say on this issue?
Go away.
POUSA ret. gets less than 200 k per year and to qualify for that pension, all other pensions must be given up.
It is a crime for low level civil servants from state and local levels to get a greater pension than a retired US President.
Geez Larry I touched a nerve I see. Are you denying that you supported Reavis and Ledesma in 2002? I’m sure they will be surprised to hear that.
In fact, while they were approving that increase in ’02 which has cost millions so far, you were objecting to the Mission Viejo Masjid inviting the city to a “day of unity and prayer.” But nothing about the pension spike. I guess it’s only an issue when it suits your purpose.
LBM.
The Orange Juice blog was not around in 2002.
If I think I know who you are someone in our city attacked Muslims. What does your reference to a day of prayer at th eMosque have to do with spiking pensions anyway?