The Martyrdom of Steven Greenhut
Over the last few years I have read many writings and studies about public sector pensions and the perceived unfairness and unaffordabilty of them. The frequency and intensity of these pieces has prompted me to try and find out just who the people are that keep flogging this horse. Of course there is Steven Greenhut, whose column appears regularly in the Orange County Register, and John Coupal, of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association – also a frequent Register columnist. They are visible and well known for their anti-public pension efforts.
But, who is behind the frequently mentioned organizations – The Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility and Californians for Pension Reform? What I learned as I tried to find out is that the folks that keep whipping this horse tend to be Libertarians and that the same few names tend to pop up as players in several organizations beating the public sector pension drum. A person with Libertarian credentials who shows up on a Reason Foundation video about pensions, who is the editor of a blog named Pension Tsunami, who is or has been on an advisory committee of the Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (along with Orange Countians John Moorlach and Reed Royalty) and has been active with Californians for Pension Reform is Jack Dean of Fullerton. Dean is also current or past President of the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers (Information on this Association’s web site about just who and how many members it has is lacking). In the past Dean has been the CEO of the Reason Foundation (an admitted Libertarian organization) and also Chairman of the California Libertarian Party.
A couple other names associated with several public sector pension reform organizations are Dan Pellissier, once a member of late former Assemblyman Keith Richman’s staff. After serving a stint in the Schwarzenegger administration he is currently the President of California Pension Reform. His former boss, the late Richman, founded the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. A woman named Marcia Fritz is often quoted in the media speaking for that Foundation on public pension issues – and of course her comments toe the party line with regard to the perceived excesses and unaffordability of public sector pay and benefits, including current pensions..
So I have come to the conclusion that it is a relatively small core group of people of the Libertarian bent who are continuously beating the drum about public employees and their pay and benefits, especially their retirement. It should be acknowledged that these drum beaters are often supported by far right leaders of the Republican Party as well.
Besides my suspicion that some of these groups and foundations are pretty much the same core group of people acting under the umbrella of different organizations, we come to a February 19 column in the Orange County Register by Steven Greenhut (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/pension-340811-harris-reform.html) In this column Greenhut reports that the effort by Californians for Pension Reform (Pellisier’s group) to qualify two pension reform initiatives for the November ballot was sabotaged by the ballot description given the proposed initiatives by California Attorney General Kamala Harris. He goes on to describe Harris as Totalitarian, not attuned to fairness and decency, doing the bidding of labor unions and in essence poisoning the well among potential donors for the $ 2 million needed to gather signatures to get the initiative on the ballot (I assume the $2 million was needed to pay for paid petition signature gatherers for this effort rather than rely upon the true grass roots movement concept behind the initiative process).
So, we have an on-going campaign by mostly Libertarian or Libertarian leaning folks supposedly sabotaged by our Democratic Attorney General and organized labor. The perceived sabotage is credited with doing under the initiatives before they left the starting gate. Greenhut, a major promoter of the public sector pension reform movement paints the backers of the proposed initiatives as victims. I don’t buy it. Instead, I wonder how much money is being made by the core group of drum beaters as they seek to whip up support for their cause. My suspicion is that there is money to be followed on both sides of this one.
I think that any discussion of public pensions has to begin by distinguishing the pensions of those who have control over their own pensions (see City of Bell) or close personal relationships with those who do, versus those who don’t. A lot of the abuses I see reported widely fall into the former group.
“I think that any discussion of public pensions has to begin by distinguishing the pensions of those who have control over their own pensions ..”
Precisely – you have hit the nail on the head Mr. Diamond – unions have gained control over their pensions by supporting their candidates for local and state office.
“Control” as in “can vote on personally.” In law, we call it “self-dealing.” Unions don’t “control” the pensions of all members in any meaningful sense.
I have to say, though, this is a good, substantive debate for us to be having. My request is simply that people not apply arguments based on City of Bell-style self-dealing to all county workers. Fair?
“Control” as in “can vote on personally.” In law, we call it “self-dealing.” Unions don’t “control” the pensions of all members in any meaningful sense.”
That is not true Mr. Diamond – unions have a good deal control/power of who gets elected to vote on union pensions – that is a very meaningful sense.
No lawyer double-speak please.
If you don’t think that there’s a useful distinction to be made between someone casting a vote and someone supporting people for office — which many interest groups from all sectors do — as regards public pensions (or any other issue), then we will simply have to agree to disagree. If unions “controlled” who held office in OC, we’d have a very different county, eh?
If unions did not weild tremendous influence in OC, we’d have a different county, eh?
We have overwhelmingly Republican elected officials and you’re crying about how strong unions are here. What would satisfy you, skally? Bringing back peonage?
Unions — and we should probably separate police and corrections unions from the rest of them for purposes of this discussion — are punching above their weight in OC, but they are severely outweighed. When you see Linda Sanchez labor organizer types running OC, then you might have a point.
Months ago there were reports that others, including a UC Santa Barbara Professor, were going to circulate petitions to get their particular model of public pension reform on the ballot. Does anyone know if those efforts are under way – still alive?
Spoken like a true public employee.
Which I’m not, Tony. But you should try talking to mid-and-lower-level public employees sometime about what their work life is actually like. It’s surprisingly low on champagne, caviar, and canapes.
I think Tony was addressing the author of this post. Who actually IS a retired public employee (and Republican.)
Caviar? Champagne? How about second homes on the River, expensive cars, tons of vacation time to enjoy?
Soon FFFF will be publishing a list of those people in the City of Fullerton’s employ who make over $90,000 per year, not counting benefits and City pension contributions.
There are well over a hundred of them. The future pension obligation for these people alone should cause Fullerton taxpayers cold sweats.
I look forward to your list — and to hearing from those people.
I don’t object to your concern over pensions — although you seem shocked by the very idea of pensions at all, as if pensions are not commonly a part of one’s compensation in both the public and the private sectors.
I object to your use of a broad brush. If you’d like to emphasize that your concern over pensions, for example, does not particularly address those who make under $90K for year, then the weight of our disagreements lightens considerably. But my sense is that that is not your position, is it?
People do live into their retirement years (for now, anyways) and then need (and provide for) deferred income. This isn’t startling or new or cause for cold sweats. (Do you favor a “Logan’s Run” solution instead?) The need to ensure that people aren’t gaming the system, largely through self-dealing, is clear; a broad brush attack on public pensions generally is a misguided overreaction at best or a cynical move at worst. I hope that, switching metaphors, you’ll use a rifle in shooting down bloated pensions rather than a shotgun.
That is ridiculous. Somewhere along the line government workers became entitled to pensions that represent most if not all of their working income.
The pension was no longer a practical safety net, but keeping people in the lifestyle to which they had become entitled. The payouts are defined.
None of the people in the private sector who support this system get these kinds of benefits.
Liberals keep yakking about the vanishing middle class. They are missing a new stratification based on government employment versus private sector work – in which the former can retire in their 50s with most of their working salaries for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile the poor suckers on Social Security will keep getting the age limit raised past 67, etc.
I’m sure the people you hear from will only too happy to extol the virtues of the system.
Tony, is it your argument that this analysis applies as well to those making under $90K/year? If someone is making, say, $40,000 per year, predicated on the understanding that a pension will keep him or her reasonably well-funded in retirement, are you truly up in arms about their being able to maintain “the lifestyle to which they had become entitled”? Because from the perspective of those mid-to-low-level public workers, that pension represents deferred income. “Most of your working salary” is not so amazingly fantastic if your working salary is low to begin with.
I can’t tell whether or not you actually think that we disagree. If we set the point where we might agree on pension reform as regarding those for salaries of $90K/yr & up, it should be pretty easy to see whether your proposals actually address only such workers or also those who do the brunt of the hard work for less pay. I’m optimistic that your reforms will be matched to the problem with higher-end pensions that form the basis of your pitch. Shouldn’t I be?
The Costa Mesa Charter fight has brought in the same small band of “drum beaters”. Mayor pro tem Righeimer let one guy, Kevin Dayton speak for ten minutes during public comments, which after the speaker started throwing inflammatory remarks towards the audience disrupted the meeting. Which was their intent all along.
Kevin Dayton was from the brand new, made up, Dayton Institute for Public Policy.
No business cards , no website, just made it up to sound good.
http://abubblingcauldron.blogspot.com/2012/02/imported-opinions.html#links
Diamond said: “Do you favor a “Logan’s Run” solution .. ?”
I favor a Soylent Green solution.
I almost went with that one, but I’m a vegetarian.
Diamond: “We have overwhelmingly Republican elected officials and you’re crying about how strong unions are here.”
I am disgusted with Republican elected local officials that have succombed to union pressure to acceed to their pension demands. The reeps know that if they don’t cave to the union demands they will be fighting against a union supported (bought and paid for) opponent.
This is fascinating, skally; talk in specifics, please. Are you talking about only public safety unions or all of them? It is your honest belief that anytime the unions wanted to elect Democratic candidates, they could, but they just don’t want to? Or is it your assertion that unions can have their pick of Republican candidates — which, if that’s your point, falls a ways short of “control.”
closer to this Mr. D –
“.. unions can have their pick of Republican candidates.”
I wouldn’t say “pick” – but they can make it VERY expensive for any Republican to vote against their benefits.
Those of you who want to see some action on public sector pension reform should review Governor Browns’ proposal, now in the legislature. While it deals with new hires, and I know that will not satisfy some of you, the proposed changes going forward are dramatic – addresses air time, double dipping, mandates that employees pay 50% of their retirement benefit cost, eliminates a lot of things that presently count as earnings when calculating retirement, moves the retirement age up (older), etc. I think you will like it.
Of course, how much of it moves forward remains to be seen (that is up to the esteemed Legislature), but it is quite a proposal for a so-called pro-union Governor to have made.
In closing, I would also like to suggest that because the private sector has increasingly phased out defined benefit retirement plans you should not just accept that as the bar having been set at a lower level that everyone should be held to. Back away from the public sector pension issue and look at the catastrophe that has replaced the concept of a secure retirement for someone who works 40 years or more. Where is the outrage over the disappearance of a secure retirement for dedicated private sector employees?
Good story in the Register today about baby boomers planning to work until they drop because of the loss of a secure retirement benefit. It’s grim.