Front Page  »  

Gov. Brown’s pension reform plans

February 3, 2012

Gov. Jerry Brown has provided the language for his 12-point pension reform plan to the Legislature’s Conference Committee on Public Employee Pensions. [SacramentoBee]

Before the governor’s plan can be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot, a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature is required. If approved, Brown’s pension reform would begin on Jan. 1, 2013.

Brown’s pension reform proposals include:

Limiting the hours and wages for retirees returning to government jobs.

The forfeiture of all or part of pensions for government workers’ who commit a felony associated with their job.

No more retroactive pension benefits.

Benefits to be calculated on a 36-month average of an employees’ wages.

Requirements that all employees pay at least half the normal costs for defined benefit plans or the defined portion of a hybrid plan.

In order to receive 100 percent of the state’s retiree health benefit, an employee needs to have put in 25 years of service. Applies to new hires only.

The creation of a hybrid pension system for new hires. “It would replace 75 percent of an employee’s income after 30 years of service and a “normal” retirement age of 57 for public safety employees or, for all other workers, 35 years of service at age 67,” the Sacramento Bee said.

Sets the minimum length of service and age for safety workers at 5 years and 52 years old to qualify for retirement, 57 years old for all other groups.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

High speed rail, the travel version of the Los Osos sewer “project”.


0

We suckers did vote for it (when Brown was busy dreaming of utopia and ignoring his Oakland renegade cops). What we didn’t vote for; is the projected cost which is approaching over 100 billion dollars. What we didn’t vote for; is the first section of track that won’t even qualify as high speed rail as spelled out in the initiate. That first section will only serve a bunch of hayseed farmers near Bakersfield in the middle of nowhere. That section also won’t generate any environmental controversy but just wait till they start tearing into mother earth near the toughest sections to build near San Fran or LA.


0

Well as I stated in lower down comment I wasn’t one of the suckers. Why? Because in all my years I’ve NEVER seen a Gov. project come in on budget. They always sell the masses on one price and then, oh gee we forgot this or gee we forgot that. We didn’t know this or that, etc.


Yes, is the whole project pooch screwed? YOU BET!! So let this serve as a warning to all the next time you are at the ballot box and you see a BOND measure PLEASE before you get there read up on all the ramifications of it so you have a good understanding of what you are about to vote for.


0

Isn’t that just the way it is with everything. If you get your house remodeled, your car repaired etc. It almost always ends up costing more and taking longer than it’s supposed to, so I wouldn’t just put that on the govt.. It’s a human thing.


0

Homerun, beentheredonethat…

And typo, in private business there are serious repercussions for going over a bid price and there are serious repercussions for those who do felonious wrong doing when working on someones vehicle. There are strict rules, regulations and oversight by agencies like the Better Business Bureau, State contractors board, the Bureau of Automotive Repair specifically to protect the public from wrong doing by private businesses. YET, there is little to no oversight of government projects and almost every public works project runs over budget.

I too am one of the obviously few non suckers who always votes NO on bond measures mainly because even after these bonds are passed(without my vote and against my wishes) they are ineffective and rarely meet the costs they were projected to cover. And I always read them carefully…

This entire article was written in response to Governor Browns reaction to the economy he inherited from the last two governors and the legislature and which he has not been able to solve.

And yes, pension reform is long overdue and coming. Tasteless as it is, it is just one step in the right direction away from the current head in the sand attitude toward this budget crisis our legislature has had us in for decades.

Not one legislator or Governor (or our elected federal representatives and POTUS for that matter)has been able to come up with a balanced budget on time…


0

I agree easymoney that pension reform is long overdue. I for one am glad Brown is pushing this. If a Republican Governor pushed this in our heavily Democratic state, it would get no where as no one would want to listen. With a Democratic Governor pushing this maybe, just maybe, a lot of the Democrats will start to wake up and realize that we are in dire straights on spending, when one of their own anointed ones brings this up.


0

Dems voted a repub to be our gov and to wanted him to solve these problems, he didn’t even try. Dems have been cutting back on spending, you just don’t’ want to see it. Obama and Brown have made 5 times more in cutbacks then their predecessors. But they don’t’ get credit for it. The fault of the dems is that they don’t go around touting their accomplishments and repeatedly pointing out their accomplishments. I can see why though, it really doesn’t matter what they do it the right will never ever approve. Brown’s actions are good example of that.


0

Well Arnold was so moderate (and a Kennedy lover) he might as well have been a Dem. Him being so moderate is one reason I didn’t vote for him.


Second he did try early in his first term with the teachers union and some other stuff to try a tuff stance. He got CLOBBERED!! After that he didn’t try. Don’t blame him. He tried to work with the Dems and they beat him up. Again why my statement that it will be better coming from Brown.


0

I don’t know about Obama if I agree on amount of cutbacks but I will say that I have been surprised that Brown has been willing to cut here and there more than I thought he would have.


0
1 2