skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Does Prop B’s Pension Reform Save San Diego Money?

Evening Edition

Above: Michael Zucchet, general manager of the San Diego Municipal Employees Association, and Lani Lutar, president and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, debate Prop B, the comprehensive pension reform initiative.

Aired 5/8/12 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Michael Zucchet, Municipal Employees Association

Lani Lutar, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

Transcript

Proponents of Proposition B, the comprehensive pension reform ballot measure, say the initiative will save the city of San Diego close to $1 billion.

But some disagree.

Michael Zucchet, general manager of the San Diego Municipal Employees Association, which opposes the measure, spoke to KPBS. He said an analysis by the city's Independent Budget Analyst, or IBA, found the measure's savings do not come from pension reform.

Instead, they're found in a freeze on pensionable salaries between 2012 and 2019. That freeze would be the default position of the City Council, and changes to it would require a two-thirds vote of the council.

"What the IBA determined unequivocally is that everything in this initiative taken together, with the exception of the salary issue, costs taxpayers money," he said. "The new 401(k) costs money. You're basically cutting off your nose to spite your face for pension reform because it costs you money.

"The only thing that could save money, and could is the correct word, and that's the word I believe the IBA did use, not confirmed, but could, is if you freeze pensionable pay for the next five years - as employees have already done essentially for the last seven years, I might add - there are savings. But this initiative doesn't do it, it's the future actions of the City Council that would do it."

But Lani Lutar, president and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, which supports the measure, said there are several parts of the measure that save money. She said the measure's rule that all new city hires will receive 401(k)s instead of pensions may mean the city pays more money at first, but it will result in long term savings.

"It accelerates the payments, so it's like paying your credit card debt down a little faster," she said. "That doesn't actually result in any new costs, you're just paying your debt down faster. And in fact, again, without Proposition B over a 10-year period, pension costs would increase by $100 million.

"I think Michael and the labor unions would like to have us believe that you shouldn't support this, even though there are so many aspects of Proposition B that we know will result in guaranteed savings."

Zucchet said because the measure doesn't save money, it's "basically a political maneuver for people to try and do things that have already been accomplished in the city of San Diego in the way of reform."

Those include new benefits structures for new hires, savings on "all kinds of programs" and a balanced budget, he said.

Lutar said there are several components to the measure in addition to the pensionable salary freeze that would result in savings. Those include an end to pension spiking and preventing convicted felons from receiving pensions.

She added that no other groups have proposed measures to reform city pensions.

"There is no reasonable alternative that has been put out there by anyone," she said.

Proposition B will be on the June 5 ballot.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Ben_c'

Ben_c | May 8, 2012 at 1:34 p.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

San Diego workers deserve better than to be left without Social Security OR pensions. Prop B may especially burden LGBT families as they don't receive survivorship benefits and being left without social security or pension could be disastrous.

This is a needless "risky retirement" initiative that represents a windfall to Wall st. Say No to Prop B!
https://www.facebook.com/events/380630281983307/

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | May 8, 2012 at 3:31 p.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

Anything that requires in-year funding rather than out-year obligation is less likely to be abused. If budgeters could be trusted to spend within their means there may be less incentive for us to put restrictions on future obligations, but I don't have that level of trust.
Do not burden the future with excessive spending in the present.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user '4REEE'

4REEE | June 4, 2012 at 9:58 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Wait a minute... If I'm paying taxes so that public employees can retire comfortably, who's paying for my retirement?! Where's my bail out?

YES on Prop B.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user '4DURR'

4DURR | June 6, 2012 at 7:25 a.m. ― 2 years, 6 months ago

Wait a minute... If I'm paying federal taxes so that military personnel can retire comfortably with a pension and health benefits, who's paying for my retirement? Where's my bailout?!

Oh. That's right. Citizens who join the military accept lower paying jobs than they would get in the private sector, and receive a more secure retirement in return as part of their compensation for their service. A good example of this is private contractors in the Iraq war making more money than US soldiers.

It's not a bailout, it's part of their salary. And yes, taxpayers pay for General Fund salaries while rate payers pay for Enterprise Fund salaries. Everybody wants the services, but they never seem to want to pay for them.

( | suggest removal )