Dem candidates must talk more about pension mess, not Trump

One thorny topic you won’t be hearing Democratic candidates for governor talking much about is California’s essential need for public pension reform.

You’ll hear them berating President Trump and defending immigrants here illegally, and for good reason.

But they’ll shy away from exposing their views on some politically tough problems that California must resolve for the long-term financial health of the state.

These include modernizing California’s tax system to make it less vulnerable during a recession, streamlining regulations so they still protect the environment but are more businessfriendly — and controlling monstrous public pension debt.

Why the silence? We all know. Any real solutions make too many enemies.

Public employee unions are cash cows for Democratic candidates. And the unions get very angry when politicians try to reduce future retirement packages for state and local government workers.

The gubernatorial candidates held their first major debate last weekend. There wasn’t a peep from Democrats about escalating public pension costs. A Republican candidate, Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox, tried to raise the issue, but Democrats wouldn’t bite.

It’s not just governor wannabes. You won’t hear many Democratic candidates for any office railing about the need to throttle back on future pensions, or at least require employees to pay more into the systems.

“It’s a tough issue for a Democrat to take on,” says Joe Nation, a former Democratic assemblyman. He’s now a Stanford public policy professor and heads a major public pension research project.

“But if you really care about things like social services and public education,” he adds, “you have to be for pension reform.”

That’s because without lightening the pension burden on public treasuries, retiree costs will increasingly devour state and local tax dollars that should be funding government services such as education, healthcare and wildfire fighting.

If you total up the unfunded liabilities of all state and local public pension systems in California, the projected debt comes to around $333 billion, Nation says.

Just using the official numbers, Nation says, the unfunded liability amounts to an average of $26,000 per household — fourth worst in the country.

In California, the pension systems are 69% funded, meaning they can project enough money to pay 69% of what’s promised.

“It’s clear pension costs are going to overtake so much else in the budget,” Nation continues. “We have these benefits that are not sustainable.”

Who’s to blame? “It’s not the rank-andfile employees who did this,” the former legislator says. “It’s the politicians.”

There are built-in conflicts everywhere. Politicians get campaign money from unions. Legislative and administration staffers who analyze pension proposals eventually benefit when retirement packages are improved. Judges who rule on pension law make out if retiree benefits are upheld.

The biggest obstacle to real reform is the socalled California Rule, an old, ludicrous concept. It asserts pension benefits that exist when a public employee is hired can never be reduced, even if they haven’t yet been earned by service. The state Supreme Court is expected to rule on that sometime this year.

“I have a hunch they’re going to modify the California Rule,” Brown told reporters last week. “When the next recession comes around, governors will have the option of considering pension cutbacks for the first time in a long time — the first time ever, I guess.”

We should be hearing from the future governors about that prospect — and less about Trump.