Brown’s pension crusade

Gov. Jerry Brown’s twin-tunnel water plan and a high-speed rail system are his showiest dreams for a lasting legacy. But as his fourth term winds down, he’s taking up another monumental issue just as impressive: pension reform.

For a politician who guards his political capital carefully, it’s a notable decision. Touch any part of the public-employee pension world and there will be sharp consequences both in dollar signs and pushback from well-connected public unions.

The governor deserves praise for taking on a financial issue that’s the equal of his dreams of a new plumbing system for California water or a quick-shot train line connecting the north and south. Whether it’s his short-timer status or tightwad reputation, he’s focusing on a major problem. The state’s two main pension pots are hundreds of billions short of promised payments to retirees while cities and counties are facing steeper costs to keep the game afloat.

In 2012, Brown pushed through modest changes that curbed pensions for new hires that raised retirement ages and obliged larger contributions from workers. Because they were pitched at future hires, the reforms barely moved the fiscal needle. But they set in motion challenges from employee unions that now are reaching the state Supreme Court.

At issue are two pension features that the 2012 law sought to change for all workers, not just new ones. Brown wanted to do away with “spiking,” which allows employees to supercharge their pay in the final years of work on which a pension is eventually based. The other change limited “air time,” a bookkeeping trick that let workers buy extra years of pension-setting service at bargain rates.

The basis for the challenges rests on the “California rule,” a time-honored legal standard that forbids cutting pensions, even artificial-inflating provisions such as spiking and air time, without compensation elsewhere. The rule is a recipe for do-nothing dysfunction as the bills pile up, especially while public salaries rise in high-cost urban areas and pension-pool investments slacken in off years.

Brown’s focus is putting him directly on the legal firing line. He’s taking over from Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who’s up for election and no doubt worries about union support, in making the case for his reforms. Lowercourt decisions have supported the 2012 reforms, finding that the changes were reasonable, but the challenges now have reached the state Supreme Court.

Now the governor is adding his emphatic arguments at the final legal level. Allowing the air-time practice of buying a bigger pension is an “unworkable and fiscally irresponsible scheme.” As he has done frequently in protecting his state budget from added spending by lawmakers, Brown argues that restraint and taxpayer expectations require shaving excessive pension rules.

Brown could have stepped in sooner while the debate brewed. Also, his final year in office with no announced attentions for the future gives him the luxury of taking on a third-rail issue. But his stance shows a measure of political courage sorely missing in Sacramento on a significant topic.