Whitman willing to take pension cutbacks to the ballot box

Sacramento Bee ^ | 9/21/10 | David Siders

[SmithL]

Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman said Monday that she would place pension cutbacks on the ballot if negotiations with state workers fail and would consider using her personal fortune not only to win office but to advance her agenda if elected.

Taking the issue to voters is "not my first choice," she told The Bee's editorial board. "But if we have to … this is an issue we have got to take up."

The former eBay CEO and billionaire said she "possibly" would put her own money behind a ballot measure campaign.

"My preference would be to raise the money, would be to, you know, make sure that we had a broad constituency," she said.

Whitman also said the extension of collective bargaining rights to state workers in 1977 was "probably not a good thing."

Asked if she would try to revoke the law – a measure signed by her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, when he was first governor – Whitman said, "I won't take it off the table, but it wouldn't be the very first thing I do."

[SmithL]

No wonder the Public Employees unions hate her.

[Parley Baer]

Brown is beholding to the unions so you can count him out about controlling the unions.

[DB]

Brown is more than beholding to the unions. He is who allowed public employees to unionize in California when he was governor the first time. He is greatly responsible for where we are today... Broke...

[muleskinner]

If someone tried to derail my gravy train, I'd be upset too.

I know of a civil engineer in a small town in California who, on his 25th year, was earning $125K. He retired in his early 50's at full salary + medical and moved to Idaho. Odds are he will live to his late '70's, probably into his late '80's with the medical advances that will happen over the next 20 years.

No city and state can afford to support someone at full salary for the same length of time they were actually working.

[Ann Archy]

ALL PENSIONS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE!!! Own your OWN retirement!!

[Hebrews 11:6]

While overly generous pensions are probably contractually and thus legally immune from reduction and therefore must be paid, doesn’t the state retain the option of drastically increasing the tax rate on them, so as to reduce them in effect if not in actuality?

[Yaelle]

Nutmegs quite the tapdancer lately.

[truth_seeker]

I give her a lot of credit for speaking the truth about the state’s budget problem:

—excessive public payrolls, benefits pensions
—and not double talking about it

I will be still happier if she also speaks the truth about illegal immigration, another core issue concerning the budget problem; eg. huge numbers of very costly bodies dependent on the public dole, but paying little into the system.

—medical
—education
—crime, law enforcement & prisons
—traffic, pollution