Pension measure rebuttals released
| Tuesday, Jul 27 2010 12:49 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Jul 27 2010 12:49 PM
Related Stories:
Rebuttals to arguments for and against the city of Bakersfield's pension ballot measure were released Tuesday (we printed the original arguments July 20). City residents will vote Nov. 2 on whether to reduce pension benefits for future police and firefighters hired in 2011 and after. The arguments and rebuttals will appear in voter pamphlets before the election.
The measure hasn't yet been named by county elections officials, so it's left blank.
Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure _, by Robert Melton, President, Bakersfield Firefighters' Labor Association IAFF Local 246, Todd Dickson, President, Bakersfield Police Officers' Association, Thomas J. Webster, small business owner, Mark A. Martinez, professor/author
Support YOUR Bakersfield Firefighters and Police Officers and vote no on Measure _.
The argument for Measure _ is a misleading product of City Hall and its bureaucrats! Only 1% of CalPERS retirees receive over $100,000 per year in retirement pay. The 1% who do are the very same management bureaucrats who've NEVER spent a day in the field putting their lives on the line for you. VOTE NO on Measure _.
FACT! The same City Hall bureaucrats and politicians who've sponsored this measure have siphoned tens of millions of dollars of retirement obligation monies for their special interest projects. Let's tell the bureaucrats and politicians to cut non-essential spending first. Vote NO on Measure _.
Measure _ is an underhanded attempt to fool voters into believing only Firefighters and Police Officers pensions caused the unfunded liability. The unfunded liability is the result of poor fiscal management by City Hall bureaucrats and politicians.
FACT! The City of Bakersfield is unable to recruit enough public safety officers to fill current vacancies. Measure _ will guarantee that the City of Bakersfield will NOT be able to recruit and retain the best and brightest public safety officers to protect you.
VOTE NO on Measure _ to guarantee that only the highest standards are maintained and the best qualified public safety officers are hired to protect and serve our community.
VOTE NO on Measure _ and send a clear message to City Hall that you support your Firefighters and Police Officers.
Rebuttal to the argument against Measure _, by Michael Turnipseed, Kern County Taxpayers Association
Vote Yes on Measure _. Years ago, when the economy was booming, Bakersfield City Council granted its employees generous retirement benefits which for current employees are protected by the State Constitution, but which are not financially sustainable for future employees.
Voters must have the facts:
Fiscal reality -- in 2000/01, the City's pension costs were $4 million in the general fund budget of $99 million, and were 100% funded. In 2010/11, pension costs are budgeted for $22 million in a $157 million budget, with an unfunded liability of $103 million. The increasing costs of current pension benefits have consumed too much money and have required both deep cuts to city services, and reduced staffing, including police and fire. Similar pension policies have forced other cities to consider bankruptcy protection.
Negotiations fail -- Two and one-half years of negotiations have brought no results. The City Council and two of the City's unions consistently fail to deliver taxpayers a solution.
Fairness is essential -- Taxpayers need to ensure that future civil servants receive fair and stable pensions without unfair burdens to private-sector workers. Measure _ does not affect current employees, only future hires.
Financial Responsibility (a fact of life) -- Returning the pension benefits of future employees to normal and sustainable levels is necessary to restore balance to the city's finances.
Break the deadlock--Measure _ will protect Bakersfield's civil servants and allow taxpayers to use our precious tax dollars to sustain services and invest in building our future.
