Brown and Whitman: Distracted by a slur

California’s gubernatorial campaign veered off on a tangent last week when an audiotape emerged of someone in Democrat Jerry Brown’s inner circle calling Republican Meg Whitman a “whore” for seeming to soften her position on pension reform in exchange for a public-employee union’s endorsement. It’s disheartening but not surprising to hear that a close Brown aide would crassly slur Whitman behind the scenes (Brown’s campaign manager has apologized for the epithet). And Brown made an unconvincing case on the tape that Whitman engaged in a quid pro quo. Still, we’re disturbed by the notion that Whitman might alter her stance on pensions for expedient political reasons rather than sound economic ones.

For the record: This editorial describes the California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn. as the union representing state Highway Patrol officers, firefighters and other public safety officials. It represents California Highway Patrol dispatchers and inspectors, but patrol officers are represented by the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen.

The recording was made not long after the California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn. — the union representing state Highway Patrol officers, firefighters and other public safety officials — announced its support for Whitman. In a letter to members, union President Alan Barcelona criticized Brown’s record as governor and his budget plan while praising Whitman’s experience and attitude toward public safety workers. In particular, Barcelona noted that Whitman no longer wanted to replace pensions with 401(k) plans for all new state employees but “now sees the value in keeping defined-benefits retirement for public safety employees.”

Whitman actually said in April — long before being interviewed by the union — that she would exempt safety workers from the switch to 401(k)s. Her campaign offered no economic rationale for the carve-out; instead, a spokesman said that front-line Highway Patrol officers and firefighters deserve pensions because they fill dangerous jobs.

But Whitman based her original position on pensions not only on their cost but on the unfairness of asking workers in the private sector to finance richer benefits for public employees than the ones they themselves receive. If it makes sense for government to switch from guaranteed retirement benefits to 401(k) plans, why exempt a group of workers just because of job descriptions? Why not let each group negotiate for the best package of wages and 401(k) contributions it can obtain?

The answer may be that the public isn’t as eager to bash public safety workers as it is other state workers, so it’s good politics for Whitman to let the former keep their pensions while calling for the latter to start losing theirs. That smacks of putting short-term political needs against the state’s long-term interests, but then, that’s how pensions became a problem for California in the first place.