Pensions: Yes on 48

Public servants deserve decent wages and pensions that they can live on. But for some years a quirk in the law has meant that the state writes a larger check each month for some retired public officials than it does for those who are still on the job. Proposition 48 would limit the pensions of constitutional officers, legislators and judges who are elected after next January to amounts no greater than the paychecks of people actually in service or no greater than the highest salary earned before retirement. That seems eminently fair, and we urge a Yes vote on Proposition 48.

The constitutional amendment would remove the link between pensions and pay raises and correct an inequity that allows former officials to collect pension benefits that are higher than the salaries of the people now in office.

Earlier laws limit the pensions of legislators who served after 1966 and of constitutional officers who took office after 1974. For others outside those categories, hefty pay raises for incumbents translate into retirement windfalls.

In January, when new salaries are scheduled to take effect and the salary of the incumbent governor rises from $49,100 to $85,000, the pension of former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown will leap from $62,314 to $107,880. Former Lt. Gov. Harold (Butch) Powers’ annual pension will jump from $59,024 to $100,692 when the incumbent’s salary increases to $72,500. Others will benefit similarly.

Fair-minded taxpayers do not begrudge decent retirement benefits for former public servants. But ballooning pensions that soar higher than the paychecks of the current officeholders are unreasonable. Proposition 48 would put sound and permanent limits on future pensions. A Yes vote is in order on June 3.