Unseemly Picture? A Proposal to Tax State Public Pensions – But Not UCRP – Is Among Three Initiatives Submitted by a Santa Barbara Group

A group called the California Center for Public Policy submitted three initiatives to the Attorney General Tuesday. One would ban collective bargaining in the public sector in California. Two others deal with public pensions. Notably, the two pension initiatives omit the UC pension and cover only CalPERS and CalSTRS. One initiative would tax pension benefits above $100,000 with progressive surcharges. The other raises the basic retirement age to 65.

Scroll down to the bottom of this entry to read the three initiatives.

(Reminder: Anyone can submit initiatives for $200. It takes $1-$2 million to pay signature-gathering firms to get things on the ballot as a practical matter. If the initiatives are controversial, TV advertising, etc., for the actual election can run in the tens of millions of dollars.)

California Center for Public Policy

“The California Center for Public Policy is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to non-partisan public dialogue and research in a variety of areas of California public policy. These include public employee compensation, education, energy and economic issues. The purpose of the Center is to identify workable policy solutions to societal issues.” Statement from the Center’s website: http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/index.html

The board of the organization generally overlaps with taxpayer groups, chamber of commerce, and local politicos in the Santa Barbara area. http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/board.html. One of the board members is a now-retired UC-Santa Barbara economic professor who gave a chair to the university in 2008. See http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1789

As executive director, the Center’s website lists Lanny Ebenstein, who in news articles is described as a UC-Santa Barbara economist. See, for example, http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2011/07/california-bid-to-end-collective-bargaini.html The UC-Santa Barbara econ department lists him as a lecturer http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/people/faculty_directory.html?f=lanny_ebenstein although no bio is provided.

However, on the website of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, his bio reads: “Lanny Ebenstein grew up in Santa Barbara and is a graduate of Santa Barbara High School, UCSB, and the London School of Economics. He served on the Santa Barbara Board of Education from 1990 to 1998, and has written biographies of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. This year, he will be teaching in economics at UCSB. In addition to serving as treasurer of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, he is a member of the board of directors of a number of non-profit and charitable organizations.” See http://www.sbcta.org/lannyebenstein.html

Now here’s the thing. We have pushed to get UC – whose Regents modified the university pension plan last December – removed from any potential ballot propositions that deal with California public pensions. We have particularly pushed UCOP and the Regents to become engaged in this issue so that the December Regents program would not be overridden – perhaps inadvertently – by some statewide proposition. Indeed, back in 2005 – when then-Governor Schwarzenegger seemed likely to put such an initiative on the ballot – the UCLA Faculty Association took an initiative on pensions which the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association had submitted and resubmitted it a few weeks later with identical language but with a UC exemption added. (The hope was that, because of timing issues related to signature-gathering, those pushing the Schwarzenegger agenda would have to endorse our version. It’s a long story and the pension proposal did not get on the ballot.)

Anyway, anyone – or at least anyone with $200 to spare – is free to do anything in the ballot proposition area. But undoubtedly, if some backer or group decides to finance the signature-gathering costs of putting the three initiatives below on the ballot, much would be made by the opposition of the unseemly appearance of UC-affiliated folks initiating limits or taxes on everyone else’s pensions, but not on theirs.

= = = =

THE 3 INITIATIVES (from http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/initiative.html)

Proposed amendments to the California state constitution:

1) Article 14. Section 6. Prohibition of Public Sector Collective Bargaining

No state, county, municipal, or like government officer, agent, or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to bargain collectively or to enter into any collective bargaining contract, memorandum of understanding or other agreements with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to public officers or employees or their employment or service.

2) Article 13, Section 36. Income Tax on Public Sector Pensions Above $100,000 Per Year

A state income tax of 15 percent above the standard state income tax rate is hereby instituted on all public sector pensions paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System on annual pension income from these sources, exclusive of health benefits and health insurance, between $100,000 and $149,999; and of 25 percent above the standard state income tax rate on all public sector pensions paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers’ Retirement System on annual pension income from these sources, exclusive of health benefits and health insurance, above $150,000.

3) Article 7, Section 12. Retirement Ages of Public Sector Employees

No new memorandum of understanding or other contract or agreement between any public agency and public sector employees utilizing the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers’ Retirement System may allow retirement of employees with full retirement benefits at an age younger than 65, with the exception of sworn public safety officers, who may receive full retirement benefits starting at age 58.