Alexis de Tocqueville got a lot of things right in 1831, but I don't specifically recall him envisioning how the elected officials would conspire to vote themselves entitlement to the treasure of the nation. Maybe it was just too obvious to mention.
The problem is that this has no easy legal solution. These retirement funds are based on contracts mutually agreed to by bureaucrats for fellow bureaucrats, to be sure, but the elected officials who appointed the to-be-retirees or okayed the deals were probably acting legally. The public voted them the power and they used it.
In point of fact, the retiree problem is only one of many in which the beneficiaries of state action include those who are voting for it or authorizing it. What about the judges whose courts, regal judge's chambers and salaries and other perks are paid for by the tickets and fines they rule on?
The "Progressive" Left has long bemoaned the influence of corporate power to enrich itself and gain special advantage via bribes of various kinds to elected or appointed bureaucrats. Their take is certainly valid, but misses the total picture. They would apparently like us to believe that somehow these poor, innocent public servants just HAD TO take that campaign money or those junkets to Samoa, or risk falling behind at the polls or losing favor with the elected officials who appointed them.
Just reign in corporate power via more of the boards, commissions, investigators, panels, Senate or House committees, laws, rules, standards, etc., and everything will be fine. Never mind that the smarter of those appointed to those regulatory positions fast track into positions in the very corporations they are appointed to regulate. In fact, right from the beginning of “Trust Busting,” it was the Trusts who were financing the very Trust Busting that was supposed to regulate and control them. They certainly knew the score.
And, as for scores, how many California corporations have actually ever been taken to court over their failure to live up to the “operate in the public interest” clauses of the official documents of incorporation? Until recently, at least, that score is “0”, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. Who controls who here? Is REFORM the answer to total failure?
Nor are the neo-Progressives and their intellectual ancestors such as the Italian Fascists so stupid as to be unaware of this. While the regulatory jungles they have created do little to prevent actual harm to the public, they are configured to create barriers to entry that allow the corporate dinosaurs the freedom to ignore efficiency, ignore customers, and spend their time gaming the system, guaranteeing those golden parachutes even as their shareholders lose their shirts.
And in this context of self-sustaining corruption we expect WHOM to be honest?
Just what IS the plan for dealing with the crushing burden of vast retirement entitlements, and who is going to be on what side? Certainly, a vast MOB of retired or to be retiring bureaucratic vultures will be up in arms at any proposal aimed at reducing their stolen largesse, and many of them will be attorneys or former judges. Will this Old Boy network give away its overwhelming advantage? Is that a rhetorical question?
So, the change will have to come from outside and it will have to be radical.
The only substantial group currently in the position of total outsiders and not on the payrolls in question are the Tea Partiers, bless their hearts. This is a slim reed and could fall apart at any moment, but it’s all we have.
We DON’T HAVE THE MONEY… BUT, WE OWE THE MONEY.
Practical solutions?
Solution 1: BANKRUPTCY! For the State of California. Then the retirees will have to get in line with the other creditors for a small percentage of their original claim.
Solution 2: TAX THE RETIREES! (And this comes from a long-time tax resistor…) This only applies to State, County and Local, and – failing the bankruptcy option – it should be progressive. Maybe, no extra taxes for those who are receiving less than $50,000, including any Social Security, and then a sliding scale of increasing taxes for those whose public trough funding is more, such that someone getting $200,000 will have to pay $100,000 in taxes on it.
Both of these solutions are about as fair and politically practical as we can expect in the circumstances. Since the vast majority of public servants make less than $50,000 in retirement, or so I have read, most of them will be unaffected and should not therefore be adamantly opposed. If we do go into bankruptcy it will likely be because we have no choice – and maybe we don’t, and then the cuts may be more substantial and hit more of the lower income retirees.
So, we should probably shoot for Solution #2. If it isn’t enough, so be it.