Propositions H and I both make changes to retirement benefits for emergency personnel. Learn more in 60 seconds. Then, vote!
Propositions H and I, emergency responder retirement programs, explained in 60 seconds
Leave a comment
Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and easy-to-follow rules.
Voted yes,
These look like effective hiring and retention incentives.
Why does the video only present arguments in favor of Propositions H and I? It fails to mention the city government’s $790 million budget deficit, or that these employees are already well paid with 6-figure salaries.
Back in October 2011, ABC 7 reported:
” About 26,000 people work in San Francisco city government and when they retire, they are entitled to pensions. This year, the city is expected to spend about $422 million on employee pension costs. By 2014, that is expected to skyrocket to $800 million. That is money not spent on schools, pothole repairs or social programs.
Analysts say it is driving the city toward disaster.
“Your alternative is to declare bankruptcy,” said Barbara O’Connor.
‘It’s a crucial area that has to be reformed,’ said Rod Pimlott of the California Center for Public Policy.
San Francisco’s 2009-2010 civil grand jury warned of what it called ‘the pension tsunami.’ There are more than 23,000 retirees. According to their report, just over 3,200 of them are receiving $75,000 or more in pensions each year. ”
In the 2011 election that followed, San Francisco voters did subsequently pass a moderate pension reform measure, Proposition C, although even that fell short of what is needed, and the system remains headed for ultimate bankruptcy.
Now however, #GovernmentGreed is threatening to reverse even this moderate reform, and impose a giveaway to current employees that will jeopardize the well-being of future employees, and the financial future of San Francisco as a whole.
Being fiscally responsible and not burdening future generations requires a NO vote on Propositions H and I.