LPSF endorsed Charter Amendment B (6 yes, 1 no) at the Sep 11 meeting.
Here's an interesting counter-argument I found online:
"I don't know if you took the time to research all the details of this
proposition. It includes teachers--who DO NOT have a city pension, and
ALREADY pay 46% of their dependent care--to pay even more in monthly
health care premiums. The proposition does NOTHING to ensure that this
affects ONLY those top earners who enjoy the pensions you describe.
(Adachi pays nothing for his pension, and makes around $190K/year.) It
will also cause a teacher who makes $48,000/year and pays $950 month
for 2 dependents (an astounding sum for employer-based care) to pay
over $1,000 to insure her children. And there are many more examples
of people this will affect that make even less. The proposition also
does NOTHING to ensure the savings are used to fund cut programs or to
fund pension shortfalls. In my own family, the extra $130 a month is a
breaking point. If he wanted to go after pensions, then he should have
carefully crafted a proposition that targets those unfairly
benefiting, while protecting the vulnerable...he is a public defender,
after all. But, he did not do so, which makes him just like the rest
of the politicians--in it to make a name for himself, while ensuring
he is well taken care of."
Again, government is a blunt instrument, not a surgical scalpel. I
think we should not have taken a position on this. Reducing pension
benefits by 15% and allowing 15% 403b (public sector version of 401k)
employee contributions would be a much more libertarian solution than
this initiative's mandating a 10% pay cut to be invested in a
government pension scheme.
Rob