Aubrey, Starchild and Activists,
Thank you all for your support of our efforts against A thus far.
Please find enclosed a suggested text for the Rebuttal Argument on A:
Hi Matt,
I like your rebuttal a lot! It is the kind of clear, reasoned, factual presentation that gives us credibility! I "vote" that you submit it as is, unless someone can see a typo or a mistake in facts.
If you or Aubrey need help filing this, please let me know. I would like to see this get filed!
Thanks a million for writing this.
Marcy
Hi Matt! Thanks for the rebuttal. I'm very happy with it just as it is. It cuts right to the holes in the PRO argument--just as a rebuttal should do. On number 5, however, I like it, but where does the author of A say you shouldn't trust the city leaders backing it? We know we shouldn't trust the bureaucrats, but where did that come from? The only place I see something that sounds like that is "Proposition A prevents the City from raiding the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund..."
I know I wouldn't be able to improve on your rebuttal, so I don't need to spend time on this today!
Thanks!
Aubrey
Bravo !!
Mike
The proposed rebuttal is terrific.
I offer a little language if you would like to work it in...
The people who will pay most dearly for this proposition don't vote yet, because they have not graduated from kindergarten.
By the time they grow up, many cookies will have been eaten and not many saved.
Lets keep the cookie jar locked so the our grown up kids and the aging retirees don't have to fight over crumbs.
and another thought that may be useful.
Detroit seemed invinceable in 1958. People got used to eating from that nice big cookie jar.
San francisco is on top of it's game now. Perhaps we should be careful.
Matt, I think that number 5 could go because ,in fact, being responsible benefits the retirees in the long run. Nobody benefits from this proposition in reality.
Hi Matt! Yes, I like the changed wording better. By the way, I heard back from Tony Hall, and he won't be signing our rebuttal. He left a nice message on the machine that he hasn't read the measure yet, so he doesn't feel knowledgeable enough to sign on to either side at this time.
Thanks!
Aubrey
I like the changed wording too, as well as the import of the thought (if they think they will benefit, then that is the single point we need to address right now). I also like the brevity and conciseness.
That is nice of Tony Hall to respond in such a civil way.
Marcy
Methinks it best to allign ourselves with the voters who are sympathetic with the poor retired school teacher.
Sustainable retirement funding will in the end serve the best interests of the retirees. Shortsighted money grabs only seem to help now. Retired folks may live long after the goose is dead.
Matt I have no objection , just suggestion.
I just think that voting no is inthe best long term interest of the retirees, and that it might be good to say that.
The starving geezers can't get back into a time machine and put the cookies back.
Only suggestions. Your deliberate and factual approach is a world ahead of anything I can put out. So, if you can use any suggestion without comprimising your wonderful approach, great.
but , of course, please skip the starving geezer line lol
In general, I believe it is *good*, not bad, for the RHCTF (Retireee Health Care Trust Fund) monies to be used for other purposes! Having reviewed and thought about the proposed rebuttal language as written, my main concern is that some of the text in the first three points appears to presume the opposite.
Why do I think it is good for the RHCTF to be raided? Consider the following scenarios (loosely based on the current city budget numbers cited at http://tinyurl.com/sfbudget2013 with round numbers picked for convenience):
(1) Prop. A passes. City Supervisors adopt a $10 billion budget for fiscal year 2014-15, including $9.9 billion in revenues and $100 million taken from the RHCTF.
(2) Prop. A fails. City Supervisors adopt a $10 billion budget for fiscal year 2014-15, including $9.9 billion in revenues and $100 million in borrowing-financed deficit spending.
(3) Prop. A fails. City Supervisors adopt a $10 billion budget for fiscal year 2014-15, including $9.9 billion in revenues and an anticipated $100 million in new revenue from the anticipated passage of new tax or fee increase(s) or bond measure(s) they vote to put on the November 2014 ballot in order to make up the shortfall.
It would of course be nice if Supervisors were to respond to the failure of Prop. A and not having access to the RHCTF money by restraining their spending somewhat from what it would be if the measure passes and they can tap those funds. But given what we know about politicians and their habits, it seems more likely to me that their thinking will run in one of following patterns:
• "Since the RHCTF is in good shape and we won't have that future liability after all, it won't hurt to borrow some more money now to fund our current needs, and pay it back down the road instead of paying the RHCTF back as we would have been doing if Prop. A passed."
• "Damn! Prop. A didn't pass, and we were counting on that money! Looks like we'll have to get a new revenue measure passed this November after all."
Therefore of the three scenarios outlined above, which seem to me not unrealistic in their broad outlines, the first appears far better than the other two. In that scenario, the RHCTF has an increased shortfall as a result of Supervisors raiding the fund to finance the current general city budget. Consider two alternate possible consequences of such a shortfall:
• Government employee unions will be focused on trying to get that shortfall funded in the future, likely diverting their focus from other harmful priorities they might instead focus on if the RHCTF seems secure
• The shortfall *never* gets funded, which would mean less taxpayer money eventually going to fund the benefits of retired government employees and dependents
I assert that either of these consequences would be highly desirable. By contrast, city government simply borrowing more money or increasing taxes/fees are obviously very *undesirable*.
With all that in mind, I suggest the following revisions:
---
5 Things To Know About A:1. It’s no “lockbox”. It allows the city to draw against the RHCTF as soon as it passes! Today, the RHCTF is off limits until 2020. Proposition A requires only that the city’s retiree health care expenses exceed 10% of payroll, about $130 million. The San Francisco Chronicle notes the city will exceed the target this year and for the foreseeable future.
Change the wording to something like the following:
(1) It's focused on securing the wrong pot of money. We don't need a "lockbox" to protect government employee benefits -- they have been quite successful at safeguarding their own interests in that area! Where we need a "lockbox" is to protect the public's assets from them, and from their growing health care costs as they retire!
2. It doesn’t protect retiree health care money from misappropriation. RHCTF funds are already reserved exclusively for retiree health care costs under today’s law. Proposition A doesn’t change that.
Remove the words "from misappropriation". (Although the point being made here is otherwise true, "misappropriation" does not seem like a good description of taking money away from gold-plated pensions and spending it on perhaps more deserving priorities.)
3. It won’t close the city’s retiree health care deficit, nor protect future generations. The caps in Proposition A are too low to keep the supervisors’ hands out of the trust fund cookie jar.
Change the second sentence to something like "Prop. A provides no caps on actual health care expenditures, and exposes future taxpayers to unlimited liability."
4. The only people saving money if A passes are city employees -- including the supervisors. Their expensive health care plans will be off limits for future budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers blind without consequence. Not even basic services like police and fire response get such protection.
I don't have any substantive recommended changes on this point, and note only that the phrase "bill city taxpayers blind" sounds a bit awkward, at least to me. However I cannot presently think of any revision that I feel would improve it. The meaning is clear, and I agree "billing" and not "robbing" is a better verb in this context.
5. Even the Author of A says you shouldn’t trust the city leaders backing it. The supervisors, employee unions and their retirees all have a personal interest in A’s passage.
Does the first sentence refer to a statement by Mark Farrell? I'm not clear on what language is being referenced. If we're referring to the implicit assertion in the pro-A argument that the measure is needed because city leaders can't be trusted, we should refer to "proponents" of the measure rather than "the Author".
Please join us in voting no on A. Let’s put this assault on San Francisco's future in a real lockbox.
---
The close is good. If there's room, I'd add something along the lines of this sentence suggested by Phil: "The people who will pay most dearly for this proposition don't vote yet, because they have not graduated from kindergarten." Possible alternate wording of that line: "Those who will be hurt most by this can't vote yet, and many of them haven't graduated kindergarten."
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Excellent comments as always Starchild...
Mike
Thank you Matt, for your detailed response. It seems our different views are based on different understandings of what this measure would do and how it would impact current law. You write:
RHCTF money MUST be spent on retiree health care costs, per charter.
My assumption -- and I could be wrong -- is that the city government is currently spending money on health care benefits for current and retired municipal employees. My premise is that it would be better to have this money coming out of a special fund into which the employees themselves have contributed, by enabling city government to draw on the RHCTF, than to have it coming out of the general fund.
Some further responses to your latest remarks...
If the trust fund were really going to be a vehicle to grow government, why would the supervisors and city employee unions be racing to gut it? I think their fear of even the current weak trust fund shows they worry that voters will wake up to the true costs if they see what a robust retiree health care trust fund really costs.
My best guess is that a deal was cut in which the employee unions are allowing the Supervisors to take money out of the RHCTF sooner than they would otherwise be able to, in exchange for adding this language to the Charter (the sentence I pointed out in the measure) explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook if there is any shortfall in the fund.
By law (charter) the shortfall MUST be funded every year. The city has committed itself to a particular obligation, and until it either changes that obligation (with a charter amendment) or relieves itself of it (in a bankruptcy), there will be an implicit obligation to use general fund revenue for it.
Are you sure about this? And if there is such a requirement, does it have any teeth in it? By way of analogy, the SFPD is "required" per the Charter to have 1,971 officers, but this number has not been met for years (see http://sfappeal.com/2012/04/understaffed-sfpd-is-nonetheless-bay-areas-largest-best-funded-police-force/ ).
It seems to me that the language of Prop. A itself acknowledges that there may well be shortfalls in which the RHCTF, or its proposed sub-trusts, will not be fully funded.
Remember, this is rebuttal arguments. We are given this space to directly address the points made in the Pro argument.
The #1 pro point, is that is that A creates a "lockbox" around retiree health care. If our counter-argument is anywhere near "We don't need a lockbox", we just lost most of the "progressive" voters who could be swayed that Measure A is bad fiscal policy, will hurt the poor retired public school teachers, etc.
The language I proposed for point #1 would still be talking about a "lockbox" in direct response to the proponents. Our implicit counter-argument to progressives would be essentially, "They want to create a lock-box around the benefits going to well-paid city employees, but where is the lockbox around REAL progressive priorities like spending on health care, education, welfare, etc.?"
How about this:
"The only people saving money if A passes are city employees -- including the supervisors. Their expensive health care plans will be off limits for future budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers blind without consequence. Not even basic services like police and fire response get such protection."
That appears to be the same as the current language -- did you forget to make the change you'd intended?
Maybe this language as an alternative:
"Even the Author of A says the city leaders backing it want to "raid" retiree health care money. Why should you now trust them to protect what they've said they'd rather spend?"
My point there was not with your existing wording, other than the use of the term "author". I think that would apply if we were talking about a statement of Mark Farrell's specifically (he's the author or introducer of the measure), but if we're talking about the proponents' argument, as you confirm, then we should use the term "proponents" instead.
I'd love to [include language like Phil suggested], but we currently don't have the space.
- Matt
You may be right, but once we have a consensus on the general language, it's possible I'll be able to figure out a way to tighten the language so that the current meaning is preserved but we have a little room left in the word count to add another sentence along those lines. I'm pretty good at that.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thank you Matt, for your detailed response. It seems our different views are based on different understandings of what this measure would do and how it would impact current law. You write:
RHCTF money MUST be spent on retiree health care costs, per charter.
My assumption -- and I could be wrong -- is that the city government is currently spending money on health care benefits for current and retired municipal employees. My premise is that it would be better to have this money coming out of a special fund into which the employees themselves have contributed, by enabling city government to draw on the RHCTF, than to have it coming out of the general fund.
Right, and my assertion is that eventually the money will all be coming out of the general budget anyway. I think we actually agree on this, we just have different perspectives on how much it means. My argument is that it's immaterial. A city with an underfunded RHCTF will pay more on bonds, for example, so the impact on the size of government is minimal either way, IMO.
Some further responses to your latest remarks...
If the trust fund were really going to be a vehicle to grow government, why would the supervisors and city employee unions be racing to gut it? I think their fear of even the current weak trust fund shows they worry that voters will wake up to the true costs if they see what a robust retiree health care trust fund really costs.
My best guess is that a deal was cut in which the employee unions are allowing the Supervisors to take money out of the RHCTF sooner than they would otherwise be able to, in exchange for adding this language to the Charter (the sentence I pointed out in the measure) explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook if there is any shortfall in the fund.
Right, and they cut that deal because they know that they'll see the end consequence (the supes funding the RHCTF from the general fund in perpetuity) under current law. It's a no-lose for them. Voters' resources bleed slowly, so the gravy train will continue as long as possible.
By law (charter) the shortfall MUST be funded every year. The city has committed itself to a particular obligation, and until it either changes that obligation (with a charter amendment) or relieves itself of it (in a bankruptcy), there will be an implicit obligation to use general fund revenue for it.
Are you sure about this? And if there is such a requirement, does it have any teeth in it? By way of analogy, the SFPD is "required" per the Charter to have 1,971 officers, but this number has not been met for years (see http://sfappeal.com/2012/04/understaffed-sfpd-is-nonetheless-bay-areas-largest-best-funded-police-force/ ).
It seems to me that the language of Prop. A itself acknowledges that there may well be shortfalls in which the RHCTF, or its proposed sub-trusts, will not be fully funded.
The RHCTF *itself* may not be fully funded, but the city is nonetheless required to pay the tab for retiree health care. It has been doing this from the general fund on an annual basis for a number of years. The only thing the RHCTF funding model changes is which pot of money the city lifts from, not how much it spends.
The difference between the SFPD staffing issue and the funding of retiree health care is significant. Any claim for retiree health care costs the city denies would create standing for a lawsuit -- an expensive proposition that may cost more than the care being denied. To sue over the SFPD staffing issue, on the other hand, the claimant would have to prove that the city:
a) Could reasonably fund the required number of police officers with current revenues
b) Didn't
c) The individual suffered harm that wouldn't have happened had the city had the appropriate number of police
d) That harm exceeded the impact on the claimant of any tax hikes or service reductions needed to pay for the additional police
c) and d) are the hard part, here. The city would likely argue that voters' choices to veto various tax increases since that particular charter amendment passed constitute an implicit authorization of the reduced police headcount. It's much less enforceable.
Remember, this is rebuttal arguments. We are given this space to directly address the points made in the Pro argument.
The #1 pro point, is that is that A creates a "lockbox" around retiree health care. If our counter-argument is anywhere near "We don't need a lockbox", we just lost most of the "progressive" voters who could be swayed that Measure A is bad fiscal policy, will hurt the poor retired public school teachers, etc.
The language I proposed for point #1 would still be talking about a "lockbox" in direct response to the proponents. Our implicit counter-argument to progressives would be essentially, "They want to create a lock-box around the benefits going to well-paid city employees, but where is the lockbox around REAL progressive priorities like spending on health care, education, welfare, etc.?"
I like that wording a lot better.
How about this:
"The only people saving money if A passes are city employees -- including the supervisors. Their expensive health care plans will be off limits for future budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers blind without consequence. Not even basic services like police and fire response get such protection."
That appears to be the same as the current language -- did you forget to make the change you'd intended?
Yes -- copy and paste error. What I meant to have here was:
"The only people saving money if A passes are city employees -- including the supervisors. Their expensive health care plans will be off limits for future budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers excessively, without consequence. Basic services like police and fire response get no such protection."
Maybe this language as an alternative:
"Even the Author of A says the city leaders backing it want to "raid" retiree health care money. Why should you now trust them to protect what they've said they'd rather spend?"
My point there was not with your existing wording, other than the use of the term "author". I think that would apply if we were talking about a statement of Mark Farrell's specifically (he's the author or introducer of the measure), but if we're talking about the proponents' argument, as you confirm, then we should use the term "proponents" instead.
Mark Farrell is the author of both the measure and the proponents' argument. I think it's more important to the rebuttal that he's the author of the measure and made the statement that voters shouldn't trust him, even though said statement was made in the proponents' argument.
I prefer the new wording, because it cites the language more explicitly.
I'd love to [include language like Phil suggested], but we currently don't have the space.
- Matt
You may be right, but once we have a consensus on the general language, it's possible I'll be able to figure out a way to tighten the language so that the current meaning is preserved but we have a little room left in the word count to add another sentence along those lines. I'm pretty good at that.
I certainly have no opposition to you trying.
Matt,
To the extent retiree health care is funded via the RHCTF, only part of the money comes out of the city general fund, because the employees themselves have to pay into that fund. But if the city is paying for employee retiree health directly out of the general fund, then the taxpayers cover 100% of it. This is at the crux of my understanding of the measure.
Scenario 1: Employee/retiree health care is funded out of the general fund -- retirees get this money, PLUS whatever money is in the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund, since that fund as you point out CANNOT be used for any purpose other than paying for their health benefits.
Scenario 2: Employee/retiree health care is funded out of the RHCTF -- retirees get ONLY what is in that fund, unless they manage to subsequently grab more.
The way I see it, if the money is just sitting there in the RHCTF, it is probably as good as in the retirees' pockets already. But if there is simply a general "requirement" that the city fund retiree health care, and the fulfillment of this requirement depends upon the Board of Supervisors taking appropriate action, that is a lot less certain.
I grant that the retirees would probably have an easier legal case to make in attempting to sue over the matter than someone would have suing over the SFPD's failure to maintain a force of 1,971 officers. Nevertheless, I think a lot will depend on public opinion, which I expect to be more libertarian by that time. If the city government is teetering on bankrupt, will the retirees really want the negative publicity of trying to get MORE money on top of what they've already been overpaid by market standards? Will the courts really want the negative publicity of giving in to them?
"The only people saving money if A passes are city employees -- including the supervisors. Their expensive health care plans will be off limits for future budget cuts, meaning providers can bill city taxpayers excessively, without consequence. Basic services like police and fire response get no such protection."
I like this language. If we end up wanting to squeeze in extra words, the first sentence can be rewritten as "Only city employees -- including the Supervisors -- save money if Prop. A passes" (12 words versus 14). This is an example how I tinker with stuff to get extra savings on the word count.
"They want to create a lock-box around the benefits going to well-paid city employees, but where is the lockbox around REAL progressive priorities like spending on health care, education, welfare, etc.?"
I wasn't suggesting this as an actual sentence for the argument, just an summary of how our argument would appeal to progressives.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
OK, so nobody asked me, but please forgive my offering my feelings as the rantings of an old lady. Good grief, Starchild. We do not have unlimited time to revise things forever!!! For that reason, I know better now that to post anything I write on this list!! I know, it will be massaged to death until deadlines pass, initial impetus wanes, and things get totally confused!
Shakespeare was right on: ..."the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action."
So, my ranting suggest that we just file the darned thing as Matt wrote it!
As for the press release, yes, the he-said-she-said part is petty and childish, but I would suggest that if your heart is set on it, you have my blessings to publish that darned thing as is too.
So, there, I said it.
Marcy
Under current law, taxpayers fund the entire retiree health care bill until 2020, at a cost of $1.05 billion.
Is this true? Aren't the employees hired after 2009 already paying into the RHCTF, such that health care paid for via that fund is only PARTLY funded by the taxpayers, whereas health care paid for out of general fund would be 100% funded by the taxpayers?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Yes. So if current health care expenses are paid out of the fund that the employees are paying into (the RHCTF), then instead of paying 100% of current (pre-2020) health care costs, taxpayers will pay something less than 100% of those costs. This to me is the GOOD side of Prop. A.
Although the measure is bad overall (because it exposes taxpayers to greater liability down the road), I don't think that short-term aspect is bad. That's why I'd hate to see us making a ballot argument with language that suggests it is bad. Would you be okay with foregoing such language, or do you think it's vital to leave it in?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Matt,
I agree it *IS* a worse lockbox, at least until 2020. And I can live with us saying that, even though I'd personally leave it out since if my analysis is right it's not a *libertarian* reason to oppose the measure. I just don't want us to say the fact that Prop. A does less in the short term to protect the RHCTF than current law is a *bad* thing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Okay. Do you want to take a stab at drafting revised language based on our back-and-forth, or shall I?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Okay. Do you want to take a stab at drafting revised language based on our back-and-forth, or shall I?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Already working on it.
- Matt