Money not set aside for retiree health benefits
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown last week said he
had closed a state budget gap for the first time in years and was making huge
strides toward knocking down the gwall of debth that keeps California from
moving forward.
But in laying out his timeline for repaying some $23.5 billion, Brown did not
factor in a looming liability — tens of billions more owed for retirement health
care benefits promised to state workers.
Sacramento leaders have failed to set aside money to cover $62 billion in
projected costs for retiree health care. Some veteran state workers have been
promised the full state-funded contribution toward their health plans for the
rest of their lives. That typically covers most, if not all, of their premiums.
Many newer employees must pay a share of their costs.
gEven that $62 billion is just a percentage of what the total liability is,h
said Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee. gUntil we get an answer on what the
total liability is, we canft begin to address the problem.h
The coming tab for retired workers tops $181 billion over the next three
decades: $62.1 billion for retiree health, $64.5 billion for teacher pensions,
$38.5 billion for employee pensions, $12.8 billion for University of California
employee pensions and $3.3 billion for judgesf pensions, according to the
governorfs office. Government reports and academic studies have pegged the
statefs unfunded liabilities as being much higher.
Finance officials said it was prudent to exclude those costs from the statefs
so-called gwall of debth because they amount to long-term obligations similar to
a home mortgage.
gItfs the same reason you pay off your mortgage over 30 years instead of one
month,h said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Brownfs Department of Finance.
On the longer-term obligations, the state has not begun to save toward
obligations for future retirees as some cities such as San Diego have begun to
do.
Last year, the governor proposed to chip away at the health care benefit by
limiting state worker eligibility, but he was rebuffed by Democratic
lawmakers.
In unveiling his proposed $97.7 billion budget last week, the governor
focused on shorter term aspects of the gwall of debt,h reducing it from nearly
$28 billion to $4.3 billion by the end of 2016-17.
The remainder is to include unpaid costs to local governments, schools and
colleges for state mandates as well as deferred payments to health care
providers.
Brown said he would endeavor to avoid the borrow and spend, boom and bust
cycles that have long plagued the state.
gPaying down debt is a form of reserve because if you donft have these debts,
then when things go bad, you can borrow some of that money back in the same
way,h Brown said. gSo, by paying down the debt, wefve put ourselves in a
stronger position when things go bad, as they inevitably do.h
Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway said the state is not out of the
woods even in addressing the short-debt it aims to eliminate.
gThe governorfs budget doesnft fully address the ewall of debtf that has
accumulated due to the state borrowing its way out of past deficits,h said
Conway, of Tulare, adding that she hopes fellow lawmakers doesnft repeat past
mistakes of using short-term revenue to cover ongoing programs.
gInstead, we should use the voter-approved revenues from Prop. 30 as
Californians were promised — to protect our classrooms and to pay down
debt.h
Before 1985, state employees needed only to be on the payroll for five years
and vested in the state retirement system to qualify for the full health care
plan for life. That was later bumped up to 10 years. Then, those hired after
Jan. 1, 1989, received half of their contribution by the state to the health
plan after 10 years and the full contribution after 20 years.
gAs health costs started to go up, it became more difficult for employees to
be vested in the health retirement,h said Bruce Blanning, executive director of
the Professional Engineers in California Government, which represents 13,000
state-employed engineers and related professionals.
gOver the years, the plan has been downgraded in its coverage: The
co-payments are higher,h he added. gItfs not the same as it used to be.
Employees over time have absorbed more of the costs.h
The statefs reluctance to tackle down-the-road expenses contrasts with steps
taken at the local level to rein in analogous costs.
In San Diego, city leaders and labor unions two years ago brokered an
agreement estimated to shave $330 million from a $1.1 billion shortage in money
needed to pay lifetime health care for retired city workers. The cash flow
savings to taxpayers is expected to exceed $714 million over 25 years, officials
said.
Then-Mayor Jerry Sanders characterized the agreement as the glargest
cost-saving measure ever implemented by the cityh for taxpayers. The plan
provided that for the first time city employees would contribute to their
retiree health care costs, easing the financial risk for taxpayers.
gThis settlement isnft just a big step,h Sanders said at the time. gItfs a
quantum leap.h
Debt for retiree health care had long been a fiscal albatross for the city
following then-Mayor Pete Wilsonfs promise of lifetime health benefits to all
city workers in exchange for employees allowing the city to opt out of Social
Security. But the city never put aside money for the long-term costs and a
deficit grew over the next three-plus decades.
Frank De Clercq, head of the firefighters union, noted employees could have
litigated the issue. But, he said, that would have ended up costing taxpayers
via potential cuts to vital city services.
gIt had been underfunded for so many years because the politicians chose to
spend the money elsewhere for doing other pet projects,h he said.
Under the deal, veteran workers remained eligible for a benefit of $8,880 a
year upon retirement, but have to pay $1,200 annually while employed to keep it.
The deals are structured differently for newer hires.
© Copyright 2013 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All
rights reserved.