Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home
32  | 33  | 34  | 35  | 36  | 37  | 38  | 39
PROPOSITION 2000 General
33 LEGISLATURE. PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 33

Proposition 33 is an attack on the reforms we enacted through Proposition 140.

Proposition 33 does not treat state lawmakers “like all other public employees”, as claimed by the proponent’s argument.

In analyzing this constitutional amendment, the State Department of Finance concluded: “This bill is inequitable since . . . legislators could become eligible for full retiree health benefits upon meeting a 10 year vesting requirement, while state employees could be required to work 20 years to earn the same benefit.”

State Legislators are eligible for a $99,000 salary and some reimbursement for living expenses. They should use some of that to invest for their own retirement, rather than asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

Serving in the Legislature is a privilege and an honor. We do not need to entice people to run for office with promises of a taxpayer-paid luxury retirement.

Vote NO on Proposition 33.

RANDY THOMASSON, Executive Director
Campaign for California Families
RICK GANN, Director of Legal Affairs
Paul Gann’s Spirit of 13 Committee
PETER F. SCHABARUM, Co-Author
Proposition 140

 


  Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
  Argument in Favor of Proposition 33
  Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 33
  Argument Against Proposition 33
  Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 33
 

Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home