Pension ‘reform’ act won’t be on the ballot,
but McCauley is still pushing for pension tax
California State Retiree -- Paul McCauley, the public employee detractor who wanted to change the constitution to allow for the renegotiation of pensions for current and future retirees, acknowledged in an e-mail July 2 that he had not collected enough signatures to get his proposal on the ballot.
He needed 694,354 signatures from registered voters by June 22 in order to be placed on the November ballot.
The Secretary of State’s Office was still awaiting the signature totals from each county July 2. But when asked that same day in an e-mail whether he thought he would succeed in getting the necessary number of signatures, McCauley indicated his proposal would not be on the ballot – this time.
Even if his so-called “Public Employee Pension Reform Act” had made it to the ballot and was passed by voters, CalPERS officials and others said it would have been held up in court challenges for years because vested rights are not easy to overturn.
McCauley, an accountant from Santa Monica, has proposed a raft of initiatives covering many different subjects over the years.
Now, he said he will direct his efforts toward getting other measures on the ballot, including his “McCauley Pension Recovery Act” measure, which would also adversely affect state retirees.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) says that measure would establish new taxes on pension incomes beginning in 2010 and bring in an estimated $6 billion to $8 billion in state revenues the first year.
“Under the proposal, a surcharge would be added to the existing tax liability for pension income in excess of $40,000. The surcharge would increase as the amount of pension income increases, so that pension income above $150,000 would receive a tax surcharge of 60 percent,” according to the LAO’s analysis. “For example, a couple receiving a pension income of $160,000 with no other income and only the standard deduction would pay $9,637 in regular taxes (at the 9.3 percent top rate) and a surcharge of $56,750.”
An excise tax would also be placed on nonresidents or people who move out of the state whose vested pension benefits from a California employer exceed $50,000 per year.
McCauley told the State Retiree that he thinks his pension tax measure has a better chance of getting on the ballot.
“The reason: its impact is immediate,” McCauley said. “It contributes to solving the fiscal dilemma. It eliminates the need to renegotiate hundreds of pensions. Renegotiating any pension would be difficult because the system is stacked in favor of the employee associations.”
McCauley must collect 433,971 signatures from registered California voters by Oct. 15 in order for the measure to appear on the November ballot.
“Yes, I will pursue both pension initiatives,” McCauley wrote in his e-mail. “The experience of many others -- Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, to name a few -- is that an issue has ‘its time.’ So, yes, I will keep working on both measures.”
Retirees are encouraged to tell their family and friends not to sign McCauley’s petition. If any signature gatherers for this proposal are seen, call CEA Retirees at (888) 808-7197.
Letters to your local newspaper about this punitive measure are also encouraged. Or you can write to McCauley directly at pmcca28169@aol.com His fax number is (310) 458-1026.