I often paraphrase a Sacramento Bee editorial that refers to government as a pension provider that offers services on the side -- a pithy description about the way that government increasingly functions for the benefit of those who work for it, not for its "customers." A friend of mine just sent me a San Jose Mercury News article from last month that somehow escaped my attention, but which brilliantly makes this point. Per the Mercury News: "Santa
Clara County's housing authority could have spent $16 million of federal
funds to help more struggling families put a roof over their heads.
Instead, it chose to more than double the value of its employees'
retirement benefits. That may sound unusual, but federal housing
officials say it was an allowable expense. Still, the switch from a
401(k)-style retirement plan to a pension allowing workers to retire
early -- with guaranteed lifetime payments -- is raising eyebrows at a
time when generous public employee pensions are under fire."
Regardless of what one thinks about public housing programs (I don't think much of them, and often point to Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock's great work on the housing ladder), one would think that a housing agency's main goal would be to provide more housing, not use its funds to bump up retirements for its workers. My former OC Register colleague Chris Reed, now with the San Diego Union-Tribune, often comments on how funds for liberal programs are siphoned off to help the well-paid administrators of such programs: "There is no evidence that this (union) political power is being used to help the poor, the needy, the sick. Instead, the opposite is true. ... (P)ublic employees ... have by and large been spared because they have demanded cuts come elsewhere -- which almost always translates into less help for the poor, the needy, the sick."
Regardless of what one thinks about public housing programs (I don't think much of them, and often point to Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock's great work on the housing ladder), one would think that a housing agency's main goal would be to provide more housing, not use its funds to bump up retirements for its workers. My former OC Register colleague Chris Reed, now with the San Diego Union-Tribune, often comments on how funds for liberal programs are siphoned off to help the well-paid administrators of such programs: "There is no evidence that this (union) political power is being used to help the poor, the needy, the sick. Instead, the opposite is true. ... (P)ublic employees ... have by and large been spared because they have demanded cuts come elsewhere -- which almost always translates into less help for the poor, the needy, the sick."
Join the conversation