Opinion: No Public Retirement Funds for Felons

Anyone who reads this column knows well that I am a liberal deep down in my bones. What might surprise you is the fact that I once worked advance for a Republican presidential candidate.

Yep. I thought that Rep. John Anderson had a better idea in 1980 and I spent a year in his employ. When he lost the Republican primaries to Reagan, I stuck with his independent campaign. I mention this because I prefer to support and vote for the candidate that most closely represents my beliefs.

Once upon a time, there were conservative Democrats (boo!) and liberal Republicans (yay!). Sounds pretty odd now, but the Dixiecrats had a lot of power for a long time. And liberal Republicans knew how to get things done. Despite some of the terrible compromises that were hammered out, I now miss those smoke-filled rooms. At least there were compromises. No one was ever happy with the results but we muddled along.

Now, of course, muddling would seem like zipping along because the Republicans have chosen to honor their oath to “starve the beast” in order to gain control of what might be left of our democracy.

But common sense can pop its head up in the most unexpected places. This occurred last May, but I think it is well worth mentioning now. As this Golden State sinks quickly in the West, we all know that public pensions are the holes in the bow and in the stern and everywhere  else. 

I am referring to the modest idea that it makes absolute sense to surgically separate public employees from their publicly funded pensions when they steal money from the public. After all, conviction means they lose their liberty but the pension has more staying power? That’s just nuts.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) also felt this outrage when he first heard about the City of Bell and Robert Rizzo’s alleged elaborate schemes to enrich himself as he bled the city dry and lied all the way to the bank.

Strickland sponsored an initiative which would rescind pensions for public employees convicted of stealing public money. Incredibly, their pensions apparently are untouchable, thanks mostly to the union leadership that has done more to destroy unions than any outside foe. I believe in the concept of unions; I do not believe that employers can be trusted to treat their workers properly. Witness our mess of an economy.

Still, these union lobbyists made it very clear to the Democrats, our last best hope for many things, that if they so much as consider the proposal, they will be fish bait when they run for office again. My favorite argument against Strickland’s proposal came from Sen. Gloria Negrete-McLeod’s office lamenting that it would be unfair to the innocent wife (notice that she presumes all criminals are men) who would lose her husband’s benefits because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

How is that different from saying a man who drives drunk and lands in the slammer should not be jailed because his poor, innocent wife will starve without his salary. What year is this again?

I disagree with just about everything Strickland says and does but, in this case, he was the embodiment of clear thinking. Any other position is so twisted that it is unconscionable. I don’t understand how the Republican pack can exert so much power protecting the wallets of the wealthiest Californians but chose to walk away from this idea.

Last May, the taxpaying public took another one to the jaw, thanks to the body politic and despite the efforts of one man who found the voice of reason in a moment of clarity.