In recent months, pension reform has dominated the public discourse, but recent polls have quantified the public’s mood and appetite for reform. Specifically, three relevant polls have been conducted throughout California. One, by Probolsky Research LLC, conducted a survey of voters in Orange County, California. In another, the LA Times commissioned a poll of California voters (conducted by a bipartisan team of companies) and in April, 2011 The Field Poll conducted a poll of California voters. Probolsky Research asked respondents, “Most local government employees do not contribute anything to their pensions. Do you support or oppose pension reform for local government employees by requiring them to contribute the same amount as their employers to their pensions?” The results can be seen in the graph below.
The Field Poll also polled on this topic, asking, “As you may know, the funds that are supposed to be for the pension and health care benefits for state workers and many local government workers don’t have enough money to pay for their long-term obligations. Do you approve of each of the following proposals that have been suggested to deal with this budgetary program? (READ: Require state and local government workers to contribute more each month for their pension and health care benefits). Do you approve or disapprove of this as a way to deal with this budgetary problem?”
Probolsky Research also asked, “Many local government employees are able to retire and collect their pensions as early as age 50 to 55. Social Security retirement benefits cannot be collected until age 65 or 67. Do you support or oppose pension reform for local government employees that would set their retirement age to be the same as the Social Security retirement age?” While it was not supported with a supermajority, it still received overwhelming support. And The Field Poll phrased their question, “As you may know, the funds that are supposed to be for the pension and health care benefits for state workers and many local government workers don’t have enough money to pay for their long-term obligations. Do you approve of each of the following proposals that have been suggested to deal with this budgetary program? (READ: Increase the minimum age at which public employees can receive pension benefits). Do you approve or disapprove of this as a way to deal with this budgetary problem?”
The last question had to do with the actual structure of government pensions. Problosky Research asked, “Government employees have traditionally received pensions that are protected from ups and downs in the economy. They receive a set pension check regardless of how the underlying investments that support their pensions are performing. If the market goes down, taxpayers have to make up the difference for those government employee pension plans. This is different for most private sector employees, who see their retirement investments impacted when the economy sags or booms. If the economy goes down, their retirement assets go down. Do you think that government employee pensions should remain the way they are, with guaranteed pensions no matter what happens in the economy or should their pensions be structured similar to those of the private sector?”
Finally, The Field Poll’s question, “As you may know, the funds that are supposed to be for the pension and health care benefits for state workers and many local government workers don’t have enough money to pay for their long-term obligations. Do you approve of each of the following proposals that have been suggested to deal with this budgetary program? (READ: Replace the current pension system for public employees with a new system that would combine 401k-style benefits with reduced guaranteed payments). Do you approve or disapprove of this as a way to deal with this budgetary problem?”
Each poll covered three issues related to pensions: benefits, retirement age, and employee contributions. The poll results (which can be viewed in memo form here) show that voters clearly support all three.
Similarly, the Los Angeles Times asked, “Do you favor or oppose increasing the share that future public employees contribute to their pension and retirement benefits?”
The questions asked in other polls with results shown above are the Los Angeles Times’ question, “Do you favor or oppose raising the retirement age at which future public employees would be eligible to collect pension benefits?”
While the Los Angeles Times asked, “Do you favor or oppose replacing public employees’ current pension plan with a new plan that combines elements of a traditional pension plan and a 401(k)?”
