Pension system should
move to defined plan
Bob Bunnell’s Marin Voice of May 7, “MMWD pensions illustrate larger problem taxpayers face,” succinctly highlights the ever-increasing portion of tax dollars pension costs consume.
The agencies that plead for more and more money never seem to highlight pensions as a catalyst for (let alone a root cause of) of their request. Consequently, Marinites are subjected to an onslaught of rate hikes and bond measures. The stated reasons typically boil down to a vague need to “maintain the quality of service” and “ensure financial stability.” These mask the underlying cause of Pension Pandemonium.
I don’t have a problem with pensions, per se. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that pension benefits somehow exist in a world unto themselves and that adjusting them should be verboten, regardless of the legitimacy of doing so. In the real world, facts and circumstances change. Why should pension benefits be any different?
The premise that pension benefits should, once set, remain in perpetuity defies logic. Vested benefits I understand. Future benefits I do not.
Additionally, the salaries on which pension benefits are based are too generously, and broadly, defined. This allows for “pension spiking” and illogical increases in pension costs.
Much of the pension financial risk could be addressed by putting government pensions on par with Social Security by transitioning to defined contribution pension plans and tying benefits to one’s age (like Social Security) rather than years of service.
— Kevin Lozaw, San Anselmo
MMWD should make fee
proposal clearer online
I am greatly concerned about the duplicitous way the home page of the Marin Municipal Water District’s website only has a scrolling mention of the critical, massive fee increase proposal that is coming up for a final vote on May 28. They should post a static announcement, not one that vanishes as part of a feed on a number of topics.
Given that the agency spends over $400,000 annually on its public relations effort, you would think they would clearly inform customers about the proposal at the top of their home page, when the final vote is and the location of the meeting.
Why aren’t they providing a clearly identified link to more information about the proposal and a clearly identified link to a protest form on their home page should customers want to express their opposition to the proposal? A rhetorical question.
Is anybody watching how the MMWD is deceptively trying to put this proposal in place?
— Karl Spurzem,
Corte Madera
‘Fallacious arguments’
about EV pollution shift
The fallacious arguments in letters to this newspaper by those who question the environmental benefits of electric cars does a disservice to those who have not tried an electric vehicle and realized they are not only good for the planet — they are quiet, powerful and cheap to operate.
Niccolo Caldararo of Fairfax claims EVs simply shift the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack. That is untrue. A gasoline car is 100 percent fossil-fueled, but a December 2018 California Energy Commission report states that 34 percent of California’s retail electricity that year came from renewable resources, not including large hydroelectric from dams in the Pacific Northwest.
At the moment I write this (May 10) the California Independent System Operator website indicates that 56 percent of California’s grid is supplied by all forms of renewables. Every year, more renewables come online under state mandates, and the mix of energy used by EVs gets greener.
Mr. Caldararo also ignores the fact that EVs are much more efficient than gasoline-powered cars — their mileage equivalent is 100 or more. Even if they ran entirely on fossil-fueled electricity, they would emit far less carbon per mile.
Mr. Caldararo’s claims that car batteries can’t be recycled is another demonstrable falsehood. A battery industry consultant was quoted last year in Business Week as stating that “by 2025, about three-quarters of spent EV batteries will be reused and then recycled to harvest raw materials.”
— David L. Fiol, Novato
Keep the focus on what’s
best for all students
In Kurt Weinsheimer’s Marin Voice column of April 18, he pleaded for the Sausalito-Marin City community to come together and find creative solutions to meet the educational needs of all district students. Mr. Weinsheimer pointed out that a proposed 25% cut to the budget of one of the two public schools in the district would leave that school seriously underfunded.
Surprisingly, at least to me, several letters were written attacking Mr. Weinsheimer’s benign message. One letter, from Peter Pastreich (April 24), after listing what he believes are a series of mistakes made by the school board over the last few years, asserted that “Willow Creek has no one but itself to blame for the current difficulties in which it finds itself.”
Over 400 kids attend Willow Creek, almost 80% of the district’s students, and 60% of the students from Marin City. A large number are underprivileged, and 60% are non-white.
I have to ask Mr. Pastreich, are these children to blame for what you believe are bad school board decisions? Do they deserve what they get if draconian cuts are made to the budget of their school?
If the community does not end this insane war between two public schools and refocus its efforts on attending to the educational needs of all of our children, the district will be thrown into chaos and the kids will pay the price.
— Bill Sims, Sausalito
AG Barr allowed Trump
a month of misleading spin
Taken directly from the Mueller report released April 18:
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. …
“First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. …
“Beginning in 2017, the president of the United States took a variety of actions toward the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. …
“Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standard, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. …
“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. …
“In the case of obstruction of justice, our assessment of the weighing of interests leads us to conclude that Congress has the authority to impose the limited restrictions contained in those statutes on the president’s official conduct to protect the integrity of important functions of other branches of government.”
Imagine Attorney General William Barr sharing this in his March 24 four-page summary. There would not have been four weeks of misleading spin or Trump’s lying tweets that the Mueller report is “a complete and total exoneration.”
— Dan Bell, San Anselmo
Important for banks
to keep local branches
Shame on some of the banks that close local branches. One of the reasons I bank with them is because I can go in and talk with a live person (banker); when they close their local branch I’ll take my money out and put it into a branch that stays open to provide us service — face-to-face banking service. It’s too bad that in this country the post office doesn’t provide a post office bank service like in other countries; as we become older, face-to-face banking service becomes critical. I hope all the other bank branches plan on staying here in Marin.
— Peter Bauer, San Rafael
