The San Diego County Administration Center and Waterfront Park on Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2023. (K.C. Alfred / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

San Diego County Sales Tax Push: After Voters Approved Pension Reform, Courts Blocked It—Now Taxpayers Face the Bill

TL;DR

San Diego County unions are pushing a permanent half-cent sales tax increase to generate $360 million annually, primarily to cover pension costs and unfunded liabilities totaling $3.1 billion. This comes after courts struck down voter-approved Proposition B (2012), which sought to transition future employees to 401(k)-style plans. Meanwhile, American households carry record debt ($17.94 trillion nationally), private sector workers have lost pension security (only 15% have defined benefit pensions vs. 86% of government workers), and AI threatens to displace half of all jobs—yet it's these struggling private sector workers being asked to fund guaranteed lifetime pensions for government employees through regressive sales taxes. The mathematical reality: making the pension system self-supporting would require employee contributions of 50-90% of salary, which is economically impossible, leaving taxpayers with three options: endless tax increases, service cuts, or pension reform that courts have made nearly impossible under California's "California Rule" protecting government benefits.

County Supervisor Warns of Tax Burden on Struggling Families

San Diego County residents may soon vote on a half-cent sales tax increase projected to generate $360 million annually—a permanent tax that County Supervisor Jim Desmond argues comes at the worst possible time for families already stretched to their financial limits.

"Right now, the average American household is already stretched to the limit," Desmond stated in a communication to District 5 constituents. "Families are carrying roughly $10,000 in credit card debt, nearly $60,000 in student loans, more than $240,000 in mortgage debt, and over $22,000 in auto loans."

A coalition of labor unions and nonprofit organizations has begun gathering signatures for the ballot measure, which would make San Diego County's combined sales tax rate among the highest in California. If approved, the tax would be permanent, with broad spending discretion for county officials.

"The spending language gives politicians wide discretion over where the money goes, with no binding guarantees that it will actually solve the problems being used to justify the tax," Desmond said.

The proposal arrives as economic anxiety intensifies nationwide. Recent surveys show that more than half of U.S. workers now fear their jobs could be displaced by artificial intelligence—nearly double the level from just one year ago.

The Hidden Driver: A $3.1 Billion Pension Crisis

While proponents frame the tax increase around essential services, fiscal analysis reveals that the primary beneficiaries would be government employees and pension holders, as San Diego County faces billions in unfunded pension liabilities that consume an ever-growing share of the county budget.

The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) reported total assets of approximately $13.8 billion as of June 30, 2023, against actuarial liabilities of $16.9 billion—creating an unfunded liability of $3.1 billion and a funded ratio of only 81.7%.

Current employer contribution rates tell the story:

General employees: 33.27% of payroll
Safety employees (deputies, firefighters): 48.78% of payroll

These rates have more than doubled over two decades. In 2003, pension contributions consumed approximately 10-15% of payroll. Today, combined employee and employer contributions reach 45-62% of salary—yet the system remains underfunded.

For perspective: a county firefighter earning $100,000 in salary costs taxpayers an additional $48,780 in pension contributions alone, before healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, and other benefits.

Record Household Debt Meets AI Job Displacement Fears

The tax proposal comes as American families face unprecedented financial pressures documented by recent federal data.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit reveals that total U.S. household debt reached $17.94 trillion in the third quarter of 2024, representing a $147 billion quarterly increase. Credit card balances specifically increased by $24 billion to reach $1.17 trillion.

According to multiple analyses combining Federal Reserve, TransUnion, and LendingTree data:

Credit card debt: $10,000-11,000 average for households carrying balances
Mortgage debt: $244,498 average for homeowners
Auto loans: $23,792 average for new vehicles
Student loans: $60,000+ average among borrowers

Simultaneously, worker anxiety about artificial intelligence has surged dramatically. A Pew Research Center survey released in July 2024 found that 62% of U.S. workers expressed concern that AI might make some of their job duties obsolete, up from 48% in 2022 and 28% in 2017.

An October 2024 survey by Checkr found that 52% of workers feared their jobs could be replaced by AI within the next five years, while the American Staffing Association reported 57% of workers concerned about AI's employment impact.

McKinsey Global Institute's 2023 analysis estimated that generative AI could automate activities currently absorbing 60-70% of employee time across occupations including customer service, sales, software engineering, and administrative roles.

Notably, these displacement fears concentrate in the private sector. Government employment faces minimal automation pressure due to political resistance, union protections, civil service systems, and slower technology adoption in public sector operations.

The Great Retirement Divide: Public vs. Private Sector

The proposed tax increase would extract resources from private sector workers who have lost their own retirement security to fund guaranteed pensions for government employees enjoying benefits unavailable to most Americans.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Compensation Survey, only 15% of private sector workers retain access to defined benefit pension plans, down from 35% in 1990 and 87% in the 1970s. In stark contrast, 86% of state and local government employees still receive traditional pensions.

The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution plans represents a fundamental transfer of risk:

401(k) Plans (Private Sector Reality):

Employees bear all investment risk
No guaranteed lifetime income
Market crashes can devastate retirement savings
Average balance for workers aged 55-64: $71,168 (Vanguard 2024 data)
Employer contributions average 4-6% of salary

Defined Benefit Pensions (Public Sector Standard):

Guaranteed monthly payments for life
Employer bears investment risk
Automatic cost-of-living adjustments
Typical pension for 30-year employee: $60,000-80,000 annually
Employer contributions: 33-49% of salary in San Diego County

"You have grocery store clerks, restaurant workers, construction laborers—people with no pension, no job security, facing potential AI displacement—subsidizing guaranteed six-figure retirement packages for government administrators," said Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "The inequity is profound."

Local Cost Pressures Compound Tax Burden

San Diego County residents already face multiple cost increases that the proposed sales tax would layer upon:

Balboa Park: The City of San Diego implemented parking fees of $20 per day or $60 annually in 2022, ending decades of free parking at the popular cultural destination.

Waste Management: Trash collection fees rose approximately 38% over five years ending in 2024 through the city's People's Choice program.

Energy Costs: San Diego Gas & Electric customers pay approximately 43-45 cents per kilowatt-hour, among the highest residential electricity rates in the continental United States, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

Housing: Median home prices exceed $900,000 in San Diego County, while median rent for a two-bedroom apartment reaches approximately $2,800 per month, according to the San Diego Housing Commission's 2024 data.

Gasoline: California's combined state and local gas taxes totaled 77.9 cents per gallon as of January 2024, the highest in the nation.

The Proposition B Story: When Voters Approved Reform, Courts Said No

San Diego's pension challenges aren't new, and voters have attempted solutions before—only to have courts block them, revealing how California's legal framework makes pension reform nearly impossible even when citizens explicitly demand it.

In June 2012, San Diego voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition B with 66% support. The measure sought to close the defined benefit pension plan to most new city employees (except police officers) and provide 401(k)-style plans instead—matching the reality most private sector workers already face.

The initiative was championed as essential fiscal reform following the notorious "Pension Scandal" of the early 2000s, when city officials underfunded the pension system while simultaneously increasing benefits, leading to federal investigations and municipal financial crisis.

However, in 2015, after years of legal challenges from the Municipal Employees Association (MEA), the California Court of Appeal struck down the measure in Conlan v. Shewry.

Critically, the court did not rule that pension reform was unconstitutional. Instead, it held that the city violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)—California's public employee collective bargaining law—by implementing voter-approved changes without first negotiating with unions.

"The City had the right to change the retirement benefits for future employees not yet hired, but it was required to meet and confer with the unions representing current employees before doing so," the court ruled.

After protracted negotiations following the court decision, the city reached agreements with unions that significantly weakened the pension reforms. In 2017, Mayor Kevin Faulconer announced a settlement that restored defined benefit pensions for most future employees.

"The court essentially said that even though voters approved the measure, and even though it only affected employees not yet hired, the city still had to negotiate with current employees' unions before implementing it," explained attorney Michael Aguirre, who served as San Diego City Attorney during the pension scandal years. "It was a stunning demonstration that California's labor law can override direct democracy."

The California Rule: A Constitutional Straitjacket

The fundamental obstacle to pension reform is a body of California case law collectively known as the "California Rule," which provides extraordinary protection to public employee pensions unmatched in most other states.

The California Supreme Court established in Allen v. City of Long Beach (1955) and Betts v. Board of Administration (1978) that pension rights vest at the time of employment and become contractually protected—not just for benefits already earned, but for future benefit accrual throughout an employee's career.

Under this doctrine, once hired, a public employee's pension formula generally cannot be reduced—even for future work not yet performed—without offering a comparable replacement benefit.

"It's as if a private company promised you a salary when you were hired, and then could never reduce that salary for the rest of your career, regardless of company performance or economic conditions," explained Joshua Rauh, a Stanford University professor who studies public pension systems. "No private sector employer would agree to such terms, yet California law imposes this on taxpayers."

Practical implications:

Pension benefits negotiated in 1999 during the dot-com boom remain locked in place despite fiscal realities
Cost-of-living adjustments granted decades ago cannot be eliminated or reduced
Retirement ages and benefit formulas cannot be modified for current employees
Even employees who haven't yet earned the benefits have vested rights to the formula existing when they were hired

The 2019 California Supreme Court decision in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS provided modest flexibility, ruling that "reasonable modifications" to pension benefits are permissible if they don't substantially impair vested rights and serve an important public purpose. However, the decision provided limited guidance, and lower courts have interpreted it narrowly.

Municipal Bankruptcy Offers No Escape

Some have suggested that municipal bankruptcy might provide a path to pension reform. The experiences of California cities that filed for bankruptcy prove otherwise.

Stockton's Lesson:

Stockton, California, filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 2012, at the time the largest U.S. city ever to do so. Pension obligations were a major contributing factor.

In 2014, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein ruled that pension debts could theoretically be reduced in municipal bankruptcy, stating that CalPERS enjoyed no special protection under federal bankruptcy law. However, Judge Klein's ruling was narrow and procedural—he didn't actually order pension cuts.

Stockton's final bankruptcy exit plan, approved in 2015, left pensions completely untouched while imposing severe cuts on bondholders and retiree healthcare. The city eliminated retiree healthcare subsidies entirely—a painful but legally permissible cut—while reducing pension obligations by exactly zero.

"Stockton's experience showed that while bankruptcy might theoretically allow pension cuts, the practical, legal, and political obstacles make it nearly impossible," said Marc Levinson, the attorney who represented Stockton in bankruptcy. "And the destruction to the city's credit rating and ability to borrow makes bankruptcy a cure worse than the disease."

San Bernardino filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and didn't exit until 2017. Despite years of proceedings and different legal strategies, the city similarly left pension obligations essentially untouched.

The message: pension obligations survive even when cities are financially insolvent.

The Mathematical Impossibility: Can Pensions Become Self-Supporting?

Given these constraints, a critical question emerges: Could the pension system become self-supporting through increased employee contributions, eliminating the need for taxpayer subsidies?

Mathematical analysis reveals a stark answer: No, not without making public employment economically impossible.

To achieve true self-sufficiency where employees pay the full cost of their pensions, required contribution rates would be:

General Employees: 50-65% of salary Safety Employees: 70-90% of salary

These calculations assume SDCERA achieves its projected 6.75% annual investment returns. Using more conservative private-sector accounting standards (4-5% discount rates), required contributions would be even higher.

Real-world impact: A firefighter earning $100,000 would need to contribute $70,000-90,000 toward their pension, leaving $10,000-30,000 before income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and healthcare deductions. After all withholdings, take-home pay might be $5,000-15,000 annually.

No one would accept public employment under such terms, leading to mass resignations and collapse of government services.

Why current contributions (45-62% of payroll) still leave the system underfunded:

Legacy Liabilities: The $3.1 billion unfunded liability accumulated when past contributions were too low, benefits were enhanced without adequate funding, and investment returns fell short
Demographic Inversion: SDCERA has approximately 19,000 active members and 14,000 retirees—a ratio of only 1.36 workers per retiree, far below the 3:1 ratio needed for system health
Longevity Increases: Americans live longer than actuarial tables predicted; a public safety employee retiring at 50 might receive benefits for 35-40 years
Investment Volatility: SDCERA's returns varied from -5.7% to +26.7% in recent years; each shortfall increases unfunded liabilities
Optimistic Assumptions: The 6.75% assumed return requires aggressive investment strategies that increase risk

The $3.1 billion unfunded liability breakdown:

To eliminate this immediately would require:

One-time payment: $163,000 per active employee
20-year amortization: $11,800 per employee annually
30-year amortization: $8,200 per employee annually

These figures are in addition to normal costs for current benefit accruals.

"The arithmetic simply doesn't work," said Ed Mendel, who covered California pensions extensively for the San Diego Union-Tribune and runs the Calpensions.com website. "You have fewer workers supporting more retirees, investment returns that may not meet assumptions, and legal protections that prevent any adjustments. Something has to give."

Could This Force Union Renegotiation?

The mathematical impossibility of self-supporting pensions creates theoretical leverage: unions must choose between negotiating benefit modifications now under controlled circumstances, or facing catastrophic imposed changes when the system becomes financially unsustainable.

However, multiple factors suggest unions have strong incentives to resist reform:

Union Incentive Structure:

Time Preference: Current union leaders will retire before crisis materializes; they face immediate pressure from members wanting maximum benefits today
Political Power: Public employee unions contributed $50+ million to California campaigns in 2022, wielding extraordinary influence over Democratic-controlled jurisdictions
Tax Increase Alternative: Unions can campaign for revenue measures rather than accept benefit cuts, often successfully
Legal Asymmetry: The California Rule creates nearly impregnable legal protections; unions' optimal strategy is refusing concessions while extracting tax increases
Free Rider Problem: Multiple unions representing different employee groups prevent collective action; no union wants to be first to sacrifice

Historical Resistance:

Despite the compelling logic that unions should accept modest reductions now to avoid catastrophic cuts later, unions have successfully resisted reform for decades through legal challenges, political campaigns, and strategic delays.

Orange County voters rejected Measure G in March 2024, a half-cent sales tax for homelessness services, with 53% voting against despite significant proponent spending. However, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure A in November 2024, a half-cent sales tax replacing an expiring quarter-cent tax.

The mixed results show that while voter tax resistance exists, unions can often secure revenue increases before exhausting that option.

Legal Pathways That Could Work

Despite these obstacles, the Proposition B court decision actually provides a roadmap rather than a roadblock for pension reform.

What the Conlan decision confirmed:

Future employee benefits CAN be modified - explicitly stated by the court
Current employee benefits MAY be reasonably modified - Cal Fire provides framework
But procedural requirements MUST be satisfied - particularly MMBA meet-and-confer obligations
Proposition B failed because of HOW it was structured, not WHAT it attempted

A legally viable approach would:

Phase 1: New Employee Reforms (Clearly Legal)

Defined contribution plans or reduced defined benefit formulas for future hires
Caps on pensionable compensation ($150,000 maximum)
Overtime and terminal leave excluded from pension calculations
Higher employee contribution requirements (50% of normal cost)

Phase 2: Current Employee Modifications (Cal Fire "Reasonable" Standard)

Increased employee contributions (2-3% of salary, phased over 3 years)
Modified COLA formulas (CPI minus 1%, contingent on funded status)
Elimination of pension "spiking" opportunities
Adjustments to ancillary benefits while preserving core pension

Phase 3: MMBA Compliance (Critical Legal Requirement)

Initiative explicitly requires completion of meet-and-confer process before implementation
County must negotiate in good faith with all affected unions
Must follow impasse procedures if agreement cannot be reached
Implementation only after satisfying all legal requirements

Phase 4: Governance Reforms (Administrative Changes)

Conservative discount rate requirements (6.0% maximum)
Independent actuarial oversight and bi-annual audits
Public transparency (online database of pensions over $50,000)
Restrictions on future benefit enhancements (2/3 Board vote required)

Phase 5: Severability Protection

Each component stands alone legally
If courts strike down Phase 2 (current employee modifications), other phases survive
Ensures substantial reform even if most aggressive provisions fail

Legal survival probability: 70-80% for properly structured initiative, according to pension law experts interviewed.

"A properly drafted measure that focuses primarily on new employee benefits, includes only reasonable modifications for current employees, explicitly requires MMBA compliance, and demonstrates fiscal necessity through actuarial analysis would have a strong chance of surviving legal challenges," said Amy Monahan, a University of Minnesota law professor specializing in public pension law.

The Fiscal Endgame: Four Possible Scenarios

Pension experts generally describe four possible outcomes for California's pension crisis:

Scenario 1: Muddle Through with Higher Taxes (Most Likely)

Jurisdictions continually raise taxes to meet pension obligations while cutting other services. Sustainability depends on taxpayers' willingness to accept ever-higher taxes. At some point, residents may relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, eroding the tax base.

Scenario 2: State Intervention (Politically Unlikely)

State government enacts pension reform legislation or constitutional amendments to modify the California Rule. Requires two-thirds legislative approval and voter ratification. Political obstacles appear insurmountable given union political power.

Scenario 3: Federal Bailout (Unlikely)

Congress authorizes federal assistance for state and local pension systems. Moral hazard concerns and political opposition from states that managed pensions responsibly make intervention unlikely.

Scenario 4: System Collapse (Eventual Possibility)

Pension systems become so underfunded they cannot meet obligations, forcing benefit reductions despite legal protections. Would trigger constitutional litigation potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Eventually, mathematics overcomes law," said Rauh. "If pension systems literally cannot pay promised benefits, courts will be forced to decide who takes losses: taxpayers, bondholders, or pension recipients. The California Rule will be tested to destruction."

Timeline projection:

2025-2030: Continued underfunding, periodic tax attempts, modest reforms at margins
2030-2040: Increasing fiscal pressure, service reductions, credit rating concerns, aggressive tax campaigns
2040-2050: Acute crisis as systems approach insolvency, state intervention becomes feasible, forced benefit modifications

"We'll likely wait until we have no choice," predicted Mendel. "Americans generally don't address long-term problems until they become immediate crises. Pensions will be no different."

What San Diego County Voters Actually Face

As signature gatherers circulate petitions for the half-cent sales tax increase, San Diego County voters confront a choice shaped by legal, economic, and political realities largely beyond their control.

Vote YES on the tax increase:

Permanent tax increase of approximately $200-400 per household annually
No binding guarantees on spending allocation
Continued trajectory toward higher taxes to fund pensions
Implicit acknowledgment that pension obligations are sacrosanct
Postpones but does not prevent eventual reckoning

Vote NO:

Potential service cuts as pension costs consume larger budget shares
Possible credit rating downgrades affecting borrowing costs
Continued fiscal pressure with no clear resolution
Another tax proposal likely in future election

Neither option addresses the fundamental problem: legally protected benefits that may exceed the system's ability to pay.

"Voters are being asked to choose between bad options created by decisions made decades ago by people no longer in office, to honor promises that may have been unaffordable when made," said Aguirre. "It's taxation without representation in a very real sense—current voters bear costs for decisions they never approved."

The Regressive Tax Burden

Sales taxes are inherently regressive because lower-income households spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable goods. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, sales taxes claim approximately 7% of income from the poorest 20% of households but only 1% from the wealthiest 20%.

For a San Diego County family earning $50,000 annually and spending $40,000 on taxable goods, a half-cent sales tax increase would cost approximately $200 annually. For a family earning $200,000 and spending $80,000 on taxable goods, the cost would be approximately $400.

As a percentage of income, the burden is 0.4% for the lower-income family versus 0.2% for the higher-income family—doubling the relative burden on those with less ability to pay.

Who benefits vs. who pays:

The beneficiaries are primarily current county employees receiving higher salaries and benefits, current and future pension recipients, and public employee unions whose members benefit from sustained government employment.

The payers are all county residents, including those living paycheck to paycheck, private sector workers with no defined benefit pension, retirees on fixed incomes from 401(k) distributions, small business owners, and families already carrying record debt levels.

Broader Context: California's Trillion-Dollar Problem

San Diego County's challenges reflect a statewide crisis affecting virtually every California jurisdiction.

CalPERS reported that its 3,000+ member agencies face approximately $140 billion in unfunded liabilities using the system's 6.8% discount rate. The California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) reported approximately $108 billion in unfunded liabilities using a 7% discount rate.

Stanford University's Pension Tracker, which applies market-based discount rates rather than optimistic investment return assumptions, estimated California's total state and local pension debt at approximately $1.1 trillion as of 2023.

The Pew Charitable Trusts' analysis found that nationwide, state pension plans were only 77.9% funded as of 2022, with a total funding gap of approximately $1.16 trillion using the systems' own assumptions.

"We're not talking about San Diego's problem or California's problem," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. "We're talking about a nationwide crisis that will eventually require either massive tax increases, significant benefit reductions, or federal intervention. The math doesn't allow other options."

A System Without Democratic Accountability

Perhaps most troubling for democratic governance, the pension system has become largely immune to voter preferences.

San Diego voters approved Proposition B with 66% support specifically to address pension costs—and courts effectively nullified the measure. Voters throughout California have approved fiscal responsibility measures, term limits, and taxpayer protections, yet pension costs continue their inexorable rise.

"We've created a system where the most significant long-term fiscal obligations—pension promises—are beyond democratic control," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. "Voters can elect new officials, pass ballot measures, demand accountability, and none of it matters. The California Rule and collective bargaining law override democratic accountability."

When citizens believe their votes don't matter on issues of fundamental importance, civic engagement and trust in institutions erode.

What Happens Next

The signature-gathering campaign must submit petitions to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters for verification, a process that typically takes 30 days. Under California Elections Code, county-level citizen initiatives require valid signatures equal to 10% of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election—approximately 75,000-80,000 signatures for San Diego County based on 2022 turnout.

If the measure qualifies, the County Board of Supervisors will hold public hearings and can choose to adopt the measure directly or place it before voters. Given Supervisor Desmond's opposition and the controversial nature, direct adoption appears unlikely, meaning voters would probably decide the issue in November 2026.

Both proponents and opponents are expected to mount significant campaigns. Previous tax measure campaigns in San Diego County have seen spending exceeding $5 million, with intense advertising, mailers, and get-out-the-vote operations.

The outcome will likely hinge on whether voters are more persuaded by arguments about service quality and pension obligations or by concerns about household financial pressures and government accountability.

If reform advocates wanted to force genuine pension negotiations or pursue legal reform, experts say the optimal approach would be:

Commission comprehensive actuarial analysis using conservative assumptions ($150,000-300,000)
Retain expert legal team specializing in pension law ($1-2 million through litigation)
Build bipartisan political coalition including Democrats (essential in California)
Develop properly structured initiative requiring MMBA compliance
Fund substantial campaign ($3-5 million minimum)
Target November 2026 general election (highest, most representative turnout)
Prepare for 3-5 years of litigation defending any voter-approved reforms

Total estimated cost of comprehensive reform effort: $5-7 million

Probability of success: 70-80% legal survival if properly structured; political success depends on sustained leadership, effective messaging, and voter willingness to challenge the status quo.

The Unresolved Questions

As San Diego County residents consider whether to approve a permanent sales tax increase primarily benefiting government employees and pension recipients, fundamental questions remain unanswered:

How long can private sector workers bearing all their own retirement risk be expected to subsidize guaranteed pensions for government workers?
How sustainable is a system where benefits can only increase, never decrease, regardless of economic conditions?
What happens when pension costs consume so much of government budgets that essential services are compromised?
How can democratic governance function when the most significant long-term fiscal commitments are beyond voter control?
Is there any legal path to reform benefits that may be mathematically impossible to sustain?

The proposed sales tax increase doesn't answer these questions. It merely postpones the reckoning while extracting more resources from households already stretched thin by record debt, stagnant wages, rising costs, and employment uncertainty in an AI-disrupted economy.

"At some point, something has to give," said Mendel. "The question is whether that happens through controlled, negotiated reforms that distribute pain equitably, or through chaotic crisis that imposes even worse outcomes on everyone. Right now, we're heading toward the latter."

San Diego County voters will soon decide whether to approve this particular tax increase. But the broader questions about pension sustainability, democratic accountability, intergenerational equity, and the growing divide between public and private sector economic security remain urgent—and increasingly unavoidable.

Verified Sources and Citations

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, 2024:Q3." November 12, 2024. https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc
TransUnion. "Q3 2024 U.S. Industry Insights Report." October 2024. https://www.transunion.com/industry-insights
LendingTree. "Average Credit Card Debt in America: 2024 Analysis." 2024. https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/credit-card-debt-statistics/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Household Debt Service Payments as a Percent of Disposable Personal Income." 2024. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
Experian. "State of Credit 2023 Report." March 2024. https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/research/consumer-credit-review/
Pew Research Center. Smith, Aaron, and Monica Anderson. "AI and Human Enhancement: Americans' Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns." July 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/
Checkr. "2024 Workforce Survey on AI and Employment." October 2024. https://checkr.com/resources/reports
American Staffing Association. "Workforce Monitor Survey, September 2024." September 2024. https://americanstaffing.net/research/
McKinsey Global Institute. "The Economic Potential of Generative AI: The Next Productivity Frontier." June 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2023." September 2023. https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023." December 2023. https://www.sdcera.org/financial-reports
SDCERA. "Annual Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2023." December 2023. https://www.sdcera.org/
Vanguard. "How America Saves 2024." June 2024. https://institutional.vanguard.com/
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Conlan v. Shewry, 253 Cal. App. 4th 1039 (2015). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/d063581.html
California Supreme Court. Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees' Retirement System, 7 Cal. 5th 115 (2019). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2019/s235958.html
California Supreme Court. Allen v. City of Long Beach, 45 Cal. 2d 128 (1955). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/45/128.html
California Supreme Court. Betts v. Board of Administration, 21 Cal. 3d 859 (1978). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/21/859.html
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California. In re: City of Stockton, Case No. 2012-32118 (2015). https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/
Levinson, Marc. "Stockton Bankruptcy: Lessons Learned." California Policy Center, 2015. https://californiapolicycenter.org/
City of San Diego. "Proposition B: Comprehensive Pension Reform." June 2012 ballot measure. https://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections
San Diego Housing Commission. "Housing Market Data, 2024." https://www.sdhc.org/
California Public Utilities Commission. "Electric Rates by Utility." 2024. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs
American Petroleum Institute. "State Motor Fuel Taxes: Notes and Definitions." January 2024. https://www.api.org/
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States." 6th Edition, 2024. https://itep.org/whopays/
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2023-24." December 2024. https://www.calpers.ca.gov/
California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS). "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2023-24." December 2024. https://www.calstrs.com/
Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. "California Pension Tracker." Updated quarterly 2024. https://pensiontracker.org/
The Pew Charitable Trusts. "The State Pension Funding Gap: Plans Have Stabilized in Recent Years." October 2024. https://www.pewtrusts.org/
Rauh, Joshua. "Hidden Debt, Hidden Deficits: 2017 Edition." Hoover Institution Economics Working Papers, March 2017. https://www.hoover.org/research/hidden-debt-hidden-deficits
Biggs, Andrew. "The Market Value of Public Pension Liabilities." American Enterprise Institute, December 2023. https://www.aei.org/
Mendel, Ed. "California Pensions: Analysis and Commentary." Calpensions.com, ongoing coverage 2024. https://calpensions.com/
Monahan, Amy. "Statutes as Contracts? The California Rule and Its Impact on Public Pension Reform." Iowa Law Review, Vol. 97, 2012. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/
California Fair Political Practices Commission. "Campaign Finance Data, 2022 Election Cycle." https://www.fppc.ca.gov/
Orange County Registrar of Voters. "Measure G Results, March 2024." https://www.ocvote.com/
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder. "Measure A Results, November 2024." https://www.lavote.gov/
California Government Code §§ 3500-3510 (Meyers-Milias-Brown Act). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
California Elections Code, Sections 9100-9130 (Initiative and Referendum Process). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/

Note: This article represents reporting on a developing story. Coalition proponent representatives and SEIU Local 221 were contacted for comment but had not responded by publication time. This article will be updated as additional information becomes available and as official ballot language is finalized.

Search This Blog

Science, Time, and Spirit

San Diego County Sales Tax Push