Is Richard Riordan Backing Down On Pension Debate Challenge?

By Gene Maddaus Fri., Nov. 16 2012 at 12:12 PM

Riordan vs. Izen

A couple days ago, Tyler Izen, the L.A. Police Protective League threw down the gauntlet, challenging former mayor Richard Riordan to debate his proposal to slash city pensions.

A day later, Riordan -- through a spokesman -- accepted.

Now, however, Riordan seems to be waffling a bit. In a lengthy statement this morning...

Riordan said, "Certainly there will be traditional debates about pension reform involving civic leaders... But I want this debate to be profound. I want it to occur in people's homes, in their churches, in coffeehouses and restaurants, on college campuses. Wherever people gather."

Note that Riordan says the debates will involve "civic leaders," but does not say that he will be one of them.

Further down, however, Riordan says that he will participate in the "discussion": "This debate, this discussion will include me - make no mistake about that - but this is not a personality contest."

OK, so when will this ~~debate~~ discussion take place?

"Let's not put the cart before the horse," Riordan said. "When the pension reform plan is qualified for the May ballot, if the public is fortunate in that regard, then the civic debate - about my proposal and the existing system - will begin in earnest."

The LAPPL challenged Riordan to three debates before Dec. 7 -- the deadline to turn in signatures for Riordan's ballot measure. Seems pretty clear that won't happen.

Riordan's spokesman, John Schwada, said Riordan is not ruling out a debate before then, but he also said that "until it's on the ballot, it's kind of premature to be completely debating this."

"The unions would love nothing more than for us to exhaust ourselves debating them when we should be trying to get this on the ballot," Schwada said. "We're not going to fall into their trap."

Asked again if Riordan would commit to participating, Schwada said, "The mayor will participate in debates. The question is what the format is."

Eric Rose, spokesman for the LAPPL, said that today's statement is "more double talk from Dick Riordan."

Tags:

debate, Los Angeles Police Protective League, pensions, Richard Riordan, Tyler Izen

We Recommend

AbidingCitizen

What Riordan is proposing is sanity... a rational way of dealing with the fiscal crisis. And please tell union organizers to stop urging workers to sign fake names and addresses in an attempt to sabotage Riordan's petition. It's illegal.

abramsrl

Riordan is proposing the privatization of Social Security. City employees get their "Social Security" through the city rather than the federal government. The crucial element of any Social Security system is that it is a pension which cannot go broke when you need it most. Social Security is guaranteed by the government. Thus, if bad times come -- like the Crash of 2008 from which we have not recovered -- the pensions are paid. If we had not had Social Security from city, state and federal government in 2008, we would have fallen into the Greatest Depression.

The main feature of our economy which remained stable were the publicly backed social security pensions -- they kept paying. Unemployment insurance was also vital. Had social security been privatized millions upon millions of seniors would have been destitute and that would have dragged down their children and children children. The entire economy would have totally crashed had we privatized social security.

Riordan wants to kick all the city employees into the street, Wall Street that is. He knows that Wall Street will make billions in unnecessary commissions and then lose the pension funds in massive frauds -- and then there is no guarantor to pay the retirees. Riordan call is "Let's all invest with the Bernie Madoff's of Wall Street -- knowing in advance that they are Bernie Madoffs!" That's what Riordan wants.

Riordan is the chief architect of the criminal enterprise which we call LA City Hall. It would be insane to listen to anything this guy has to say -- except to do the opposite.