A way out of the California pension mess?

First, my plan. I call it the "Graduated Postponement" law.

Under this proposal, which could hypothetically be effective 1-1-2011, every state employee covered by a publicly funded pension plan who had been initially hired full time before 1-1-1985 would not have their pension conditions and benefits changed; they would simply remain in effect as currently written.

Those first hired on or after 1-1-1985 through 12-31-1989 would have their retirement conditions and benefits modified in such a way as to add the requirement of serving one additional year [12 months] beyond their existing target date before they could go into effect.

Those first hired on or after 1-1-1990 through 12-31-1994 would have the same conditions and benefits modified in such a way as to add the requirement of serving two additional years [24 months] beyond their existing target date before they would become effective.

Those first hired on or after 1-1-1995 through 12-31-1999 would have the same conditions and benefits modified in such a way as to add the requirement of serving three additional years [36 months] beyond their existing target date before they were to become effective.

Those first hired on or after 1-1-2000 through 12-31-2004 would have those conditions and benefits modified in such a way as to add the requirement of working four additional years [48 months] beyond their existing target date before seeing the effective date.

And those first hired on or after 1-1-2005 and thereafter would have the same conditions and benefits modified in such a way as to add the requirement of working five additional years [60 months] beyond their existing target date before retirement might be implemented.

Retirement target ages would not be mandatory and provisions would be continued in place or modified that enable the accumulation of additional retirement credit for each year worked past a target age. At their discretion agencies would be permitted to reassign or transfer without relocation or hardship, but they could not demote, employees working past 15 or more years past their target dates.

Nothing in this law would modify or alter any other existing conditions or requirements for state employment, including health, physical condition, etc., etc.

Whatever their current target dates, a law like this would simply set-back most full time state employee's retirement options for a given number of months - based on when they first began full time state service. In this way the change would maintain early retirement perks public safety officers enjoy, and the net effect would be to spread the hurt fairly evenly among agency employees based on the ever-loved "seniority" modality, which at the very least should make it slightly more palatable it to employee unions.

Meaningful comments and suggestions are welcome but moderated. Others are treated with the respect they deserve.

PS: Update 6/10/10. To date four off topic responses have been very gently deleted.