Originally Posted By Beaumandy << The Governor can create a fake fiscal emergency by overestimating revenue and abrogate labor contracts at will. >> What's in it for the Govenator to do this? The people of california live in a great state that has been ruined by their government officials. It's going to take a guy like Arnold to acually fix the place... all while the people who screwed the state up in the first place try and block his every move. Hopefully the people understnd this and will vote yes on all his measures.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>What's in it for the Govenator to do this?<< Because he doesn't believe in public service and wants to eradicate it by any means necessary. Duh!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Because he doesn't believe in public service and wants to eradicate it by any means necessary.>> cmpaley... no proof, no evidence of this to be true. It just doesn't make sense for Arnold to be like you say he is when you step back and look at things.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>cmpaley... no proof, no evidence of this to be true.<< > The "California Performance Review" > The Governor's failure to bargain in good faith with State employee unions. > The Governor's attempt to eliminate employee pensions > Prop 74 > Prop 75 > Prop 76 > Grover Norquist as a major player in Schwarzenegger's "team" of advisors. >>It just doesn't make sense for Arnold to be like you say he is when you step back and look at things.<< Things like his frenetic fundraising at such a rate that it would make Gray Davis blush, even though he said he doesn't need the money? Things like vetoes purchased from Schwarzenegger by corporate special interests? You mean things like that?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Gee, the California Performance Review was set up to look for waste and fraud in a state that is spending way more than it brings in. What is wrong with that? Yes, some folks might lose a job, but if the job is redundant or not needed, ell, then it should be cut! <a href="http://cpr.ca.gov" target="_blank">http://cpr.ca.gov</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>The Governor's attempt to eliminate employee pensions<< He does NOT want to eliminate pensions, just change the system, so that Public Employee Pension are similar to the Pension plans that are in the Private Sector. San Diego has a good chance to file for bankruptcy due to its pension problems... <a href="http://www.reason.org/commentaries/passantino_20050823.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.reason.org/commenta ries/passantino_20050823.shtml</a> >>San Diego's staggering pension shortfall of at least $1.3 billion – plus another $1 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits – should be in forefront of voters' minds when they cast their ballots for mayor. Pension reform is so critical that both Donna Frye and Jerry Sanders have made solving the mess a central plank in their mayoral campaigns. And while any positive steps on the pension disaster are good news for taxpayers, neither plan does enough, given the gravity of the crisis. The severity of San Diego's fiscal crisis clearly calls for the mayoral candidates to push for changes that fundamentally alter the way that future employee benefits are managed, but both plans lack structural reforms and ignore the elephant in the room. Neither candidate addresses the obvious – shifting all new employees to individualized 401(k)-style plans would go a tremendously long way in preventing future pension disasters. The 401(k) plans still offer attractive retirement benefits to government workers, but they prevent lawmakers from making pension promises and deals they can't pay for. While the powerful government unions will surely oppose a shift to 401(k)-style plans, taxpayers must remember the significant role that the unions' meddling played in creating the pension problem. Intentional underfunding, excessive – arguably illegal – benefit increases, and general mismanagement seemed to have union blessing throughout the crisis' build-up. And union complaints that a 401(k) plan is unfair or insufficient will likely fall on deaf ears with voters. After all, those voters likely have 401(k) retirement accounts. And it is appalling to taxpayers when they are asked to fund excessive guaranteed benefit plans for government workers, while being told that their own 401(k) retirement is not good enough for city employees. The second fundamental problem is that current retirees and employees already in the system cannot be shifted involuntarily out of the defined-benefit system. Here, neither candidate proposes adequate protections against future benefit increases for existing city employees. Sanders proposed a limit on pension benefits as a fixed percentage of their salary that will offer little comfort to taxpayers because pension benefits are still subject to "spiking" (such as cashing in vacation or filing false disability claims). Frye's plan does even less. Under both plans, some city employees will still be able to earn pensions of more than $100,000 per year. Fortunately, last week City Attorney Michael Aguirre offered a sensible idea to prevent this abuse by recommending that any future benefit increases require voter approval. San Francisco does the same. It is the height of irony that more conservative areas like Orange County and San Diego have massive deficits in their pension systems, but ultra-liberal San Francisco is fully funded because voters must approve pension benefit increases. Even San Francisco voters know excessive benefits when they see them. The California Constitution says government officials must receive permission from taxpayers before borrowing large sums of money. Because pension commitments are basically ironclad, they effectively carry the same long-term legal obligations as general obligation debt and should be subject to the same requirements. Requiring voter approval of pension benefits would also help keep benefits at reasonable levels in the eyes of the San Diego taxpayer, who, after all, are paying the government employees' salaries and will ultimately foot the bill for their retirement.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I have a theory: Darkbeer has been on vacation in Tahiti for the past few months, and he has his computer set up on auto-Google-and-post. Pretty cool.
Originally Posted By cmpaley There's nothing wrong with looking for waste, fraud and abuse. The trouble is, it went to the WRONG PEOPLE to find it. You don't ask corporate hacks where to find waste in government, you ask the employees of the government. They know a lot more about what's going on and what to do to make things run better.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The pension issue is a straw man. CalPERS has done a study of the issue and reached different conclusions.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I have to laugh at calling the pension issue a straw man... It is the number ONE issue here in the San Diego Mayor's race.... Lets see what the Washington Post says about it.... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001319.html?nav=rss_politics" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001319.html?nav=rss_politics</a> >>San Diego is more than $1.4 billion in arrears on its pension payments. Its bond rating is so low that it cannot issue bonds for needed public works. Last month city leaders acknowledged that a plan to help deal with the crisis by selling city land was almost unworkable because city bureaucrats had overvalued the city's assets by more than $600 million and the city's inventory of real estate assets actually includes land it sold, never owned or hopes to buy. "Simply put," said Jesse Knight Jr., the president of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, "San Diego is a mess." The budget crisis doesn't just humiliate San Diegans -- it's cutting into their quality of life. The crisis has forced the elimination of a citywide day-care program for children from middle-to-lower-income families. Public library hours have been slashed, and plans for a new central library in the rejuvenating downtown district have been shelved. The city's sewer system is so decrepit that it could face federal fines. Police are jumping ship to nearby cities that offer bigger salaries and the promise of a real pension. In 2004, for the first time in seven years, the region's population actually fell -- by 600. And road repairs have ground to a standstill. "The average San Diegan doesn't scream too much; it's not like you're stuck waiting for a snowplow that never comes," said Carl Luna, a professor of political science at San Diego Mesa College. "You get a sunny day, you can always go to the beach. But bit by bit, the wheels are starting to come off." Luna said San Diego's problems are a template for what other states and cities could face. A report issued in March by the financial firm Wilshire Associates Inc. estimated that more than 85 percent of state and local pension funds are underfunded nationwide. Massachusetts and Connecticut pension funds face billion-dollar deficits. Rhode Island and Oregon recently lowered pension benefits for public employees. And San Francisco, a supposedly liberal bastion, is one of the only cities in California where voters have to approve pension benefit increases.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.pacificresearch.org/centers/cfe/cgfa/cgfa_10.html" target="_blank">http://www.pacificresearch.org /centers/cfe/cgfa/cgfa_10.html</a> >>From 2000 to 2004, the investments under-performed and CalPERS suffered severe cash-flow problems, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab: $160 million in 2000, $611 million in 2001, $1.2 billion in 2002, $1.6 billion in 2003, and $1.9 billion in 2004. The governor and the legislature are attempting to defer a portion of the 2004 bill by selling $800 million in bonds, a move that the Pacific Legal Foundation claims is unconstitutional and is fighting. While bonds might dull the pain, they would not change the reality that the CalPERS deficit consumes 1.7 percent of the state’s budget and is growing. With projections showing retirement-related costs increasing $1 billion during the next five years, things are not looking good. The pension problem is worse for California’s cities and counties. The city pension system in San Diego, for example, has enough funds to cover only 68 percent of its obligations. Contra Costa County allocates 11 percent of its budget to pensions, while the city of Bakersfield allocates 14 percent. There are literally dozens of localities facing bankruptcy because of their pension obligations. They and the entire state urgently need to fix this problem.<< <a href="http://www.pensiontsunami.com/" target="_blank">http://www.pensiontsunami.com/</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>He does NOT want to eliminate pensions, just change the system, so that Public Employee Pension are similar to the Pension plans that are in the Private Sector.<< Somehow, that wouldn't be a very comforting thought if I were a public employee...
Originally Posted By cmpaley Who manages San Diego's pension system? It sure as heck ain't CalPERS. While the rabid right likes to make a big deal, let's look at some of the facts: In the late 1990's and 2000, the state's contribution to employee pension plans was effectively ZERO (although, employees still contributed their full amount) because of stock market gains and good management by CalPERS. When the bubble burst, the state's contribution went back to its previous level. The rabid right makes it sound as though the state contributing is something new. It's a lie. 2. While benefits did improve, they didn't improve to the degree that the rabid-right wing implies. For example, for most employees, the benefit went from 1.25% at age 60 to 2% at age 55. The problem is when you bring up the safety retirement (which applies to a VERY limited number of employees -- firefighters, CHP and prison guards) benefit of 3% at age 50. What the rabid right will do is focus only on the 3% at age 50 benefit and make it sound like all public employees will get this benefit. It's a lie.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_24/b3937081.htm" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/ma gazine/content/05_24/b3937081.htm</a> >>But San Diego is only the beginning. Citizens of Salinas, Calif., where pension costs are up and revenue is down, are facing the possibility that their public libraries will close this year. Orange County, Los Angeles County, and many other California counties have significant pension deficits. The state itself will pay $3.5 billion into pension and health benefits for retirees this year, almost triple what it paid just three years ago. And California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) expects that to climb another $1.1 billion over the next five years. Moving all new California employees to a 401(k)-style plan wouldn't eliminate the bill already due, but it would slow the pace at which the pension deficit grows. Although there would still be a cost to this plan, it would be more predictable and lower than what the state is currently paying. Over many decades, California's pension costs would shrink as high-cost employees are replaced. California's pension benefits are extreme. In 1999 and again in 2001, a time when the pension plans were flush with strong investment gains and state contributions were low, the state legislature upped the benefits to levels far beyond even the most generous public plans. A recent analysis by the LAO notes that for longer-term and some local employees, it's quite possible to receive more annual income in retirement than when a worker was employed.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>California's pension benefits are extreme. In 1999 and again in 2001, a time when the pension plans were flush with strong investment gains and state contributions were low, the state legislature upped the benefits to levels far beyond even the most generous public plans. << This is that lie I was talking about. 2% at 55 is the level that most employees were getting before Wilson created the 2nd tier of 1.25% at 60 (to which employees contributed nothing). They are foisting the 3% at age 50 on us and making it sound like everyone gets that. It's a lie.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer A very good transcript from a San Diego Union-Tribune Editoral Board meeting on July 20th, 2005. <a href="http://www.commonwealthclub.org/features/reform/resources/pdfs/PensionsFullTranscript.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.commonwealthclub.or g/features/reform/resources/pdfs/PensionsFullTranscript.pdf</a> >>The Honorable Keith Richman, Member of the California State Assembly I think it’s critical that we get our pension costs under control, that we have fair pensions for individuals. Pensions now are extravagant. According to the legislative analyst’s office, pensions in California are 24 percent higher on average than the next highest state. We have many people throughout the state of California who are getting pensions that far exceed 100 percent of their salary in their last year. As most of you know, we base our pensions on the last one year or the highest one year of pensions. Many people are spiking their salaries in the last year for various causes, either shift differentials, location differentials, overtime, vacation. And so some individuals as an example who might have a base salary of $80,000 or $90,000 in that last year have a salary of $150,000 and may get pensions of 90 percent of that, which far exceeds their salary. The issue of the level of pensions needs to be addressed just as Mark was saying. We need to generate cost savings. We need to have budgeting predictability. And I think it’s important that we don’t continue to pass our unfunded liabilities on to our children and grandchildren. Let me just make one point because Mark was on the STRS board, education is important to all of us. The STRS board last year had an unfunded liability of $23 billion dollars. This year the updated actuarial studies showed that it worsened by $1 billion. Their current unfunded liability is $24 billion and according to the actuary, it will take almost 4.6 percent of additional salary for the next 30 years to meet the unfunded obligations of CalSTRS. And so this is an issue that infects all of the issues that are important to us for the future of California.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ Once again, this is based on lie that most employees get the Safety Retirement benefits of 3% at age 50. Most state employees are not under this plan. Further, I question the term "unfunded mandage." Is this the based on the contribution that the employer has to make toward an employee's retirement? Bear in mind that when the market is doing well, the employer's contribution can go down to zero while the employee's contribution remains the same. If the law were changed to require that both employee and employer continue to make contributions when the market is up and down, then the costs can be predicted much better. Also, what kind of stock market growth does the term "unfunded mandate" take into account? Does it even take growth into account? It just seems to be part of a major to push to eliminate public service from the zeitgeist of the country by removing any incentive for anyone to become a public servant.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>If the law were changed to require that both employee and employer continue to make contributions when the market is up and down, then the costs can be predicted much better. << That is basically the 401(k) plan, where the employees puts in so much, and the employer matches it... From post #54... >>Moving all new California employees to a 401(k)-style plan wouldn't eliminate the bill already due, but it would slow the pace at which the pension deficit grows. Although there would still be a cost to this plan, it would be more predictable and lower than what the state is currently paying.<< Nobody is saying that employees can't leave the money with CalPERS, though if it is similar to other 401(k) plans, the employee would have a choice, some could be CalPERS funds (or other similar state pension systems, such as CalSTRS), but also have other choices, such as an direct S&P 500 fund, and other bond funds (where most private pension/401k money goes).
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>That is basically the 401(k) plan, where the employees puts in so much, and the employer matches it...<< No, it's not. >>Nobody is saying that employees can't leave the money with CalPERS, though if it is similar to other 401(k) plans, the employee would have a choice, some could be CalPERS funds (or other similar state pension systems, such as CalSTRS), but also have other choices, such as an direct S&P 500 fund, and other bond funds (where most private pension/401k money goes).<< This is a lie. There would be NO choice if Schwarzenegger's corporate special interest buddies get their way. Their idea is to force all public employees in California into high-risk 401(k) plans to be administered by high cost investment firms that are selected by the Governor or his direct appointees. Hmmmm...high-risk investments and administration by high cost investment firms...I see a lot of money disappearing with no accountability. CalPERS has been in a thorn in the side of corporate special interested because it forces corporations to act socially responsible if they expect CalPERS to invest in them. CalPERS offers a secure retirement while the 401(k) offers little better chance than the lottery or Las Vegas. I'd stick with CalPERS.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a news article from March of this year, talking about the proposed proposition that was pulled... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/03/BAGSKBJJ6A1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/03/BAGSKBJJ6A1.DTL</a> >>Schwarzenegger's pension proposal would cap the amount of money the state pays into employee pensions and have future government employees enter into 401(k)-style plans that limit taxpayer responsibility for retirement and put more of the burden on workers to save. Shifting to a so-called defined contribution system will spare taxpayers that risk and allow employees more flexibility in investing their pensions, supporters argue. An administration official noted that under the governor's proposal, UC officials who currently manage pensions for employees could continue to do so. Individual employees could simply give authority to UC pension fund managers to manage their individual retirement funds, said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Schwarzenegger's Department of Finance. << Let me find more detail into the original proposal on this issue...
