Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is the wording straight from the Assembly proposed amendment (ACA No. 8) <a href="http://www.calstrs.com/PensionIssues/documents/Bill_acax1_8_20050414.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.calstrs.com/Pension Issues/documents/Bill_acax1_8_20050414.pdf</a> Section 8, (e) 1. >>The plan shall be administered by the Public Employees' Retirement System, the State Teachers' Retirement System, or the University of California Retirement System. However, local government agencies and districts may contract with private fund managers to administer their plans if the adminstrative expenses are lower than those imposed by the retirement system.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12982686.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld /mercurynews/12982686.htm</a> >>The greatest failure in Sacramento in the past decade was turning a boom into a burden. Riding up in the dot-com balloon, the Legislature and the governor increased spending to levels that could not be sustained once it burst. In the years since then, the state has spent more than it has taken in, leading to higher debt, a rock-bottom bond rating and general mistrust of the Legislature and the governor. Voters should pull elected officials into line on Nov. 8 by passing Proposition 76, which would restrain state spending. Proposition 76 is long and complex. Its results cannot be foreseen precisely. But its message will be clear: Make the state budget realistic and prudent. Proposition 76 would establish a formula to limit spending in fat years, leaving the state in better shape in lean years. It will set up a process for midyear adjustments that will force the Legislature, and ultimately the governor, to deal with falling revenues before the problem snowballs. It will enable the state to continue with its current budget when the Legislature deadlocks on a new one, avoiding the financial confusion that results under current law. Rather than setting a firm cap on state spending, Proposition 76 restricts the rate at which it can grow. A new budget can expand no more than the percentage that state revenues have grown over the past three years, even if the state has more revenue available. This "rolling average" would smooth out the spikes and dips in spending as revenues vary from year to year.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051021/news_lz1ed21top.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ uniontrib/20051021/news_lz1ed21top.html</a> >>First the reading part: Consider the actual language of Proposition 76. It would cap annual state spending at the prior year's level plus the average of the three previous years' growth in revenue. It would give the governor more authority to reduce spending in midyear if revenue was lagging and red ink was piling up, the same as governors in many states. Finally, it would reduce the formula-driven automatic escalators in education spending dictated by a previous proposition. But it would not, repeat not, end the requirement that a set minimum of general fund revenue go to K-14 education. Just how is this an all-out assault on state government? Now the math part: Consider Sacramento's reaction when the dot-com boom sent state income-tax revenue soaring in the late 1990s. Instead of reaching the obvious conclusion – that such revenue hikes were an aberration, so it would be foolish to make long-term commitments to spending increases that would break the budget in normal fiscal years – then-Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature spent the entire windfall in ways that locked in future spending growth, especially on public employees' wages and pensions. The result: The state ran up $22 billion in arguably illegal debt (the California Constitution says budgets have to be balanced) and has a structural deficit of about $500 million a month. Both the debt and the structural deficit will steadily worsen because of "autopilot spending" rules that drive up many programs' cost each year by far more than the rate of inflation. You don't need a mathematics Ph.D. to figure out that any entity – a family, a business, a state government – can't continually spend much more than it takes in without disastrous results. Now the economics part: The only way Proposition 76's foes are willing to address this chronic, huge budget gap is a massive tax hike – and guess what tax hikes of such a scale do to growth? They kill it, and thus limit tax revenues. To those who think that the economy can thrive no matter how high taxes get, we invite you to consider Exhibit A. It's best known as the continent of Europe. Proposition 76 is radical only if you believe living within your means is radical. If you think that's an unfair way to characterize 76's opponents, then consider the fury of the California Teachers Association – the most powerful critic of 76 – over the state's current education budget. It's up $3 billion and 7 percent over last year, meaning schools made out better than any other part of government in the annual budget scrum. Yet the CTA and its Democratic allies endlessly promote the flat-out fiction that this is a spending cut. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley CalPERS did a research paper on the topic of public employee retirements. You can download it at: _ Here are some highlights: ========== Excessive Benefits in the Defined Benefit Plan Is a Myth Average pension is small. No one is getting rich on pensions. Some 25,000 CalPERS members retire each year. The average age at retirement for the largest segment of workers is 60, with 19.5 years of service, and a benefit allowance of $1,673.82 a month. The average CHP employee retires at age 55, with 27.9 years of service, and receives an allowance of $3,811.27 a month. The majority of State cost increases are due to market downturn, not to increased benefits. Nearly 80 percent of increases in employer rates between 2002-04 are due to the two-year downturn in the economy. And as a percent of payroll, the State pays less per employee than it did 25 years ago for school employees, state miscellaneous employees, state industrial workers, state safety workers and state peace officer and firefighters. Defined Contribution Plans Don’t Cost Less, They Cost More Dollar for dollar, DC plans cost more. Administrative costs of DC plans are higher – often much higher – than a DB plan. The average cost of administering CalPERS defined benefit plan is 0.18 percent. The annual cost of a DC plan can rise to as much as 2 percent of assets. The expense ratio for a stock mutual fund is 1.1 percent of assets. CalPERS investment portfolio is low cost and less risky than other public pension funds. A Cost Effectiveness Measurement Inc., found that CalPERS saved $144 million compared to its peers, paying less for consulting, custodial and active management services. Costs to run the pension fund’s investment portfolio were $413.2 million in 2003, compared to a peer benchmark of $557.1 million. In a typical DB plan, 80 cents of each $1 is spent on members who retire; in a DC plan 50 cents of each $1 is spent on benefits with the other 50 cents spent prior to retirement. For retiring members to receive the same amount of benefits, contributions to the fund would need to increase substantially. There is no guarantee that tax dollars put into an employee account will be used for retirement. Research indicates that most employees who leave one job for another, cash out their accounts – including the monies contributed by the employer for the purpose of retirement -- rather than roll them over to the next employer’s retirement plan. If DC proceeds fall short of basic retirement income needed, the State will end up paying more in public assistance when employees are old, ill and infirm. A comparison of operation expenses favors DB plans. Employees pay big fees to mutual funds and other investment mangers on their investment dollars in 2 DC plans. On average, mutual funds charge $1.35 for “load†and/or administrative expenses for every $100 invested. For each of the last 6 years, CalPERS spent less than two tenths of one percent of the fund’s value – 18 cents on every $100 invested. The State will bear start-up costs of a DC plan, bringing to two the number of plans it will need to budget for. The State’s contributions to the CalPERS plan do not require direct payment of administrative costs to run the system. If the State were to set up a DC plan, it would have to pay for start-up costs. The DC plan does not cover costs of disability retirements and death benefits, which are embedded in the cost of the DB plan. The State would also have the added expense of starting to pay 6.7 percent of payroll for police, firefighters, and others in safety classes who don’t get social security under the existing DB plan. The State throws away an opportunity to use future investment returns to cover retirement costs, relieving taxpayers from some of the burden of funding pensions. A DC plan does not give the State the ability to use investment returns to pay for a portion of pension costs. For example, investment returns and employee contributions generated enough income in the mid-1990s that the State did not pay any contributions during four years -- Fiscal year 1998-99 through Fiscal Year 2001-02 -- for 350,000 classified school workers. That represented a savings of over $4 billion alone. Over the last 10 years, 75 percent of the income to CalPERS has been from investments, not employer or employee contributions. Over the last decade, members’ contributions have actually exceeded the amount of employer contributions by $1.1 million. ========== I'll let you read the rest for yourself.
Originally Posted By cmpaley <a href="http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/.../definedplans/defined-bene-facts.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip- docs/about/.../definedplans/defined-bene-facts.pdf</a> Here's the link. Sowwy.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I don't think anyone denies that there is a need for reform. It's this THIS reform that is needed. This reform is written by people who do not have the best interests of the People of the State of California in mind.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer CRT Press Release Law Enforcement, Crime Victims Groups Endorse Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Reform Agenda Sacramento – The California District Attorneys Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Chief Probation Officers of California and Memory of Victims Everywhere, a prominent crime victims group, joined Gov. Schwarzenegger to endorse Propositions 76 and 77 at a press conference in Sacramento today. “Public safety has always been my No. 1 priority,†said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “That’s why I worked so hard last year to protect three strikes and defeat the efforts to weaken that landmark public safety initiative. It is fantastic that this year, law enforcement and crime victims groups support propositions 76 and 77 and my efforts to fix the broken system in California.†Governor Schwarzenegger has consistently worked to protect public safety and expand victims' rights in California since taking office. This year the Governor proposed the toughest sex offender laws in the history of California when he asked the Legislature to support the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act. The Governor hopes the Legislature will join with him in the coming year to pass this critical legislation to protect California's children. He recently kicked off the signature gathering drive to help put the measure on the ballot. In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger has signed legislation to strengthen Megan's law and toughen sex offender laws; worked to pass Proposition 69 to expand the state's DNA database; protected the integrity of California's Three Strike's Law by defeating Proposition 66; increased the ability of crime victims to participate in parole hearings; improved victim restitution laws; and appointed victim advocates to statewide commissions and offices. This year, the Governor signed bills to provide more than $31 million for local law enforcement to fight crime and strengthen the Missing Persons DNA Database. He also strengthened the rights of crime victims by continuing the work of the Domestic Violence Advisory Council, giving child victims of abuse a louder voice and providing law enforcement with the tools to better protect workers and protecting victim addresses. In recent weeks, the Governor’s campaign has been gaining momentum and has added significant endorsements. Just last week, statewide Latino groups endorsed the Governor’s reform agenda. Other groups that have endorsed Gov. Schwarzenegger’s reform include the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Western Growers Association, the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. Nonpartisan government reform advocate Common Cause has endorsed Proposition 77. The Governor’s reform agenda includes: Proposition 74 which will require new teachers to work successfully for several years before they get tenure and a virtual job for life. Proposition 75 which will give workers like police officers, firefighters and teachers the ability to choose whether or not money from their paychecks should be used for political purposes. Proposition 76 which will control spending to end state deficits and balance the budget without raising taxes. At the same time, it will stabilize education funding to make sure our public schools are getting the money they need. Proposition 77 which will allow independent judges to draw election districts instead of the politicians. It then allows voters to approve or reject those districts. It is about giving more power to the people and making politicians more accountable. For more information on the initiatives that Gov. Schwarzenegger is supporting during the November Special Election, please visit <a href="http://www.JoinArnold.com" target="_blank">http://www.JoinArnold.com</a>.
Originally Posted By cmpaley OOoooh, more spin from Schwarzenegger's California Repossession, I mean Recovery (for Corporate Special Interests Only) Team.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Why is it "spin" when they announce that the California District Attorneys Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Chief Probation Officers of California and Memory of Victims Everywhere endorsed Propositions 76 and 77? I think that is a lot of new groups saying vote YES on Props 76 and 77!!!
Originally Posted By cmpaley That's not the spin. Their definitions of what the initiatives do is spin. It's half-truths presented as the whole truth.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The Auto Club supports Proposition 76... They state this in the Nov/Dec Westways Magazine. The main point for them is the fact that the taxes paid for gasoline will be used for the purpose intended.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer CRT Press Release... San Diego Union Tribune: “Ad Attacks on Prop. 76 Are Utterly Dishonest†SACRAMENTO – The union boss' attacks against Proposition 76 are “Utterly dishonest†and “beyond shameless†according to an editorial in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune. The Tribune also urges Californians to vote on November 8, and “don't let the unions get away with this perverse crusade.†The Tribune writes: “If polls are accurate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could go zero for four in his initiative reform push in next Tuesday's special election. But polls have been wrong before, so voters who want to pull California back from the precipice should not be discouraged. The words of 18th-century British statesman Edmund Burke come to mind: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ “That may seem an unduly melodramatic way to look at a political dispute, given that there are well-meaning people on both sides of the debate over Propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77. But given the sheer stinking dishonesty of the advertisements and campaign literature paid for by the most powerful opponents of these measures, extreme language is appropriate. “Yesterday we focused on the astounding claims of foes of redistricting reform – Proposition 77 – that it was a racist power grab by politicians who want to turn California into Texas. Today our focus is the equally odious collection of lies used to try to torpedo Proposition 76, which would require state spending go up annually by no more than the average of the three previous years in revenue growth and would empower the governor to make mid-year cuts to balance the budget if the Legislature would not. “Consider two of the main anti-76 arguments made by the Alliance for a Better California, the public employees union group fighting to maintain the status quo: “The first argument holds that the budget restraints would cut school spending by $4 billion every year as well as reduce spending on public safety and health programs. This is a lie, and a dumb one – controlling the growth in spending isn't remotely the same thing as cutting spending. To defend this lie, anti-76 forces offer another lie: the claim that Schwarzenegger made cuts in the current school budget. The budget went up by a record $3 billion. But because they consider a 7 percent increase as insufficient, the unions imperially decree it to be a cut. Huh? “The second argument holds that a vote against Proposition 76's spending restraints isn't really a vote to head off the tax hikes that will be needed to cover the red ink left by the explosive growth in the state budget since 1999. Instead, voting against Proposition 76 may protect taxpayers. ‘After all, [the governor is] the one threatening to raise your taxes,’ asserts the alliance's Web site. “This goes beyond semantic gymnastics to rancid deceit – suggesting that it's Schwarzenegger who's eager to hammer taxpayers, not the Democratic legislators who have proposed dozens of tax hikes over the past two years to pay for their spending binge, and who constantly look for ways around two-thirds requirements to raise taxes. The governor says if Proposition 76 fails, then tax hikes will have to be considered – and this is fired back at him as if his real goal is higher taxes, not constrained spending. Huh? “As this should make plain, so long as it might win votes, there is virtually no argument too deranged or dishonest for the desperate defenders of California's failing status quo. Up is down, black is white, right is wrong. Come Tuesday, don't let the unions get away with this perverse crusade.†To view the article go to: <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial1/20051103-9999-lz1ed3top.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/ news/op-ed/editorial1/20051103-9999-lz1ed3top.html</a>
