NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Michael Haley
California's budget disaster
Friday, January 23, 2009
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By MICHAEL HALEY
Napablogger
October 28th, 2009
One final thought before signing off
September 23rd, 2009
Time for local economic stimulus
August 31st, 2009
Community in a world of chaos
August 20th, 2009
Schwarzenegger finally proposes pension reform
more
The state budget crisis continues, moving into what is one of the worst stalemates over the budget in history. Nothing is apparently being done by our Governor and state legislature except demonstrating their own incompetence, as the clock ticks toward running out of cash.

Now we hear that the state is going to go to the voters for tax increases, with a possible election in April. With the way that they are acting now, I can tell you that my vote is already no.
California has a structural problem in its budget, as evidenced by the fact that even in good economic times we have run a deficit. When times are bad, the deficits explode. This began in the year 2000, when a tremendous increase in the pension and compensation of state and local government employees began.

This is one of the real problems of the state’s structural deficits. Our expenses are more than we can ever hope to collect in taxes, even with large tax increases, and it centers around the state’s main expense, employee compensation.
In Gray Davis‚ tenure the pensions were increased to levels that even then actuaries realized were unsustainable. Safety personnel can now retire with 90 percent or more of their highest salaries at age 50, and other employees can retire with 75 percent or more at age 55.

If the Legislature and Governor really want to do something about fixing the budget, they first need to come to the public with some real cuts in spending. The time is ripe for real change, finally.
Here are a few pointers to get them started:

First of all, put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to reform all state employee pensions. A recent study by the League of California Cities showed that a person who retires with 70 percent of their highest salary maintains the same lifestyle as when they were working.

Change the constitution to limit safety pensions to a 70 percent cap, non safety to 50 percent. Reduce the amount of money that current pensioners receive. This will also reduce local county and city costs dramatically, as they are bound by state rules and the 70-50 percent cap will apply to them as well. This will not only save the state literally billions of dollars annually, it will save local governments millions.

While you are at it, change the recently lowered age of retirement back up to 55 for safety, 65 for non safety. That alone will cut pension costs in half, health care costs by a third. That will save billions of dollars, and public employees will still have a far better deal than most private employees.

Too radical for you? Guess what, the huge increases in taxes they are proposing equals a huge cut in the pay of taxpayers as well. Also, if we can change the constitution to redefine marriage, we can change it to fix the state budget.

Next, change the constitution if necessary to fix this ridiculous court ordered $8 billion increase for the prisons. Reduce prison guard salaries, and impeach the judge that ordered this nonsense. The legislature can do it if they want to, but right now the only special interest the Democrats are listening to is the public employee unions.

Next freeze all raises for state employees for at least two years. This also will save billions and will start to bring public pay more in line with private pay.

As has become well known at this point, since 2000 public employee pay in general has skyrocketed above private company wages in California. This is part of the reason for the structural imbalance that rarely gets talked about. Logic tells us that if you continuously raise the pay of public employees higher than the pay raises of private employees whose taxes go to pay for it all, you are going to hit a point of unsustainability. There is just no way around it.

The average salary for a CalPers employee in 2004 was about $46,000 and the average per capita income for all Californians was $35,000. Since then the gap has gotten bigger.

Except for the bottom fifth of employees, state worker pay has increased from 20 percent to 45 percent in less than five years. The top 20 percent’s median salary is now over $94,000 a year. Everyone has heard about the boom in State workers making over $200,000 by now, and in the UC system close to 10% of the employees make over $100,000 annually.

In 2000, local government wages in Sonoma County — including teachers' pay — were 1 percent higher than private-employer wages, according to the state Employment Development Department. By 2006 that gap was 11.5 percent. It is even higher today.

This list goes on and on throughout the state. In the private sector wages have barely kept pace with inflation, and last year actually went down 1 percent. In contrast regular 4-5 percent annual increases in public wages over time have put the public sector far ahead. They can stand two years of a flat salary, especially when the private sector looks like it will have to reduce wages in the same time frame.

This issue of government employee pay is not going to go away, and it behooves the public employees themselves to understand that they have gone too far and costs will be reigned in, it is just a matter of how and when. Even large tax increases will not be enough money to solve this problem,

Do we want to see what is happening in Wisconsin now, where virtually from one week to the next pension payments to current retirees are getting slashed? Far better to have an orderly evaluation of where spending is too high and unfair to the taxpayers, and reasonable reductions be made that can put the state on a long term basis of financial stability.

That is really the choice that is before us.

Michael Haley is President of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. He writes a weekly blog and a daily blog on local, state and national issues. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net
113 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Jan 22, 2009 3:29 PM:

" I wish you luck, NB, but I think you might be too late.

The unions are too powerful and the voters too brainwashed.

Arnold tried to get one small ballot measure passed that was MUCH less painfull than what you are proposing and the voters soundly rejected it.

I think we have a long way to go before the voters will accept these changes.

I predict that state services will be drastically reduced. Then taxes will be drastically raised in a doomed to fail effort to "increase revenue". It will appear to work for a while, but in the long run, businesses (and anyone else who can) will leave and the deficit will balloon even higher.

At that point voters MAY finally realize what the solution is, but it will probably be too late... "

Bill wrote on Jan 22, 2009 4:55 PM:

" Good piece NB, to illustrate your points.

Again no attribution, where did you get your numbers? "

db76 wrote on Jan 22, 2009 7:56 PM:

" 10% of UC employees make over 100,000 per year, but you have to consider that they're all medical doctors and PhDs. Cut their pay and you'll turn the best public university system in the world into one of the worst. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 23, 2009 1:43 AM:

" Kevin, actually Arnold's plan was to put them all on a 401K type plan like the rest of us. The matching money would have been high, but they would take on the risk of downturns like the rest of us.

I fault Arnold on that because when he came out with the plan the public supported it at 70%. The firefighters union launched a tv campaing against it and Arnie didn't fight back, and he has quit on us ever since.

And you may be right about voters not buying it, what the unions will do instead is insist on lay offs. They don't give a ...if people lose their jobs, they don't want their pay cut. The beauty of my plan is much fewer lay offs will be needed so services won't be cut as much. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 23, 2009 1:48 AM:

" Bill, thanks, coming from you that means a lot, you are tough to please.

I originally had the references in there, but it was too long. This article was originally at least three times as long but even this one is over 900 words, still too long for the paper really.

I am going to do Daily Napabloggers on this topic over the next week and include all the references I used here plus more. The source of the per captia income comparison is from a research paper from a consulting firm called the Center for Government Analysis, the others are mostly from the paper, Sacramento Bee did a study, the Sonoma paper studied Sonoma wages vs private. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 23, 2009 1:51 AM:

" db76, most of that 10% is making a whole lot more than 100,000. There is something like 2000+ mostly administrators making over 300K.

I think some of the professors are probably deserving of what they get, but the salaries have really skyrocketed for reasons having nothing to do with market forces.

The UC system has very little back pressure to control salaries. "

db76 wrote on Jan 23, 2009 8:34 AM:

" Those administrators making over 300k are mostly PHd's who have worked in the system for 25+years. They are akin to executives at corporations. You wouldn't expect the CFO at a corporation with 10,000 or 100,000 employees to make 50k per year, or would you? "

a teacher wrote on Jan 23, 2009 9:14 AM:

" Let me get this straight. You want me to move my retirement funds from CalSTRS (which has a tripple A rating the highest possible) to a 401k (no where near as good)? To save less than $500 million dollars (that's less than 1/2% of the total CA budget)?

Are your mad?

How much is the State's contribution to the CalPERS? I believe it is around $1.5 billion, which would put it at around 1% of the total state budget. I don't see how that will change our budget woes much.

I taught school in Georgia for 6 years. My salary there was about half of what I make here. Yet I could own a house and my wife couldstay at home with the kids. Not exactly high living, but more than getting by. Here in CA my teaching salary, more than I've ever made in my life, enables me to live in a two bedroom apartment and own a compact car. Aren't I a lucky ducky?

I would bet you that the average salary of the person behind the counter at the DMV is not great. I would bet that their retirement benifits are not wonderful. Same for the average DOT worker. These guys do work that is essential for smoothly operating transportation, but you want to pay them less and make their retirement less secure. And you want the lines at the DMV to be shorter and the personell courteous and efficient.

Hmmm...

I looked into "the Center for Government Analysis". Two of the three members belong to local tax associations. Kind of reeks of Howard Jarvis to me. "

kevin wrote on Jan 23, 2009 9:16 AM:

" LOL.

Of course the CFO should be compensated appropriately. He has ACCOUNTABLE RESPONSIBILTY.

The PHd's have NO RESPONSIBILITY and NO ACCOUNTABILTIY.

Writing books and ordering your students to buy them is not the same thing as running a real business... "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 23, 2009 11:21 AM:

" How like Bushite-Republicans to make a big deal out of a tiny part of the budget... that even if implemented IN FULL would still leave the state needing huge tax increases to pay it's bills.

NB fails to mention that many of the low-wage folks working for the UC system qualify for food stamps.

NB consistently fails to mention that if you wanted to re-balance pensions California could simply raise the tax on the pensions over say $250,000 dollars!

Not constitutional amendment required!

But that is not the Bushite-Republican agenda, which is to maintain tax breaks for the wealthy.

It's the huge imbalances in income that are killing the California and US economy.

We used to handle NB's issue by taxing the folks with huge incomes, now NB wants to protect them.

But time is running out for the Republcans... The construction contractor lobby is getting restless.

Their ads have changed from just calling for a solution to calling for a solution that includes spending cuts as well as tax increases.

NB, you are losing this debate.

California will get even more BLUE thanks to you and your buddies!

~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Jan 23, 2009 1:15 PM:

" NB; Ok, ok enough with making nice.
In many ways you have a good argument to make about structural problems with state and local spending. When there are no attributions it looks like you are pulling numbers from where the sun don’t shine.
Allow me to improve your argumentative form by pointing out throwaway leads like assuming “what everybody knows.” Per the following quote from your opinion “As has become well known at this point, since 2000 public employee pay in general has skyrocketed above private company wages in California.” I’m certain you know how to break apart the word assume.

I think you error when you assume that Cal-pers is the culprit and when you attack unions and employee organizations across the board. These organizations perform their functions many times more honorably than those with whom they negotiate. Maybe if Vanguard, Fidelity or any group you can reach from with in your 401k were run as efficiently as Cal-pers then they might be more attractive. Most 40lks are not as well rated as Teacher points out. If there are problems with Cal-pers it is in other areas that are not specific to your argument.

Comparing the average wages is also a neat slight of hand but appreciated as showing the real structural inequality of wages across the board not necessarily that public employees are over paid. Compare a police patrolman to a private security firm? How many field laborers does the state employ?

Many state employees are quite simply over qualified for the tasks they perform but would not be able to or want to perform those tasks in the private sector less. I suspect that there is at least one poster here complaining about over qualified people that fills that description. "

Bill wrote on Jan 23, 2009 3:44 PM:

" The legislative analysis of the amendment suggests no change to Cal-pers and the only significant change that would be made would be for state and local governments, under the state constitutions contracts clause, to allow governments to negotiate with “employees, retirees and or their representatives to reduce vested pension benefits for existing and future public sector retirees.” It requires no governmental entities to negotiate changes.

If this is an accurate description, assuming the office of the legislative analyst to be a worthy source, then it would appear that your cannons may be blowing your ship up stream against the current. Your argument would lead people either to distrust your position or characterize it as reactionary instead of gaining adherents to what appears at first glance to be a reasonable change.

It should also be noted this change does not guarantee there will be any benefit as far as reducing the amount of wages or retirement paid out or set aside. It may just be that it would enable or facilitate negotiations but will not remedy much of the “structural” problem you assail.

There are many “structural” places to look, but you seem obsessed with public employees to the exclusion of many out of line programs that would be better exposed by your problematic manner of crusading.

Could it be that they are easy targets to generalize about? After all everyone has dealt with a bureaucrat that has offended them or a teacher they may or may not feel did them an injustice. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 23, 2009 4:34 PM:

" teacher, I said cap the top rate on a defined benefit plan, not convert to a defined contribution plan like a 401K. What I am proposing is far more generous to employees than any of the other reforms I have heard of, including Arnie's or the Keith Richmond proposal.

Also, I am talking about slowing the rate of growth in salaries down, not cutting anyone's salaries. They need to be slowed to match the growth in the cost of living index and the rate of growth of the economy, and the best way to measure that is the rate of growth of private workers wages.

If we don't do that then no matter what we will have a problem.

It is not about my feelings about the unions, or rich people, or anyone else for that matter. It amazes me how people always want to make this about personal feelings.

It is an economic argument, nothing more or less. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 23, 2009 4:46 PM:

" "I suspect that there is at least one poster here complaining about over qualified people that fills that description. "
Youch, that's gotta hurt... "

napablogger wrote on Jan 23, 2009 4:47 PM:

" Ruff, I am going to take up taxes probably in my next article, but raising taxes on those over 250K in California is not feasible. No one working for the state should be getting a pension that high anyway, if there are there are too few of them to make much difference.

What am I am proposing should save at least $5 billion a year. If we had done that for the last eight years that would be $40 billion--exactly the deficit.

It wouldn't actually solve the problem forever, because we have been running deficits of about $6 billion a year in good times, plus we have borrowed a huge amount of money and right now the payments on the interest is about $6 billion.

And worse is the fact that even though we are spending billions on the pensions, they are seriously underfunded---this with stock prices going up 15% a year for years now. Now that it has dropped we are in deep deep trouble that are way more than big tax increases are going to solve. "

db76 wrote on Jan 23, 2009 5:06 PM:

" I spent four years as a student in the UC's and not once did I have a professor assign us a textbook he had written. UC professors don't write textbooks because they're too busy doing research, teaching, applying for external grants, and writing research papers. But I guess if you don't value higher education, you could argue that they get paid too much. "

jonqcitizen wrote on Jan 23, 2009 8:10 PM:

" "It amazes me how people always want to make this about personal feelings"

NB- Te reason people always want to make this about feelings is because it is so transparent that you are not interested in facts, but feelings. You are so clearly biased it is painfully obvious. You don't like paying taxes, that is understood. You think based upon your arguments that public employees make too much money, understood.

The reality is, your columns are generally laced with bull, mixed with truisms. As we all know the best way to tell a lie is to mix it with the truth. I am not calling you a liar, but the effect is the same. I think you are poorly informed on the subject of employee pensions and tout yourself to be an expert.

Example- the retirement age for public safety employees was NOT recently reduced to 50. It has been fifty for at least fifteen years, and I think longer. The change in the % @ 50 plan over the last fifteen years was the cap, and the actual percentage paid per years of service, not the age.

THAT is the the TRUTH. I support your ability to have an opinion, I just wish you would manage to tell the actual facts while you do it. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 23, 2009 8:58 PM:

" Hey NB, here's a factoid: According to a study by the CSUS Applied Research Center of Sacramento State University, the benefits distributed by CALPers and CALStrs amounts to $21 billion per year in economic activity. The State contributes less than $2 billion per year. Sounds like a good deal to me. "

steph wrote on Jan 23, 2009 9:15 PM:

" So, where do you Dem-enablers think we should make up the budget difference?

I'm just curious. We have a serious financial problem here in California. But according to you, there's no problem.

The money coming in is less than the money going out. We're broke.

Now what?

Shall we increase taxes? On whom? "The Rich"? Who are they, and how much can we get out of them? What are the consequences of taking more of their money?

There are no cuts we can/should make? All money spent by our politicians is money well-spent? "

Raven wrote on Jan 23, 2009 10:51 PM:

" steph, there was a budget floated by the Dems before the first of the year that filled the deficit for this year with an equal amount of budget cuts and tax increases, and no borrowing or throwing it to the voters at some future date with no guarantee they would approve it....and no, not the one with the gas fee.... "

misfit wrote on Jan 23, 2009 11:28 PM:

" Let's rethink Prop 13. Now...there's some revenue to be had. "

kevin wrote on Jan 24, 2009 6:47 AM:

" Even the Dem's are not stupid enough to touch Prop 13. Don't you own property misfit? Without the protections of Prop 13, your taxes would increase out of control, just like they did before we had it... "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 24, 2009 8:54 AM:

" misfit must not have lived in california in the 1960's and 1970's to make such a statement.

First, while public employees salaries and benefits are a major issue about to bankrupt more cities and counties in CA, the solution is not in increases fees and taxes. That is the last thing to do as it will put a greater burden on the citizens and businesses of the state.

You have to put money back into peoples\businesses pockets. A reduction in income tax, end of the death tax, reduce business regulations, put in Az's workman's Comp model, and most importantly REDUCE SPENDING! Government waste in the prime reason we are in a mess. The democrats do not know how to stop spending money and are not judicious in there approach. While most of you are bad mouthing the State Republicans, they are saving your A__es by not allowing tax\fees increases. they happen to respect the voters of California and I appreciate that. "

Dwayne wrote on Jan 24, 2009 9:16 AM:

" Actually, when you stop and think it through, what happens in your family when you run out of money, and can't borrow...???

You stop spending...!!! What a great solution... Duh... "

a teacher wrote on Jan 24, 2009 10:40 AM:

" Dwayne sez:"" Actually, when you stop and think it through, what happens in your family when you run out of money, and can't borrow...???

You stop spending...!!! What a great solution... Duh... "

OR...

You get another job (more income) to pay for the things you need. How come you guys on the right NEVER think of that? "

napablogger wrote on Jan 24, 2009 11:08 AM:

" jonqcitizen, as you know pension issues are extremely complicated once you get past the obvious details. 90% is not the cap, either, as some even here in Napa are getting more than 100% of their highest salaries as a pension. The actual cap is 109%. So you got your facts wrong too.

Not that I care, this is so complicated that there is another level of explaination that can always be added to try to make someone look bad. But the fact is that 90% is the most frequent retirement for career employees.

The age change I got from Gary Simpson when he was running for Supervisor, he said in his career it went from 50% at 55 gradually up to what it is now. That is why I did not specify an exact time length, which I note you did not either. I guess we could look up the exact date, but you are really quibbling over details.

The fact is that other states have their safety retiring at 55 or even 60 or 62 in some places. People are living a lot longer than they were and it is causing huge unexpected expenses and we have to modify what we are doing because we simply cannot afford it.

That is not a knock on safety personnel, it is an economic reality. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 24, 2009 11:14 AM:

" Bill, I think what you are saying in your second post up there is that the state could just renegotiate with the unions and not need a constitutional amendment?

We would need one to reduce pensions that have already been granted, because the courts have declared it to be a private property right. Also, the unions won't agree to reduce their pensions, anyway.

Pensions are a private property right that cannot be reduced, yet we can zone away actual private property like PUC's land and steal their asset and therefore money. Strange world, too bad we can't rezone pensions like that. "

misfit wrote on Jan 24, 2009 11:31 AM:

" Yes...I have two homes and I write off property taxes. "

Raven wrote on Jan 24, 2009 12:05 PM:

" again.....California is in the bottom 5 of the states in the proportion of public employees per residents....at 105 per 10k....even Texas has more employees at 120...the national average is 142. (statistical abstract of the US....2007)

and when your state services are shut down, or, if you do business with the state, when you get paid by IOU, will you be blessing the GOP? "

Dwayne wrote on Jan 24, 2009 1:41 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Jan 24, 2009 10:40 AM:".....You get another job (more income) to pay for the things you need. How come you guys on the right NEVER think of that? "

What jobs...??? Did ya think of that aspect...??? ;-) "

a teacher wrote on Jan 24, 2009 3:09 PM:

" Dwayne, do I have to spell out that if cutting back in your household is the analogy to cutting spending, then getting an extra job is raising taxes?

I guess I do... "

jonqcitizen wrote on Jan 24, 2009 3:39 PM:

" NB-

Perhaps you need to slow down when you read and write. I absolutely specified a time frame; "fifteen years". You absolutely specified a time frame, albeit a nebulous one; "the recently lowered age of retirement".

My time line is true, yours is not. Now you want to say that you got that information from speaking with Simpson. Fine, HE STARTED HIS CAREER THIRTY PLUS YEARS AGO. I hardly think that qualifies as "recent". However, it does qualify as a perfect example of your purposeful distortion of the facts to suit your purpose.

Again, I challenge you to show me the math or the document that says the retirement cap is 109%. It does not exist. It only goes to illustrate that you do NOT understand the way the system works.


Again, have whatever opinion you want. If the people want to change the sytem it will be changed. The problem here is that our society relies upon false "experts" to give them an education. "

Bill wrote on Jan 24, 2009 4:08 PM:

" No NB:

My post directly refers to the Legislative Analyst’s Office and its description of the proposed amendment. A.G. file No 08-0018. It is not the great panacea of reform you might suggest but it may be a good tool if indeed this is the amendment you wish to address.

I do not suggest that any agreement be renegotiated. I do suggest that current and future negotiations may be facilitated by this amendment. I do not think it will alleviate any budget crises. However I suggest that it is better than your out line of a broad amendment that would strip employees of any viable representation.

You have mentioned in a now disappeared blog or column (Your last one) an adversarial relationship and attempted to lay the fault at the feet of labor representatives. I do suggest that you promote and advocate an adversarial relationship that is inhospitable to negotiation. "

Bill wrote on Jan 24, 2009 4:12 PM:

" Amend State Constitution’s Contract Clause. This proposal would amend the State Constitution’s contract clause to allow certain measures that impair public employee pension contracts. Specifically, the proposal would allow governments to negotiate with employees, retirees, and/or their representatives to reduce vested pension benefits for existing and future public-sector retirees. Savings resulting from such renegotiations would have to be applied to the provision of education, fire, police, prison, public health, transportation, energy, and climate change mitigation services. This proposal would not require governmental entities to negotiate such changes.
Uncertainties Concerning State and Local Savings. We are uncertain whether state and local governmental entities would achieve substantial reductions in pension costs under this measure. First, there is uncertainty about whether many additional governments would choose to seek pension savings through negotiations (compared to the number of governmental entities that already could be expected to seek such savings through negotiations or other means under existing law). Second, legal challenges to such changes could result, given the protections that would remain for pension contracts under the U.S. Constitution.
Pension Savings Probably Would Be Offset by Other Cost Increases. If governments achieve significant savings in pension costs under this measure, employees, retirees, and/or their representatives probably would seek to negotiate offsetting increases in other governmental expenditures, such as employee salaries and wages. These increases would likely offset all or most of the pension cost savings achieved under this measure.
The measure would have the following major fiscal effects on the state and local governments:Possible reduction in pension costs for state and local governments, depending on future actions by state and local governments and courts. Any such reduction likely would be largely or entirely offset by negotiated increases in other costs, such as employee salaries and wages. "

steph wrote on Jan 24, 2009 5:14 PM:

" teacher--
The problem with your analogy is that the State is not working for that extra income, as one would do with a second job.
Raising taxes is more akin to going to your first employer and demanding more pay for the work you do, on the basis that you cannot afford your lifestyle. It's like buying a speedboat and a new house and car and a trip to Hawaii and expensive food, and then demanding more pay so you can keep up your lifestyle.

Or, it's like going to your parents and telling them they have to give you money because you can't afford to live off your salary.

How about we place a moratorium on ballot bond measures? We need to stop allowing the public to vote on issues they don't understand. How many people understand that raising bond money "for a good cause" involves nothing more than borrowing money. "

Dwayne wrote on Jan 24, 2009 5:32 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Jan 24, 2009 3:09 PM:
" Dwayne, do I have to spell out that if cutting back in your household is the analogy to cutting spending, then getting an extra job is raising taxes?....."

Whut jobs...??? Haaaa.... You don't get it... There are no jobs.... Sheesh..... "

a teacher wrote on Jan 24, 2009 6:10 PM:

" Steph: The problem I have with your comment is that you act as if the state government is some entity outside of us. Last I checked we live in a democracy and all of the people involved in this mess are elected officials. In my opinion, the people of California are to blame for this mess. No one wants to make the hard choices.

Some won't raise taxes. If that means schools close or people go without some assistance they need, too bad, it's not me.

Some want to spend as long as it costs someone else. Raise taxes on the rich, they have it.

Government costs money. If you want schools, roads, hospitals, police, firemen, an army, cancer research, health care, etc, someone has to pay for it. Taxes aren't extortion, they are dues for civilization and democracy.

The citizens of this state need to figure out what they want and our leaders need to drop the rhetoric and encourage real solutions. My guess is that the way out of this mess involves both cuts and taxes and we need to face that. "

kevin wrote on Jan 24, 2009 7:48 PM:

" ateacher said: "Taxes aren't extortion, they are dues for civilization and democracy."

The last time I checked, dues are VOLUNTARY. Taxes are NOT...

The definition of extortion is "the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority".

Taxes definitely fit the definition of extortion! "

Dwayne wrote on Jan 24, 2009 8:09 PM:

" a teacher.....

Awwww common, quit being a typical Democrat for a moment... Tax and spend is what got us into this mess.....

If you think this is bad, wait until we get "free" health care... Haaaaaaaaaa..... "

napablogger wrote on Jan 24, 2009 11:44 PM:

" Bill, I did not know there was an amendment on the table, but I can tell what it is from your LAO quote. What I am suggesting is putting in a 70-50 cap which is similar but really different.

As far as bringing the union issue up and not other issues, I do plan to discuss other issues soon and have in the past. But the labor agreements glare out as the most troublesome, especially the pensions. Also, most people are afraid to criticize them so there is very little discussion about it. I feel there is a particular need to shine some light on it, especially in Napa.

Most of the voters here are Democrats and they unquestioningly support the unions. I have spoken up in meetings and been told I am hateful, that I hate, basically the strongest most vitriolic attacks I get are from the unions. That suggests to me that they are entitled and used to getting their way, and that other people will be afraid to say anything, which most certainly they are.

The other thing that happens is what Joncitizen is doing now on this thread. try to do what I call "lawyer" me by pounding me with irrelevant details and saying I don't know what I am talking about. Like what the exact date is that safety went from age 55 to 50 on full retirement. What difference does it make?

None, the point is 50 is too young.

The unions purposely make getting information as difficult as possible, then attack you for not having information.

As a polemicist myself, I admire their ability. They are the masters in this state, but that is all the more reason others need to question them. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 24, 2009 11:54 PM:

" Bill, one more point I didn't have room to add in my last post.

I have criticized others, I have criticized Save Rural Angwin for instance, much harder in fact than I have criticized the unions. But I don't get the same kind of condescending, you know nothing vitriolic response that I always get from some union supporters.

And I like the people I have met from SRA, in fact I have email correspondence with some of them. It is not about liking or disliking for me, it is about policy.

In fact I have gotten email support from some trade union people who are afraid to post on line, who are angry at the cadillac plans pubic employees get that they don't get and feel it is unfair.

Even when I criticize the Republicans I dont' get the kind of bitter vitriol I get from union supporters, and they could well consider me, well I think they do consider me a turn coat for voting for Obama.

But it is not that I don't like the Republicans personally, it is about policy for me and what I think is best.

You can think that police get too much money for their pensions and support them in every other way, including wanting to lead a parade to defend Johannes Mehserle, which I do.

Is it possible to seperate personal feelings from policy positions? No one but me seems to think so, apparently. "

jonqcitizen wrote on Jan 25, 2009 1:50 AM:

" "The other thing that happens is what Joncitizen is doing now on this thread. try to do what I call "lawyer" me by pounding me with irrelevant details and saying I don't know what I am talking about. Like what the exact date is that safety went from age 55 to 50 on full retirement. What difference does it make?"

The difference is this: You are presenting an argument and bolstering it with facts that are not true. When you say that the age was recently lowered, that lends support to your argument that recent changes in the PERS system are bankrupting the state. THE FACT IS that the age for safety employees WAS NOT lowered recently, and therefore, THE AGE of eligibility for safety employees CANNOT therefore be what is bankrupting the system. If it is an irrelevant detail, then why include it when you had to cut so much from your original column.

If you would like me to stop "lawyering" you, then stop writing false and or misleading information. If you want to change the system, go ahead that is your right, but do it honorably.

Get it? "

Bill wrote on Jan 25, 2009 9:10 AM:

" NB. It is not a bout you it’s about your unsupported opinion. I keep hammering you about attribution and you keep churning out unsupportable numbers. We have spoken about Napa Valley wine before or rather blogged about it so please let me assure you though I do not buy Napa valley wine I do drink it and the best of it I just don’t pay for it and I am certain that you are a personally pleasant human being and I would be happy to share a glass of your plonk should the occasion arise (again my lefty Democratic egalitarian sentiments dictate that you pay). Nothing personal if you feel I am bruising your avatar.

The object of you having a blogging column supported by the NVR is not only to entertain but inform. Yes you will probably be savaged for your sources and belittled for misinterpretation but when you strive to set yourself up as a local version of, say George Will (notice how kind I can be) you need a little more pith and substance to your pronouncements. After all NB if it really were about you and your feelings this would all be extremely irrelevant, which it most likely is, regardless of your feelings.

Aren’t feelings a liberal thing? You are not going to tell me conservatives have them also? "

Todd Adams wrote on Jan 25, 2009 9:31 AM:

" If I recall correctly, the state had a huge surplus in the late 90s due to the dot com bubble. At the time Gov Wilson cut the vehicle registration fees to give a rebate to the taxpayers, at least the ones who owned cars. The idea was that the fees would be restored when the State ran into deficits. Unfortunately, the next two govenors forgot that the rebate is still in effect. Why not restore the vehicle liscense fees? I wouldn't mind paying an extra $50-$100 per year if it raised $4-$8 billion dollars for the state. Although I appreciate those who are trying to figure out how the State spends and raises money, I'd rather just pay the $100. "

kevin wrote on Jan 25, 2009 9:38 AM:

" NB, public safety pensions were increased about 10 years ago to 3%. Therefore someone working 30 years (times 3%) ends up with 90% retirement.

What followed was that OTHER public agencys went back to the negotiating table and demanded similiar raises to their retirement.

And they got them... "

Bill wrote on Jan 25, 2009 11:23 AM:

" NB.
Getting back to your original thesis of a constitutional amendment do you not see that such an amendment directed at a specific portion of the general population may not meet the legal definitions necessary but do just the opposite and hinder all citizens rights to freely negotiate through there representatives?

Arbitrarily calling for your suggestions freezing them in an amendment and applying them to only one segment of working people does not seem like a democratic or republican (notice the non capitalization) stance. What has happened with your stance is to single out and vilify a broad part of the working population for special action, Notice how the web of villains grows; public employees, unions, lawyers.

You have concentrated on the single aspect of employee compensation across the board and would ask people who have negotiated in good faith to bear the burden of economic distress not directly caused by them. You have equated the duties of police and fire personnel to rent-a-cops and ambulance attendants. Singling out public employees and their retirement as the sole structural issue and proposing a constitutional amendment to abridge their right to seek and negotiate fair and lasting contracts with those who would demand service of them appears to me a reactionary response.

Alternatively lumping labor over all into the general accusatory category of being miscreants for seeking to be well compensated is a blatant absurdity. That is the function of labor representatives, to achieve the most favorable conditions for those they represent. then you would blast them for doing a good job. Gee whiz. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 25, 2009 9:02 PM:

" Bill, we have to have a constitutional amendment because current pensions are constitutionally protected according to some judge's court order. The only way to change that is through a constitutional amendment. "

rogers wrote on Jan 25, 2009 11:56 PM:

" Todd Adams wrote on Jan 25, 2009 9:31 AM:
" If I recall correctly... the next two govenors forgot that the rebate is still in effect."

Actually not the case Todd; the additional vehicle tax was restored by the state under Gray Davis as the law required.

The counties didn't trust Wilson's tax reduction. They knew basic services would be threatened once again if we had another prolonged deficit. Wilson agreed to the automatic fall back.

It was Schwarzenegger who used the DMV tax increase as a campaign tactic to attack Davis. It worked and once he was governor he repealed the tax. Now he wants it back!

Movie stars should stay out of politics. The only thing he will now terminate will be his own political career. Yet there are those followers who want the law changed so he can legally run for President - based on what success??? "

MJ wrote on Jan 26, 2009 12:53 AM:

" Nappablogger,

Short of calling you a liar, I will say, you need to pick a “truth” and stick to it.

To Teacher you wrote: “Also, I am talking about slowing the rate of growth in salaries down, not cutting anyone's salaries.”

However, in the article you wrote:
“Reduce prison guard salaries, and impeach the judge that ordered this nonsense.”

It’s hard to keep your story straight when you create your own truths isn’t it? Nice attempt at journalism though, well, not actually. Good journalism requires research, credible ideas and some amount of fact.

You also wrote:
“The average salary for a CalPers employee in 2004 was about $46,000 and the average per capita income for all Californians was $35,000. Since then the gap has gotten bigger.”

Do you really not see the obvious problem with this statement? It’s like you have no common sense. Stop and think about that for a minute, that would be at least 59 seconds more thought than you gave it when you wrote it.

You can’t make a fair comparison there. The average Californian employee wage would have to take into consideration a workforce that included everyone from the Walmart checker and burger flipper on up, where as a State employee must have a level of skill to get hired and pass an entry exam.

There are so many untruths, half-truths and inconsistencies that you’ve left open for ridicule, and I could go on and on, but I realize this is just a fantasy piece. Most all of what you wrote reads like a self-serving wish list and your ideas won’t come to fruition anyhow, so I’ll let you have your delusion. "

MJ wrote on Jan 26, 2009 1:00 AM:

" steph wrote on Jan 23, 2009 9:15 PM:

"So, where do you Dem-enablers think we should make up the budget difference?""Shall we increase taxes? On whom?"

Yes we should. I'm okay with you paying more taxes, and you will. State employees will be paying them right along with you. "

MJ wrote on Jan 26, 2009 1:48 AM:

" kevin wrote on Jan 24, 2009 7:48 PM:

"The last time I checked, dues are VOLUNTARY. Taxes are NOT... "

Try to follow me here. If you drive on our roadways, drink water from a public system, have or have had children in school, if you ever have a car accident and feel obliged to call CHP or if you have used ANY state dept at all, you should and WILL pay taxes. Cutting State employees pay so your taxes don’t go up, is like asking a gas station attendant to take a cut in pay when gas prices go up. When cost of living rises, so does the price you pay for services. Although many state workers haven’t had a pay raise in years.

There is a good reason why State employees pay unions to protect their livelihood. It's because neither the governor, nor the private sector, can be trusted to make competent decisions involving money in times of fiscal crisis. Much like the drug addict that steals from their mother’s wallets, raids their children’s piggy banks or pillages their church donation box, you all think you are entitled to our pay when you feel desperate. Our livelihoods are not a rainy day fund you can pilfer when you feel the need. We work hard for a living, making less than a comparable private sector job, opting for better benefits in lieu of higher salaries. We do jobs you obviously felt were beneath you, or you would be working right by our side to ensure the same job security. Instead you opted for higher pay with no job security. Now that the artificially over-inflated dollar no longer fattens your wallets, a state "

kevin wrote on Jan 26, 2009 5:04 AM:

" One good place to start would be a law or amendment that prevents public employee unions from contributing huge sums of money to elect the very people who later approve their wage increases... "

Reality Check wrote on Jan 26, 2009 7:27 AM:

" Striking out financially seems to be a popular trend. New Jersey reports a 5 billion budget gap, New York a gap of 16 billion, and now our home, California, has a 42 billion gap. What do all these states have in common? Well let’s see: they’re very liberal, they have powerful public sector unions, and they have a very high tolerance for mass illegal immigration. Well, our new President had one of the most liberal voting records in the US Senate. Every public sector union in the land enthusiastically backed his campaign and He favors full citizen rights, including driver licenses, for illegal immigrants. So, if you want to know what the US will look like four years from now check out New Jersey, New York, and California. Of course since we already live in California, maybe we need to check out “from” it. "

Bill wrote on Jan 26, 2009 8:28 AM:

" I don’t see how that jives with the position that money is free speech and that corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts in political campaigns because its free speech yet unions or any employee organization must be subject to extra limitations and scrutiny.

Confused and equivocal ideological dogma is not government. "

Raven wrote on Jan 26, 2009 8:31 AM:

" As soon as there is a law that prohibits corporations from doing so kevin, or private individuals....contributing to a candidate is part of your right to free political speech. "

Bill wrote on Jan 26, 2009 8:43 AM:

" An amusing concept that the very people who vehemently opposed McCain-Finegold have no problem designing laws and amendments to limit the free speech, right to associate and many other individual rights to serve an Ayn Rand universe where they view themselves personified as the fictitious John Gault.

Allowing the corporate fictions all the latitude and rights reserved for individuals and denying individuals their legal rights. "

MarkMiwords wrote on Jan 26, 2009 9:58 AM:

" Michael Haley is "spot on". Here's a classic example: The city manager of my town is getting ready to retire. He has worked the last 5 or 6 years as city manager, and prior to that, he was the police chief, and prior to that, a policeman. As a "safety employee", he qualified at 50 to retire and receive 90% of his pay. He then worked a few more years as city manager, eligible to collect his safety official retirement AND his city manager wages. Now he is retiring and eligible to collect BOTH. If this is a common practice, then there's no wonder our state is bankrupt. "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 27, 2009 8:33 AM:

" The law would be great only if it outlawed public employee unions! "

Raven wrote on Jan 27, 2009 11:16 AM:

" why stop there freeport, why not ban all unions? "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 27, 2009 2:14 PM:

" Good idea Raven, then we can get on with the business of being productive again.


Raven, I knew you were not a bad guy! "

bill wrote on Jan 27, 2009 4:59 PM:

" Reactionaries never negotiate in good faith. Their hidden agenda is nothing less than total corporate domination illustrated by FrrrrrPT56 in his attempt to be facetious.

Or would he like to return to 12 and fourteen hour days, child labor no vacations, no health benifits, got a cold or the flu tough, no job safety standards, no seniority, no merit promotion and o so many other things he takes for granted.

He would rather think that he could dictate the lenght of his chain all on his own "

Raven wrote on Jan 27, 2009 9:23 PM:

" yeah ban them all the same time you ban all associations of any kind.....or you planning on throwing out the first amendment? "

napablogger wrote on Jan 27, 2009 11:01 PM:

" I think public employees being able to spend money to elect or defeat their own bosses is a little different than corporate lobbying. That is why it was banned for so long.

The legilslature and Governor are supposed to be the ones that ride herd over the employees--they are the bosses. They are not the bosses of corporate employees.

I mean, how would you like it if you got to elect who was your boss at work? Would the employees get together and vote themselves in a boss who would give them a raise do you suppose?

Also, public employees are the largest single group and they all vote as a unit. They are all working together to get as much money as possible out of the government.

Corporations are almost always at odds with each other, even within the same field. Think Microsoft, Apple and IBM are all lobbying for the same thing? No way. They fight each other.

When government is by far the largest employer, when their unions are unified, and they all have a lot of their families voting with them, well they pretty much control whatever they want with state government. I dare say they are the reason we have no budget yet. "

Rocco wrote on Jan 28, 2009 6:48 AM:

" NB is right. Just to highlight how bad things have become...Jan 2009 marks the first time in our nation's history that the number of govt employees has surpassed the numbers in manufacturing. We've been in a slow fade for years now with New Jersey, New York, and California leading the way. We've all been frogs sitting in the pot of warming water...California will be the first to croak. "

Bill wrote on Jan 28, 2009 5:19 PM:

" Pretty good point NB. Why not merely disenfranchise all public employees and their families.

I doubt if Kevin thinks they are all working together, he seems pretty determined to work against that.

But it is a nice nuance to your argument. "

rogers wrote on Jan 28, 2009 5:44 PM:

" That's right, Rocco, you tell 'em! But please don't include all those millions of private sector jobs that have flowed over seas to Korea, China, Malaysia or south of the border as allowed by NAFTA. So now we have lost not only our jobs but our manufacturing base all for the sake of shareholders and get-rich-quick quarterly profits. And now those are gone too! American business is so short sighted. "

Tim wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:38 PM:

" Michael, It isn't quite the way you tell it....For the last 25 years CalPers has been taking between 7.5 and 8.0 % out of my paycheck every month and investing it for me ( and it has done very well thank you!)..this goes directly to my retirement..it isn't taxpayers money it is my money.

So a VERY large chunk of my retirement was put there by me, nobody else.

The formula is 2.5% times years of service...so if I retire after 25 years I will receive 62% of my final salary...and by the way it is capped at 85%.

You also make it sound like this job is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow..I know for a fact...because I have checked...that i could make 7 to 10 dollars more per hour in the private sector, but of course the retirement isn't as good, like the commercial says you can pay me now or you can pay me later.

I know many people in my dept. as well as other dept's that have left because the up front money is better on the outside, and they want it now rather than later.

Besides, all those people who didn't prepare for the future and then complain about my retirement will end up being on medi-cal or medi-care anyways and the taxpayer foots the bill for that.

The real question you should be asking is why doesn't the private sector have the foresight to help their employees to a decent retirement through a mandatory payroll deduction and investment plan? "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Q: Tim, where does your paycheck come from?



A: Tax payers

B: Accounting office

C: Some place in sacramento "

Tim wrote on Jan 29, 2009 3:09 PM:

" freeport56 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Q: Tim, where does your paycheck come from?



A: Tax payers

B: Accounting office

C: Some place in sacramento "



your paycheck comes from taxpayers also...if taxpayers didn't buy what your company is selling, you wouldn't have a job now would you? "

mytwocents wrote on Jan 29, 2009 9:09 PM:

" Next freeze all raises for state employees for at least two years. This also will save billions and will start to bring public pay more in line with private pay..... I was never so poor as when I worked for the state of CA. What they pay nurses at present (even with recent raises) is a disgrace! "

axim wrote on Jan 30, 2009 7:46 AM:

" You're kidding me right? State employees get nothing compared to private employees. Yes, let's screw the people that work for the state and then complain about having poor state services. Let's have fewer people apply working for the state and have weaker candidates. Watch the talented employees leave for a job that pays. What a great idea! "

fedupinnapa wrote on Jan 30, 2009 11:50 AM:

" Wow a big vote for Democracy from Steph. Those pesky voters always getting in the way of ones agenda. Just because someone votes against your position does not mean they do not get it. I will fight for a struggling democracy any day over your vision of a “efficient” dictatorship.

Steph: How about we place a moratorium on ballot bond measures? We need to stop allowing the public to vote on issues they don't understand. How many people understand that raising bond money "for a good cause" involves nothing more than borrowing money. " "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Jan 30, 2009 11:57 AM:

" NB
There's a problem with comparing government to a business: the government isn't supposed to turn a profit. I vote for people based on their alignment with my philosophies, political goals, and education, not their ability to run a business.

I think it's rather obvious that state spending stimulates economic activity. A person making $100,000 per year probably owns a home, makes car payments, goes out to dinner, uses credit cards, pays sales taxes, pays income taxes, hires landscapers, installs pools, buys insurance, etc.

A person making less than $100k most likely does the same thing, though in appropriate proportion to their income.

Our budget crisis is not due to overspending. Our problem is that when times were good, we cut taxes too deeply. We allowed too many loopholes to infect our state's tax board. We've given too many breaks to the private sector in support of "job creation," business development, and other supply-side ideas.

And where did that get us? Those jobs are gone, many businesses are insolvent, home prices are falling, and consumers aren't spending - this all equals to the erosion of California's tax base i.e. a loss in revenue.

And NB's answer to all of this? Give tax breaks to business, reduce workers' pay, and eliminate social programs.

I say raise taxes. Raise taxes on the rich. Raise taxes on unearned income. Raise corporate taxes.

I’m tired of business extorting our democracy. Business is constantly threatening unemployment, outsourcing, and low incomes if we dare to raise taxes, close loopholes, or demand economic equity.

This country made their wealth possible, and I expect them to pay for such possibilities. "

Rocco wrote on Jan 30, 2009 2:18 PM:

" Dear Dr. F...Please, if you're going to copy and paste excerpts straight out of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" you should at least give her some credit. "

luv2surf wrote on Jan 30, 2009 10:19 PM:

" Why not start by cutting that 9 + billon dollars that go to support illegal immigrants here in California? If they can do this in France, Germany, Spain and the rest of the EU, then why not here? Has anybody gone to the social services offices lately to see where exactly the tax payer's money is going? Its amazing to see people that do not know a word of English qualify for assistance then drive away in a new Escalade. Before we start talking about cutting this, or cutting that, how about cutting services for people who dont even deserve them in the first place, like they are in "liberal" Europe! "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Jan 31, 2009 11:30 AM:

" Rocco

I do not take accusations of plagiarism lightly.

I clearly expressed (without insults, cursing, or direct attacks) what I thought of your comment, but NVR lacked the stomach to post the response. "

Raven wrote on Jan 31, 2009 2:35 PM:

" so rocco.....give us the page numbers you think are at issue? Surely you know if you are making that accusation. "

steph wrote on Jan 31, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Sorry to upset you, fedup.

I'm specifically referring to ballot initiatives that mandate BILLIONS and billions and billions in spending and borrowing, and others that restrict revenues.

Some bond measures and spending initiatives redirect monies from higher priority spending, such as education--by law. Or bond (debt--massive, massive debt) measures set aside insufficient funds for very high cost projects, which then incur additional spending at many times the originally projected costs in order to finish them. The total cost of many bond measures is not fully represented to taxpayers, who often vote on the basis of emotion, and not with any real appreciation for how the bond/debt/spending measure affects the state budget. It's not realistic to expect the average taxpayer to think about such complexities, in reality.

Ask any Democrat how they feel about Prop 13.

There is not enough room here to debate prop 1A, which passed by voters, to allow the state to sell $10 BILLION in bonds, with a final cost (debt) of close to $20 BILLION just to service that debt. I have seen estimates that the total cost to build a train from SF to LA will be around $60 BILLION, with NO guarantee that it will pull any cars off the road. This project depends on a smaller contribution from private investors, and given ridership projections (tickets will be expensive), it may be hard to find investors. Then there is the cost to maintain the train. I seriously doubt that many who voted "yes" on Prop 1A had any idea of the total cost or (lack of?) value of this project. My own husband, would not listen to reason; he voted "yes" because he liked the idea of a train in California. "

steph wrote on Jan 31, 2009 3:17 PM:

" Faustus--
Does state spending on welfare stimulate the economy?

Do you believe that manufacturing firms will stay in California if the tax structure favors moving out of state to, say, Nevada or Arizona? If a supermarket has to pay more taxes, will they hire fewer employees, or maybe raise food prices? Who does that hurt?

If taxes are increased on unearned income, will businesses be able to count on investors for capital investments? If I have to pay more taxes when I sell my house, maybe I won't sell my house at all. Is that good for the economy? If taxes are raised on "the rich" then what's to keep them here in the state?

We're in this financial mess because Americans were given loans they cannot pay back, due to greed in the banking industry, and lack of regulation. And to make matters worse, banks will not pay for hiring incompetent, overpaid CEO's--taxpayers are bailing them out. Is that good for the economy? That's state spending, isn't it? "

Rocco wrote on Jan 31, 2009 3:46 PM:

" Dear Dr. F and Raven,
I’m aghast! I was sure of myself too. I thought for sure I had read the same exact lines sniveled from the likes of a James Taggert who saw nothing wrong with looting from those of ability in the name of the “Common Good.” But I was wrong. After a quick scan through what I have of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and their ilk, I’m forced to ask for your forgiveness. Are you guilty of plagiarism? Absolutely! …But only figuratively, not literally. P.S. Given the damning conviction of history, given the past failures of those morally bankrupt fools that would claim they love the lights but hate the generators, those that would demand that the cranks of machinery continue to turn while cursing those that built the factory; Please, do you have any original thoughts or ideas that might actually work? "

glenroy wrote on Feb 1, 2009 1:33 PM:

" Libs claim the budget crisis is a lack of taxation….not a spending problem….I didn’t have the time, this time, to factor bonds, grants or matching federal funds like Community Grants. Even at that when the State population not quite doubled the budget increase 2,140%, or over 10X the population growth..…go back to 1960 and it’s closer to 3,300% growth…like I said this doesn’t include federal research grants, matching funds etc. which account for hundreds of millions annually.

1970 State population 19,971,000.….State Budget $6,300,000,000.00

1980 State population 22,668,000.…State Budget $21,500,000,000.00

2010 State population 37,300,000.…State Budget $135,000,000,000.00 "

Raven wrote on Feb 1, 2009 4:33 PM:

" and would you say that the demands the population has put on the state have changed since 1960 or 70.....??

(btw...according to the census bureau, we hit 38 million at the beginning of 2008...and the FY2009 budget wa s141 billion) and did you factor in inflation so all the dollars being talked about have the same value? Then there are those pesky ballot measures which have mandated spending that the legislature has no control over ...think those might factor into the growth too?

But as I said you'll be pleased to know the rate of growth from government spending is slowing

1970-1980 - about 400 percent, 6.6 to 24.5 billion

1980-1990 - about 110 percent, 24.5 to 51.4 billion

1990 - 2000 about 90 percent, 51.4 to 99.4 billion

and between 2000 and 2009 about 41 percent, 99.4 to 141 billion....

so the growth isn't as unchecked as you are trying to portray..it is slowing down, maybe not fast enough to suit you but ity is slowing down.

There is no simple cause and no simple answer to the budget mess. "

glenroy wrote on Feb 1, 2009 7:35 PM:

" That was the whole exercise…quantifying expenditure growth.

The tax payers deserve some means to comprehend expenditures, the relationship between expenditures and population is the only way I know of that cuts through the political bull.

No matter how it is done, annually or as I did beginning when progressive policies were enacted 50 plus years ago by libs…Republican libs, state expenditures grew 10x the population…inflation adjusted 8x, new program adjusted 3/4x.

I think we all know the bulk of the unaccounted growth coincides with illegal resident benefits and state employee retirement benefits. Thank the Warren Administration for implementing policies without effective oversight or reasonable growth caps, and all those who since were elected without any management sense or even concern whatsoever.

There are many like myself who are not necessarily opposed to progressive programs per se, we’re opposed to inexcusable mismanagement of public funds which has become synonymous with social welfare/public education…and ultimately leading to a constant state of bankruptcy. "

Raven wrote on Feb 1, 2009 8:41 PM:

" I know I am going to regret this, the warren administration? as in Earl?

re qauntifying, comparing the expenditures in the 60s to today is a case of apples and oranges; the demands for services, from all sides, as well as the adjustments for inflation, make a comparison to 1960 or 70 and 2009 almost meaningless. "

Rocketman wrote on Feb 2, 2009 7:16 AM:

" The problem with this mantra of cutting pay and benefits for government employees is that it is NOT the answer at all!!

California has been overspending for YEARS and the politicians know it.

We need to get rid of the waste, the pork barrel spending that has created this mess.

Just look at the US "Stimulous Plan". Are you kidding me??? What a farce! Just look at what programs are getting funded.

California is a mirror image of this spending nonsense.

Haley offers only pay and benefit reductions and won't dare give examples of pork barrel programs like finances spent on illegals in this state!

An illegal gets better medical benefits then a citizen of this State! "

glenroy wrote on Feb 2, 2009 7:45 AM:

" To libs it is apples and oranges, to the rest of us it‘s called a 'track record,' a means to measure….

Indeed…Earl the Pearl Warren himself, who idolized Hiram Johnson this states first Progressive…both Republicans. Amazing how little libs know of Progressive history, at least state wise…..

It is impossible to make an informed financial decision without studying the programs costs and effectiveness, which is the opposite of what is now done. Cumulative costs and effectiveness are avoided.... I’ve been involved in long term tracking in an attempt to analyze program effectiveness…it's a joke. "

Raven wrote on Feb 2, 2009 11:08 AM:

" and the track record shows that spending growth is slowing...and how can you truly track effectiveness without taking factors like inflation impact on budgets into account?

btw rocketman, the citizens, if they do not have health insurance get exactly the same health care..

yeah, Warren was a real progessive, endorsing the internment camps was a trademark of the progressive movement. "

toobuff wrote on Feb 2, 2009 1:18 PM:

" raven, they may get the same healthcare, but at what cost? "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Feb 2, 2009 4:00 PM:

" Steph

Yes, welfare spending does stimulate the economy.

This is Keynesian Economics 101, not to mention basic economic sense. All industries intertwine with every other industry. Consider all the economic sectors that went into manufacturing your front door.

"The Market", in its most fundamental form, doesn't care who spends money or how it’s obtained. The Market has no inherent 'morality.'

The Rich aren't going anywhere. They'll pay what we tell them to pay.

They paid when rates were 90%, and they'll pay when rates are at 25%. If they throw a tantrum, so be it. There are millions of hungry and ambitious people willing to take their place - and for a lot less money.

One thing that Neocon philosophy has taught me, Steph, is that so long as there is a top to reach, there will be people attempting to reach it. Even if that top has a 65% income tax.

Finally, let's consider why Americans are borrowing so much: a lack (or decline) of wages compounded by inflation.

But saying it's "greed" is so much simpler and convenient, no? Otherwise, people would have to face the fact that in terms of real wages, they are poorer.

Rocco

History convicted Stalin not because of his political/economic viewpoints, but because he was a mass-murderer. It's a casual fallacy to believe that socialism was the root of Stalin's insanity.

That's not to say that Socialism didn't harm many lives.

But hasn't Capitalism? There's a reason class resentments flare. There's a reason why C. Wright wrote The Power Elite.

The Worker has a point too. "

Rocketman wrote on Feb 2, 2009 7:12 PM:

" Raven wrote "btw rocketman, the citizens, if they do not have health insurance get exactly the same health care.."

Sorry Raven.........I have relatives that HAVE health coverage and they can't get the same benefits as illegal aliens!!

Some procedures are NOT covered.......but if you are illegal........it's ALL covered!!! "

toobuff wrote on Feb 2, 2009 7:33 PM:

" lu2surf- perfectly said. i live in a area that sees the same thing everyday. not only are they cheating the system, but in a way i feel like they are cheating me. "

Raven wrote on Feb 2, 2009 8:28 PM:

" so, toobuff, you think it costs more to pay for an illegal immigrant health care and a legal one, assuming both have no insurance..? "

Rocco wrote on Feb 3, 2009 12:07 AM:

" Dr F.
“Yes, welfare spending does stimulate the economy.” Really? Doesn’t history show that what ever you subsidize, you get more of?
“The Rich aren't going anywhere. They'll pay what we tell them to pay.” Why do I feel like you have your own guillotine in the basement?
You admit that Stalin was a murderer, but can you also admit that many more died of starvation through his failed economic policies than from his bullets?
Capitalism? I’m surprised you didn’t also mention Reich’s Supercapitalism, which would also be a good reference on why we need common sense restrictions on Superabuses. But isn’t a Ferrari a bit more to handle than a Yugo? Which one would you rather drive? Only Free Market Republics, through capitalism, can create the wealth that socialists would then covet and conspire to seize. Is that the side you choose? "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 9:07 AM:

" so, take that 1970 budget dollar, and multiply it by about 441 percent, the inflation rate between 1970 and 2008, to get it to match the buying power for today. Not as big a jump as it looks is it? "

toobuff wrote on Feb 3, 2009 9:13 AM:

" no, it costs more for a person that doesn't have healthcare and has to pay outright than it does for an illegal to go to an er and get free medical attention, as required by law. "

Paddy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 9:34 AM:

" Raven - Health Care benefits for citizens and legal immigrants are built into the laws of the land. Free health care for illegals are nothing but a significant drain. The following numbers were in an article in yesterdays LA Times:

"* The state is spending $775 million on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants, according to the legislative analyst. Of that, $642 million goes into direct benefits. Practically all the rest is paid to counties to administer the program. The feds generally match the state dollar-for-dollar on mandatory programs.

So-called emergency services are the biggest state cost: $536 million. Prenatal care is $59 million. Not counted in the overall total is the cost of baby delivery -- $108 million -- because the newborns aren't illegal immigrants.

The state also pays $47 million for programs that Washington does not require: Non-emergency care (breast and cervical cancer treatment), $25 million; long-term nursing home care, $19 million; abortions, $3 million.

Schwarzenegger has proposed requiring illegal immigrants to requalify every month for Medi-Cal benefits, except pregnancy-related emergencies." "

JimClark wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:15 AM:

" "Dr.” Faustus. Stalin was more than what you seem to believe. He ordered the murder, with intent, to exterminate millions of humankind. Not merely in his "empire", it included the entire world.

I’ll bet you were ecstatic when Gerry “moonbeam” Brown allowed for “collective” bargaining for State workers who would have to pay more for union dues and non-member withdrawls from their incomes because their “union” was there to “defend” them. The State worker has been stigmatized by a certain few. Government incompetence is vividily clear yet, there are truly dedicated individuals who always seem to be ignored. An entire bureaucracy has been created as a “watchdog” over certain practices. Today, to protect their jobs, they have declined to nit-picking. Why? No limits were placed on the lifetime of certain entities of the bureaucracy.

Where were you "educated" doctor? Berkeley? Comrade?

So please forgive me if I offended you but, I mean what I say and say what I mean to say. "

glenroy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:27 AM:

" LOL….government health care spending, as proposed by Libs will not stimulate anything but Government Growth…..Dr Foustus needs to go back and re-read Econ 101 Primer…LOL "

glenroy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:28 AM:

" Steph…..you’re a whole lot smarter than Dr. Falstaff….keep up the excellent comments. "

glenroy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:36 AM:

" Rav….the problem is the ‘spending slowing’ is because the market is collapsing not because spending is under control. It’s like saying you have a hangover cure…. by blowing your brains out…..

It just goes to show it’s not just Democrat Libs whose policies ruined this State’s economy, that ruin results from spending beyond ones means regardless….

Fair if not balanced….LOL. "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:37 AM:

" toobuff, if you have no insurance and cannot pay, you cannot be refused care at an ER.....no matter what the status.

thanks for the help there paddy but I was asking why anyone thought it cost more for medical care for an illegal immigrant w/o insurance than for a legal resident without insurance...the procedures cost the same no matter the patient "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:41 AM:

" according to the state web site, these are the only medical treatments illegal immigrants are eligible for...

"Those without satisfactory immigration status are entitled only to emergency, pregnancy-related services, or long term care, if appropriate." "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:55 AM:

" and here is the closing part of the column, by George Skelton..


My view is this: These people are here illegally and shouldn't be, regardless of whether they're just looking for a better life. Do it the legal way. And enforce the law against hiring the undocumented.

On the other hand, they are here. We can't have uneducated kids and unhealthy people living with us. We have moral obligations and practical imperatives. "

Paddy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 11:37 AM:

" Raven states: "...why anyone thought it cost more for medical care for an illegal immigrant w/o insurance than for a legal resident without insurance...the procedures cost the same no matter the patient".

The point is that the public expenditure for medical care for illegals should be $0. The only relevant point is that it costs anything at all. "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 2:49 PM:

" Then work to change the law Paddy, until that happens we have to deal with it and all the screaming in the world about it wont make a difference. "

Paddy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 3:44 PM:

" The attitude that it is what it is and they're here so deal with it have caused the situation in California to become exactly what it is. It's now time to open communications, preferably without any screaming Raven, point out the shortcomings of the current system and stop defending it because it is what it is. That's exactly why it must change. "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 5:00 PM:

" so paddy, who are you trying to communicate to or with? what are you doing to change the situation and to deal with it...? "

Paddy wrote on Feb 3, 2009 5:42 PM:

" Raven, I can provide you with the names, emails and numbers of all my Sacramento and Washington representatives whom I contact regularly. "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 9:30 PM:

" good for you, paddy "

steph wrote on Feb 5, 2009 5:52 PM:

" Faustus--
Welfare spending does NOT stimulate the economy. It is the forced extortion of money from productive citizens to those who are not productive, and this has a proven inhibitory effect on the economy. Welfare does not create wealth; it does not create jobs and it is the opposite of creating productivity. It isn't taxed. You can call it something fancy like Keynesian economics, but a teeny bit of logic and historical knowlege will take the air out of that theory.

Americans were borrowing so much because greedy banks extended excessive amounts of credit, which were spent on non-necessary goods and services. This falsely grew the economy, as it turns out, on the backs of working taxpayers and the credit-worthy, who are footing the bill on all the defaults, and now the unemployment that has resulted from an economic collapse. What's on those credit card (and 2nd home loan) bills? Restaurant tabs, granite counter tops, vacations, recreational equipment, flat screen tvs, trips to the nail salon, etc. I don't believe you that it is all the result of poor people buying essentials. "

steph wrote on Feb 5, 2009 6:24 PM:

" When the ruling elite grab money from productive people and give it to non-productive people, production suffers. Productive people cannot use the tax penalty dollars to increase their own production in the form of capital reinvestment or to hire a productive worker--it is lost to government bureaucrats to do with as they please--bribe bankers, pay constituents to vote for them, etc. Further, a productive person cannot use money (that lost to government taxation) in order to pay another productive person for wanted goods or services.

Obviously, we do need leadership for our country, to effectively organize a military, or to allow for the citizenry to collectively fund services we all need, like roads and education. The problem many of us have is that politicians who are supposed to lead our country have lost the ability or desire to do so. They are themselves greedy and self-serving and are not good stewards of the money we pay for NEEDED goods and services. Our roads are crumbling, our schools are underfunded, and some might say even our soldiers are underfunded or overutilized. Our government is overgrown and undereffective, and all of us, poor and productive, are suffering as a result. You say it is because "the rich" and even middle class are not paying enough taxes, but those of us who are productive, who WORK for our money in an honest, law-abiding, moral way, resent the idea that we should throw good money after bad and allow greedy, egotistical, incompetent politicians to control MORE of our earnings.
It is politicians who allowed and even profited from the failure of our economy. Politicians who write tax laws can't be trusted to pay their fare share--why should we pay more? "

steph wrote on Feb 5, 2009 6:40 PM:

" If you care about wage suppression, Faustus, you will support the regulation and control of immigration into our country, and the outflow of earned income to foreign countries. Mexico has this figured out; that's why they so effectively control their southern border. They know that a limitless supply of workers to the US from Central and South America (and Asia) would suppress Mexican workers' wages, and would further devastate their already precarious economy. "

Josie Beard wrote on Feb 17, 2009 12:33 AM:

" Once again, the state workers are blamed for the bloated California budget, and the blogger is using numbers from who knows where. My husband is a 20 year employee with the California State Parks system. The workers received a 3.5% raise in 1999, and another 3.5% raise in 2007. Where is this 20% to 45% increase? Did he miss something in his paycheck?
Also, his retirement is 60% at 55, if he has worked for California for 30 years, not 75% as you stated. So, please go ahead and petition for 70% at 55. And, while you're reducing state salaries and pensions, you are making sure that the best and brightest go to work for any employer other than the State of California. Safety personnel go out at 75% at age 50, if they have worked for California for 25 years. I'm a little old state worker making $11.52 an hour, with no benefits. No medical, no pension, no vacation days, so I hope I'm not taking up too much of your tax money while I make sure that the state parks in my area are the best they can be in order to generate REVENUE for the state of California. Someone needs to take a good, hard look at the initiative process that ties up money for years that can't be touched. That
$9 BILLION tied up for Parklands acquisitions looks real good until you realize that there is no money to administer the land, and it can't be used for anything else. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley || Parade Magazine
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy