State worker cashes out $600k in comp. time!

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by Phil306

I guess, as per usual, most of the people here didn't even read the article. Big sigh. The top wage earners were doctors and dentists. Those supplied by the state (because you bean sprout, tree hugging liberals wanted it) to give work to prisoners. Well, who is going to pay these people, because YOU wanted criminals to be taken care of???

No one to blame here, except YOU. YOU the people, within California, who allowed this to happen. You aren't going to a prison in California and put up tile, install light fixtures, and/or do anything without being compensated for it. Neither are the doctor's or dentist's. You wanted a "compassionate" lets make love California. Let's show the world, how socialism and getting along is. Well, you got it. Pay for it now and shut up.

let me add a chart to illustrate :
California's Per-Capita Expenditures on Public Services
in Relation to the U.S. Average, 2006-07

Notice anything here audience... that's right...

[esmith143]

So why is it wrong for someone to cash out $600k in comp time at retirement, rather than spend the same amount of time off over 30 years? I think it's a great idea. I rarely exercise all my PTO anyway.

let me add a chart to illustrate : California's Per-Capita Expenditures on Public Services
in Relation to the U.S. Average, 2006-07

It is an educational chart. But there are three things worth pointing out:

1) Police and fire are not financed out of the state budget. They are financed out of local municipal budgets.

2) Corrections are less than 10% of the state General Fund.

3) Spending on K-12 may have been 6% above average in 2006-07, but it is most certainly below average in 2010-11, after a series of cuts. Last I checked, CA was either #40 or #43 in K-12 spending per pupil out of 50 states, depending on how you count pupils (by enrollment or by attendance).

Those supplied by the state (because you bean sprout, tree hugging liberals wanted it) to give work to prisoners. Well, who is going to pay these people, because YOU wanted criminals to be taken care of???

This is false. Liberals have nothing to do with prison healthcare costs. Those have been spiraling out of control because a judge in San Francisco put the corrections healthcare system in receivership, and the guy he put in charge made a serious mess of things.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by esmith143

So why is it wrong for someone to cash out $600k in comp time at retirement, rather than spend the same amount of time off over 30 years? I think it's a great idea. I rarely exercise all my PTO anyway.

It is an educational chart. But there are three things worth pointing out:

1) Police and fire are not financed out of the state budget. They are financed out of local municipal budgets.

2) Corrections are less than 10% of the state General Fund.

3) Spending on K-12 may have been 6% above average in 2006-07, but it is most certainly below average in 2010-11, after a series of cuts. Last I checked, CA was either #40 or #43 in K-12 spending per pupil out of 50 states, depending on how you count pupils (by enrollment or by attendance).

This is false. Liberals have nothing to do with prison healthcare costs. Those have been spiraling out of control because a judge in San Francisco put the corrections healthcare system in receivership, and the guy he put in charge made a serious mess of things.

Thanks I enjoy this kind of informative/thought through feedback . Thanks for the qualification of the data/info

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by esmith143

3) Spending on K-12 may have been 6% above average in 2006-07, but it is most certainly below average in 2010-11, after a series of cuts. Last I checked, CA was either #40 or #43 in K-12 spending per pupil out of 50 states, depending on how you count pupils (by enrollment or by attendance).

Per pupil spending is meaningless, it's apple and oranges. According to this web site (*), CA teachers are ranked at the top at salaries, so it's not that we need to pay teachers more. Teachers salaries are 2/3rds of the total school budget, we're not putting much money into infrastructure (**), books, etc. so pretty much all the money we fund goes pretty much directly into teachers pockets. As the web site says, it's just that there are more kids than we have money to fund teachers at the salaries they ask for (duh).

Then when the NEA says we have a $242,000 per pupil capacity to fund students, the problem is taking a pure average ignores the income distribution and the taxes they pay (or don't pay below a certain income level). The families who has the most kids to teach in CA usually have the least income, they don't pay much in taxes, or if they are illegal, they pay no taxes towards the schools. Where the $242,000 the NEA gets is from the outlier wealthy in the state which already pay 40% in state taxes, and you're not going to get any more from the rich or middle income.

So you cannot compare a state which has a relatively bell curve of income distribution and fewer kids to a state with a ton of lower income family kids and relatively few high income earners. There's plenty of schools being built (**), at least in our area and in LA. You certainly cannot use this meaningless per pupil spending to say teachers aren't being paid enough, which just isn't true. All this statistic means is lower the number of illegal alien kids in CA and your per pupil spending will miraculously go up an order of magnitude.

(*) Where YeahThatGuy's graphic shows up
(**) Most school systems use different funding mechanisms to build new schools, such as bonds