California's budget still sucking wind (Sacramento, San Bernardino: community college, food, ratings)

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

... However, an analogy can be drawn to the current success of the Big 3. It was only after the Big 3 was able to re-negotiate their contracts with the UAW that they were able to return to solvency...

Ford didn't declare bankruptcy -- so it wasn't the Big 3.

And, normal bankruptcy procedures didn't apply in the case of GM. First, bankruptcy court is not a court of law -- it is a court of equity, which from a practical standpoint means the bankruptcy judge has wide latitude to act.

In the case of GM, the Obama Administration essentially came in & said "this is the way it is going to be for the good of the Country." As a result, bond holders were screwed and and the UAW was bought (or, I should say, the UAW's campaign support was purchased). It was immoral.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by carawaydj

not just through contributions, but knowing they will recommend to their members who to vote for. I've said before that public sector unions should be forbidden from any political activities whatsoever. You don't have the same power balances you do with private sector unions.

^^^ _+1 ^^^

[RB1234]

mountainrose, I respectfully disagree regarding NJ. Our property taxes in NJ continue to soar and there exists a substantial revenue shortfall. This, despite the pension reforms that now require public workers such as police, teachers and firemen to contribute more to their pensions and health care. The state of NJ has not funded the pension in over a decade, through both republican and democratic governorships. The reforms have done nothing to help the financial well being of NJ. These reforms have served to create a divisive atmosphere between public and private workers. These facts are easily found if researched.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by RB1234

These facts are easily found if researched.

Why not post them now then?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by user_id

This would be fine if the costs were small, but they aren't, the boomer entitlements are huge and there is no way they are going to get paid without enslaving younger generations.

Boomers are going to have to accept reduced entitlements, the longer they hold out the more damage will occur in the economy.

Also, and to note the obvious, voting in people that reduced your taxes and increased your entitlements and then years later complain that you worked in "good faith" and deserve everything.......is just highway robbery. This isn't something the government promised, this is something the boomers promised to themselves on the backs of younger generations.

Anyhow, let the war began....

For once user_ID and I are in complete agreement. I would also say that if they just jack up taxes to pay for the pensions, then their incentive to actually make any serious effort to reform pensions goes down drastically.

I work in the public sector myself and it has been plainly obvious (to those who are willing to open their eyes) for a long time that the pension benefits aren't sustainable. The Boomers negotiated themselves some sweet enhancements to pensions around 2000-2001 at the end of the dot com boom....they got the state to commit long term money to pensions based on a short term economic boom. That should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. The Boomers are the ones getting the sweet deal and the rest of us (taxpayers as well as younger public sector workers) are getting dumped on.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by malamute

Cut both - but keep in mind that the retirees did pay in and their money should have been invested so they could get more back. And the retirees aren't the ones with the sky high birth rates.

I do agree both pensions and welfare need to be cut, but the magnitude of costs for pensions is larger.

It is true that public sector workers generally pay into their pensions, but it's not like they pay 100% of the bill. The employer (in this case, the State of CA) generally puts in more than 50% of the cost.

I work for local government. My employer's contribution to my pension was ~36% of my gross pay in 2011. Now contrast that with what private employers are paying...~9% of pay when you count Social Security & 3% 401K matches.

Anyone with their eyes open knows that when your employer is paying an additional 36% on top of your regular pay for just one benefit that it is not sustainable.

Although I work for local government, it is a similar story for state workers. For police & firefighters, the % employers put away is at or above 50% of gross pay.

It is painful for all but there is no way around it. Even if they do cut pensions, they will probably still need to raise taxes just to pay for the existing retired people. The math for pensions really is that overwhelming.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by RB1234

mountainrose, I respectfully disagree regarding NJ. Our property taxes in NJ continue to soar and there exists a substantial revenue shortfall. This, despite the pension reforms that now require public workers such as police, teachers and firemen to contribute more to their pensions and health care. The state of NJ has not funded the pension in over a decade, through both republican and democratic governorships. The reforms have done nothing to help the financial well being of NJ. These reforms have served to create a divisive atmosphere between public and private workers. These facts are easily found if researched.

Well, as you said yourself, the pensions were either not funded or underfunded for a decade. Of course, the problem isn't going to be fixed in a year's time. If you ran up your credit cards for 10 years in a row, would you be able to pay them all off in a year or two? Didn't think so

[tablemtn]

Open more military bases? I think California is hardly friendly overall to the military. Since the defense budget is under pressure, it seems highly unlikely that the feds will increase defense spending anywhere.

The defense budget may not have much room for new bases, but California is hardly unfriendly to the military. The guys I know who have been stationed at Camp Pendleton, Coronado, Miramar, Seal Beach, Vandenberg, etc. don't seem to have a lot of complaints about the location. The coastal installations, at least, aren't exactly hardship posts compared to other places people end up.

Anyway, a plurality of all soldiers in the US military come from California, and California has lost more soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other state. That's a function of population, but I think the point remains.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Well, as you said yourself, the pensions were either not funded or underfunded for a decade. Of course, the problem isn't going to be fixed in a year's time. If you ran up your credit cards for 10 years in a row, would you be able to pay them all off in a year or two? Didn't think so

Well it does look like the pensions of California state employees are extreme. It looks like the pensions should be cut in half now -- still they are a limited source of money and once that source is gone, there will still be problems with the increasing numbers of other "takers".


California is paying 5,115 retired public employees over $100,00 per year to

California pays 5,115 retired employees $100,000+ per year. How much will you earn when you retire?

Joaquin Fuster, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA takes home $296,555.88 in retirement benefits. Donald Gerth, former President of Cal State Sacramento, takes home an annual pension of $278,054.64. John Schlag, a professor of neurobiology at UCLA is paid $255,600.48 in retirement.

[serialdriller]

fix illegal alien problem.. it will help the budget