California's budget still sucking wind (how much, buy, public school)

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

There is no question that pension reform is necessary. But yes, the at least partial answer for now is probably to raise taxes to cover contractual commitments made in the past to workers who served in good faith.

Many military veterans such as myself went off to war under terms of contractual service. All served the efforts of our nation. Some of us took various damages doing so. The government promised to cover our expenses. Should I feel bad now about the expense of my medical care just because the nation is in a new fiscal crisis? Should I just suffer without my benefits? Especially when there is rampant wealth running amok in this country's financial sectors resulting in ungodly riches for a class of citizen (most of whom never have served their country in any way, just sayin'). Yes, tax the suckers! They haven't acquired their wealth without the protection and advantage of the nation's infrastructures that most of the rest of us labor to build, maintain, and protect.

The state's workers were hired and served under terms of contracts. Pay the contract, suffer the loss, and correct the problem for the future.

I think the military is a different situation in that the people that served and serve in the military were/are paid dirt. The benefits are part of the deal.

With state workers in California with the exception of certain technical professionals(engineers, doctors, lawyers etc) the state workers are paid at or above their private sector counterparts.

As for the contractual issue, yes the state cannot shed these obligations without breaking the law. 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.

In California there is limit to how many taxes people will be willing to pay to secure someone else's healthcare and retirement. There is also the fact that the citizens can change quite a bit about the law of California through the referendum process.

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

There is no question that pension reform is necessary. But yes, the at least partial answer for now is probably to raise taxes to cover contractual commitments made in the past to workers who served in good faith.

Many military veterans such as myself went off to war under terms of contractual service. All served the efforts of our nation. Some of us took various damages doing so. The government promised to cover our expenses. Should I feel bad now about the expense of my medical care just because the nation is in a new fiscal crisis? Should I just suffer without my benefits? Especially when there is rampant wealth running amok in this country's financial sectors resulting in ungodly riches for a class of citizen (most of whom never have served their country in any way, just sayin'). Yes, tax the suckers! They haven't acquired their wealth without the protection and advantage of the nation's infrastructures that most of the rest of us labor to build, maintain, and protect.

The state's workers were hired and served under terms of contracts. Pay the contract, suffer the loss, and correct the problem for the future.

The difference is the State workers bribed the people they were negotiating the contract terms with, using "Campaign Contributions" to do so. Therefore, while there maybe a legal obligation to fufill those contracts I see no moral reason the state - and the taxpayers- should'nt take the first legal loophole available to alter those terms.

[user_id]

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.

The more recent success of the Big 3 has little to do with the re-negotiation of union contracts. For one, the new negotiations have created a two-tier systems and the vast majority of their workers are still on the old system so the costs savings, at the moment, are fairly small.

The Big 3 started to do better once they dealt with their debt and started to produce cars that sold well....

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by user_id

The more recent success of the Big 3 has little to do with the re-negotiation of union contracts. For one, the new negotiations have created a two-tier systems and the vast majority of their workers are still on the old system so the costs savings, at the moment, are fairly small.

The Big 3 started to do better once they dealt with their debt and started to produce cars that sold well....

Pretty much the cure to any business trouble.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

The difference is the State workers bribed the people they were negotiating the contract terms with, using "Campaign Contributions" to do so. Therefore, while there maybe a legal obligation to fufill those contracts I see no moral reason the state - and the taxpayers- should'nt take the first legal loophole available to alter those terms.

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.

[SiIj]

Deport the illegals and give back the jobs to Americans.

[malamute]

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....

And how many of the younger generation is growing up on food stamps, Medicaid, public schools with free meals provided, Head Start, Section 8 housing, WIC and so on? If they go to college, they expect it to be subsidized for them -- and this is all without ever having paid anything into the system.

Maybe the state union workers are getting too big of a pension -- but at least they did work and pay in. That makes what they take out limited as it's only given to those who at one time paid in --- but the welfare handouts have no limits. Anyone can come here illegally and start accessing all the welfare handouts simply by giving birth and there are no limits of any kind.

The retirees cannot be simply gutted while you allow more and more young to expect everything in life to be given to them through food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

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.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by malamute

... 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.

Not only that but we're likely to die sooner.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by user_id

Of course you don't agree....after all if the federal government stimulated the California economy it couldn't be used to push the conservative agenda.

There is no evidence? Gee, how about the fact that California receives vastly more venture capital than any other state?


Yes, there is a good reason, the federal government is bleeding the state of tax dollars when its economy is doing poorly...

And there is that conservative agenda.... California's problems are its "social liberalism", never mind the fact that the state's economy was doing fine before the housing bubble collapsed. Stimulating California's economy is just sound economic policy, but we are entering the new dark ages....where sound policy has no place.

But at the end of the day, if Joe Six Pack wants to commit himself to slavery...well so be it.

I don't see this as a conservative or liberal agenda issue at all. How does NOT sending federal dollars to California push the conservative agenda?

If the US opened a big army base in California as you suggested, wouldn't that be an example of the feds pushing a conservative agenda since defense spending is conservative favorite?

California and its citizens have the means to fix their problems. They need to play hardball with the unions, raise revenue somehow, and stop letting themselves get distracted by Happy Meals. If they don't like spending cuts, raise taxes to pay for them.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

If I could get the mandatory race card out there (I'm at least as white as the Pres) and out of the way so we can focus on the issue. Tax dollars. We've done a pretty good job of importing poverty in the last 30 years. Entire schools qualifying for free meals is rather telling. While we still have a pretty good tax base we are letting in a lot of people that don't pay much in tax yet have a lot of kids that allow them to use the social service menu. Besides immigrants we've done a pretty good job of setting up social services for the home grown too. It reminds me of http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

Census: Minorities now surpass whites in US births | UTSanDiego.com