Greenhut - Bankruptcy may be only way out for cities, states

San Diego City Councilmember Carl DeMaio, who is also running for Mayor, has put forth a comprehensive pension reform (CPR) plan that may save San Diego from bankruptcy.  Below is Steven Greenhut's editorial on public employee pensions and the unprecedented resistance by Sacramento to deal with the problem.  Enjoy!

_______________________________

(Steven Greenhut - Special Editorial for the Orange County Register)
SACRAMENTO – I recently documented how the state's pro-union attorney general, Kamala Harris, crafted an unfair and dishonest title and summary for a pair of pension reform ballot initiatives submitted to her office, effectively killing the measures.


Then, last week, the government employee unions tried – and almost succeeded – with an even nastier stunt designed to undermine democracy.

In San Diego, unions are fearful of a new pension reform measure supporters call Comprehensive Pension Reform, or CPR, which has qualified for the June ballot. Instead of simply gearing up to fight this political battle, the unions petitioned one of those ridiculous commissions that most Californians have never even heard of, the Public Employment Relations Board, which is unfriendly turf for taxpayers. The union contended that placing the initiative on the ballot amounted to an unfair labor practice, and PERB called for a court injunction to stop the election until it could complete its sham proceedings.


In essence, the unions and this unelected board insist that the people of San Diego have no right to vote on pension reform. This is just the latest reminder of the totalitarian tactics of a public-sector union movement that doesn't care about anything other than protecting its benefits.

COUNTINUE READING HERE...

California's cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion

PRESS RELEASE - CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California's cash balance, receipts and disbursements in November, showing monthly revenues came in $497.7 million above projections in the state budget.
"While November's totals came in 9 percent above projections, they did not erase the fact that we are still running $1 billion behind in revenues and $2 billion ahead in expenditures," said Chiang.  "Regardless of whether midyear cuts are enacted next week, the Legislature faces a tremendous fiscal challenge when it returns to session next month."
After accounting for November revenues, total year-to-date general fund revenues are now behind the budget's estimates by $1 billion, but expenditures for the year are over projections by $1.95 billion.  The Controller's Office continues to work with the Department of Finance to identify and prepare for any impact on the State's cash outlook.
The State ended last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $8.2 billion. The combined current year cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion.  Those deficits are being covered with $16.1 billion of internal borrowing (temporary loans from special funds) and $5.4 billion of external borrowing.
For more details, read November 2011's financial statement and summary analysis.

Is Jerry Brown's hiring freeze working?

In an email from the California Republican Party citing the Sacramento Bee the following proclamation was made:
According to the SacBee's State Worker column, we're nearly four months into Jerry's state government hiring freeze. So how's it going? From Feb. 15 through May 25, the government hired 1,516 employees, according to state controller's payroll data. Here's another way to view it: If you added up the initial paychecks for those new-to-government hires, you'd have about $3 million.

The blurb is missing some important information which paints a much clearer picture and was included in the original article from the Sacramento Bee but was omitted from the CRP email.  I don't like many of Brown's policies but let's call it the way it is and not the way we want it to appear.

(from SacBee)

Pretty loose hiring clamp, you say? Not really.

Hiring is down about 40 percent per month, on average, from seven months prior to the hiring freeze.

 

Schwarzenegger didn't order a hiring freeze during those last months. He didn't trust the bureaucracy. He also wanted the immediate payroll savings from his 2008, 2009 and 2010 furlough orders, believing that the state's fiscal crises justified the controversial policy.

Brown, no lover of furloughs, is letting the slower process of attrition take hold. So while the state was welcoming those 1,500 employees aboard – many of them part-time or at entry-level pay – it said bon voyage to 2,349 retirees, according to CalPERS data. Those employees tend to be at the high end of the pay scale.

 

Senior staff in Brown's office added a hiring chill factor by personally reviewing all state employment proposals after they've gone through a financial analysis.

Schwarzenegger would never have done that, said Daniel J.B. Mitchell, a state labor expert at UCLA's Anderson School of Management: "He wasn't into micromanaging. Grand themes were more his area."

With the state still trying to close a $10 billion budget gap, Brown spokeswoman Elizabeth Ashford puts it another way: "We're keeping a close eye on the shop. We have to."

So what about all those hires in corrections, the tax board and mental health?

Brown's freeze order exempts some jobs such as frontline hospital staff, public safety employees, and tax and fee collectors.

It's the kind of nuanced policymaking that sometimes eluded Schwarzenegger. He ordered furloughs for everyone but firefighters and CHP officers in 2008, then added tax collectors to the exemption list nearly two years later after seeing evidence that the state lost $7 in revenue for every $1 the furloughs saved.

Since February, just six departments account for 80 percent of the new hiring. The jobs they're filling fall into those exempt categories: licensed and vocational nurses, correctional officers, tax board seasonal clerks and the like.

It's getting harder to hire on with the state, and Jerry Brown likes it that way.

Once you read the article and see the data in its entirety, you see the hiring freeze (or hiring slow-down) is becoming effective. 

My suggestion to the CRP is to choose data and articles a little better.  The Republican Party needs to take the high road and not promulgate misleading information.  Regaining credibility needs to become a priority for the Party.

A closer look at the numbers shows that Brown, a pro-public employee Democrat, is stingier with government jobs than his predecessor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

PROTECT FISHING!

Oppose unfair licensing requirements and costly regulations all designed to generate revenue, a.k.a. NEW TAXES!!!

After more than 30 years, the California Department of Fish and Game is trying to require recreational fishermen to purchase a fishing license (a.k.a. PAY TAXES) to catch privately stocked fish (currently NOT taxed) on private property (already paying property taxes) as well as at private fee for fishing lakes (small businesses) - and proposing, unnecessary and very costly regulations that will be mandated for every fresh water hatchery, fish farm and nearly anybody that purchases and stocks fish in California.

Such regulations will put small business owners who stock fishing holes out of business - and deny access to recreational fishing! Without affordable local fishing, how long will it be before all the fish in California are GONE?  Will Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts ever be able to earn their respective merit badges?

Please contact Governor Jerry Brown and the Department of Fish and Game today. Let them know that California's economy can't afford this plan! To do this, visit CARF's "Take Action" page. Your voice needs to be heard - it's quick and easy - and VERY IMPORTANT!

 

To learn more how these new plans threaten your favorite fishing hole and jobs, visit http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=weyj8qeab&et=1104986341688&s=71&e=001w0DtEcem7yv7kcCoIUDCSd6Tc9iepJVm47Ak3kHYNLdVjNd4aNowjpljuPCp-tUp3dZigOR7qU6hHtDAE-ZnjX08MPUSDDDhTwLKIvQKTMfyQYW-z4ojNA==.  

PS: Attention fee for fishing lake operators - visit the "Take Action" page to learn how you can help too.

State Controller: "Defer and Deny" is not a strategy

In a letter to Governor Brown and State party leaders, California State Controller John Chiang spelled out the cash flow problem. 

“Defer and deny” is not a strategy for California’s prosperity. For too many years, intense partisanship and the absence of consensus-building leadership have created completely avoidable crises which have only served to amplify and prolong the pain of the recent global recession. It is not that California lacks the economic fire power or Constitutional flexibility to address its problems – rather, its problems are primarily rooted in political origin. Unless we make the tough decisions necessary to stabilize the State’s fiscal health, I fear that the next four years will be stained by chronic fiscal distress and regret over lost opportunities. Together, let’s find a way to compromise – to get to “yes.”

You can see the chart below and you can down the letter in its entirety HERE.

Controller Comments on Governor’s Decision to Drop Sale-Leaseback Proposal

PR11:06
2/9/2011

Contact: Jacob Roper
916-445-2636

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today issued the following statement regarding Governor Brown’s decision to drop the proposal to sell, then lease back, several state-owned buildings:

“This decision shows Governor Brown is serious about ending the budget gimmicks and sideshows. Only real, on-going solutions will improve our balance sheet and solve our annual fiscal problems.”

“While the sale of these buildings would have provided immediate cash for the state, it would have cost Californians more over the long haul. Selling low and renting high would not have served taxpayers' interests.

###

Sacramento Bee: Redevelopment rush also occurred in 1993

(from the Sacramento Bee by Kevin Yamamura)

January 20,2011

More than a dozen cities have fast-tracked redevelopment proposals ever since Gov. Jerry Brown released his plan to eliminate the local agencies that use property tax revenues to subsidize construction projects.

The redevelopment rush is not unprecedented.

A similar flurry of activity occurred in 1993 when the state enacted a stricter blight definition. As a 1994 Legislative Analyst's Office report detailed, cities moved quickly to expand their redevelopment areas in 1993, likely out of fear that such neighborhoods wouldn't qualify under the new blight definition in subsequent years.

The Analyst's Office found that local governments placed three times as much land in redevelopment zones in 1993 than they did in the previous year. In one case, the report found, "the City of San Diego approved a redevelopment plan for land near San Diego State University which does not appear to suffer from severe or intractable problems," contrary to the stricter blight definition.

With that in mind, the Analyst's Office suggested last week that lawmakers may want to think about imposing a temporary freeze on redevelopment expansion to allow debate to unfold. That hasn't happened so far, and some cities now appear to be easing off the pedal as they monitor the situation in Sacramento. Los Angeles, for instance, delayed action on $930 million in redevelopment projects on Tuesday, while San Jose also backed off Wednesday.

Brown said Wednesday he remained open to the idea of a freeze, but he has not committed one way or the other.

As we noted earlier, there appears to be little consensus in the Capitol on whether to freeze redevelopment activity, let alone eliminate the agencies. The debate is one of the few that does not split along party lines, and many lawmakers have come straight from city councils where they benefited from redevelopment dollars.

Assembly Republicans debated the issue this week and came to no unified conclusion, said Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, a former city councilman and mayor. Norby strongly opposes redevelopment agencies, calling them subsidies for retailers. But other members of his caucus, including Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita and chairman of the Assembly Local Government Committee, support redevelopment agencies.

A further complication to a redevelopment freeze is that some cities might be rewarded for sending money out the door over the last week. One idea floating around the Capitol would retroactively impede redevelopment actions dating back to Jan. 10, but that could invite legal questions.

Brown told city officials Wednesday, "You may win on redevelopment, and then we take something else." Some legislative aides have speculated that the showdown may end in a compromise with the state taking $1.7 billion in one-time dollars without permanently eliminating redevelopment agencies.

That's the kind of deal that Capitol leaders have struck in recent years, but Brown has signaled he doesn't want to follow the same path his predecessors did. We'll see.


Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/01/redevelopment-rush-also-occurr.html#ixzz1Bbt0kAOT

The Orange County Pension Law Suit Is "Radical", Says Att. Gen. Brown

In yesterday's Op-Ed, The OC Register's editorial staff said, "... his brief in opposition to the board lawsuit called it 'radical.'"  Yes, our own Attorney General will not defend tax payers.  As the OCR points out:

"What is really radical is the $3.7 billion unfunded pension gap the county faces, of which the retroactive pension spike accounts for about $100 million. Mr. Brown, supported for governor by a number of public worker unions, discounted the lavish benefits given to county workers. We'd like to hear what he would do about the runaway pension situation."

Indeed, we would all like to know his plan.  Unfortunately, his plan will surely include higher taxes.

 

CTA: The Puppet Master

Where do they find these guys?

CTA is throwing all of their support behind a few guys who are sure to keep lining the pockets of a few CTA members.  Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, and Tom Torlakson are all getting significant help from the public employee union.  Besides being union puppets, all of them have misguided policies that take from many and benefit few. 

As Newsom has said, "whether [I] like it or not" I am a member of CTA.  Every chance I get to call out the union for what it is, I do.  They have done me no favors and continue to take my dues despite me crying foul and trying to get the automatic deductions stopped.

U.S. unions have out lived their usefulness.  It used to be that they protected workers from dangerous and unfair business practice.  Their only purpose for existence now is to abuse tax payers.  Seriously, what harmful environment do teachers encounter in their classroom that they need a union to save them from?  Maybe students need a union to protect them from the CTA, "evil" district management, and political union puppets. 

Given the chance, what will Brown, Newsom, and Torlakson do for our children? 

During Jerry Brown's last tenure as governor, he ran TWICE for president.  Instead of running the state he travelled the country to attend rallies.  Brown has a history of office shopping, much like Anaheim's own Harish "Harry" Sidhu. 

Gavin Newsom is a pompous ass simply for his egregious self-serving statements; not so much his message which is clouded by poor judgment but rather his delivery.  He has done more as mayor of San Francisco to hurt California than he ever did to help his own city.  Between the Prop 8 rhetoric, which I think was a big reason it won, and the sanctuary city policy, Newsom is a public nuisance.

Let's take a peek at Torlakson, the termed-out 11th Assembly District Democratic member.  All of his support is from either public employee unions or other political hacks.  On his website he says, "As State Superintendent of Public Instruction, I will be the leading advocate for restoring and increasing the state's investment in our schools."  I take "increasing the state's investment" to mean he wants to throw good money after bad in a state that is ranked number one for per student expenditure. The 2010-2011 budget from the Governor's Office shows a total $118,755,483 for K-12 education.  With more than 6,200,000 students enrolled in 2008, we must have spent $19,154.11 on each student per school year.  My son's superior private education costs me about $4,000 per year.  So where does the other $15,154 go?  The numbers vary depending on what fact sheet you use but even the worst estimate places the per-student spending at about $7,500 per year.  That's still nearly double what I pay for my son's education.  So I ask again, where did the balance of the money go? 

The answer is simple: the tax money is burned up on the front end with special programs and bloated administrative budgets.  There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of commissions and boards that receive funding through California Department of Education with members collecting stipends and travel expense reimbursement.  Our own Fullerton High School Principals are paid more than $200,000 per year with their multiple assistants being paid well over $100,000.  And I haven't even mentioned all of the those paid symposiums and seminars in Monterey and Palm Springs.  It is mind boggling how much waste (and personal profit) there is in education. 

In my opinion the education crisis cannot be solved by outsiders trying to "fix" it.  I think the change must come from within and be genuine.  To that end I believe school vouchers will force those within the broken system to address the problems for fear of a perpetual loss of funding and jobs.  It comes down to supply and demand driven by a boycott-like principle.  Unfortunately, we have few in Sacramento willing to sign their name to a voucher bill which means vouchers would have to be a ballot box initiative.  With CTA's funding, that would be a huge up-hill battle, but one that I would gladly support. 

Torlakson will continue the tax abuse of the current superintendent and the rest of Sacramento. In 2009 Torlakson voted for EVERY SINGLE BILL that was offered up!  He voted YES on everything!!!  Do we really want someone who will spend our taxes freely in the name of our children?  NO!