Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
July 31, 2007
CA Political News
Who "owns" your children? Actually it is the State, government. Try doing anything and you run afoul of some law. Education, health care, everything that counts is controlled by government. My good friend Camille Giglio, has written an excellent piece, exclusively for the California Political News and Views.
What do you think, are children a commodity owned by the State.
Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss.
To see the whole article, click on the URL below.
Who "owns" your children? Actually it is the State, government. Try doing anything and you run afoul of some law. Education, health care, everything that counts is controlled by government. My good friend Camille Giglio, has written an excellent piece, exclusively for the California Political News and Views.
What do you think, are children a commodity owned by the State.
Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss.
{{ { CHILDREN AS A STATE OWNED COMMODITY.} }} by Camille Giglio It’s getting late in summer, the heat in Sacramento and washington, D.C.is becoming unbearable, tempers are fraying and in the state and federal legislatures angry words are flying faster than bullets in Iraq. The state budget is overdue. The Democrats are so confused they are attacking each other. The good news is that the Republicans are opposing the Governor on his funding of state objectives, especially health care. Why health care? The Democrats at state and federal level are focusing on this issue using lack of health care for children as a wedge issue in a direct and bold route to a nationalized control of daily family life and individual productivity. After all, if one believes Rob Reiner and all the adds on tv and radio parents don’t give a darn about children only the legislators care and only the Democrats care enough to fight for each child. This is the year for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program - SCHIP - to sunset. In the past ten years SCHIP (as well as other funding bills) has funneled millions of dollars, especially to California, to augment the state health care programs. California’s version is called Healthy Families and through a series of waivers has grown to cover expansion of new bureaucracies as well as the children of legal and illegal residents up to 250% of federal poverty level, mostly in preventive type medicine not curative medicine. Just as welfare recipients get used to public hand outs so, too, does the state legislature get addicted to feeding at the federal trough. The Republicans in Congress were willing to re-authorize with a $25 billion increase. The Democrats wanted a $75 Billion increase and the result so far is House bill, HR 3162, renaming The SCHIP Act as the CHAMP Act - Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act, with a compromised $50 billion increase. The President has promised to veto any bill with this kind of spending attached. This House is scheduled to come to the floor of Congress for a final vote very soon. The Senate version is still in mock-up and, and has no bill number or firm wording as of yet. The future of the state budget and a whole slew of Democrat health care bills may well lie with what happens to the SCHIP Act. There is not enough money in California to underwrite universal health care without federal funds. The weapons of war in this California battle to capture our children consist of a bundle of bills authorizing and expanding health care. Two bills, AB 8 by Assemblyman Fabian Nunez and SB 840 by Senator Sheila Kuehl are the focus of the fight while several other bills carry the stealth bombs of funding and advancing bureaucracies. These bills are AB 1 dealing with expanding eligibility for Medi-Cal, California’s version of MediCare, and AB 14, Discrimination: Civil Rights Act of 2007, expanding the groups who can sue for discrimination by John Laird, (D-Santa Cruz), AB 16 by Edward Hernandez, mandating that parents submit their children to the wisdom of the state regarding vaccinations, SB 32, Health Care Coverage: Children, expanding eligibility for Healthy Families and Medi-Cal coverage, deleting qualifications and covering illegal aliens. All these bills are sitting in suspension in the Appropriations Committees awaiting the decision on the budget. While the authors of all these bills claim that there is no funding with tax dollars involved being placed on the Appropriations Committee suspense file means that there is a significant amount of money attached to the legislation. All of these Democrat authored bills have been amended several times to reflect the Governor’s thoughts on universal health care coverage including his ideas on incentives for state desired goals regarding eating habits, weight loss, body building, etc. The Democrats feel that they have such a lock on this whole package that they are beginning to get a little careless about the quotes they are giving the media. Their true objective for all this angst over our poor, neglected, sick and unloved children is beginning to show. For instance here is Congressman Charlie Rangel’s opening attack on the President’s refusal to budge on funding: "We do this, [expand government control over health care needs] not just because it is the right and moral thing to do, but because in the long run, it makes for a stronger America, stronger communities and helps prevent expensive, debilitating, chronic diseases. Expanding access to health care for children not only saves money in the long run, but it puts this country on a path to be more competitive internationally." In other words Congressman Rangel, are you saying...... Children are a commodity? Just as one puts their car in the hands of a good mechanic we will put America’s children in the hands of government approved doctors and psychiatrists who will properly oil, lube and tune-up the kids to produce a worthwhile, long running, finished product? Often times we hear people complaining about the politicians and wishing the state were run more like a business, efficiently and with an eye to the finished product. Well, I think the legislature has already begun doing that, placing a monetary value on human life as though it were a commodity tradable on the open market but only worthwile if it performs properly and efficiently and contributes to the bottom line of government. I was thinking about all this on recently when I read an article in the Sunday Contra Costa Times entitled: Car fixes free for state officials, (7/29/07 - page A4) The article is reporting on the state (actually the taxpayer) covering all the costs of repairs to damaged state owned vehicles leased and driven by state legislators or any other family member rather than requiring the legislator to accept responsibility for the accident and pay for the repairs themselves. Attention to this issue has come about following headline news about state Senator Carole Migden smashing her state leased car following a wreckless and wild ride over several freeways. State legislator, Hector de la Torre, D-South Gate, chairman of the Assembly Rules Committee which is in charge of state leased cars, is quoted as offering the following reason that the state picks up all the costs. He said: “The state is ultimately responsible for repairing any damage - be it scratched, dinged or totaled. The vehicle is a state asset, and so our responsibility is to make sure that that asset is in top condition.” The state recovers its money when the car, no longer useful to the state is sold at public auction.” I think there you have the Democrat philosophy in a nutshell. What the state owns and damages the state must repair. Universal Health Care is the state’s repair program for all the dings and dents inflicted on humans through previous wreckless and irresponsibly driven government programs inflicted upon the public and our children, especially such as education, family planning, foster Care, hospital oversight, etc., you name it.
-
0
June 18, 2010
CA Political News
"A small, fiercely anti-illegal-immigration group has wielded significant power in
The group calls itself the SJC Americans. Its goal is to dismantle what it considers sanctuary conditions in the city that encourage undocumented immigrants to break the law and abuse the welfare system."
This is democracy--people speaking out, organizing and trying to get government to operate legally and with the Constitution. No mobs, riots or threats.
No, SJC Americans is not ACORN--it is honest, not corrupt and not stealing from the public.
SJC Americans is what every town needs. ACORN is what prisons are for. Voice of
A Small Group Wields Big Influence in San Juan Capistrano
When the City Council approved these signs -- restricting overnight parking on Camino Capistrano -- it was an early indicator of the influence of SJC Americans, a grassroots political action group. The group and members of the council say the ordinance was to crack down on perceived blight and overcrowding of the street.
ADAM ELMAHREK, voiceofoc.org, 6/15/10
A small, fiercely anti-illegal-immigration group has wielded significant power in San Juan Capistrano in recent years, influencing decisions at City Hall ranging from parking ordinances to the lease of city-owned property.
The group calls itself the SJC Americans. Its goal is to dismantle what it considers sanctuary conditions in the city that encourage undocumented immigrants to break the law and abuse the welfare system.
Others in the community, including Latino residents, say SJC Americans has pushed through ordinances with racist intentions and conjured up support through misinformation -- and intimidation -- of the council and the community.
The group formed in early 2008 to stop the lease of the city-owned old fire station complex to the Community Health Enrichment Collaborative, which provides a variety of services to low-income residents including application assistance for Medi-Cal and food stamps.
SJC Americans failed to convince the council back then that CHEC was undeserving of a lease in a city-owned building because it was assisting illegal immigrants to take advantage of social services. But that was before their influence grew.
Now it's looking as though SJC Americans has succeeded in driving CHEC out of the Mission Flats neighborhood where it's located. CHEC decided not to pursue another two-year lease and instead will ask for a month-by-month lease until it can secure another location away from the neighborhood.
"My assumption is that the lies they were telling -- we brought a light to it, and now they can't get away with it," said Kim McCarthy, one of SJC Americans' most vocal members.
For their part, CHEC officials say the unfriendly political climate had nothing to do with their decision and that they just need a bigger office.
The story of CHEC, which involves organizations like Mission Hospital and Mission Basilica San Juan Capistrano, is one example of how SJC Americans has managed to influence city politics and policies.
The group also managed to push the city into implementing E-Verify, a database service that validates the Social Security numbers of city employees. It also played a role in a council election that unseated former Mayor Joe Soto, who was seen as sympathetic to the Latino community.
And recently, SJC Americans pushed through new parking policies on Camino Capistrano. Some cheered that effort, saying the group helped clean up blight in the area. But it also led to accusations of racism from the city's Latino community.
The city is "racist, 100 percent racist," said Alberto Fernandez, a resident in one of the housing complexes off Camino Capistrano.
Fernandez says the parking ordinance specifically targeted Latinos. It was pushed through by the city's now-disbanded Community Issues Committee, which was composed of some SJC Americans members as well as councilmen Londres Uso and Sam Allevato.
Felipe Rodriguez, a former resident of a condominium complex known as Casitas Capistrano, said he was so fed up with the restricted parking that he moved away from his mother's house at the Casitas -- away from his young children -- to Mission Viejo.
The parking ordinance made life "much more difficult," Rodriguez said.
SJC Americans member and co-founder Tony Brown said the parking ordinance proposal "had nothing to do with ethnicity."
Brown blamed the parking problem on what he called "hotbedding" -- when too many people live in a condo built for a few. He said the practice and the subsequent parking problem was creating "public safety issues" and "a certain amount of blight."
Uso agrees with Brown. He said the parking ordinances had nothing to do with the fact that the area is Latino and everything to do with the blight and overcrowding of the street.
"I don't care if those people had been German farmers," Uso said. "It had nothing to do with race, creed or color -- it had to do with the fact that Camino Capistrano looked like hell."
Much of the group's influence comes through its writings -- particularly McCarthy's column -- which were formerly in the Capistrano Dispatch but have since moved to the newsletter Capistrano Common Sense. McCarthy said her column was particularly effective against CHEC.
Allevato and members of SJC Americans say SJC Americans has managed to convince residents in the Mission Flats neighborhood, where CHEC has its office, that the organization has no business operating out of the city-owned building.
But not everyone is convinced that the claims made in the newsletter are accurate.
"There are facts. Then there are a bunch of things that are editorializing. And then there is a bunch of innuendo -- and a bunch of things that appear to be made up," Councilman Mark Nielsen said.
CHEC is scrambling to secure another location elsewhere in the city and has yet to find one. A staff report from Karen Crocker, the city's community services director, says that staff does not recommend giving CHEC the month-by-month lease it has requested.
Crocker said she believes CHEC decided not to pursue a two-year agreement because the organization knew it wouldn't have support from the council.
"If the residents don't want CHEC there, I don't want to continue that battle," Crocker said.
CHEC isn't the only organization SJC Americans has targeted.
Recently, a Latino community services organization known as CREER attempted to secure a license agreement for a 284-square-foot office space adjacent to Stonefield, one of the historic areas of the city.
CREER officials say the organization provides services beneficial to the community -- such as after-school tutoring, a gang prevention program and teaching English as a second language. SJC Americans, however, says CREER actively promotes illegal immigration.
"The people are very confused about what community is," McCarthy said at a recent council meeting. "Community is not the advancement of one race."
Among other accusations, SJC Americans said CREER and CHEC sponsored an immigration forum in July 2008 -- which was attended by Orange County Sheriff's Department deputies -- that taught undocumented immigrants how to avoid deportation and take advantage of services they aren't eligible for. The group also claimed a Democratic Party representative was registering undocumented immigrants to vote.
SJC Americans' Brown said he knew the forum was to assist illegal immigrants because it was mostly in Spanish.
The message from the parties at the forum -- including CHEC, CREER and the Sheriff's Department -- is that "we know you're here, and we're going to help you stay here," Brown said.
But CREER denied the accusations, and when Uso questioned CREER leaders from the dais at a recent meeting, they said CREER does not support illegal immigration and that it doesn't help undocumented immigrants find sanctuary in the city.
"You've got some uninformed people saying some uninformed things," CREER Executive Director Richard Ybarra said.
Lt. Mike Betzler -- who was chief of police services when the forum was held -- said he would do some research on the forum and the accusations. He has yet to return phone calls seeking the information.
But the Orange County Human Relations Commission -- which provided leadership training to CHEC -- said the forum provided nothing that residents didn't already have access to.
Although the council signed off on the license agreement for CREER -- rebuffing SJC Americans' wishes -- the group did manage to persuade the city to keep an eye on the organization.
It appears that no matter what the truth is about CREER, SJC Americans' influence could mean the end of another community services organization.
"This is very tense right now," said Councilwoman Laura Freese at a recent council meeting. "We are looking very closely at things -- and if we have to, we'll pull the plug."
When the City Council approved these signs -- restricting overnight parking on Camino Capistrano -- it was an early indicator of the influence of SJC Americans, a grassroots political action group. The group and members of the council say the ordinance was to crack down on perceived blight and overcrowding of the street.
ADAM ELMAHREK, voiceofoc.org, 6/15/10
A small, fiercely anti-illegal-immigration group has wielded significant power in San Juan Capistrano in recent years, influencing decisions at City Hall ranging from parking ordinances to the lease of city-owned property.
The group calls itself the SJC Americans. Its goal is to dismantle what it considers sanctuary conditions in the city that encourage undocumented immigrants to break the law and abuse the welfare system.
Others in the community, including Latino residents, say SJC Americans has pushed through ordinances with racist intentions and conjured up support through misinformation -- and intimidation -- of the council and the community.
The group formed in early 2008 to stop the lease of the city-owned old fire station complex to the Community Health Enrichment Collaborative, which provides a variety of services to low-income residents including application assistance for Medi-Cal and food stamps.
SJC Americans failed to convince the council back then that CHEC was undeserving of a lease in a city-owned building because it was assisting illegal immigrants to take advantage of social services. But that was before their influence grew.
Now it's looking as though SJC Americans has succeeded in driving CHEC out of the Mission Flats neighborhood where it's located. CHEC decided not to pursue another two-year lease and instead will ask for a month-by-month lease until it can secure another location away from the neighborhood.
"My assumption is that the lies they were telling -- we brought a light to it, and now they can't get away with it," said Kim McCarthy, one of SJC Americans' most vocal members.
For their part, CHEC officials say the unfriendly political climate had nothing to do with their decision and that they just need a bigger office.
The story of CHEC, which involves organizations like Mission Hospital and Mission Basilica San Juan Capistrano, is one example of how SJC Americans has managed to influence city politics and policies.
The group also managed to push the city into implementing E-Verify, a database service that validates the Social Security numbers of city employees. It also played a role in a council election that unseated former Mayor Joe Soto, who was seen as sympathetic to the Latino community.
And recently, SJC Americans pushed through new parking policies on Camino Capistrano. Some cheered that effort, saying the group helped clean up blight in the area. But it also led to accusations of racism from the city's Latino community.
The city is "racist, 100 percent racist," said Alberto Fernandez, a resident in one of the housing complexes off Camino Capistrano.
Fernandez says the parking ordinance specifically targeted Latinos. It was pushed through by the city's now-disbanded Community Issues Committee, which was composed of some SJC Americans members as well as councilmen Londres Uso and Sam Allevato.
Felipe Rodriguez, a former resident of a condominium complex known as Casitas Capistrano, said he was so fed up with the restricted parking that he moved away from his mother's house at the Casitas -- away from his young children -- to Mission Viejo.
The parking ordinance made life "much more difficult," Rodriguez said.
SJC Americans member and co-founder Tony Brown said the parking ordinance proposal "had nothing to do with ethnicity."
Brown blamed the parking problem on what he called "hotbedding" -- when too many people live in a condo built for a few. He said the practice and the subsequent parking problem was creating "public safety issues" and "a certain amount of blight."
Uso agrees with Brown. He said the parking ordinances had nothing to do with the fact that the area is Latino and everything to do with the blight and overcrowding of the street.
"I don't care if those people had been German farmers," Uso said. "It had nothing to do with race, creed or color -- it had to do with the fact that Camino Capistrano looked like hell."
Much of the group's influence comes through its writings -- particularly McCarthy's column -- which were formerly in the Capistrano Dispatch but have since moved to the newsletter Capistrano Common Sense. McCarthy said her column was particularly effective against CHEC.
Allevato and members of SJC Americans say SJC Americans has managed to convince residents in the Mission Flats neighborhood, where CHEC has its office, that the organization has no business operating out of the city-owned building.
But not everyone is convinced that the claims made in the newsletter are accurate.
"There are facts. Then there are a bunch of things that are editorializing. And then there is a bunch of innuendo -- and a bunch of things that appear to be made up," Councilman Mark Nielsen said.
CHEC is scrambling to secure another location elsewhere in the city and has yet to find one. A staff report from Karen Crocker, the city's community services director, says that staff does not recommend giving CHEC the month-by-month lease it has requested.
Crocker said she believes CHEC decided not to pursue a two-year agreement because the organization knew it wouldn't have support from the council.
"If the residents don't want CHEC there, I don't want to continue that battle," Crocker said.
CHEC isn't the only organization SJC Americans has targeted.
Recently, a Latino community services organization known as CREER attempted to secure a license agreement for a 284-square-foot office space adjacent to Stonefield, one of the historic areas of the city.
CREER officials say the organization provides services beneficial to the community -- such as after-school tutoring, a gang prevention program and teaching English as a second language. SJC Americans, however, says CREER actively promotes illegal immigration.
"The people are very confused about what community is," McCarthy said at a recent council meeting. "Community is not the advancement of one race."
Among other accusations, SJC Americans said CREER and CHEC sponsored an immigration forum in July 2008 -- which was attended by Orange County Sheriff's Department deputies -- that taught undocumented immigrants how to avoid deportation and take advantage of services they aren't eligible for. The group also claimed a Democratic Party representative was registering undocumented immigrants to vote.
SJC Americans' Brown said he knew the forum was to assist illegal immigrants because it was mostly in Spanish.
The message from the parties at the forum -- including CHEC, CREER and the Sheriff's Department -- is that "we know you're here, and we're going to help you stay here," Brown said.
But CREER denied the accusations, and when Uso questioned CREER leaders from the dais at a recent meeting, they said CREER does not support illegal immigration and that it doesn't help undocumented immigrants find sanctuary in the city.
"You've got some uninformed people saying some uninformed things," CREER Executive Director Richard Ybarra said.
Lt. Mike Betzler -- who was chief of police services when the forum was held -- said he would do some research on the forum and the accusations. He has yet to return phone calls seeking the information.
But the Orange County Human Relations Commission -- which provided leadership training to CHEC -- said the forum provided nothing that residents didn't already have access to.
Although the council signed off on the license agreement for CREER -- rebuffing SJC Americans' wishes -- the group did manage to persuade the city to keep an eye on the organization.
It appears that no matter what the truth is about CREER, SJC Americans' influence could mean the end of another community services organization.
"This is very tense right now," said Councilwoman Laura Freese at a recent council meeting. "We are looking very closely at things -- and if we have to, we'll pull the plug."
-
0
December 19, 2006
CA Political News
Up until this cycle, the California GOP was on a roll in voter registration. The chief responsibility for voter registration was that of the counties. In this past cycle the State Party took control of the voter registration. As best we can tell, they registered approximately 160,000. This was well short of the needs and the goals. Obviously something went wrong and there is a need for a new process--or maybe a return to the old process.
Tom Del Beccaro, the just unanimously re-elected chair of the Contra Costa GOP and Chairman of the GOP County Chairs, has written this vision for immediate action on fixing the problem. Del Beccaro is a candidate for Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party. (full disclosure: I fully support Tom Del Beccaro for Vice Chair.) If you want to find out more about the campaign, go to http://www.tomdel4vicechair.com/
What do you think of the plan? Do you have any additions or suggestions? Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss. To see the full story, click on the URL just below.
Up until this cycle, the California GOP was on a roll in voter registration. The chief responsibility for voter registration was that of the counties. In this past cycle the State Party took control of the voter registration. As best we can tell, they registered approximately 160,000. This was well short of the needs and the goals. Obviously something went wrong and there is a need for a new process--or maybe a return to the old process.
Tom Del Beccaro, the just unanimously re-elected chair of the Contra Costa GOP and Chairman of the GOP County Chairs, has written this vision for immediate action on fixing the problem. Del Beccaro is a candidate for Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party. (full disclosure: I fully support Tom Del Beccaro for Vice Chair.) If you want to find out more about the campaign, go to [http://www.tomdel4vicechair.com/->http://www.tomdel4vicechair.com/]
What do you think of the plan? Do you have any additions or suggestions? Write your thoughts directly on the web site for all to see and discuss. To see the full story, click on the URL just below.
{{Steve Frank}}
{{ { Addressing the CRP Voter Registration Challenge by Thomas Del Beccaro Thomas Del Beccaro - For California Republican Vice Chairman} }} Most of what political volunteers do relates to just two goals: registering voters and getting those voters to the polls. Nearly everything else they do, raising money, walking precincts, issue advocacy, phone calling, etc., support those two goals. In recent years, the registration differential in California, between Democrats and Republicans, had inched closer and reduced to a point not seen since the 1930’s. The last cycle, however, from a Republican perspective, was not as successful as many had hoped. In the coming decade, the California Republican Party will face new challenges and will be presented with significant opportunities when it comes to the Party activities in general and voter registration in particular. With respect to the general challenges ahead, as with all political parties, the CRP would do well to develop funding sources independent of particular campaign cycles. We know that top-of-the-ticket campaigns are understandably desirous of directing how activities such as fundraising, voter registration and voter integrity projects are administered for that particular election cycle. That desire, however, often does not mesh with the long term interests of political parties, i.e. to develop a sustainable base of support, the fruits of which may not be harvested within that 2-year political cycle. For instance, in the last cycle, the CRP concentrated it registration efforts in only 13 larger counties – going after low hanging fruit it thought would help in the last election. The long term interests of the Republican Party, however, require a broader and more sustained effort. In that regard, we would do well to note that how a voter registers is a very strong indicator of how they will vote. Further, newly registering voters tend to vote at a rate somewhat higher than the population at large – at least initially. It is also true that there is a demographic change under way – people are leaving the liberal Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay regions for the more conservative inland counties – many of which do not fall into the category of one of the 13 larger counties. Another important dynamic is the fact that many voters are choosing to register as “decline to state” as opposed to any one political party. The sum total of the above is that the California Republican Party has the opportunity to make registration gains as a result of those demographic changes – if the Party can put into place a strategic plan tailored to the decade ahead. That strategic plan, in my view, must include the following: 1. A sustained commitment to developing independent funding resources for the party in general and a dedicated registration program in particular (not unlike the efforts of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Clubs sponsorship programs); and 2. A definitive program that deals with the unfortunate realities of McCain- Feingold but does not alternate responsibility year-to-year between the county and the State Party which has produced more disruption than beneficial results; and 3. The continued development of modern registration techniques such as micro-targeting along with monitoring mail forwarding lists to ensure re-registration, utilizing multiple listing services and more; and 4. A real commitment to visiting our schools and colleges to communicate with, organize and register potential young and college Republicans; and 5. A continued commitment to the building the 58 Republican county parties – including working with them to develop their own capacity to raise money, sustain operations and to register voters; and 6. A commitment to developing a coordinated and monitored vendor program that incorporates instead of competes with the abilities of volunteer groups such as the CFRW and the CRA. Such a coordinated effort would require periodic planning sessions between the Party, volunteers groups and the legislators to ensure that the program is working. I do not expect that that list is either exhaustive, or the only way to go or easy to achieve. I do want it to serve as a basis for discussion. I propose that a Blue Ribbon panel consider the development of a strategic plan for CRP registration starting in February of 2007. The panel would do well to be comprised of the major stakeholders in the process such as a representative from the legislature, perhaps a past-chair of the CRP, one or more volunteer representatives, and a third party donor representative. As we move ahead, especially on the issue of registration, I am reminded of Ronald Reagan’s words, “I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.’ The coming years provides both challenges and opportunities for party and with respect to registration. Let us come together and meet that challenge.
-
0
August 10, 2009
CA Political News
Why are pensions dragging down the economy and government services?
In LA, a former Department of Water and Power leader is receiving a pension of $318,000 per year. Another is going to be receiving $327,000 in pension money.
That is part of the reason the cost of water in LA has almost doubled in four years. The poor are paying for the rich to live well, on government money.
In LA, a former Department of Water and Power leader is receiving a pension of $318,000 per year. Another is going to be receiving $327,000 in pension money.
That is part of the reason the cost of water in LA has almost doubled in four years. The poor are paying for the rich to live well, on government money.
Amid cost cutting, L.A. city pensions continue to soar
Collecting nearly $318,000 a year, the former head of the Department
of Water and Power tops a list of 841 city pension recipients paid
six-figure benefits, according to newly obtained records.
By Rich Connell, LA Times, 8/9/09
Collecting nearly $318,000 a year, the former head of Los Angeles'
Department of Water and Power tops a list of 841 city pension
recipients paid six-figure benefits, according to newly obtained
records.
And, like many of the retirees, former DWP General Manager Ronald
Deaton will be paid more beginning this summer -- boosting his
annual retirement pay to more than $327,000 -- because of annual
cost-of-living increases, records and interviews show.
New DWP pension data provide a fuller picture of the city's largest
retirement packages at a time when City Hall is cutting services,
the public is being hit with recession-driven tax increases to cover
government budget shortfalls and rising public pension costs are
under close scrutiny.
The Times previously reported that nearly 600 pensioners received
$100,000 a year from the city's police, fire and general government
retirement plans. The new data from the city's utility add close to
250 names to the list, which includes retirees or, in some cases,
beneficiaries.
Former DWP Assistant General Manager Frank Salas ranks second on the
list, receiving about $290,000 a year.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks, a former Los Angeles police chief and
head of the city's budget committee, is third.
The Times reported in May that Parks, 65, who has publicly warned
about soaring payroll and pension costs, received $265,000 a year in
retirement payments on top of his $178,789 council salary.
With a cost-of-living adjustment that took effect this month, Parks'
pension has grown to $273,000 annually, roughly 10% more than his
final pay as police chief, records show.
In addition, Parks, who is serving a second four-year council term,
is participating in a civilian pension plan as a councilman,
officials confirmed. That could add tens of thousands of dollars per
year to his total city retirement income.
Parks' eligibility for a second pension -- and the amount -- would
depend on how long he serves, his final salary and his age when he
collects it, officials said. Parks did not respond to an interview
request.
City employee groups stress that six-figure retirees like Parks and
Deaton are a small fraction of pensioners. Most collect far less,
typically about $40,000 for civilian retirees and close to $50,000
for former police officers, firefighters and DWP workers. Also,
officials note that career city employees don't normally receive
Social Security payments, which also are adjusted yearly to offset
increases in the cost of living.
"For the most part, the high pensions go to people who are not in
the unions. They are basically senior management folks," said
Barbara Maynard, spokeswoman for a coalition of city unions. "The
vast majority of those we represent are frankly rank-and-file,
hardworking people with modest pensions."
Still, the recession, the erosion of private-sector retirement
benefits, and state and local budget cuts have given critics fresh
ammunition to attack what they contend are overly generous
government pensions.
"We should never, ever design a pension formula that provides more
for a person when they retire than when they are working. It defies
any common sense," said Marcia Fritz, vice president of the
California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a nonprofit pension
reform group headed by former GOP Assemblyman Keith Richman. "But
that's what we're finding" in some school systems and public safety
agencies, Fritz said.
The group has publicized more than 5,000 names of state and local
government pension recipients across the state collecting more than
$100,000. Fritz said high-end public pensioners are worthy of
attention. They include "people who were advising, in closed-door
labor negotiations . . . negotiating benefits," she said. "These are
the ones that made this whole thing happen."
Deaton was a well-regarded executive who served in key city
positions, including chief legislative analyst, over more than 40
years. He said his benefits flow from a bargain he struck in the
1960s, when he walked into the DWP as a young junior administrative
assistant. His pension takes into account his long service, career
advancement and final salary (about $345,000), he noted.
"It was a deal made at the beginning of my career, not the end of my
career," he said. "Because you happen to get up to the top, I don't
think you should be paid any differently."
A looming jump in city pension costs, attributed largely to sharp
declines in pension investment values, has prompted a major review
of retirement plans at City Hall. One recent projection warned that
the share of the city general fund receipts required by two large
pension funds would jump from 15% this year to 33% in 2013-14. That
would amount to an increase of nearly $1 billion, making pension
contributions the fastest-growing area of city spending, said Asst.
City Administrative Officer Tom A. Coultas, an employee relations
specialist.
"It's perfectly clear from our standpoint, design changes need to be
made," he said. "The question is how much of a correction is
necessary" to ensure that pension programs can be sustained.
Recent market gains and accounting changes have eased the financial
blow somewhat. And a plan to cut 2,400 city jobs also could help
control costs. Still, recommendations for pension changes, expected
to be sent to the mayor and City Council in September, will probably
include some combination of reduced benefits and adjusted
contribution rates for many new city employees, Coultas said.
There are legal and practical limitations to the changes that could
be made. Court rulings generally protect benefits provided to
retirees and promised to current employees, officials say. Altering
pension plans involves negotiations with unions and, in some cases,
voter approval.
Ironically, Parks, one of City Hall's more fiscally conservative
voices, has been among those warning about rising pensions.
During the recent budget battle, Parks said that soaring payroll and
pension costs have brought the city to a "breaking point." Without
swift and significant structural changes to city finances, he wrote
on his website, the city could risk insolvency.
Maynard, the union spokeswoman, said labor groups would work with
city leaders to craft a solution. "Clearly, there is a problem."
The larger issue, she argued, is how vulnerable retirement accounts
have become for many Americans, particularly in the private sector.
"We need to lift all workers up to make sure they have a modest,
secure pension. Not take away from those who do."
Collecting nearly $318,000 a year, the former head of the Department
of Water and Power tops a list of 841 city pension recipients paid
six-figure benefits, according to newly obtained records.
By Rich Connell, LA Times, 8/9/09
Collecting nearly $318,000 a year, the former head of Los Angeles'
Department of Water and Power tops a list of 841 city pension
recipients paid six-figure benefits, according to newly obtained
records.
And, like many of the retirees, former DWP General Manager Ronald
Deaton will be paid more beginning this summer -- boosting his
annual retirement pay to more than $327,000 -- because of annual
cost-of-living increases, records and interviews show.
New DWP pension data provide a fuller picture of the city's largest
retirement packages at a time when City Hall is cutting services,
the public is being hit with recession-driven tax increases to cover
government budget shortfalls and rising public pension costs are
under close scrutiny.
The Times previously reported that nearly 600 pensioners received
$100,000 a year from the city's police, fire and general government
retirement plans. The new data from the city's utility add close to
250 names to the list, which includes retirees or, in some cases,
beneficiaries.
Former DWP Assistant General Manager Frank Salas ranks second on the
list, receiving about $290,000 a year.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks, a former Los Angeles police chief and
head of the city's budget committee, is third.
The Times reported in May that Parks, 65, who has publicly warned
about soaring payroll and pension costs, received $265,000 a year in
retirement payments on top of his $178,789 council salary.
With a cost-of-living adjustment that took effect this month, Parks'
pension has grown to $273,000 annually, roughly 10% more than his
final pay as police chief, records show.
In addition, Parks, who is serving a second four-year council term,
is participating in a civilian pension plan as a councilman,
officials confirmed. That could add tens of thousands of dollars per
year to his total city retirement income.
Parks' eligibility for a second pension -- and the amount -- would
depend on how long he serves, his final salary and his age when he
collects it, officials said. Parks did not respond to an interview
request.
City employee groups stress that six-figure retirees like Parks and
Deaton are a small fraction of pensioners. Most collect far less,
typically about $40,000 for civilian retirees and close to $50,000
for former police officers, firefighters and DWP workers. Also,
officials note that career city employees don't normally receive
Social Security payments, which also are adjusted yearly to offset
increases in the cost of living.
"For the most part, the high pensions go to people who are not in
the unions. They are basically senior management folks," said
Barbara Maynard, spokeswoman for a coalition of city unions. "The
vast majority of those we represent are frankly rank-and-file,
hardworking people with modest pensions."
Still, the recession, the erosion of private-sector retirement
benefits, and state and local budget cuts have given critics fresh
ammunition to attack what they contend are overly generous
government pensions.
"We should never, ever design a pension formula that provides more
for a person when they retire than when they are working. It defies
any common sense," said Marcia Fritz, vice president of the
California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a nonprofit pension
reform group headed by former GOP Assemblyman Keith Richman. "But
that's what we're finding" in some school systems and public safety
agencies, Fritz said.
The group has publicized more than 5,000 names of state and local
government pension recipients across the state collecting more than
$100,000. Fritz said high-end public pensioners are worthy of
attention. They include "people who were advising, in closed-door
labor negotiations . . . negotiating benefits," she said. "These are
the ones that made this whole thing happen."
Deaton was a well-regarded executive who served in key city
positions, including chief legislative analyst, over more than 40
years. He said his benefits flow from a bargain he struck in the
1960s, when he walked into the DWP as a young junior administrative
assistant. His pension takes into account his long service, career
advancement and final salary (about $345,000), he noted.
"It was a deal made at the beginning of my career, not the end of my
career," he said. "Because you happen to get up to the top, I don't
think you should be paid any differently."
A looming jump in city pension costs, attributed largely to sharp
declines in pension investment values, has prompted a major review
of retirement plans at City Hall. One recent projection warned that
the share of the city general fund receipts required by two large
pension funds would jump from 15% this year to 33% in 2013-14. That
would amount to an increase of nearly $1 billion, making pension
contributions the fastest-growing area of city spending, said Asst.
City Administrative Officer Tom A. Coultas, an employee relations
specialist.
"It's perfectly clear from our standpoint, design changes need to be
made," he said. "The question is how much of a correction is
necessary" to ensure that pension programs can be sustained.
Recent market gains and accounting changes have eased the financial
blow somewhat. And a plan to cut 2,400 city jobs also could help
control costs. Still, recommendations for pension changes, expected
to be sent to the mayor and City Council in September, will probably
include some combination of reduced benefits and adjusted
contribution rates for many new city employees, Coultas said.
There are legal and practical limitations to the changes that could
be made. Court rulings generally protect benefits provided to
retirees and promised to current employees, officials say. Altering
pension plans involves negotiations with unions and, in some cases,
voter approval.
Ironically, Parks, one of City Hall's more fiscally conservative
voices, has been among those warning about rising pensions.
During the recent budget battle, Parks said that soaring payroll and
pension costs have brought the city to a "breaking point." Without
swift and significant structural changes to city finances, he wrote
on his website, the city could risk insolvency.
Maynard, the union spokeswoman, said labor groups would work with
city leaders to craft a solution. "Clearly, there is a problem."
The larger issue, she argued, is how vulnerable retirement accounts
have become for many Americans, particularly in the private sector.
"We need to lift all workers up to make sure they have a modest,
secure pension. Not take away from those who do."
-
0
April 24, 2010
CA Political News
The folks in
"In
Time to stop government from harming citizens--and this is a small start.
The devices are used more as revenue generators than for traffic safety, mayor says. Attempt to ban all future use by a city may be a first, a cities lobbyist says.
By Alexandra Zavis, LA Times, 4/23/10
A lot of people don't like red-light cameras. But perhaps nowhere in
Not only does the City Council not want to install any of the cameras, but it is preparing a ballot measure that would permanently ban them.
Mayor Curt Pringle, who is driving the effort during his last year in office, said he does not want future city governments tempted to collect revenue "on the back of public safety."
"There is always pressure on local government to raise revenue, and I think this is one of those options that should be taken off the table completely," he said.
The City Council voted unanimously last week in support of Pringle's proposal to amend the City Charter to prohibit the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. Members now plan to adopt a resolution to put the amendment on the ballot for the November general election, which Pringle said would be the least expensive way to put the matter before voters.
A number of
Red-light violations accounted for nearly 40% of the 2,397 accidents at
Dozens of
Eight of the city's intersections are now covered.
"The main goal of the program was to reduce accidents," Candelaria said. "It's delivered on that, and I think we're all happy with it."
Pringle contends that that argument is "somewhat of a ruse."
"I believe there is enough evidence now that demonstrates that red-light cameras do not necessarily cause safer intersections," he said at last week's council meeting. "I believe many red-light cameras that are placed around the county and around the state are done for the purpose of local governments' revenue collection as opposed to traffic safety."
In
However, the police study also found that the number of broadside collisions often the most devastating accidents dropped 30%, and the number of crashes resulting in injury decreased 15%.
The private company that operated the system during the study has gone into receivership, and the city is considering whether to continue using the cameras, Scott said. Only two intersections are currently covered.
Earlier this year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed using red-light cameras to enforce speed limits in a bid to generate additional revenue to help close the state budget gap. But some city officials are beginning to question the cost-effectiveness of the system for their municipalities.
Cities pay private contractors to install and operate the systems. The revenue collected from traffic violations is then shared between the state, county and local governments.
Although the number of citations issued at intersections generally increases when cameras are installed, motorists don't always pay the fees, which can top $500. Some citations are dismissed by courts, and a growing number of motorists opt for community service.
The
Hank
1
- I too am opposed to the red light cameras due to the increased number of rear end collisions and the intent in most cases to just increase the city's revenue. There needs to be a good regulation that determines the minimum length of time for the yellow light at any intersection. The minimum time should be based on the speed limit at that intersection and time needed for a reasonable amount of braking required to stop before entering the intersection when the yellow light comes on. As an additional aid to the driver there should be a yellow line across the traffic lanes to help drivers determine if they should be able to stop in time by placing that line the proper distance back from the intersection so the driver will know if they have not crossed that line when the yellow light comes on, then they must stop before entering the intersection rather than continuing on through it. If they are driving at the speed limit and have already passed the yellow line across the traffic lanes when the yellow light comes on, then they will know they would have to use excessive braking to stop in time and should continue on through the intersection. This would be a tremendous help to drivers in making the correct decision on whether to stop or not and should definitely help in reducing the number of accidents at the intersection and is a very inexpensive way to improve safety and could be done at all intersections with traffic lights, not just the ones with cameras.
February 15, 2010
CA Political News
She has stopped the farce and stated that
That is bad news for the
So, businesses and jobs are leaving
The good news is that if you want to visit family in the future you will get to see one of the other States in the
Investors Business Daily, 2/12/10
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has issued an executive order saying her state will suspend its participation in the emission-control plan or any program...
Cap-And-Trade: The
Not since King Canute have government officials engaged in an exercise as futile as in 2007, when seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces got together to form something called the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012.
Leading the charge for the pact was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who insisted, "We cannot wait for the
Since then, the nation has slid into a recession, and the only thing man-made about climate change has been the manipulated and manufactured claims that we are doomed if we don't act to fight it.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, seeing which way the snow is blowing, has issued an executive order saying her state will suspend its participation in the emission-control plan or any program that could raise costs for businesses and consumers.
All 50 states agreed to the cap-and-trade pact, but left implementation up to each state. Only
Brewer also ordered
Rumblings of discontent are also being heard in
"The state's greenhouse reduction program is not a freebie," Gino DiCaro, a spokesman for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, said last month. "Large costs foisted on an unemployment-riddled state economy and increased electricity rates ... are not affordable at this time, if ever."
A 2009 study by economists at
Even the most optimistic assessments of global pacts such as
Not long ago, the New York Times reported that a new coal-fired power plant big enough to serve San Diego comes on line in China every seven to 10 days, exporting more pollution to California and the West than such draconian proposals would ever hope to curb. The pact also envisions strict emission limits on American cars at a time
One of the supporters of the initiative to suspend AB32 is Ted Costa of the People's Advocate, a Sacramento-based anti-tax group. "Look at what happened in
As much of the nation lies under a blanket of snow, neither do we. But the political climate is about to change.
mike graves
1
- My dad would have left the state already, but is recovering from severe burns. Mom is ready to move to Portland. My brother Jerry already moved his family to Austin, TX. My brother Chris works in Texas, and wants to buy a house in Nevada. Chuck is moving his business to Georgia, and bought out my other brother, Tom, who is now retired and thinking of going to Wyoming. Two years ago we were all gainfully employed in our state of California. Next year I will likely be the only one. Good going Governator; how's that 'settled science' looking now, Moron.
May 29, 2010
CA Political News
Local, school and the State deficits are growing. Budgets need to be cut, now, sooner rather than later.
"San Diego Unified is now projecting a higher deficit than it did in February, when it hashed out its initial plan to close an estimated $87 million deficit for next school year.
It has to find more than $26 million more to balance its books before the end of June, when its budget is due. And on top of that, the school district could face $31.8 million more in state cuts."
The State is cutting because it does not have the revenues, and the garbage flows down hill.
We need to get to the heart of the problem--how special interests and unions take their cut before the people get services. And AB 32 kills jobs and revenues.
Until we fix the systemic problem revenues will continue to decline--and our children will received even worse government education.
Your choice--your future.
Bigger Deficit, Possible New Cuts Threaten School Budget
voiceofsandiego.org, 5/28/10
San Diego Unified is now projecting a higher deficit than it did in February, when it hashed out its initial plan to close an estimated $87 million deficit for next school year.
It has to find more than $26 million more to balance its books before the end of June, when its budget is due. And on top of that, the school district could face $31.8 million more in state cuts.
Why the changes? Let's start with the new $26 million deficit. Some of the schools' planned savings didn't pan out -- and the district hasn't gotten all the funding it planned for. For instance, the school district is saving $2.2 million less than expected from its hiring and spending freeze. It's spending more than originally planned on special education and getting less money to cover it, leaving it $10 million short. It's also getting $8 million less to reduce class sizes than it expected.
On top of that, new changes to the California state budget could cost San Diego Unified an additional $31.8 million next school year. That could force even more cuts.
Or it might not.
Let me explain. Some of the changes were announced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his May revisions to the state budget plan, which schools must plan for.
Others are only being talked about by legislators and finance officials, but could cost the school district if California ultimately makes them, budget staffers said. The San Diego County Office of Education and financial advisers are telling schools to keep an eye on the possible cuts.
"We simply are caught in a very uncertain environment," Interim Superintendent Bill Kowba said.
The possible changes include California eliminating $9 million in special funding that supports more than two dozen preschool centers in San Diego Unified, which would either need to close or be paid for with other school district funds. The state could also cut $18 million in funding for students with costly disabilities, some of which has already been sent to and spent by San Diego Unified.
The school board will start weighing cuts to close the possible gap next week. Some ideas include cutting vacant jobs and using federal funding for disadvantaged students to pay for counselors.
voiceofsandiego.org, 5/28/10
San Diego Unified is now projecting a higher deficit than it did in February, when it hashed out its initial plan to close an estimated $87 million deficit for next school year.
It has to find more than $26 million more to balance its books before the end of June, when its budget is due. And on top of that, the school district could face $31.8 million more in state cuts.
Why the changes? Let's start with the new $26 million deficit. Some of the schools' planned savings didn't pan out -- and the district hasn't gotten all the funding it planned for. For instance, the school district is saving $2.2 million less than expected from its hiring and spending freeze. It's spending more than originally planned on special education and getting less money to cover it, leaving it $10 million short. It's also getting $8 million less to reduce class sizes than it expected.
On top of that, new changes to the California state budget could cost San Diego Unified an additional $31.8 million next school year. That could force even more cuts.
Or it might not.
Let me explain. Some of the changes were announced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his May revisions to the state budget plan, which schools must plan for.
Others are only being talked about by legislators and finance officials, but could cost the school district if California ultimately makes them, budget staffers said. The San Diego County Office of Education and financial advisers are telling schools to keep an eye on the possible cuts.
"We simply are caught in a very uncertain environment," Interim Superintendent Bill Kowba said.
The possible changes include California eliminating $9 million in special funding that supports more than two dozen preschool centers in San Diego Unified, which would either need to close or be paid for with other school district funds. The state could also cut $18 million in funding for students with costly disabilities, some of which has already been sent to and spent by San Diego Unified.
The school board will start weighing cuts to close the possible gap next week. Some ideas include cutting vacant jobs and using federal funding for disadvantaged students to pay for counselors.
-
0
June 13, 2010
CA Political News
"Should employers be banned from using information found in consumer credit reports to help make employment decisions? Was the key question in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations on Wednesday.
In what is described as Expanded Employer Liability, the bill potentially increases the liability exposure of employers, by restricting the ability of employers to use consumer credit reports as part of job applicants background check process.
Existing law allows employers to use credit reports for the pre-employment process."
Thefts come from people under stress due to finances. Democrats prefer you not know. This is why responsible folks are leaving
Shame on us for allowing this.
By KATY GRIMES,
Should employers be banned from using information found in consumer credit reports to help make employment decisions? was the key question in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations on Wednesday.
In what is described as Expanded Employer Liability, the bill potentially increases the liability exposure of employers, by restricting the ability of employers to use consumer credit reports as part of job applicants background check process.
Existing law allows employers to use credit reports for the pre-employment process.
AB482 author, Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, told the committee that employers discriminate against English learners and low-income applicants when using credit information during the hiring process.
When I first initiated the bill, the unemployment rate was 11.5 percent. Now, its 12.5 percent,
The California Chamber of Commerce appeared in opposition to the bill. Its representative explained that job applicants FICO scores do not appear anywhere on the credit report obtained by the employer, and stressed that employers need the information for many job positions, and not just those involved with money.
Michael Belote, representing the California Employment Law Council (CELC), appeared in opposition to
The California Joint Powers Authority requested a blanket exemption, explaining that their employees are public employees and have access to cash, checks and money.
The Apartment Associations of Orange County and Southern California Cities appeared in opposition and explained that their employees are not just in management positions, and handle cash, checks and have access to credit information. The associations were concerned that the bill would prevent them from obtaining credit reports on people who process money, as well as the private and highly confidential information of renters.
The California Independent Grocers Association and Association of Licensed Investigators also appeared in opposition to the bill.
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, the committee chairman, indicated said the bill still needed work even though he was inclined to support it.
According to the written staff analysis, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers who use credit checks may be violating Title Vll by discriminating against race and national origin discrimination when using credit reports in hiring decisions.
There have been two federal bills introduced preventing employers from using credit checks for the purposes of making adverse employment decisions. HR3149 is currently pending in the House Committee on Financial Services, and SA3795 has pending amendments. Both bills would prohibit employers from using credit report information against prospective employees.
Currently in
At press time the committee had not established a quorum and had not voted on the bill.
-
0
March 08, 2010
CA Political News
The Mercury News is wrong--the deficit is NOT $20 billion--that is just the General Fund deficit--it does not include unpaid lost lawsuits, unsold assets, over $7 billion owed the Unemployment fund--the real deficit is over $36 billion.
"A quick, unscientific look around the
Now consider that
At every level,
Billions in red ink drowning California's cities, schools and counties, too
By Denis C. Theriault, San Jose Mercury News, 3/7/10
SACRAMENTO With even well-managed counties, cities and schools finding themselves in the same budget hole that has swallowed state government, California now confronts a financial crisis that may be unrivaled though it is also maddeningly difficult to quantify.
In fact, the problem is so expansive that several experts contacted by the Mercury News wouldn't even hazard a guess. So just how broke is
A quick, unscientific look around the
Now consider that
"2010-11 will be the worst year we've seen," warns Terry Anderson of the education policy advocate School Services of California. "That
Advertisement
part is clear."
So why, exactly, have budgets gone so sour in so many places?
The simple answer is that local governments have been just as susceptible as state government to the ravages of the recession.
Record, prolonged unemployment has sapped a key revenue stream for
As so many are finding out, fixing this mess is getting ugly. Cities are closing parks, cutting library hours, laying off workers, and even eyeing once-untouchable positions such as police officers and firefighters.
# To close a $179 million deficit,
#
# Even officials in tiny Dorris had to cut back on some staffing and salaries last year to make their budget pencil out. Staffing is so low, the city administrator answers the main line at City Hall.
Meanwhile, the state's ongoing woes have only made things worse for everyone else.
"For any city in this state, there's no fiscal problem that's too big for
Last year, legislators took $2 billion from cities' redevelopment agencies, depriving them of economic development funds at a time when they could have been most handy. The state over the years has repeatedly dipped into local coffers to balance its budget.
"That has a domino effect, because it's been estimated that $2 billion in redevelopment revenue translates to 190,000 jobs, all of them held by people who pay state taxes," said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities. "Whenever the state gets into that kind of activity, they compound the local fiscal crises and they hurt themselves."
The rub is even worse for counties and school districts, which in addition to relying directly on taxes, also need state help to pay for teachers and textbooks and staff county clinics and jails.
As the strapped state has kept more money in its bank account to pay for other priorities like prisons and universities, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers have reduced that traditional outflow of cash. And what's more, billions in federal stimulus money that helped soften the impact of state funding cuts will begin to dry up by the end of 2010.
Schools have responded by firing teachers and cramming more kids into crumbling classrooms. Counties have either burned through reserve funds to pick up the slack or scaled back services like mental health and drug-abuse counseling. Adding more pain, experts say, demand for those vanishing services tends to spike during periods of economic distress.
"If there's any budget manager that's worth their salt, they've squirreled away some money," said Frank Kim,
To be sure, this isn't the first time that local governments have struggled to pay their bills. And some cities and counties, contending with skyrocketing pension costs or poor money management decisions, would likely face deficits even if the economy were chugging along.
And while there is some hope that recovery is coming, most experts expect it will be moderate and only stop the bleeding. Lost services and jobs may not return for years.
"We cannot survive without raising taxes," Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone said. "We're just going to sit and wallow in deficits until somebody steps up."
-
0
May 17, 2010
CA Political News
Still it is a lot of money to real people. No one is asking the right questions--do we need all these parks? Can they be leased to private operators and save us money? Can some of them be sold to pay for the upkeep of the others?
Questions should be asked--instead we are proud of doing the same as we have done in the past--been silent.
Now you know why
Budget proposal gives state parks hope
Peter Fimrite, SF Chronicle, 5/16/10
The dark days brightened a bit for the state park system after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed Friday to give back the money he took last year from California's 278 parks.
The governor's 2010-11 budget includes $140 million for the California State Park system, restoring funding to what it was in 2008-09.
"That is certainly better than last year," said Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the nonprofit California State Parks Foundation. "The question now is - given the deficit - what the Legislature does with this."
The governor's proposal for the fiscal year beginning July 1 slashes a variety of cherished programs, including aid to the mentally ill. The Legislature, faced with these painful cuts, could decide during deliberations that the money slated for the parks would be better spent elsewhere, Goldstein said.
Budget cuts last year forced 60 of California's 278 parks to at least partially close down. Ninety others cut services or closed facilities, including parking lots, campgrounds and picnic areas this past year. That was on top of the $1.3 billion in already backlogged maintenance projects.
The catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico prompted the governor recently to jettison plans to pay for the parks using $100 million a year in royalties from new oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast.
Another option for parks funding is a measure that supporters hope to qualify for the November ballot that would ask voters to approve an $18 vehicle registration fee that would fund the park system and make park visitation free.
"We certainly hope that what happened in 2009 and 2010 will prove to be the bottom of the roller coaster ride," Goldstein said. "And ultimately we hope the citizens will vote for the initiative in the fall to provide a stable funding source for the state parks."
Peter Fimrite, SF Chronicle, 5/16/10
The dark days brightened a bit for the state park system after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed Friday to give back the money he took last year from California's 278 parks.
The governor's 2010-11 budget includes $140 million for the California State Park system, restoring funding to what it was in 2008-09.
"That is certainly better than last year," said Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the nonprofit California State Parks Foundation. "The question now is - given the deficit - what the Legislature does with this."
The governor's proposal for the fiscal year beginning July 1 slashes a variety of cherished programs, including aid to the mentally ill. The Legislature, faced with these painful cuts, could decide during deliberations that the money slated for the parks would be better spent elsewhere, Goldstein said.
Budget cuts last year forced 60 of California's 278 parks to at least partially close down. Ninety others cut services or closed facilities, including parking lots, campgrounds and picnic areas this past year. That was on top of the $1.3 billion in already backlogged maintenance projects.
The catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico prompted the governor recently to jettison plans to pay for the parks using $100 million a year in royalties from new oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast.
Another option for parks funding is a measure that supporters hope to qualify for the November ballot that would ask voters to approve an $18 vehicle registration fee that would fund the park system and make park visitation free.
"We certainly hope that what happened in 2009 and 2010 will prove to be the bottom of the roller coaster ride," Goldstein said. "And ultimately we hope the citizens will vote for the initiative in the fall to provide a stable funding source for the state parks."
-
0
September 23, 2009
CA Political News
Businesses pay a large sum for crazy regulations! Wrong, they pay NOTHING.
The families of California, as consumers, pay for the regulations--which is another reason why the State will not recover from the recession until adults take charge of Sacramento.
The families of California, as consumers, pay for the regulations--which is another reason why the State will not recover from the recession until adults take charge of Sacramento.
CA small businesses spent $134k each on regulatory costs in 2007
Posted by Gino DiCaro, CMTA, 9/22/09
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released a study today on the cost of state regulations on California small businesses. The research, conducted by Sanjay Varshney, concluded that on average, each small business spent $134 thousand on regulations in 2007. The report also concluded that the total cost of regulation to the state is $493 billion and 3.8 million jobs.
Over the past few years of California's manufacturing and economic decline, the state's regulatory environment has been pinpointed as a primary reason for the high costs and unpredictability that makes the state an uncompetitive place to do business - small or large. One producer of construction aggregates in the state, Vulcan Materials, testified in an Assembly Jobs Committee hearing in June that it "is not uncommon for the permitting process to involve millions of dollars and in some cases to take as long as 10 years to secure the necessary permits, many of which address duplicative regulatory aspects."
California's premise must be economic growth. This report reveals one of the major impediments to protecting and growing the economy.
Posted by Gino DiCaro, CMTA, 9/22/09
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released a study today on the cost of state regulations on California small businesses. The research, conducted by Sanjay Varshney, concluded that on average, each small business spent $134 thousand on regulations in 2007. The report also concluded that the total cost of regulation to the state is $493 billion and 3.8 million jobs.
Over the past few years of California's manufacturing and economic decline, the state's regulatory environment has been pinpointed as a primary reason for the high costs and unpredictability that makes the state an uncompetitive place to do business - small or large. One producer of construction aggregates in the state, Vulcan Materials, testified in an Assembly Jobs Committee hearing in June that it "is not uncommon for the permitting process to involve millions of dollars and in some cases to take as long as 10 years to secure the necessary permits, many of which address duplicative regulatory aspects."
California's premise must be economic growth. This report reveals one of the major impediments to protecting and growing the economy.
unlawflcombatnt
1
- Have you read the report? Do you have any idea how they came up with that number? As best I can tell, they used a formula they concocted, inserted numbers they pulled out of thin air, and then inserted California's ranking on business-friendliness, and calculated a number. The variables used to calculate this number were pulled out of thin air. If you can explain how they came up with this number, I'd love to hear it. http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/
December 26, 2009
CA Political News
Finally, the Governor has come up with a great idea. Blackmail the Feds into giving us $8 billion to continue the fraud of
"So Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has an idea: He wants President Obama to give him $8 billion or else, he says, he'll kill or slash most of the state's welfare programs, cut pay for 200,000 state workers and end two tax breaks for big corporations.
How far the
the alternative offered by
I say,go for it--lets show those Feds who is in charge--balance the budget to spite them!
What do you think? Could this be the reason
California Begging
Investors Business Daily, 12/24/09
States: The once-great state of California has been reduced to begging from the federal government. But no matter how much help the feds give, the state's fiscal ills won't end until its lawmakers stop spending money.
To say California is a mess is an understatement. In the current fiscal year, the state is expected to post a deficit of $21 billion as the budget continues to spiral out of control. Even after last year's epic budget battle, when Californians were hit with $12.5 billion in new taxes and $6 billion more in borrowing, the state still isn't close to bringing revenues and expenditures into balance.
So Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has an idea: He wants President Obama to give him $8 billion
Investors Business Daily, 12/24/09
States: The once-great state of California has been reduced to begging from the federal government. But no matter how much help the feds give, the state's fiscal ills won't end until its lawmakers stop spending money.
To say California is a mess is an understatement. In the current fiscal year, the state is expected to post a deficit of $21 billion as the budget continues to spiral out of control. Even after last year's epic budget battle, when Californians were hit with $12.5 billion in new taxes and $6 billion more in borrowing, the state still isn't close to bringing revenues and expenditures into balance.
So Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has an idea: He wants President Obama to give him $8 billion
Allen G. Wood, ""Arnold Schwarzenegger lyrics", the California Redneckrr
3
- The answer is easy... They are the government employee union members.EL
- I love your movies- I love you too- You are the best man that I have ever liked- You are my rich man- You are my big millionaire-
- Keep our tax dollars in California. Declare us a sovereign"10th Amendment" state. Then tell the feds to go fish.
December 08, 2009
CA Political News
The Governor spent $150,000 of your tax dollars to create an "application" based on fraud, deceit and corruption.
His "model" is based on one sided data and "scientists" who shredded the evidence. California has lost billions in revenues and hundreds of thousands of jobs thanks to this corruption.
Thanks to AB 32, based on fraud and corruption, California has no chance of getting out of the government caused California Great Depression.
We are in trouble and Arnold is spending money to "prove" why this is a good idea. Wonder if he will continue to live in California after he leaves office? Probably--he is rich enough. After his term only the really rich will be able to afford in this State.
His "model" is based on one sided data and "scientists" who shredded the evidence. California has lost billions in revenues and hundreds of thousands of jobs thanks to this corruption.
Thanks to AB 32, based on fraud and corruption, California has no chance of getting out of the government caused California Great Depression.
We are in trouble and Arnold is spending money to "prove" why this is a good idea. Wonder if he will continue to live in California after he leaves office? Probably--he is rich enough. After his term only the really rich will be able to afford in this State.
California Should Copy
Investors Business Daily, 12/07/09
Last Wednesday, Gov. Schwarzenegger released a new report based on research compiled by the California Energy Commission claiming that by 2100
His show-and-tell, which included a new Google Earth application the commission spent $150,000 to help develop, goes a long way toward explaining the once-Golden State's slide into an economic and budgetary abyss.
The governor and legislative Democrats in 2006 approved a new law requiring
State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, is among those who have questioned the science behind such economic decisions, as others have done at the national level, particularly in the wake of the Climate-gate scandal involving
"Combined with the $21 billion deficit we're facing in the coming year, this shows we ought to be focusing our attention on more mundane things like living within our means," DeVore says. "To use this all-encompassing rubric of climate change as a power grab to usurp property rights is something we shouldn't be doing."
While the state focuses on windmills, solar panels and electric cars, vast offshore oil resources go undeveloped and nuclear power is ignored. An energy-starved
Large areas of the state are being turned back into desert due to a man-made drought to save obscure species of fish such as the delta smelt in the
More than 450,000 acres have been allowed to go barren as farmers in an area that once fed the world line up at food pantries. Unemployment, at 17% across the Valley, reaches upward of 40% in towns such as Mendota (2006 population: 9,752).
It's no surprise, then, that Californians have been voting with their feet, leaving the state in droves. Between 2005 and 2007, some 2.14 million fled to other states, while only 1.44 million moved in from other states. The state motto seems to be "Go East, Young Man."
Texans are more fortunate. Gov. Rick Perry doesn't offer human sacrifices to the earth goddess Gaia. He focuses on jobs and economic growth.
An article in the October edition of Trends magazine, titled "
Once the oil capital of North America,
The
Maybe the jobs summit should have been held at the governor's mansion in
swabbie
1
- Just a very good case comparing good old common sense to "liberalism/your-government-knows-better-and-will-take-care-of-you." I wish I could afford to leave kal-e-phorn-e-ya now, but will as soon as I'm financially able. We are also being transformed into mexico of the north, with our governments catering to the illegal immigrants, and American citizens be damned. Really a very sad state of affairs. God help us.
April 13, 2009
CA Political News
How bad is the Santa Barbara County government pension plan? "But the county's pension predicament was plainly presented. Its annual pension contribution, already 10 percent of general fund
spending, could double or more in the next few years."
That means 20% of the budget will be to pay off its pension obligations--20%. Government is collapsing over the cost of pensions and benefits. This does not include the implosion when unfunded pension liabilities have to be paid--for the Sate that is almost $200 billion.
Government is in trouble--you don't give an alcoholic a bottle of wine, and you should not give government bonds or tax increases.
Vote NO on May 19 and tell the politicians they need to go into rehab.
spending, could double or more in the next few years."
That means 20% of the budget will be to pay off its pension obligations--20%. Government is collapsing over the cost of pensions and benefits. This does not include the implosion when unfunded pension liabilities have to be paid--for the Sate that is almost $200 billion.
Government is in trouble--you don't give an alcoholic a bottle of wine, and you should not give government bonds or tax increases.
Vote NO on May 19 and tell the politicians they need to go into rehab.
Pension problems: Does the public need to know?
By Ed Mendel, Cal Pensions, 4/12/09
Anyone with Internet access can watch an unusual meeting of
officials in Santa Barbara County, where rising public employee
pension costs have already forced a 5 percent budget cut.
Now the stock market crash could force much deeper budget cuts, if
the county has to make a big increase in pension contributions to
meet its projected retirement obligations in the future.
The Santa Barbara County supervisors held a rare joint meeting last
week with the board of the county employees retirement system. Each
side brought their own actuaries, the crucial forecasters of future
pension needs.
There were minor theatrical moments. A well-spoken fiduciary
counsel, perhaps droning on a little too officiously, seemed to get
on the nerves of Supervisor Salud Carbajal at one point.
But the county's pension predicament was plainly presented. Its
annual pension contribution, already 10 percent of general fund
spending, could double or more in the next few years.
An assistant county executive, Jason Stilwell, told the meeting that
the pension contribution in the current fiscal year that began last
July is an 18 percent increase from the previous year.
As a result, said Stilwell, the current county budget cut spending 5
percent or nearly $14 million, an across-the-board reduction for all
departments and the elimination of 83 full-time jobs.
"Nearly all of the reductions in services in this year's budget are
related to the increased cost of pensions," Stilwell said.
The budget for the new fiscal year beginning in July contains a 10
percent cut, mainly due to tax revenue lost in the recession. The
impact of the stock market crash will not hit until next year, when
pension contributions could nearly double.
"It's almost double the cuts we had to take for the last two years,
and we would have all of those in the one year," Stillwell said of
the spending shift from public services to pensions projected for
July 2010.
The chairwoman of the retirement board, Shawn Terris, told the
supervisors the projection was probably a "worst-case scenario." She
said the board may be able to "adjust" the rate while observing its
constitutional duty to protect benefit payments.
The joint meeting of the two boards was televised on two cable
systems, Comcast and Cox, the usual airing for Santa Barbara
supervisors. But it's the Internet webcast that allows continuing
access to the meeting on April 7.
The meetings of the Santa Barbara supervisors are archived. Anyone
with Internet access, and some time on their hands, can view the
video of the meeting. It's a primer on the problem facing many
California public employee retirement systems.
The dueling actuaries explain their complicated forecasting methods.
The supervisors are told that 70 percent of future pension payments
are expected to be paid by investment earnings, not employer and
employee contributions.
The joint meeting, billed as an educational session, is a good look
at what some say is a slow-motion crisis, now accelerated by the
stock market crash: Overly generous public employee retirement
benefits are straining government budgets.
An obvious omission in the discussion of the pension problems
surfaces in the public comment session. Why did the supervisors
approve pension benefits that are eating up the county budget?
A man who sounds like a regular at the supervisors meetings, Andy
Caldwell of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business,
calculates that a $100 million increase in retirement benefits was
approved over a four-year period.
It's all there on the Internet. But so is that old question: If a
tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does
it make a sound?
The joint board meeting, lasting about four hours, is sandwiched in
the middle of a marathon supervisors meeting of more than nine
hours. Internet viewers can click on a slide button and move quickly
about in the meeting, using a time readout as a marker.
But would viewers know what they are looking for and where to find
it? The joint board meeting starts at about 2 hours and 7 minutes
into the meeting. Stilwell begins his presentation at about 5 hours
and 33 minutes.
The Santa Barbara County cable TV manager, Sylvio Motta, said the
county began streaming its television coverage of supervisors
meetings over the Internet two years ago, hiring one of several
firms that provide the service.
He said webcast viewership "fluctuates." Some of the viewers are
county employees and others with business before the board, waiting
to see when their item comes up.
"It's not just Santa Barbara County," Motta said. "There are many
government agencies doing that. It's definitely a service to the
public, especially the people who can't attend the meeting or don't
have cable (TV)."
Not among the webcasting government agencies are the two statewide
public employee pension systems headquartered in Sacramento, the
California Public Employees Retirement system and the California
State Teachers Retirement System.
CalSTRS spends about $4,900 to make video recordings of its
multi-day board meetings, which are available to the public on DVD
discs. There have only been two requests for the recordings since
2006.
Later this year CalSTRS plans to move into a new building (see
Calpensions 5 Jan 09: "CalSTRS moving on up") that will webcast
video of board meetings to desktop computers inside the sleek tower
alongside the Sacramento River.
The CalSTRS board voted 8-to-3 in February to reject video webcasts
to the public and other options, choosing instead to stream only the
audio of board meetings to the public via the Internet.
Some CalSTRS board members seemed concerned that live video might
inhibit board discussions.
CalPERS has an in-house staff that produces educational videos
streamed to members on the Internet. A spokeswoman, Pat Macht, said
CalPERS is concerned about the cost of a video webcast of board
meetings and is analyzing an audiocast.
When it comes to putting oneself forward to the public, CalSTRS is
clearly the branding leader. In recent weeks a "CalSTRS" sign was
placed atop the new building, visible from southbound I-5.
The main entrance to the massive four-block CalPERS complex, two of
the most expensive buildings ever erected in Sacramento, only says
"Lincoln Plaza," as if no introduction is needed.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly
three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
By Ed Mendel, Cal Pensions, 4/12/09
Anyone with Internet access can watch an unusual meeting of
officials in Santa Barbara County, where rising public employee
pension costs have already forced a 5 percent budget cut.
Now the stock market crash could force much deeper budget cuts, if
the county has to make a big increase in pension contributions to
meet its projected retirement obligations in the future.
The Santa Barbara County supervisors held a rare joint meeting last
week with the board of the county employees retirement system. Each
side brought their own actuaries, the crucial forecasters of future
pension needs.
There were minor theatrical moments. A well-spoken fiduciary
counsel, perhaps droning on a little too officiously, seemed to get
on the nerves of Supervisor Salud Carbajal at one point.
But the county's pension predicament was plainly presented. Its
annual pension contribution, already 10 percent of general fund
spending, could double or more in the next few years.
An assistant county executive, Jason Stilwell, told the meeting that
the pension contribution in the current fiscal year that began last
July is an 18 percent increase from the previous year.
As a result, said Stilwell, the current county budget cut spending 5
percent or nearly $14 million, an across-the-board reduction for all
departments and the elimination of 83 full-time jobs.
"Nearly all of the reductions in services in this year's budget are
related to the increased cost of pensions," Stilwell said.
The budget for the new fiscal year beginning in July contains a 10
percent cut, mainly due to tax revenue lost in the recession. The
impact of the stock market crash will not hit until next year, when
pension contributions could nearly double.
"It's almost double the cuts we had to take for the last two years,
and we would have all of those in the one year," Stillwell said of
the spending shift from public services to pensions projected for
July 2010.
The chairwoman of the retirement board, Shawn Terris, told the
supervisors the projection was probably a "worst-case scenario." She
said the board may be able to "adjust" the rate while observing its
constitutional duty to protect benefit payments.
The joint meeting of the two boards was televised on two cable
systems, Comcast and Cox, the usual airing for Santa Barbara
supervisors. But it's the Internet webcast that allows continuing
access to the meeting on April 7.
The meetings of the Santa Barbara supervisors are archived. Anyone
with Internet access, and some time on their hands, can view the
video of the meeting. It's a primer on the problem facing many
California public employee retirement systems.
The dueling actuaries explain their complicated forecasting methods.
The supervisors are told that 70 percent of future pension payments
are expected to be paid by investment earnings, not employer and
employee contributions.
The joint meeting, billed as an educational session, is a good look
at what some say is a slow-motion crisis, now accelerated by the
stock market crash: Overly generous public employee retirement
benefits are straining government budgets.
An obvious omission in the discussion of the pension problems
surfaces in the public comment session. Why did the supervisors
approve pension benefits that are eating up the county budget?
A man who sounds like a regular at the supervisors meetings, Andy
Caldwell of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business,
calculates that a $100 million increase in retirement benefits was
approved over a four-year period.
It's all there on the Internet. But so is that old question: If a
tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does
it make a sound?
The joint board meeting, lasting about four hours, is sandwiched in
the middle of a marathon supervisors meeting of more than nine
hours. Internet viewers can click on a slide button and move quickly
about in the meeting, using a time readout as a marker.
But would viewers know what they are looking for and where to find
it? The joint board meeting starts at about 2 hours and 7 minutes
into the meeting. Stilwell begins his presentation at about 5 hours
and 33 minutes.
The Santa Barbara County cable TV manager, Sylvio Motta, said the
county began streaming its television coverage of supervisors
meetings over the Internet two years ago, hiring one of several
firms that provide the service.
He said webcast viewership "fluctuates." Some of the viewers are
county employees and others with business before the board, waiting
to see when their item comes up.
"It's not just Santa Barbara County," Motta said. "There are many
government agencies doing that. It's definitely a service to the
public, especially the people who can't attend the meeting or don't
have cable (TV)."
Not among the webcasting government agencies are the two statewide
public employee pension systems headquartered in Sacramento, the
California Public Employees Retirement system and the California
State Teachers Retirement System.
CalSTRS spends about $4,900 to make video recordings of its
multi-day board meetings, which are available to the public on DVD
discs. There have only been two requests for the recordings since
2006.
Later this year CalSTRS plans to move into a new building (see
Calpensions 5 Jan 09: "CalSTRS moving on up") that will webcast
video of board meetings to desktop computers inside the sleek tower
alongside the Sacramento River.
The CalSTRS board voted 8-to-3 in February to reject video webcasts
to the public and other options, choosing instead to stream only the
audio of board meetings to the public via the Internet.
Some CalSTRS board members seemed concerned that live video might
inhibit board discussions.
CalPERS has an in-house staff that produces educational videos
streamed to members on the Internet. A spokeswoman, Pat Macht, said
CalPERS is concerned about the cost of a video webcast of board
meetings and is analyzing an audiocast.
When it comes to putting oneself forward to the public, CalSTRS is
clearly the branding leader. In recent weeks a "CalSTRS" sign was
placed atop the new building, visible from southbound I-5.
The main entrance to the massive four-block CalPERS complex, two of
the most expensive buildings ever erected in Sacramento, only says
"Lincoln Plaza," as if no introduction is needed.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly
three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
-
0
November 20, 2009
CA Political News
This says it all: "According to a study earlier this year by the Reason Foundation, if the state had kept spending growth to 4.4%, instead of 5.9%, the state would today have a $15 billion surplus. Instead, in just the past three years, it has rung up deficits of $81 billion. This is the kind of fiscal profligacy one sees in Third World nations on the verge of collapse, not in the world's seventh-largest economy."
It is the spending, stupid. Period.
And we have done it to ourselves. Between voting for bonds we can not afford, allowing unions and other radical special interests to control and the Leftists we put into office, this is not a murder by Sacramento, it is a suicide by the voters.
We are to blame for this corruption and incompetence. We are to blame for the bad schools by electing union candidates to the Boards. We are to blame for the illegal aliens ruining our society--if a Sheriff can not arrest them get a new Sheriff. if a city council wants to give benefits and support to illegal aliens, get a new city council.
We are to blame for the mess and next November we can begin to clean it up.
It is the spending, stupid. Period.
And we have done it to ourselves. Between voting for bonds we can not afford, allowing unions and other radical special interests to control and the Leftists we put into office, this is not a murder by Sacramento, it is a suicide by the voters.
We are to blame for this corruption and incompetence. We are to blame for the bad schools by electing union candidates to the Boards. We are to blame for the illegal aliens ruining our society--if a Sheriff can not arrest them get a new Sheriff. if a city council wants to give benefits and support to illegal aliens, get a new city council.
We are to blame for the mess and next November we can begin to clean it up.
Investors Business Daily, 11/19/09
State Budgets:
It's starting to become routine. Last February, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new spending plan with "real, lasting reforms" that would help close its $36 billion-plus deficit and ensure the state never got so out of fiscal whack again.
And just four months ago the Governator and
Flash forward to this week when no surprise here the Legislative Analyst's Office announced the budget would show a $21 billion deficit in the current and coming fiscal years, much bigger than forecast earlier. Seems all the cuts didn't do the job.
Also on Wednesday, a study showed not only that this year's "reforms" achieved nothing, but that the deficits the state has run for over a decade which are illegal under
Welcome to the once-Golden State, where legislators seem to take delight in tearing down all the things that once made it the greatest place to live in
For 18 years, the state has spent more than it has taken in. A lot more. Over that stretch, total spending grew 5.9% a year on average, to $144.5 billion. A general rule of thumb says states should increase spending no faster than the rate of growth in population plus inflation. Over the same period,
According to a study earlier this year by the Reason Foundation, if the state had kept spending growth to 4.4%, instead of 5.9%, the state would today have a $15 billion surplus. Instead, in just the past three years, it has rung up deficits of $81 billion. This is the kind of fiscal profligacy one sees in
Why is this happening? Because in addition to spending too much, the state suffers from plunging tax revenues. But not because taxes are too low.
For example, the state's ever-eager environmental regulators just this week vowed to ban big-screen TV sets. Reason: Big TVs use too much energy.
The "energy savings" are likely to be minimal. But because of the new rules, more retailers will go out of business, consumer costs will rise and tax revenues will drop. And those who want a big- screen, high-def TV will simply order online.
And this is just one thing, on one day. Hardly a week goes by that the state doesn't announce some new initiative, tax or regulation intended to make it harder on business to build or expand.
The results have been tragic. From January 2001 to this September, California's manufacturers which, by the way, pay an average wage of about $60,000 a year have slashed employment from 1.88 million to 1.295 million, destroying roughly 31% of the state's industrial base in a mere nine years.
But a costly labyrinth of regulations makes it even worse. A new study from
Someday, residents of this once-well-governed state will wise up and throw those who are systematically destroying it out of office. Until then, they bear as much responsibility for the destruction as the hacks they've re-elected.
Veteran Retired, Marten Purdy
2
- I'm from Virginia. But before you 5th generation Californians start to laugh at me, my home state rates so far superior to California in almost every category, it isn't even funny, it's pathetic. We adhere to our state constitution and run a yearly balanced budget, which ensures our continued solvency. California, on the other hand, passes a balanced budget requirement and then allows it's politicians to ignore the law. The result, the only thing that will keep California from becoming a pauper state which cannot provide the most basic of needs to it's residents is a total casting out of every politician now occupying Sacramento, a recall of all judges, state and federal who continue to make their brand of law from the bench, usurping the ultimate authority of 'We, the people". If Californians do not do something, your state will become a desperate, lawless, wasteland in the image of Mogadishu, Somalia. That is exactly what happens when law and order are no longer funded and the lawless despots take over the area by force. Don't think it can't happen here? Then keep electing idiots who have no concept of reality and think they can legislate a perfect world into existence by their shere all-powerful will. California suffers from an extreme case of citizen arrogance stretching far beyond their capabilities and capacity. Just because you want it, doesn't mean its good for you, or that it will work for the better. Grow up California and quit acting like a juvenile who expects what he wants when he wants it.
- Curiously, the 'business model, of California is eerily similar to that which President Obama-the messiah, and the Democrats seem to be taking our whole country upon. Probabably because it's working so well in California?
August 10, 2009
CA Political News
In fact, even the two tier pension plan will not save our budgets or pensions. "A retirement actuary, John Bartel, told the seminar that two-tier plans do not save much money, even after several decades. He said
costs from the untouchable high-benefit first tier, a vested right protected by contract law, continue to grow.
"Unless that vested right issue changes, and I'm not expecting it will, that second tier is not going to save money," he said.
Bartel said his clients tell him that the main motivation for switching to a two-tier plan tends to be "political in nature," rather than an expectation of significant savings."
In 2011, cities and counties will be forced into paying higher payments to keep the pensions plan from following through the toilet. Between the pension explosion, the courts making our streets unsafe and the growing deficits and job loss due to AB 32, you need to make your U-Haul reservation before California government drags down your family as well.
costs from the untouchable high-benefit first tier, a vested right protected by contract law, continue to grow.
"Unless that vested right issue changes, and I'm not expecting it will, that second tier is not going to save money," he said.
Bartel said his clients tell him that the main motivation for switching to a two-tier plan tends to be "political in nature," rather than an expectation of significant savings."
In 2011, cities and counties will be forced into paying higher payments to keep the pensions plan from following through the toilet. Between the pension explosion, the courts making our streets unsafe and the growing deficits and job loss due to AB 32, you need to make your U-Haul reservation before California government drags down your family as well.
CalPERS actuary: pension costs unsustainable
By Ed Mendel, Calpensions, 8/10/09
The CalPERS chief actuary says pension costs are "unsustainable,"
and the giant public employee pension system plans to meet with
stakeholders to discuss the issue.
So, are the critics right: Do overly generous pensions threaten to
eat up too much of state and local government budgets?
An historic stock market crash wiped out a quarter of the CalPERS
investment fund last fiscal year. Some experts are forecasting
limited investment earnings in the years ahead, making it difficult
to replace the losses.
Now "sustainability," a term used in environmental discussions, has
become a common label for a big question about public employee
pensions: Will the current level of benefits be affordable in the
future?
The question of pension sustainability emerged as a hot topic during
a seminar in Sacramento last week sponsored by the Public Retirement
Journal <http://publicretirementjournal.org>.
Ron Seeling, the CalPERS chief actuary, described the process used
to "smooth" the rate increases that will be imposed on the 1,500
local government agencies in CalPERS in 2011 in the wake of the
stock market crash.
Instead of a rate increase of 4 to 20 percent of pay, the smoothing
will reduce the rate hike to a more manageable 0.5 to 2 percent of
pay.
"I don't want to sugarcoat anything," Seeling said as he neared the
end of his comments. "We are facing decades without significant
turnarounds in assets, decades of -- what I, my personal words,
nobody else's -- unsustainable pension costs of between 25 percent
of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40 to 50 percent of pay for a
safety plan (police and firefighters) ... unsustainable pension
costs. We've got to find some other solutions."
Anne Stausboll, the CalPERS chief executive officer, told the
seminar that the CalPERS board talked about the "cost and
sustainability of pension benefits" the previous week and decided
that the system should take a "proactive role" on the issue.
"They asked us to formulate a way to convene our stakeholders --
employers, labor, legislators and other stakeholders in our system --
to convene everybody and start having a constructive dialogue on
sustainability of pension benefits," Stausboll said.
Dwight Stenbakken of the League of California Cities told the
seminar that pension benefits are "just unsustainable" in their
current form and difficult to defend politically.
"I think it's incumbent upon labor and management to get together
and solve this problem before it gets on the ballot," he said.
Public pension advocates worry about a drive to replace the "defined
benefit" plan, a guaranteed monthly check for life, with the
"defined contribution" 401(k)-style individual investment plan
increasingly common in the private sector.
Four years ago Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger briefly backed an
initiative proposed by former Assemblyman Keith Richman,
R-Northridge, that would have switched all new state and local
government hires to a 401(k)-style plan.
But Richman has since called a switch to a 401(k)-style plan
"politically" unfeasible. He and the California Foundation for
Fiscal Responsibility have talked about extending retirement ages
and capping pension payments at two-thirds of final pay. (See
Calpensions 26 Jan 09 <http://calpensions.com/2009/01/page/2/>:
"Pension intiative via internet")
Last June Schwarzenegger, calling current benefits "unsustainable,"
proposed that pensions for new state hires be rolled back to the
formulas used before CalPERS-sponsored legislation, SB 400, enacted
a major benefit increase in 1999. (See Calpensions 30 Jun 09:
"Arnold: cut retirement benefits for new hires")
The governor dropped an attempt to make his "two-tier" pension
reform proposal part of state budget negotiations. But he added
pension reform to the list of issues he plans to pursue with
legislative leaders later this year.
Schwarzenegger's plan is similar to a proposal made four years ago
by a League of Cities task force, which also referred to "dramatic
benefit enhancements" made in the late 1990s.
The legislation, SB 400, only increased benefits for state workers.
But the same higher benefits are now widespread among local
government pension systems.
"The excuse that I've always heard is, "We don't want to adopt these
retirement formulas, but I have to because our neighbors adopted it
and we have to be competitive in the labor market," said the League
of Cities' Stenbakken.
He said eliminating all options and returning to pre-SB 400
retirement formulas for new hires would eliminate the competition
between local governments that has increased pension benefits.
"I think this is one of the major mistakes we made with the PERS
system," said Stenbakken. "STRS, the State Teachers Retirement
System, doesn't have this problem. If you're a teacher in Eureka or
you're a teacher in Los Angeles Unified, you get the same pension."
In California, attempts to cut pension benefits are usually two-tier
plans, cutting benefits only for new hires. Pensions bargained under
labor contracts are said to be protected by court decisions, which
allow cuts only if something of equal value is provided.
"In terms of dealing with pension cost currently, I only know of two
ways to do it," said Stenbakken. "That's lay people off or reduce
salaries."
A retirement actuary, John Bartel, told the seminar that two-tier
plans do not save much money, even after several decades. He said
costs from the untouchable high-benefit first tier, a vested right
protected by contract law, continue to grow.
"Unless that vested right issue changes, and I'm not expecting it
will, that second tier is not going to save money," he said.
Bartel said his clients tell him that the main motivation for
switching to a two-tier plan tends to be "political in nature,"
rather than an expectation of significant savings.
"It's because a board member or a council member can stand up and
say, "We think there's a lot of bleeding here and we need to stop
that bleeding, and we are going to do it on that basis,'" he said.
"That's what I'm hearing from my clients."
Labor union officials told the seminar they worry that statewide
pension reform legislation might bypass local collective bargaining.
They said the Richman group's list of 5,000 pensioners
<http://www.californiapensionreform.com/calpers/> that receive
$100,000 or more a year is less than 1 percent of total public
employee pensions.
"I actually think it is sustainable," said Terry Brennand of the
Service Employees International Union. He said the basic problem is
investment losses, not high benefit levels.
"What is sustainable?" said Lou Paulson of the California
Professional Firefighters. He said proposals to extend the
retirement age for firefighters from 50 to 55 would result in more
injuries with advancing age, driving up workers' compensation costs.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly
three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
By Ed Mendel, Calpensions, 8/10/09
The CalPERS chief actuary says pension costs are "unsustainable,"
and the giant public employee pension system plans to meet with
stakeholders to discuss the issue.
So, are the critics right: Do overly generous pensions threaten to
eat up too much of state and local government budgets?
An historic stock market crash wiped out a quarter of the CalPERS
investment fund last fiscal year. Some experts are forecasting
limited investment earnings in the years ahead, making it difficult
to replace the losses.
Now "sustainability," a term used in environmental discussions, has
become a common label for a big question about public employee
pensions: Will the current level of benefits be affordable in the
future?
The question of pension sustainability emerged as a hot topic during
a seminar in Sacramento last week sponsored by the Public Retirement
Journal <http://publicretirementjournal.org>.
Ron Seeling, the CalPERS chief actuary, described the process used
to "smooth" the rate increases that will be imposed on the 1,500
local government agencies in CalPERS in 2011 in the wake of the
stock market crash.
Instead of a rate increase of 4 to 20 percent of pay, the smoothing
will reduce the rate hike to a more manageable 0.5 to 2 percent of
pay.
"I don't want to sugarcoat anything," Seeling said as he neared the
end of his comments. "We are facing decades without significant
turnarounds in assets, decades of -- what I, my personal words,
nobody else's -- unsustainable pension costs of between 25 percent
of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40 to 50 percent of pay for a
safety plan (police and firefighters) ... unsustainable pension
costs. We've got to find some other solutions."
Anne Stausboll, the CalPERS chief executive officer, told the
seminar that the CalPERS board talked about the "cost and
sustainability of pension benefits" the previous week and decided
that the system should take a "proactive role" on the issue.
"They asked us to formulate a way to convene our stakeholders --
employers, labor, legislators and other stakeholders in our system --
to convene everybody and start having a constructive dialogue on
sustainability of pension benefits," Stausboll said.
Dwight Stenbakken of the League of California Cities told the
seminar that pension benefits are "just unsustainable" in their
current form and difficult to defend politically.
"I think it's incumbent upon labor and management to get together
and solve this problem before it gets on the ballot," he said.
Public pension advocates worry about a drive to replace the "defined
benefit" plan, a guaranteed monthly check for life, with the
"defined contribution" 401(k)-style individual investment plan
increasingly common in the private sector.
Four years ago Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger briefly backed an
initiative proposed by former Assemblyman Keith Richman,
R-Northridge, that would have switched all new state and local
government hires to a 401(k)-style plan.
But Richman has since called a switch to a 401(k)-style plan
"politically" unfeasible. He and the California Foundation for
Fiscal Responsibility have talked about extending retirement ages
and capping pension payments at two-thirds of final pay. (See
Calpensions 26 Jan 09 <http://calpensions.com/2009/01/page/2/>:
"Pension intiative via internet")
Last June Schwarzenegger, calling current benefits "unsustainable,"
proposed that pensions for new state hires be rolled back to the
formulas used before CalPERS-sponsored legislation, SB 400, enacted
a major benefit increase in 1999. (See Calpensions 30 Jun 09:
"Arnold: cut retirement benefits for new hires")
The governor dropped an attempt to make his "two-tier" pension
reform proposal part of state budget negotiations. But he added
pension reform to the list of issues he plans to pursue with
legislative leaders later this year.
Schwarzenegger's plan is similar to a proposal made four years ago
by a League of Cities task force, which also referred to "dramatic
benefit enhancements" made in the late 1990s.
The legislation, SB 400, only increased benefits for state workers.
But the same higher benefits are now widespread among local
government pension systems.
"The excuse that I've always heard is, "We don't want to adopt these
retirement formulas, but I have to because our neighbors adopted it
and we have to be competitive in the labor market," said the League
of Cities' Stenbakken.
He said eliminating all options and returning to pre-SB 400
retirement formulas for new hires would eliminate the competition
between local governments that has increased pension benefits.
"I think this is one of the major mistakes we made with the PERS
system," said Stenbakken. "STRS, the State Teachers Retirement
System, doesn't have this problem. If you're a teacher in Eureka or
you're a teacher in Los Angeles Unified, you get the same pension."
In California, attempts to cut pension benefits are usually two-tier
plans, cutting benefits only for new hires. Pensions bargained under
labor contracts are said to be protected by court decisions, which
allow cuts only if something of equal value is provided.
"In terms of dealing with pension cost currently, I only know of two
ways to do it," said Stenbakken. "That's lay people off or reduce
salaries."
A retirement actuary, John Bartel, told the seminar that two-tier
plans do not save much money, even after several decades. He said
costs from the untouchable high-benefit first tier, a vested right
protected by contract law, continue to grow.
"Unless that vested right issue changes, and I'm not expecting it
will, that second tier is not going to save money," he said.
Bartel said his clients tell him that the main motivation for
switching to a two-tier plan tends to be "political in nature,"
rather than an expectation of significant savings.
"It's because a board member or a council member can stand up and
say, "We think there's a lot of bleeding here and we need to stop
that bleeding, and we are going to do it on that basis,'" he said.
"That's what I'm hearing from my clients."
Labor union officials told the seminar they worry that statewide
pension reform legislation might bypass local collective bargaining.
They said the Richman group's list of 5,000 pensioners
<http://www.californiapensionreform.com/calpers/> that receive
$100,000 or more a year is less than 1 percent of total public
employee pensions.
"I actually think it is sustainable," said Terry Brennand of the
Service Employees International Union. He said the basic problem is
investment losses, not high benefit levels.
"What is sustainable?" said Lou Paulson of the California
Professional Firefighters. He said proposals to extend the
retirement age for firefighters from 50 to 55 would result in more
injuries with advancing age, driving up workers' compensation costs.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly
three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
million
1
- "I actually think it is sustainable," said Terry Brennand of the Service Employees International Union. this will be an interesting case study on widespread municipal bankruptcies and dissolved union contracts.
September 06, 2009
CA Political News
The Chief Actuary of CalPers told the truth when he said, ""I don't want to sugarcoat anything," Seeling said. "We are facing decades without significant turnarounds in assets, decades of --what I, my personal words, nobody else's -- unsustainable pension costs of between 25 percent of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40 to 50 percent of pay for a safety plan (police and firefighters) "... unsustainable pension costs. We've got to find some other solutions." Yet the CalPers system has gagged the man who tells the truth--the CalPers system is about to have a meltdown.
Why does government hid the truth? Why is government afraid of the public knowing how failed it is?
Now he is not allowed to speak to the media or in public.. "At CalPERS, my request to talk to Seeling about his comments was denied. Instead, public information officer told me that he
misspoke -- that he reversed his clauses. What he meant to say, I was told, was "Without significant turnarounds in assets, we are facing decades of unsustainable pension costs ... "
Whoever gagged Seeling needs to be fired, immediately. The Executive Director of CalPers needs to be fired.
This is a public pension fund, not their own slush fund. We have a right to know--what next, they are sending Seeling to a private island with guards?
Shame on us for not demanding answers to this scandal.
Why does government hid the truth? Why is government afraid of the public knowing how failed it is?
Now he is not allowed to speak to the media or in public.. "At CalPERS, my request to talk to Seeling about his comments was denied. Instead, public information officer told me that he
misspoke -- that he reversed his clauses. What he meant to say, I was told, was "Without significant turnarounds in assets, we are facing decades of unsustainable pension costs ... "
Whoever gagged Seeling needs to be fired, immediately. The Executive Director of CalPers needs to be fired.
This is a public pension fund, not their own slush fund. We have a right to know--what next, they are sending Seeling to a private island with guards?
Shame on us for not demanding answers to this scandal.
CalPERS chief actuary silenced for telling truth
By Daniel Borenstein, Contra Costa Times, 9/6/09
The California Pulic Employees Retirement System is trying to tamp
down public concern after its chief actuary candidly said last month
that government pension costs are "unsustainable."
The portfolio value of the nation's largest public pension fund,
battered by the stock market and the real estate downturn, declined
about 24 percent, or roughly $58 billion, in the fiscal year that
ended June 30. The system serves 1.6 million public employees,
retirees and their families across the state. They need not worry.
Their pensions won't be affected.
Instead, state and local governments across California will have to
cut services -- or, less likely, raise taxes -- to make up for the
losses if the economy doesn't come roaring back. CalPERS is trying
to soften the blow by forcing future generations to absorb a larger
part of the hit. Nevertheless, the impact will start to be felt with
the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Pension costs are typically measured as a percentage of payroll.
Government agencies in CalPERS, for example, currently set aside for
pensions about 17 percent of payroll for most workers, what are
known as "miscellaneous" employees, and about 27 percent for police
and firefighters. At a seminar in Sacramento, Ron Seeling, the chief
actuary, described what's to come.
"I don't want to sugarcoat anything," Seeling said. "We are facing
decades without significant turnarounds in assets, decades of --
what I, my personal words, nobody else's -- unsustainable pension
costs of between 25 percent of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40
to 50 percent of pay for a safety plan (police and firefighters)
"... unsustainable pension costs. We've got to find some other
solutions."
It was at least the second time Seeling made the comments, but the
first time they were widely disseminated. Credit Ed Mendel, who runs
Calpensions.com, with capturing Seeling's comments and publishing
them. Some newspaper editorial boards around the state have picked
up on the remarks and highlighted them as the first public admission
by CalPERS of what many have been warning: Pension costs are rising
faster than we can afford and dependence on hefty investment returns
to pay the bill is risky.
At CalPERS, my request to talk to Seeling about his comments was
denied. Instead, public information officers told me that he
misspoke -- that he reversed his clauses. What he meant to say, I
was told, was "Without significant turnarounds in assets, we are
facing decades of unsustainable pension costs ... " In other words,
they were suggesting, he wasn't predicting long-run shortfalls, he
was hypothetically speculating on what would happen if markets fail
to rebound. Moreover, they emphasized, it was his personal comments,
not the official CalPERS position.
That clarification is hardly reassuring. It shows once again that
CalPERS is banking on the economy to soar back. And, somehow, we're
supposed to be comforted that the comments of the chief actuary were
his personal view rather than the system's official position.
To be fair, until last year, CalPERS had a solid record of
investment returns. And, even with last year's losses, the system
has met its 7.75 percent annual investment target over the past 20
years.
But the agency has been acting as if the market could only go up --
and has failed to require employers to keep contributing when times
were good. Thus, while the state and local governments have been
approving increasingly richer pension benefits for public employees
over the past decade, CalPERS has not been setting contribution
rates accordingly.
As a result, the pension system went from having well over 100
percent of its targeted funds at the start of the decade to 80
percent to 85 percent funded on June 30, 2008. That was before the
stock market burst. The next funding reports from the agency are
certain to be much worse, perhaps below 70 percent.
In other words, CalPERS has failed to ensure that government
agencies are paying in enough money to fully fund the promised
pensions. As a result, future generations will be stuck with the
bill or the resulting cuts in public services.
Yet, when CalPERS's top actuary comes clean about the problem, the
agency tries to silence him.
By Daniel Borenstein, Contra Costa Times, 9/6/09
The California Pulic Employees Retirement System is trying to tamp
down public concern after its chief actuary candidly said last month
that government pension costs are "unsustainable."
The portfolio value of the nation's largest public pension fund,
battered by the stock market and the real estate downturn, declined
about 24 percent, or roughly $58 billion, in the fiscal year that
ended June 30. The system serves 1.6 million public employees,
retirees and their families across the state. They need not worry.
Their pensions won't be affected.
Instead, state and local governments across California will have to
cut services -- or, less likely, raise taxes -- to make up for the
losses if the economy doesn't come roaring back. CalPERS is trying
to soften the blow by forcing future generations to absorb a larger
part of the hit. Nevertheless, the impact will start to be felt with
the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Pension costs are typically measured as a percentage of payroll.
Government agencies in CalPERS, for example, currently set aside for
pensions about 17 percent of payroll for most workers, what are
known as "miscellaneous" employees, and about 27 percent for police
and firefighters. At a seminar in Sacramento, Ron Seeling, the chief
actuary, described what's to come.
"I don't want to sugarcoat anything," Seeling said. "We are facing
decades without significant turnarounds in assets, decades of --
what I, my personal words, nobody else's -- unsustainable pension
costs of between 25 percent of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40
to 50 percent of pay for a safety plan (police and firefighters)
"... unsustainable pension costs. We've got to find some other
solutions."
It was at least the second time Seeling made the comments, but the
first time they were widely disseminated. Credit Ed Mendel, who runs
Calpensions.com, with capturing Seeling's comments and publishing
them. Some newspaper editorial boards around the state have picked
up on the remarks and highlighted them as the first public admission
by CalPERS of what many have been warning: Pension costs are rising
faster than we can afford and dependence on hefty investment returns
to pay the bill is risky.
At CalPERS, my request to talk to Seeling about his comments was
denied. Instead, public information officers told me that he
misspoke -- that he reversed his clauses. What he meant to say, I
was told, was "Without significant turnarounds in assets, we are
facing decades of unsustainable pension costs ... " In other words,
they were suggesting, he wasn't predicting long-run shortfalls, he
was hypothetically speculating on what would happen if markets fail
to rebound. Moreover, they emphasized, it was his personal comments,
not the official CalPERS position.
That clarification is hardly reassuring. It shows once again that
CalPERS is banking on the economy to soar back. And, somehow, we're
supposed to be comforted that the comments of the chief actuary were
his personal view rather than the system's official position.
To be fair, until last year, CalPERS had a solid record of
investment returns. And, even with last year's losses, the system
has met its 7.75 percent annual investment target over the past 20
years.
But the agency has been acting as if the market could only go up --
and has failed to require employers to keep contributing when times
were good. Thus, while the state and local governments have been
approving increasingly richer pension benefits for public employees
over the past decade, CalPERS has not been setting contribution
rates accordingly.
As a result, the pension system went from having well over 100
percent of its targeted funds at the start of the decade to 80
percent to 85 percent funded on June 30, 2008. That was before the
stock market burst. The next funding reports from the agency are
certain to be much worse, perhaps below 70 percent.
In other words, CalPERS has failed to ensure that government
agencies are paying in enough money to fully fund the promised
pensions. As a result, future generations will be stuck with the
bill or the resulting cuts in public services.
Yet, when CalPERS's top actuary comes clean about the problem, the
agency tries to silence him.
-
0
August 16, 2010
CA Political News
Truly, when was the last time you used a phone book? A real yellow and white pages phone book--a dozen trees died to allow you to find a plumber?
Or, do you use switchboard.com? Or another online phone system--which allows you to look at reviews of plumbers?
Sadly, twice a year, two or three "books" and thrown on my porch, forcing me to pick them up and put them in the garbage.
"In fact,
The phone books go to non-customers too. "We deliver to homes and businesses within the area regardless of who the provider is,"
This is just another government waste of time, effort, money and trees. Did you know it is a government regulation to kill trees and provide books that no one reads or need any more?
Maybe we should get Al Gore on the case? You know that crazy sex poodle needs trees!
Can You Stop the Phone Book?
Voiceofsandiego.org, 8/13/10
Bam!
Call it a sound of summer, the noise a bundled pile of phone books makes as it lands on your doorstep. AT&T is delivering them throughout San Diego through next week.
Why do phone book companies get to distribute their products that way? And is any lawmaker willing to speed up what Slate calls the "most absurdly drawn-out death throes of any advertising medium ever known"?
Here are some frequently asked questions about phone books along with actual answers.
How come phone books on my porch aren't litter?
Because the law says they aren't.
"We don't have any restrictions that we're aware of in the San Diego area," says AT&T Advertising Solutions spokesman Bruce Logan.
In fact, California state law requires that local phone companies distribute the white pages to their customers. The AT&T yellow pages come along for the ride.
The phone books go to non-customers too. "We deliver to homes and businesses within the area regardless of who the provider is," Logan said. That means you get one even if your only phone isn't connected to the wall, or if you have no phone at all.
And, of course, a variety of non-phone companies distribute their own varieties of yellow pages.
How do I get these companies to stop delivering phone books?
It's not easy. The Yellow Pages Association has a webpage devoted to opting-out from phone book distribution, but you still need to contact each company individually.
Can you just throw used phone books into those blue recycling bins?
Yes, or you can take them to a city recycling center.
Doesn't it cost the city to recycle all these phone books?
No one seems to know exactly how much, since San Diego city officials couldn't break out the specific cost of recycling phone books.
However, the city does lose money on its curbside recycling program. Revenue from the commodities that are recycled (all that junk is worth something) doesn't cover the cost of collecting it. Taxpayers cover the difference: $4.5 million a year.
How much do all those distributed phone books weigh?
This is a tough one to figure out since a variety of companies distribute phone books of various types and sizes. (AT&T alone says it distributes 5.3 million phone books a year in San Diego County.)
But I'll give you a rough estimate.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the United States creates 804,000 tons worth of phone books each year. The city of San Diego makes up approximately 0.4 percent -- a bit less than half of one percent -- of the country's 307 million people.
Multiply 804,000 tons by .004 and you get 3,216 tons of phone books distributed in the city each year.
That would account for about four percent of the 72,166 tons of recyclables that the city expects to collect through curbside recycling this year. (Of course, not everyone recycles their phone books.)
Does anybody even use the phone book anymore?
Yes. Particularly, its advocates say, in rural areas lacking internet service. And the phone book itself is a huge business. The yellow pages industry, which is still dominated by its print products, made an estimated $15.38 billion -- yes, billion -- in 2009, a decline of 7.5 percent from the previous year.
Is anyone trying to stop phone book distribution?
Yes. A group called Ban the Phone Book has gotten media attention (it was organized by an online directory that could benefit if people have fewer phonebooks).
Legislators in Sacramento this year pushed a bill that would forbid delivery of phone books to customers who opt out of receiving them. It would have also required phone books to include opt-out information on their covers.
The phone book industry opposed the bill, arguing that it's made significant progress in allowing residents to opt-out of phone book delivery. (That may be so, but there is still no one-stop website or phone number to halt all phone book delivery.)
The bill died in the state Senate in June by a vote of 18-12. State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, was the only local representative to support it.
Kehoe said in a statement that she uses phone books, but supported the bill because most households get several. "They aren't going to keep all of them and many are directly recycled or worse, thrown away," she said. "This seemed like a waste to me."
State Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-Chula Vista, voted no, saying the bill didn't seem well thought out.
Voiceofsandiego.org, 8/13/10
Bam!
Call it a sound of summer, the noise a bundled pile of phone books makes as it lands on your doorstep. AT&T is delivering them throughout San Diego through next week.
Why do phone book companies get to distribute their products that way? And is any lawmaker willing to speed up what Slate calls the "most absurdly drawn-out death throes of any advertising medium ever known"?
Here are some frequently asked questions about phone books along with actual answers.
How come phone books on my porch aren't litter?
Because the law says they aren't.
"We don't have any restrictions that we're aware of in the San Diego area," says AT&T Advertising Solutions spokesman Bruce Logan.
In fact, California state law requires that local phone companies distribute the white pages to their customers. The AT&T yellow pages come along for the ride.
The phone books go to non-customers too. "We deliver to homes and businesses within the area regardless of who the provider is," Logan said. That means you get one even if your only phone isn't connected to the wall, or if you have no phone at all.
And, of course, a variety of non-phone companies distribute their own varieties of yellow pages.
How do I get these companies to stop delivering phone books?
It's not easy. The Yellow Pages Association has a webpage devoted to opting-out from phone book distribution, but you still need to contact each company individually.
Can you just throw used phone books into those blue recycling bins?
Yes, or you can take them to a city recycling center.
Doesn't it cost the city to recycle all these phone books?
No one seems to know exactly how much, since San Diego city officials couldn't break out the specific cost of recycling phone books.
However, the city does lose money on its curbside recycling program. Revenue from the commodities that are recycled (all that junk is worth something) doesn't cover the cost of collecting it. Taxpayers cover the difference: $4.5 million a year.
How much do all those distributed phone books weigh?
This is a tough one to figure out since a variety of companies distribute phone books of various types and sizes. (AT&T alone says it distributes 5.3 million phone books a year in San Diego County.)
But I'll give you a rough estimate.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the United States creates 804,000 tons worth of phone books each year. The city of San Diego makes up approximately 0.4 percent -- a bit less than half of one percent -- of the country's 307 million people.
Multiply 804,000 tons by .004 and you get 3,216 tons of phone books distributed in the city each year.
That would account for about four percent of the 72,166 tons of recyclables that the city expects to collect through curbside recycling this year. (Of course, not everyone recycles their phone books.)
Does anybody even use the phone book anymore?
Yes. Particularly, its advocates say, in rural areas lacking internet service. And the phone book itself is a huge business. The yellow pages industry, which is still dominated by its print products, made an estimated $15.38 billion -- yes, billion -- in 2009, a decline of 7.5 percent from the previous year.
Is anyone trying to stop phone book distribution?
Yes. A group called Ban the Phone Book has gotten media attention (it was organized by an online directory that could benefit if people have fewer phonebooks).
Legislators in Sacramento this year pushed a bill that would forbid delivery of phone books to customers who opt out of receiving them. It would have also required phone books to include opt-out information on their covers.
The phone book industry opposed the bill, arguing that it's made significant progress in allowing residents to opt-out of phone book delivery. (That may be so, but there is still no one-stop website or phone number to halt all phone book delivery.)
The bill died in the state Senate in June by a vote of 18-12. State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, was the only local representative to support it.
Kehoe said in a statement that she uses phone books, but supported the bill because most households get several. "They aren't going to keep all of them and many are directly recycled or worse, thrown away," she said. "This seemed like a waste to me."
State Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-Chula Vista, voted no, saying the bill didn't seem well thought out.
James R
1
- 1. Trees for paper are grown as a crop. 2. Don't want a phone book, call to have them picked up as soon as they arrive. 3. Keep your phone book - no electricity = no computer - keep the book for emergencies.
April 05, 2009
CA Political News
The State of California has been borrowing money form CalPERS. Not sure how they can do this? The State has recently shown it is unable or unwilling to pay its bills on time. The pension plan is close to $200 billion upside down, yet they are loaning money to deadbeats?
Now you know why we are in trouble. You should know that the February budget deal included the raiding of 650 State trust funds. That is corruption.
Vote NO on May 19 and demand the money be returned to the trust funds used to cover up the deficit. Or cut taxes, since those funds did not need the money.
Now you know why we are in trouble. You should know that the February budget deal included the raiding of 650 State trust funds. That is corruption.
Vote NO on May 19 and demand the money be returned to the trust funds used to cover up the deficit. Or cut taxes, since those funds did not need the money.
A kinder, gentler raid on CalPERS' funds
By Ed Mendel, Calpensions, 4/4/09
Once again the cash-strapped state wants to dip into CalPERS' very
deep pocket to avoid running out of money, getting a loan of perhaps
$220 million or more from a contingency reserve fund.
But the nation's largest public employees retirement system was
up-armored after the last big raid by the state, thanks to a
labor-backed initiative, Proposition 162, that squeaked by in 1992
with 51 percent of the vote.
Now Proposition 162 gives nearly all California public employee
pension systems control of their funds and the apparent power to
raise employer contribution rates. It's an important factor as
pension funds face tough choices after a historic stock market
crash.
A new state budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in February,
a painful package of tax increases and spending cuts intended to
close a $42 billion shortfall, authorized the state to borrow from
650 state special funds.
One of the usually restricted funds that could be tapped to help the
red ink-drenched general fund is the CalPERS contingency reserve
fund, which provides support for health programs.
The reserve was said to have roughly $220 million earlier this year.
But the amount can spike much higher at some times during the month
as funds pass through for the large health programs operated by
CalPERS.
The budget provision drew a polite but firm letter to administration
officials on March 2 from the CalPERS legal counsel, Peter Mixon,
saying "CalPERS does not concede that such a loan is permissible."
Mixon said CalPERS would like "additional time" to study the effects
of the bill and requested "adequate notice" before any attempt by
the state to borrow, so that CalPERS can take appropriate steps to
protect the fund "and its beneficiaries."
When the issue came up at the CalPERS finance committee last month,
the chairman, Tony Oliveira, did not oppose a loan to the state,
saying he is aware that local governments throughout the state are
struggling with budgets hit hard by the recession.
"I want us to be as protective," said Oliveira, "and have an open
mind -- that we are one state and one group of people -- and that we
have to work out what is best for the state."
The committee vice chairman, Henry Jones, said: "My thought was not
necessarily knowing the fact that we were one state, but if we have
this authority, then it's our decision. That's where I'm at."
"And our responsibility," Oliveira added. "Right," replied Jones. "I
agree with you," said Oliveira. Mixon said his letter did not
"prejudge" the issue, but asked for time to evaluate a loan if the
administration decides that one is needed.
A spokeswoman for state Controller John Chiang said that borrowing
to preserve cash flow, unlike borrowing to balance the budget,
cannot interfere with a special fund's mission and must be repaid
immediately with interest if needed by the fund.
"We would rather not speculate as to when those funds might actually
be borrowed," said Hallye Jordan.
She said administration officials believe that "by August the
state's cash balance will be zero, and we will have exhausted all
$19 billion in internal borrowable funds, including those in the
contingency reserve fund."
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has estimated that the
new state budget already has an $8 billion shortfall. The gap will
widen by $6 billion or more if voters reject a package of budget
measures during a special election next month.
In the early 1980s, there were two battles over state attempts to
balance budgets by cutting contributions to CalPERS. But the big one
came in 1991, when the state faced a massive budget shortfall
larger, in relative terms, than the recent gap.
Former Gov. Pete Wilson took aim at two CalPERS funds with $1.8
billion used to maintain purchasing power for retirees. His
legislation took $1.1 billion of the "surplus" to reduce pension
contributions by the state, schools and local governments.
In addition, he switched the power to appoint the actuary that sets
contribution rates from CalPERS to the governor. And he created a
second "tier" of pension payments, lowering benefits for new state
employees (virtually eliminated by legislation in 1999).
Public employee unions fired back in November 1992 with Proposition
162.
The crucial actuary function, the estimates based on investment
earnings and demographics of the contribution rate needed to fund
future obligations, was returned to CalPERS and other public
retirement systems.
The systems were guaranteed control of their administration and
investments. What had been three equal responsibilities (benefits,
minimizing employer contributions, reasonable administrative costs)
were changed to make paying benefits the top priority.
Another letter from CalPERS to administration officials on March 2
addressed Schwarzenegger's move to save more than $1 billion by
requiring state workers to take an unpaid day off once or twice a
month.
Part of the furlough plan allows worker retirement benefits to
remain unchanged, even though their take-home pay is being reduced.
If pension contributions were reduced along with the pay, CalPERS
would be stuck with an unfunded liability.
"We have not heard a clear statement that the state will provide
full, unreduced employer retirement contributions," said the letter
from Anne Stausboll, the new CalPERS chief executive officer.
She said the CalPERS board "unequivocally reserves the power and
right to determine at any time that the state's contribution must be
adjusted in order to avoid the creation of the unfunded liability ?"
No need for that, said Lynelle Jolley, a spokeswoman for the state
Department of Personnel Administration. She said the state will pay
the full employer contribution rate and roll the employees'
contribution share into future state contributions.
Before Proposition 162 passed, some experts say trust law and court
decisions, including one overturning the Wilson raid, already were
giving public employee pension boards the power to set contribution
rates and, in effect, spend taxpayer money.
But giving public pension boards control of the actuaries that set
the annual required contribution or ARC, as it's known in the
pension business, is said to have sealed the deal.
The California State Teachers Retirement System may be the only
public system in the state that can't set its own contribution
rates. CalSTRS, second in size only to CalPERS, needs legislation to
adjust its rates.
The administrator of an association that includes 40 of the largest
public employee retirement systems in California said pension boards
have to be "realistic" about contribution rates, particulary during
a recession that has local governments struggling.
"The courts have said it is reviewable by the courts," said Rich
Goss of the California Association of Public Retirement Systems.
"It's not as if you can go marching off and do whatever you want."
But some lawyers are telling pension board members that their
"fiduciary" duty is to make benefit payments a top priority, even in
the face of warnings that layoffs may be needed if contribution
rates are not adjusted. (see Calpensions post on 27 Mar 09: "Local
pension funds: The layoff scenario.")
The ballot pamphlet analysis of Proposition 162 written by the
nonpartisan Legislative Analyst was clear about the potential
consequences of making benefit payments a top priority, beyond
minimizing contribution rates and administrative costs.
"Placing benefits as the highest priority could result in higher
costs to employers if board decisions increase benefits without
equal consideration to the cost for those benefits," said the
analyst. "These potential costs are unknown, and are dependent on
future decisions of pension system boards."
By Ed Mendel, Calpensions, 4/4/09
Once again the cash-strapped state wants to dip into CalPERS' very
deep pocket to avoid running out of money, getting a loan of perhaps
$220 million or more from a contingency reserve fund.
But the nation's largest public employees retirement system was
up-armored after the last big raid by the state, thanks to a
labor-backed initiative, Proposition 162, that squeaked by in 1992
with 51 percent of the vote.
Now Proposition 162 gives nearly all California public employee
pension systems control of their funds and the apparent power to
raise employer contribution rates. It's an important factor as
pension funds face tough choices after a historic stock market
crash.
A new state budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in February,
a painful package of tax increases and spending cuts intended to
close a $42 billion shortfall, authorized the state to borrow from
650 state special funds.
One of the usually restricted funds that could be tapped to help the
red ink-drenched general fund is the CalPERS contingency reserve
fund, which provides support for health programs.
The reserve was said to have roughly $220 million earlier this year.
But the amount can spike much higher at some times during the month
as funds pass through for the large health programs operated by
CalPERS.
The budget provision drew a polite but firm letter to administration
officials on March 2 from the CalPERS legal counsel, Peter Mixon,
saying "CalPERS does not concede that such a loan is permissible."
Mixon said CalPERS would like "additional time" to study the effects
of the bill and requested "adequate notice" before any attempt by
the state to borrow, so that CalPERS can take appropriate steps to
protect the fund "and its beneficiaries."
When the issue came up at the CalPERS finance committee last month,
the chairman, Tony Oliveira, did not oppose a loan to the state,
saying he is aware that local governments throughout the state are
struggling with budgets hit hard by the recession.
"I want us to be as protective," said Oliveira, "and have an open
mind -- that we are one state and one group of people -- and that we
have to work out what is best for the state."
The committee vice chairman, Henry Jones, said: "My thought was not
necessarily knowing the fact that we were one state, but if we have
this authority, then it's our decision. That's where I'm at."
"And our responsibility," Oliveira added. "Right," replied Jones. "I
agree with you," said Oliveira. Mixon said his letter did not
"prejudge" the issue, but asked for time to evaluate a loan if the
administration decides that one is needed.
A spokeswoman for state Controller John Chiang said that borrowing
to preserve cash flow, unlike borrowing to balance the budget,
cannot interfere with a special fund's mission and must be repaid
immediately with interest if needed by the fund.
"We would rather not speculate as to when those funds might actually
be borrowed," said Hallye Jordan.
She said administration officials believe that "by August the
state's cash balance will be zero, and we will have exhausted all
$19 billion in internal borrowable funds, including those in the
contingency reserve fund."
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has estimated that the
new state budget already has an $8 billion shortfall. The gap will
widen by $6 billion or more if voters reject a package of budget
measures during a special election next month.
In the early 1980s, there were two battles over state attempts to
balance budgets by cutting contributions to CalPERS. But the big one
came in 1991, when the state faced a massive budget shortfall
larger, in relative terms, than the recent gap.
Former Gov. Pete Wilson took aim at two CalPERS funds with $1.8
billion used to maintain purchasing power for retirees. His
legislation took $1.1 billion of the "surplus" to reduce pension
contributions by the state, schools and local governments.
In addition, he switched the power to appoint the actuary that sets
contribution rates from CalPERS to the governor. And he created a
second "tier" of pension payments, lowering benefits for new state
employees (virtually eliminated by legislation in 1999).
Public employee unions fired back in November 1992 with Proposition
162.
The crucial actuary function, the estimates based on investment
earnings and demographics of the contribution rate needed to fund
future obligations, was returned to CalPERS and other public
retirement systems.
The systems were guaranteed control of their administration and
investments. What had been three equal responsibilities (benefits,
minimizing employer contributions, reasonable administrative costs)
were changed to make paying benefits the top priority.
Another letter from CalPERS to administration officials on March 2
addressed Schwarzenegger's move to save more than $1 billion by
requiring state workers to take an unpaid day off once or twice a
month.
Part of the furlough plan allows worker retirement benefits to
remain unchanged, even though their take-home pay is being reduced.
If pension contributions were reduced along with the pay, CalPERS
would be stuck with an unfunded liability.
"We have not heard a clear statement that the state will provide
full, unreduced employer retirement contributions," said the letter
from Anne Stausboll, the new CalPERS chief executive officer.
She said the CalPERS board "unequivocally reserves the power and
right to determine at any time that the state's contribution must be
adjusted in order to avoid the creation of the unfunded liability ?"
No need for that, said Lynelle Jolley, a spokeswoman for the state
Department of Personnel Administration. She said the state will pay
the full employer contribution rate and roll the employees'
contribution share into future state contributions.
Before Proposition 162 passed, some experts say trust law and court
decisions, including one overturning the Wilson raid, already were
giving public employee pension boards the power to set contribution
rates and, in effect, spend taxpayer money.
But giving public pension boards control of the actuaries that set
the annual required contribution or ARC, as it's known in the
pension business, is said to have sealed the deal.
The California State Teachers Retirement System may be the only
public system in the state that can't set its own contribution
rates. CalSTRS, second in size only to CalPERS, needs legislation to
adjust its rates.
The administrator of an association that includes 40 of the largest
public employee retirement systems in California said pension boards
have to be "realistic" about contribution rates, particulary during
a recession that has local governments struggling.
"The courts have said it is reviewable by the courts," said Rich
Goss of the California Association of Public Retirement Systems.
"It's not as if you can go marching off and do whatever you want."
But some lawyers are telling pension board members that their
"fiduciary" duty is to make benefit payments a top priority, even in
the face of warnings that layoffs may be needed if contribution
rates are not adjusted. (see Calpensions post on 27 Mar 09: "Local
pension funds: The layoff scenario.")
The ballot pamphlet analysis of Proposition 162 written by the
nonpartisan Legislative Analyst was clear about the potential
consequences of making benefit payments a top priority, beyond
minimizing contribution rates and administrative costs.
"Placing benefits as the highest priority could result in higher
costs to employers if board decisions increase benefits without
equal consideration to the cost for those benefits," said the
analyst. "These potential costs are unknown, and are dependent on
future decisions of pension system boards."
the California Redneck
1
- Time and agin I ask "what assets the state hs to lose if it goes Bankrupt The rats are scurrying to grab every dollar they can. They have been using all of the ploys generally attributed to the con-man trade. Here for your edification are examples of what is happening locally.___The California Ponzi Scheme approved by California State Attorney General Jerry Brown: The “Brown Ponzi”;____________________________________________________________ A city council, in order to raise money without raising taxes, (sort of) sells it’s city hall (I thought that belonged to the citizens) to a council controlled finance authority. The council then leases or rents back the building from the finance authority. The authority issues bonds using the city hall as collateral. It pays back the bondholders with the rent it collects from the city. The sale of the city hall is a legal abstraction designed to keep the debt off the city’s books and the funds derived thereof do not require voter approval??____________________________________________________ One has to ask, where does the money come from to buy back city hall?? _________________ Enter the Washington Monument ploy. “If you don’t vote more taxes we’ll have to close the Washington Monument.” or, as in the case of Chula Vista and many other cities, “we’ll have to cut back the senior programs, the library hours and a large number of city employees. Often used is the threat to public safety caused by a reduction in fire fighting capabilities._____________________ These are Chicago Gangster methods. Do you really want these people to run your government?_____________
April 11, 2010
CA Political News
This reporter is suggesting that keeping 5,000 drunk drivers off the street is not worth $14 million. Just ten accident and three deaths, by the 5,000, would cost the taxpayers more than $14 million.
But, the report does not show the thousands of illegal aliens these checkpoints find. Not, does it tell about the thousands of illegal alien owned cars taken off the road--the same cars that when in an accident become hit and run incidents--costing taxpayers. Of course, these thousands of criminals have no auto insurance, driving up the premium costs to honest folks.
To me $14 million is a bargain. What do you think?
But, the report does not show the thousands of illegal aliens these checkpoints find. Not, does it tell about the thousands of illegal alien owned cars taken off the road--the same cars that when in an accident become hit and run incidents--costing taxpayers. Of course, these thousands of criminals have no auto insurance, driving up the premium costs to honest folks.
To me $14 million is a bargain. What do you think?
Checkpoints Don't Catch Many Drunks But They Rake in the Bucks
TRACY WOOD, voiceofoc.com, 4/9/10
For all of the effort expended by police departments on DUI checkpoints, they're not the best way to catch drunks behind the wheel.
In 2008, just more than 5,000 drunk drivers were nabbed at 1,740 checkpoints statewide. That number represents about 2.3 percent of all California drunk driving arrests in 2008, according to statistics compiled by the state's Office of Traffic Safety.
Meanwhile, nearly 215,000 DUI arrests were made by regular police and California Highway Patrol officers on their daily patrols, the Department of Motor Vehicles reported.
But despite these statistics, the checkpoints are here to stay. While they may not be good at catching drunk drivers, they have proven quite effective in capturing something else very important to local police agencies: federal dollars.
Roughly $14 million in federal grant money was spent statewide in 2008 on checkpoints. Orange County law enforcement agencies will receive at least $2.5 million in federal grants this fiscal year for checkpoints.
Grants cover virtually all costs for the checkpoints including overtime for officers so inspections don't interfere with regular police work.
"If you see a check point, the chances are extremely good that that's grant funded," said Chris Cochran, spokesman for the California Office of Traffic Safety which administers federal safe driving grants.
Federal grants for checkpoints jumped nationally in fiscal 2006 from $40 million the previous year to $120 million. For fiscal 2009, grant funding was $139 million, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Both Cochran and Mothers Against Drunk Driving Orange County Interim Director Mary Beth Griffith say there is clear evidence that checkpoints are a deterrent.
They point to the fact that drunk driving fatalities have decreased in recent years and say the drop is at least partly attributable to checkpoints being an effective way to educate the public about drunk driving.
Cochran cited the Office of Traffic Safety's 2009 performance report which said alcohol-related deaths from driving accidents dropped 9.1 percent from 2007 to 2008 and, since 2005, fatalities have gone down "a staggering 20.1 percent."
And MADD's Griffith noted a U.S. Transportation Department report in March that said preliminary statistics show national traffic fatalities in 2009 were at their lowest level since 1954. And the rate has been steadily going down for more than three years.
Griffith said she would "like to believe it's because more people are being arrested before they could cause a crash."
However, when the government released the 2009 fatality numbers last month, one of the nations top auto safety watchdogs attributed the drop in fatalities primarily to the Great Recession.
"It's a consistent pattern that the silver lining in any recession is a dip - and sometimes a significant dip - in highway deaths," Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the Baltimore Sun.
The government report, according to the Sun's reporting, shows a downward trend in fatalities that increased as the national economy went into recession and Americans began driving fewer miles. The number of deaths on the nation's roads prior to 2008 routinely surpassed 40,000.
Nonetheless, Cochran insists that "checkpoints are the best deterrent for DUI (driving under the influence) fatalities."
One reason for their success, he said, is that they reach both drinkers and non-drinkers, helping educate both groups about the dangers of drinking and driving and, hopefully, inspiring non-drinking family and friends to get behind the wheel when they're with someone who has been drinking.
"One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Stop!" Shouts a voice from the dark as officers begin their inspection at a recent checkpoint in Fullerton.
The police check for a valid driver's license and then chat with (and sniff) drivers to see if they seem impaired by alcohol or drugs. Officers also give each driver they stop anti-drinking and driving literature from MADD.
But a recent investigation by the investigative news website California Watch revealed that police agencies do more than just sniff for booze and hand out pamphlets at checkpoints.
They also impounded the cars of unlicensed drivers whether they've been drinking or not. And the agencies make big money doing it, according to California Watch's reporting. The website also found that minority motorists -- and often illegal immigrants -- were often the most likely to have their cars impounded.
Even with such revelations, Cochran said federal dollars for the checkpoints will keep coming. "It's a trend more than a spike," he said.
TRACY WOOD, voiceofoc.com, 4/9/10
For all of the effort expended by police departments on DUI checkpoints, they're not the best way to catch drunks behind the wheel.
In 2008, just more than 5,000 drunk drivers were nabbed at 1,740 checkpoints statewide. That number represents about 2.3 percent of all California drunk driving arrests in 2008, according to statistics compiled by the state's Office of Traffic Safety.
Meanwhile, nearly 215,000 DUI arrests were made by regular police and California Highway Patrol officers on their daily patrols, the Department of Motor Vehicles reported.
But despite these statistics, the checkpoints are here to stay. While they may not be good at catching drunk drivers, they have proven quite effective in capturing something else very important to local police agencies: federal dollars.
Roughly $14 million in federal grant money was spent statewide in 2008 on checkpoints. Orange County law enforcement agencies will receive at least $2.5 million in federal grants this fiscal year for checkpoints.
Grants cover virtually all costs for the checkpoints including overtime for officers so inspections don't interfere with regular police work.
"If you see a check point, the chances are extremely good that that's grant funded," said Chris Cochran, spokesman for the California Office of Traffic Safety which administers federal safe driving grants.
Federal grants for checkpoints jumped nationally in fiscal 2006 from $40 million the previous year to $120 million. For fiscal 2009, grant funding was $139 million, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Both Cochran and Mothers Against Drunk Driving Orange County Interim Director Mary Beth Griffith say there is clear evidence that checkpoints are a deterrent.
They point to the fact that drunk driving fatalities have decreased in recent years and say the drop is at least partly attributable to checkpoints being an effective way to educate the public about drunk driving.
Cochran cited the Office of Traffic Safety's 2009 performance report which said alcohol-related deaths from driving accidents dropped 9.1 percent from 2007 to 2008 and, since 2005, fatalities have gone down "a staggering 20.1 percent."
And MADD's Griffith noted a U.S. Transportation Department report in March that said preliminary statistics show national traffic fatalities in 2009 were at their lowest level since 1954. And the rate has been steadily going down for more than three years.
Griffith said she would "like to believe it's because more people are being arrested before they could cause a crash."
However, when the government released the 2009 fatality numbers last month, one of the nations top auto safety watchdogs attributed the drop in fatalities primarily to the Great Recession.
"It's a consistent pattern that the silver lining in any recession is a dip - and sometimes a significant dip - in highway deaths," Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the Baltimore Sun.
The government report, according to the Sun's reporting, shows a downward trend in fatalities that increased as the national economy went into recession and Americans began driving fewer miles. The number of deaths on the nation's roads prior to 2008 routinely surpassed 40,000.
Nonetheless, Cochran insists that "checkpoints are the best deterrent for DUI (driving under the influence) fatalities."
One reason for their success, he said, is that they reach both drinkers and non-drinkers, helping educate both groups about the dangers of drinking and driving and, hopefully, inspiring non-drinking family and friends to get behind the wheel when they're with someone who has been drinking.
"One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Stop!" Shouts a voice from the dark as officers begin their inspection at a recent checkpoint in Fullerton.
The police check for a valid driver's license and then chat with (and sniff) drivers to see if they seem impaired by alcohol or drugs. Officers also give each driver they stop anti-drinking and driving literature from MADD.
But a recent investigation by the investigative news website California Watch revealed that police agencies do more than just sniff for booze and hand out pamphlets at checkpoints.
They also impounded the cars of unlicensed drivers whether they've been drinking or not. And the agencies make big money doing it, according to California Watch's reporting. The website also found that minority motorists -- and often illegal immigrants -- were often the most likely to have their cars impounded.
Even with such revelations, Cochran said federal dollars for the checkpoints will keep coming. "It's a trend more than a spike," he said.
-
0