Gov. Jerry Brown released budget

[loosecannon]

All protestor rich budget cuts...translation...Democrats won't make them.

A Butterscotch Grilled Stupor

Internet Anagram Server : Anagrams for: All protestor rich budget cuts

 

[Revere]

Smart move. I knew there was a reason to like him.
______________________________________________________________________
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown is hanging up his state-issued cell phone, and he's ordered half the state bureaucrats who have government-paid cell phones to do the same.

"It is difficult for me to believe that 40 percent of all state employees must be equipped with taxpayer-funded cell phones," the new governor said Tuesday. "The current number of phones out there is astounding."

Brown used his first executive order since taking office a week ago to instruct department heads to cut off 48,000 state employee cell phones by June.

That's half of the 96,000 phones issued to state bureaucrats. Brown said in a statement that dialing back the number of phones will save $20 million a year as the state works to bridge a $25.4 billion budget gap over the next 18 months.

Brown told reporters he would turn in his own phone by day's end.

The contracts each cost taxpayers an average $36 a month, or $432 a year, according to the Department of Finance. Some phones may be under long-term contracts, Brown said, but the state can hang up on others more quickly. He said he wants the state to avoid any early termination penalties that would exceed the potential savings.

"Even with a 50 percent reduction, one-fifth of all state employees will still have cell phones," he said in his statement. "That still seems like too much."

Dialing back: Calif. governor targets cell phones

If thats a 50% reduction or 48,000 state employees that lose the phone, and one-fifth of all state employees still have cell phones, that means there are at least 250,000 state employees in California. Does any other state have that many employees. Seems like Jerry Brown should of fired 54,003 state employees starting with the highest paid.

Our current recession has shown us the very maximum a government can spend in any year. Whatever the revenue was for the worst year of the recession government must decrease spending to 10% less than the lowest amount of revenue collected.

California's budget should be done every other year like Texas, I bet that alone will save a billion dollars.

Good catch. If he *fired* 1/5 of the employees, instead of taking away a $400 cell phone, he'd have my interest.

 

[Sallow]

Smart move. I knew there was a reason to like him.
______________________________________________________________________
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown is hanging up his state-issued cell phone, and he's ordered half the state bureaucrats who have government-paid cell phones to do the same.

"It is difficult for me to believe that 40 percent of all state employees must be equipped with taxpayer-funded cell phones," the new governor said Tuesday. "The current number of phones out there is astounding."

Brown used his first executive order since taking office a week ago to instruct department heads to cut off 48,000 state employee cell phones by June.

That's half of the 96,000 phones issued to state bureaucrats. Brown said in a statement that dialing back the number of phones will save $20 million a year as the state works to bridge a $25.4 billion budget gap over the next 18 months.

Brown told reporters he would turn in his own phone by day's end.

The contracts each cost taxpayers an average $36 a month, or $432 a year, according to the Department of Finance. Some phones may be under long-term contracts, Brown said, but the state can hang up on others more quickly. He said he wants the state to avoid any early termination penalties that would exceed the potential savings.

"Even with a 50 percent reduction, one-fifth of all state employees will still have cell phones," he said in his statement. "That still seems like too much."

Dialing back: Calif. governor targets cell phones

If thats a 50% reduction or 48,000 state employees that lose the phone, and one-fifth of all state employees still have cell phones, that means there are at least 250,000 state employees in California. Does any other state have that many employees. Seems like Jerry Brown should of fired 54,003 state employees starting with the highest paid.

Our current recession has shown us the very maximum a government can spend in any year. Whatever the revenue was for the worst year of the recession government must decrease spending to 10% less than the lowest amount of revenue collected.

California's budget should be done every other year like Texas, I bet that alone will save a billion dollars.

Well it sure makes it easier to hide deficits!

 

[Madeline]

hummmm, really? I seem to recall bond holders and pension funds etc. taking a hit when GM was re- org.ed. Some contracts are more equal than others it seems.

Interesting point. I suppose it depends on the language of the contract, probably that and a number of other legal points. Any attorney's out and about with an interest in contract law?

I'm not sure a state can go bankrupt. But assuming one could, if it were treated as an ordinary debtor, the obligations to employees and retirees would have the most supreme priority, apart from taxes owed, etc. (I assume that would not apply.) The debts owed to bondholders would be inferior to their rights -- but the big open question is what to do about the underfunding of the pension plans.

Insofar as these are defined benefit plans (promising a certain percent of pay as the benefit) rather than defined contribution plans (accumulating individual accounts and paying out whatever they yield), it is much harder to even fix with accuracy the amount owed. The rights and expectations of current employees in future retirement benefits would not be honored, beyond their rights in current payroll. (If the state wanted to offer these people some new retirement benefit, it would have to start from scratch -- and I suspect the new benefit would be a 401(k) style design.)

The rights and expectations of retirees would be defeated, I suspect, to a large degree -- first by losing health insurance, if the big bankruptcies of corporations in the past are any guide. If that is not a deep enough cut, then by reducing benefits. Because even if all cash on hand is dedicated to these obligations first, it is still (likely) not enough.

There'd be a battle of the actuaries as to whether the state must make future contributions for present retirees, as well as other issues. It'd be bloody but there's not much doubt there'd be cuts of some sort.

So this is what y'all think is necessary to solve the problems? Have you considered the impact on the cost of future borrowing if a state defaults on its debt?

 

[Revere]

hummmm, really? I seem to recall bond holders and pension funds etc. taking a hit when GM was re- org.ed. Some contracts are more equal than others it seems.

Interesting point. I suppose it depends on the language of the contract, probably that and a number of other legal points. Any attorney's out and about with an interest in contract law?

I'm not sure a state can go bankrupt. But assuming one could, if it were treated as an ordinary debtor, the obligations to employees and retirees would have the most supreme priority, apart from taxes owed, etc. (I assume that would not apply.) The debts owed to bondholders would be inferior to their rights -- but the big open question is what to do about the underfunding of the pension plans.

Insofar as these are defined benefit plans (promising a certain percent of pay as the benefit) rather than defined contribution plans (accumulating individual accounts and paying out whatever they yield), it is much harder to even fix with accuracy the amount owed. The rights and expectations of current employees in future retirement benefits would not be honored, beyond their rights in current payroll. (If the state wanted to offer these people some new retirement benefit, it would have to start from scratch -- and I suspect the new benefit would be a 401(k) style design.)

The rights and expectations of retirees would be defeated, I suspect, to a large degree -- first by losing health insurance, if the big bankruptcies of corporations in the past are any guide. If that is not a deep enough cut, then by reducing benefits. Because even if all cash on hand is dedicated to these obligations first, it is still (likely) not enough.

There'd be a battle of the actuaries as to whether the state must make future contributions for present retirees, as well as other issues. It'd be bloody but there's not much doubt there'd be cuts of some sort.

So this is what y'all think is necessary to solve the problems? Have you considered the impact on the cost of future borrowing if a state defaults on its debt?

You know anyone who is contemplating bankruptcy and looking forward to the next time they'll be able to pile up more debt?

 

[Madeline]

There's a real fairness argument to be made on behalf of long-time current employees, whose entire retirement expectations would be wiped out. Is that really equitable?

This is a lot more complex than I'm making it sound. What about hospitals and doctors, owed Medicaid payments? If you follow a traditional bankruptcy line, they'd get nothing. Imagine the ripple effect, and the impact on public health.

This is not a step to take lightly, and it is not a panecea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And the Repubiicans refuse to play. Democrats willing to cut services deeply, Republicans continue to hold the line against any tax increases.

Brown seeks 5-year extension of California taxes - Yahoo! News

The Republicans refuse to play? So all those union members protesting the pay cuts are Republicans now, glad to hear it.

From your link:

Hundreds of people from various unions, community organizations and activist groups held rallies outside the state Capitol in Sacramento and the governor's office in Los Angeles, protesting the proposed cuts. Leo Perez, 34, of Los Angeles, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and is in a wheelchair, held up a sign reading, "I am human."
He said he fears losing funding from the state's in-home supportive services program that helps pay for things like grab bars so he can move around the bathroom.

To date, no one but the unions and community activists have said a thing about the budget. It is pure speculation that the Republicans will oppose any part of it, and there is even more, and stronger, speculation that the voters of California will reject the new taxes, just like they did when Schwarzenegger, a Republican, proposed them.

Why are there so many partisan hacks after all the partisan hacks made a big deal about rhetoric? You are proof that the problem, if it exists, is not going to go away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Proposition 25 was passed by the voters in November eliminating the need to pass the budget by a super majority. A simple majority of votes in the CA state legislature is now sufficient to pass the budget. Republicans risk becoming an after thought if they continue to demagogue the tax issue.
If Gov. Brown is successful in convincing the voters to continue the taxes raised two years ago by The Arnold, and is able to rescue the economy, the Republican Party may need to once again reinvent itself and become a moderate, pragmatic and contemplating organization. If Gov Brown is successful, much of the conservative dogma will be exposed as nothing more than hot air.

Tax increases still need to be approved by voters, and Brown also has to sell all those cuts to the Democrats. If you think that is going to be easy you are even dumber than rdean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And the Repubiicans refuse to play. Democrats willing to cut services deeply, Republicans continue to hold the line against any tax increases.

Brown seeks 5-year extension of California taxes - Yahoo! News

This is hillarious!

In releasing his first budget plan, the newly elected Democratic governor said he wanted to end the types of acccounting gimmicks, borrowing tricks and overly optimistic revenue assumptions that characterized the recent budgets signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

His budget projects the deficit at $25.4 billion over the next 18 months.

To close it, Brown called for $12.5 billion in spending cuts, including reductions in welfare, social services, health care for the poor, community colleges and a combined $1 billion cut to the University of California and California State University systems.

Brown also wants the Legislature to call a special election in June to give voters an opportunity to continue increases in the income, sales and vehicle taxes for five years. The taxes were approved two years ago next month and are due to expire this year.

The taxes, along with proposed shifts in funding, would generate $12 billion in revenue if voters agree to an extension.

My GAWD he's the real deal. He is 1000 times more serious about cutting spending than the teatards are and he wants to put tax increases on the ballot for public approval.

He's a teatard's wet dream.

He is doing the exact same thing the Governator did, and my bet is you thought it sucked then. Kinda like Obama doing the same thing Bush did, and you liking it now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Proposition 25 was passed by the voters in November eliminating the need to pass the budget by a super majority. A simple majority of votes in the CA state legislature is now sufficient to pass the budget. Republicans risk becoming an after thought if they continue to demagogue the tax issue.
If Gov. Brown is successful in convincing the voters to continue the taxes raised two years ago by The Arnold, and is able to rescue the economy, the Republican Party may need to once again reinvent itself and become a moderate, pragmatic and contemplating organization. If Gov Brown is successful, much of the conservative dogma will be exposed as nothing more than hot air.

Tax increases still need to be approved by voters, and Brown also has to sell all those cuts to the Democrats. If you think that is going to be easy you are even dumber than rdean.

That's correct, tax increases need to be approved by the voters. But, first they need to be put on the ballot. That is Gov. Brown's first battle, it will require a 2/3rd vote of he legislature to do so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And the Repubiicans refuse to play. Democrats willing to cut services deeply, Republicans continue to hold the line against any tax increases.

Brown seeks 5-year extension of California taxes - Yahoo! News

This is hillarious!

In releasing his first budget plan, the newly elected Democratic governor said he wanted to end the types of acccounting gimmicks, borrowing tricks and overly optimistic revenue assumptions that characterized the recent budgets signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

His budget projects the deficit at $25.4 billion over the next 18 months.

To close it, Brown called for $12.5 billion in spending cuts, including reductions in welfare, social services, health care for the poor, community colleges and a combined $1 billion cut to the University of California and California State University systems.

Brown also wants the Legislature to call a special election in June to give voters an opportunity to continue increases in the income, sales and vehicle taxes for five years. The taxes were approved two years ago next month and are due to expire this year.

The taxes, along with proposed shifts in funding, would generate $12 billion in revenue if voters agree to an extension.

My GAWD he's the real deal. He is 1000 times more serious about cutting spending than the teatards are and he wants to put tax increases on the ballot for public approval.

He's a teatard's wet dream.

He is doing the exact same thing the Governator did, and my bet is you thought it sucked then. Kinda like Obama doing the same thing Bush did, and you liking it now.

He is not doing the same thing The Arnold did, and is no where close to invading Canada because of Mexican nationals coming across our border (something he would need to do to approach the 'thinking' of GWB).

 

[Harry Dresden]

WHatever, they're still bankrupting the state. Maybe you didn't get the memo.. THERE IS NO MONEY.

Asking people to fork huge sums of their income in property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes to keep this ruse alive is not gonna fly. And 10 -20 years ago nobody realized they were pegging pension payments to unrealizable market gains.

i noticed you did not answer the question i asked Ernie?...Would YOU give up what you are working for, the last 20-25 years in good faith?.....and if you tell me....yea i would....then im going to call you a ******* liar....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Orange County, the home of the John Birch Society. .

Wry this is not the 70's......those guys are kinda ancient history today....whenever i hear the name mentioned people under the age of 30....go.... WHO?.....

They're alive and well, now known as the neo conservatives.

if you say so....

 

[Intense]

Smart move. I knew there was a reason to like him.
______________________________________________________________________
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown is hanging up his state-issued cell phone, and he's ordered half the state bureaucrats who have government-paid cell phones to do the same.

"It is difficult for me to believe that 40 percent of all state employees must be equipped with taxpayer-funded cell phones," the new governor said Tuesday. "The current number of phones out there is astounding."

Brown used his first executive order since taking office a week ago to instruct department heads to cut off 48,000 state employee cell phones by June.

That's half of the 96,000 phones issued to state bureaucrats. Brown said in a statement that dialing back the number of phones will save $20 million a year as the state works to bridge a $25.4 billion budget gap over the next 18 months.

Brown told reporters he would turn in his own phone by day's end.

The contracts each cost taxpayers an average $36 a month, or $432 a year, according to the Department of Finance. Some phones may be under long-term contracts, Brown said, but the state can hang up on others more quickly. He said he wants the state to avoid any early termination penalties that would exceed the potential savings.

"Even with a 50 percent reduction, one-fifth of all state employees will still have cell phones," he said in his statement. "That still seems like too much."

Dialing back: Calif. governor targets cell phones

If thats a 50% reduction or 48,000 state employees that lose the phone, and one-fifth of all state employees still have cell phones, that means there are at least 250,000 state employees in California. Does any other state have that many employees. Seems like Jerry Brown should of fired 54,003 state employees starting with the highest paid.

Our current recession has shown us the very maximum a government can spend in any year. Whatever the revenue was for the worst year of the recession government must decrease spending to 10% less than the lowest amount of revenue collected.

California's budget should be done every other year like Texas, I bet that alone will save a billion dollars.

Good catch. If he *fired* 1/5 of the employees, instead of taking away a $400 cell phone, he'd have my interest.

You have some very strong politically connected Unions and Special interest in California.

 

[Madeline]

Have you guys found the answer yet?

 

[Intense]

Have you guys found the answer yet?

Wasn't paying attention Madeline, sorry. Should the shit hit the fan I believe many of the Contracts will become void and have to be renegotiated. Bond's fail.

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

 

[sangha]

Have you guys found the answer yet?

Wasn't paying attention Madeline, sorry. Should the shit hit the fan I believe many of the Contracts will become void and have to be renegotiated. Bond's fail.

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

Actually, the largest Retirement Benefit program in the US (ie SS) has provided the US with trillions of dollars in surplus revenue which the US has used to reduce it's budget deficits and it's national debt

Wingnuts like to forget that SS has a huge budget surplus

 

[Intense]

Have you guys found the answer yet?

Wasn't paying attention Madeline, sorry. Should the shit hit the fan I believe many of the Contracts will become void and have to be renegotiated. Bond's fail.

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

Actually, the largest Retirement Benefit program in the US (ie SS) has provided the US with trillions of dollars in surplus revenue which the US has used to reduce it's budget deficits and it's national debt

Wingnuts like to forget that SS has a huge budget surplus

My point is Government Pensions, not Social Security, Left Wingnut. You want to divert my point with SS, fine. So you believe in the SS lock box and the Tooth Fairy? How about the Easter Bunny?
Being that you brought up SS? Please define the term Ponzi Scheme? How does SS compare?
Let me help you, you like Wiki so much.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If SS is bringing in so much Profit, how do you explain that, other than the system currently takes more than it gives back? Where does the windfall come from Sangha? How long is it expected to remain that way?

 

[Madeline]

Have you guys found the answer yet?

Wasn't paying attention Madeline, sorry. Should the shit hit the fan I believe many of the Contracts will become void and have to be renegotiated. Bond's fail.

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

Yes, I know, Intense. And thankies to the way the obligations could be manipulated, many a legislature artifically depressed the annual contribution obligation. Add that to the stock market tanking, and it's a recipe for disaster for many states and municipalities.

We have seen less than honest manipulation of the rules here too, most noticeably, double dipping (getting both a current salary and a retirement benefit). I agree, the rules need to be tightened up but that's a drop in the bucket in the face of the problem.

How about a suggestion? Let's protect retirement benefits under a set amount....say, the first $20,000 a year. Convert all excess benefits owed to individual retirement accounts and whatever they can pay out, they will. Use only 401(k) style benefits in the future. (I have no idea if these numbers work; it's just the concept of protecting low wage earning retirees that I am floating.)

Does that seem fair?

 

[Intense]

Have you guys found the answer yet?

Wasn't paying attention Madeline, sorry. Should the shit hit the fan I believe many of the Contracts will become void and have to be renegotiated. Bond's fail.

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

Yes, I know, Intense. And thankies to the way the obligations could be manipulated, many a legislature artifically depressed the annual contribution obligation. Add that to the stock market tanking, and it's a recipe for disaster for many states and municipalities.

We have seen less than honest manipulation of the rules here too, most noticeably, double dipping (getting both a current salary and a retirement benefit). I agree, the rules need to be tightened up but that's a drop in the bucket in the face of the problem.

How about a suggestion? Let's protect retirement benefits under a set amount....say, the first $20,000 a year. Convert all excess benefits owed to individual retirement accounts and whatever they can pay out, they will. Use only 401(k) style benefits in the future. (I have no idea if these numbers work; it's just the concept of protecting low wage earning retirees that I am floating.)

Does that seem fair?

Yeah, it does. Spending has got to be reduced. If it isn't the value of the dollar will be hurt more, and that will effect the poorest of us the most. Properties are going at fire sale prices, Pennies on the dollar. Look at who's buying them up and tell me what you think.

What is your perspective on all of the Government bailouts and who's profiting from it, both directly and indirectly? Who win's and who get's the tab.

California will alway's need more energy infrastructure, Water too. Much water is lost to evaporation, with open canals. Thinking of Government programs that actually will improve quality of life, that is one. Flood control is another. When the time is right to put people to work, those are good ways to do it.

I will alway's love California Madeline. I went through allot there. It is the only Virgo State you know.