Gov. Jerry Brown released budget

[Madeline]

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.

I agree, California is beautiful and well worth saving. That Pacific Coast Highway is just breath-taking. And whatever works in California may work in Illinois, New York, Indiana, Ohio.....all states in almost as bad shape.

Are you asking me if the federal government should bail out the states? Certainly not entirely, Intense. I think it might be worth discussing having the feds guarantee a restructured state bond debt, to prevent the cost of borrowing from skyrocketing for them in the future....but to pay every dollar owed? No....and I do realize the money owed to doctors and hospitals under Medicaid, and how deeply that will wound everyone.

I think the key to any successful restructuring has to be public confidence. That the proposal -- whatever it may be -- will work. That once it is over, things will get better. In that regard, I am a little interested in allowing the states to go bankrupt....it seems as if it might add a bit of certainty that a purely legislative process would lack. (Still not sure how that could happen; I think a constitutional amendment might be needed.)

 

[Intense]

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.

I agree, California is beautiful and well worth saving. That Pacific Coast Highway is just breath-taking. And whatever works in California may work in Illinois, New York, Indiana, Ohio.....all states in almost as bad shape.

Are you asking me if the federal government should bail out the states? Certainly not entirely, Intense. I think it might be worth discussing having the feds guarantee a restructured state bond debt, to prevent the cost of borrowing from skyrocketing for them in the future....but to pay every dollar owed? No....and I do realize the money owed to doctors and hospitals under Medicaid, and how deeply that will wound everyone.

I think the key to any successful restructuring has to be public confidence. That the proposal -- whatever it may be -- will work. That once it is over, things will get better. In that regard, I am a little interested in allowing the states to go bankrupt....it seems as if it might add a bit of certainty that a purely legislative process would lack. (Still not sure how that could happen; I think a constitutional amendment might be needed.)

What ever is implemented it needs to incorporate value for value, to some extent. We all need to stop just taking and not giving back. Even if it means trading services. Partially compensated Volunteers. Service, Health, Maintenance. The Union's will always try to block that. You can argue that they have outgrown their function and need to be put in their place, or there is no need for them at all, either way, the abuse needs to stop. The Union's at the least need Federal Regulation, they are too big for the Cities and States to handle. Same should apply more to Corporate abuse. Even in relation to small fines for repeated abuse. Why is there no repair and restitution? You Screw up, fix it, we inspect it when you are done.

I would love to see the States submit care and service costs to the Fed's for reimbursements, and the Fed, submit the costs to the host Countries.

 

[sangha]

We can cut spending by 50% without invoving any union members

Take it out of the military budget, something the teabaggers and the rightwing will never do because they don't really want to cut spending. That's why the teabaggers in congress are walking away from their promise to cut spending, and that's why the republicans have NEVER reduced the amount of money the govt spends

 

[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.

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.

No it won't. He can sponsor an initiative and take his case directly to the voters. It will fail dismally, and have the undesired side effect of you not being able to blame Republicans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is hillarious!

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).

I bet you think that was witty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It only has a surplus if you ignore the inconvenient truth that the government has spent that surplus in other places. Mony that does not really exist is not a surplus.

 

[sangha]

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

It only has a surplus if you ignore the inconvenient truth that the government has spent that surplus in other places. Mony that does not really exist is not a surplus.

Yes, it only has a surplus because it takes in more money than it pays out. That's why it holds trillions in govt securities, but in wingnut world, that's not real money. It's make believe

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We can cut spending by 50% without invoving any union members

Take it out of the military budget, something the teabaggers and the rightwing will never do because they don't really want to cut spending. That's why the teabaggers in congress are walking away from their promise to cut spending, and that's why the republicans have NEVER reduced the amount of money the govt spends

California does not have a military budget.

If you are talking about the federal budget though, I would like to point out that Obama tried to cut specific military spending, and was overruled by the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Feel free to continue being a hack though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It only has a surplus if you ignore the inconvenient truth that the government has spent that surplus in other places. Mony that does not really exist is not a surplus.

Yes, it only has a surplus because it takes in more money than it pays out. That's why it holds trillions in govt securities, but in wingnut world, that's not real money. It's make believe

No it does not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

yes... which need breaking and banning.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

it doesnt work that way Intense.....at least at the federal level....Overtime has absolutely no bearing on your retirement.....your base pay is all that matters....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

yes... which need breaking and banning.

why does a Union need to be banned?...im sorry but that kinda sounds anti-worker.....you may not believe it,but there some industries that actually need a Union.....

 

[Madeline]

We can cut spending by 50% without invoving any union members

Take it out of the military budget, something the teabaggers and the rightwing will never do because they don't really want to cut spending. That's why the teabaggers in congress are walking away from their promise to cut spending, and that's why the republicans have NEVER reduced the amount of money the govt spends

Are you just physically unable to stay on point, sangha?

What "military" does the state of California have?

 

[Madeline]

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.

yes... which need breaking and banning.

I dun understand why any employee needs both civil service and union protection. I agree with my Big Fizzy friend here on this.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

yes... which need breaking and banning.

why does a Union need to be banned?...im sorry but that kinda sounds anti-worker.....you may not believe it,but there some industries that actually need a Union.....

The problem with public sector unions is that they do not have fair negotiations because those who pay them (The public by taxation) are not the ones directly negotiating with the union. The government is, and the government, as we have seen is easily manipulated into wasteful spending without direct repercussions to the ones who can then get away with graft and corruption for votes. This being said, unions can get benefits and wages far above the marketplace if they are not reined in for no one is really looking out at the harm it causes the taxpayers.

Now, I would be in favor of allowing a public sector union if you make some changes in how contracts were negotiated.

1. Unions are paid directly out of a budget that must receive a tax payer referendum to grow so costs can be directly controlled by the tax payer.

2. Their pay is based on a survey of private sector pay for similar job SKILLS, not title. This prevents them from making a junior or new operator a 'supervisor' to manipulate a pay raise. The public sector jobs would be set between the 40th and 60th percentile of the private sector

3. An absolute ban on all political activities of a public sector union. They receive their pay from the tax payer, they cannot use the taxpayer's money to illicitly manipulate elections to get politicians into office who would then owe them political favors.

If at least 2 of those three conditions were met, I'd be fine with public sector unions. But less than that, no. They should be banned if they cannot abide by those rules because it creates too easy an environment of corruption as we have seen the results of.

You need a union to protect workers from bad management and abuse, but it needs to be balanced against the cost to taxpayers and impropriety found in political contributions to politicians that decide their contracts and wages.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes... which need breaking and banning.

why does a Union need to be banned?...im sorry but that kinda sounds anti-worker.....you may not believe it,but there some industries that actually need a Union.....

The problem with public sector unions is that they do not have fair negotiations because those who pay them (The public by taxation) are not the ones directly negotiating with the union. The government is, and the government, as we have seen is easily manipulated into wasteful spending without direct repercussions to the ones who can then get away with graft and corruption for votes. This being said, unions can get benefits and wages far above the marketplace if they are not reined in for no one is really looking out at the harm it causes the taxpayers.

Now, I would be in favor of allowing a public sector union if you make some changes in how contracts were negotiated.

1. Unions are paid directly out of a budget that must receive a tax payer referendum to grow so costs can be directly controlled by the tax payer.

2. Their pay is based on a survey of private sector pay for similar job SKILLS, not title. This prevents them from making a junior or new operator a 'supervisor' to manipulate a pay raise. The public sector jobs would be set between the 40th and 60th percentile of the private sector

3. An absolute ban on all political activities of a public sector union. They receive their pay from the tax payer, they cannot use the taxpayer's money to illicitly manipulate elections to get politicians into office who would then owe them political favors.

If at least 2 of those three conditions were met, I'd be fine with public sector unions. But less than that, no. They should be banned if they cannot abide by those rules because it creates too easy an environment of corruption as we have seen the results of.

You need a union to protect workers from bad management and abuse, but it needs to be balanced against the cost to taxpayers and impropriety found in political contributions to politicians that decide their contracts and wages.

Not that I disagree with the premise of your post (unions are two powerful and often act in detriment to the entity employees work for), I've got a lot of disagreement with unions of today as opposed to their need 100 years ago when workers were abused, maimed, and killed by employers for poverty wages. Those days are gone and (in general) employers today would not even consider reimplementing some of the conditions that existed then.

Some of your terminology is fundamentally wrong - it's not the "taxpayers money". Unions are supported by dues paid by the employees. No allocations are (or should be) distributed by local, state, or federal treasury organizations directly to the unions. People perform services, for those services they are compensated. At the point they are paid for their work - it is no longer "government money" or "taxpayer money" it is now the money of the individual employee.

When I take my paycheck and go to the store to by groceries, I'm not spending taxpayer money, I'm spending my own money.

Same applies to the UAW, when they receive revenue it's not "Fords money" or "GM's Money". Once the worker is paid, it's the employees money.


********************

1. I'm a Republican.

2. I'm not in a union, never have been, and it's very unlikely I ever will be.

3. I live in Virginia, which is a right to work state, and the government entity I work for has no "union" with negotiating power over wages and benefits.

4. I vehemently oppose "closed shops" and/or mandatory dues.



>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

Unions are supported by dues paid by the employees.

Employees are paid by the government. The government is paid by the taxpayers. Therefore the Union is paid by taxes. Remember, the union negotiated the contract and is getting at least 'fairshare' from non members and full dues from the rest. So in negotiating in bad faith by compromising the electoral process with union monies is de facto getting them increases from the tax payer who ultimately services the money for the employees to earn. To say that it isn't taxpayer money is a game of semantics, not fact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Unions are supported by dues paid by the employees.

Employees are paid by the government. The government is paid by the taxpayers. Therefore the Union is paid by taxes. Remember, the union negotiated the contract and is getting at least 'fairshare' from non members and full dues from the rest. So in negotiating in bad faith by compromising the electoral process with union monies is de facto getting them increases from the tax payer who ultimately services the money for the employees to earn. To say that it isn't taxpayer money is a game of semantics, not fact.

Not semantics, fact. Once a worker is paid for services rendered it is their money not the governments anymore.

Once my employer deposits my check in my account, it's now my money.

The "taxpayer money" is a fallacy used to provide a negative emotional response.


>>>>

 

[Intense]

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.

it doesnt work that way Intense.....at least at the federal level....Overtime has absolutely no bearing on your retirement.....your base pay is all that matters....

That may be true in some or all of the Federal Government. I did have a Customer very angry at Bush for cutting into his overtime after 911, He was a Fed that worked at Kennedy Airport, I think Customs, but I can't remember now, he had less than two to go, and was getting big overtime until Bush started redirecting, to cut overtime. I thought he was complaining about his retirement plan being screwed up because of the mandatory drop in overtime, though granted, he could have been complaining just about the paycheck itself. Hours were cut and other people brought in to do the work, from other departments as a means to keep the payroll from going nuts.

City jobs here, the scam is very common. It's big money.

 

[Intense]

We can cut spending by 50% without invoving any union members

Take it out of the military budget, something the teabaggers and the rightwing will never do because they don't really want to cut spending. That's why the teabaggers in congress are walking away from their promise to cut spending, and that's why the republicans have NEVER reduced the amount of money the govt spends

Understanding that National Defense is a Primary Government roll, not cutting on preparedness, keeping R&D ahead of the Curve, I agree. Further, I think there should be less emphasis on Global deployment of Troops, and more emphasis on the National Guard, which is under Governors control. To prepare and utilize the National Guard to assist more in National Emergencies, Fire, Flood, even Border Control seems reasonable to me. Union's and private contractors flip with the competition, but tough shit. When it is about speed and effectiveness you go with what you have and sort it out later.

Take it out of the military budget,

That's about it for rational thought.

We can cut spending by 50% without invoving any union members

Isn't this Federal and not State spending? Why are the Union's untouchable in your plan???