I was really intrigued by a story in the San Jose Mercury which talked about the outlandish pension amounts that some retirees from the City of San Jose were receiving. I thought it would be interesting to find out how much some of the City of Alameda retirees were receiving and came upon this website for a watchdog group monitoring how much our public employees are getting paid once they are “put out to pasture” so to speak.
One of the points of the Merc piece was that some of the terms of retirement, particularly in public safety, are incredibly generous to the point that a lot of the retirees are able to work post-retirement because they can retire so young and with a significant portion of their salaries intact. Not to mention 3% annual cost-of-living increases. According to a column by Eve Pearlman about a year ago:
…police and fire are eligible to retire at age 50. For every year of service, they’re entitled to 3 percent of their salary in pension. That means a firefighter could work 20 years and retire at 50 with 60 percent of his salary and full medical coverage. Most Alameda firefighters have an annual base salary of more than $90,000 a year.
Add to that the lifetime medical benefits for employee and spouse after only five years of service — a deal that was negotiated in 1990 when the City switched to the CalPers system — and you have recipe for what the City Councilperson in the Merc article characterized as “unsustainable.”
The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility has a database that lists the retirees that belong to the “$100,00 Pension Club” a search for Alameda turns up the folks below. I have attempted to fill in which departments each person belongs to, but for some Google and City of Alameda website searches turn up a blank, if anyone can help out please post it in the comments section below or send me an email.
| Name | Monthly | Annual | Department |
| RICHARD MC WILLIAMS | 14,164.35 | 169,972.20 | Police |
| TIMOTHY MCNEIL | 13,706.07 | 164,472.84 | Fire |
| FREDERICK LEITZ JR | 13,061.73 | 156,740.76 | |
| JOSEPHINE JAMES | 12,559.02 | 150,708.24 | Administration |
| STEVEN JONES | 12,147.09 | 145,765.08 | Fire |
| BRUCE EDWARDS | 12,087.44 | 145,049.28 | |
| MICHAEL HOPPE | 11,983.66 | 143,803.92 | Fire |
| WILLIAM SCHMITZ | 11,853.09 | 142,237.08 | Police |
| ROBERT WONDER | 11,822.65 | 141,871.80 | Administration |
| DOUGLAS CLIFTON | 11,761.95 | 141,143.40 | Fire |
| GENE ILACQUA | 11,195.31 | 134,343.72 | Fire |
| DENNIS HART | 10,649.73 | 127,796.76 | Police |
| GREGORY GARRETT | 10,424.98 | 125,099.76 | |
| MICHAEL D[']ORAZI | 10,334.26 | 124,011.12 | Fire |
| JOSEPH DWYER | 10,275.57 | 123,306.84 | Police |
| FOREST TAYLOR | 10,160.17 | 121,922.04 | |
| DAVID GUARNIERI | 10,157.16 | 121,885.92 | Police |
| PATRICK PAICH | 9,980.23 | 119,762.76 | Fire |
| JON WESTMORELAND | 9,817.22 | 117,806.64 | Police |
| JAMES RITCHEY | 9,563.50 | 114,762.00 | Fire |
| DAVID LEE | 9,215.98 | 110,591.76 | Fire |
| STEPHEN COLVIN | 9,050.87 | 108,610.44 | |
| SUZANNE OTA | 9,029.08 | 108,348.96 | Recreation and Park |
| CHARLES DANIELS | 8,984.16 | 107,809.92 | Fire |
| ROBERT GLOVER | 8,983.74 | 107,804.88 | Police |
| JAMES EDWARDS | 8,866.15 | 106,393.80 | |
| ROBERT LAGRONE | 8,862.74 | 106,352.88 | Fire |
| MARK O’CONNELL | 8,661.71 | 103,940.52 | Police |
| RANDY LITTLE | 8,622.04 | 103,464.48 | |
| ROBERT WARNICK | 8,579.32 | 102,951.84 | Public Works |
| DAVID PARSONS | 8,552.57 | 102,630.84 | Police |
| RANDALL BEETLE | 8,509.77 | 102,117.24 | |
| ROBERT SHIELLS | 8,337.46 | 100,049.52 | Police |
| STEVEN CARRILLO | 8,335.22 | 100,022.64 | Fire |
Of the 34 people listed, 20 belong to either the Police or Fire Department. Of course those are only the ones that I could identify.
Updates reflected above, I learned that Josephine James, who was better known as Zenda James passed away two weeks ago.
That after all is what the firefighters are so committed to preserving. This isn’t about public safety, it is about personal greed.
Comment by notadave — July 14, 2009 @ 7:16 am
It isn’t greed. Unions are supposed to represent the interests of their members. Firefighters have done well in that regard. The council is supposed to represent the interests of the community when negotiating with the unions. The problem is that the council has done a poor job of that when it comes to the firefighters. I wouldn’t so much blame the firefighters for their successes as I would the council for its failures.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 14, 2009 @ 7:35 am
The last time I checked, it wasn’t clear to me if they were referring the county or our fair city!
http://alameda.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/100k-pensions-in-alameda/
Comment by alameda — July 14, 2009 @ 7:51 am
The only point I see in publishing individual’s name and salary who work for the city is to demonize them. If you feel the need to name names and salary, why not publish all the names and salaries of city employees. Better yet, why not get to the crux of the issue and let us know who the city employees are that gave the farm to the unions?
Comment by Jack Richard — July 14, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Alameda Nay Tiff and Jack Richards got it right. It was the council and especially the council members who at the time wanted the support of the Unions to get elected. Also city staff who were looking for a “me too” clause.
The Unions were looking out for their members just as they should.
Comment by John Piziali — July 14, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Hi Jack:
Michele Ellson at the Island covered the issue of City salaries a few months ago. Her spreadsheets lists the names and salaries as well as benefits for all City workers.
This is, of course, prior to the layoffs that happened recently so a good portion of those staff are no longer there.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 14, 2009 @ 9:42 am
It’s worse that that, Jim…err Lauren.
Public safety official who retire at age 50 are entitled to 90% of salary.
See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122540831980086085.html
Comment by Neal_J — July 14, 2009 @ 10:36 am
1. Some perspective on these pension #s: For a 55 yr old male to retire with a $10,000/month pension (there are 16 of them above) one would need to save between $1.75mil and $2mil by age 55. How many of us have IRAs worth that much? According to CNN.com, the average net worth of a 55 yr old making $75k is $180,000. That would generate about $1000/month, not nearly enough to retire on around here.
2. If in fact the problem is that policymakers depend on the endorsement of unions to get elected, and this is why the City has allowed these huge pensions, might voters think about this next time they cast a vote? Until voters send a message that they disagree with the way this has been handled, as long as they perpetuate the situation that got us here through the way they vote, we should expect more of the same.
3. If you really want to see the whole issue, include the lifetime medical coverage most public safety employees get. The City is already in the hole $75mil on that issue alone.
Comment by Kevin Kennedy — July 14, 2009 @ 11:23 am
# 6 Lauren
I don’t/didn’t read Michele’s blog.
Call me old fashioned but my own feeling is that publicly naming city employees and publishing their city earnings through honest labor is an invasion of privacy. Be different if there were accusations and indictments that their earnings were ill gotten.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 14, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Hi Jack:
I would say that is a fair critique, however, a judge recently ruled that pension information, like salaries for public workers, is not an invasion of privacy. In fact, he concluded, citing the decision in a similiar case of Oakland workers against the CC Times (this time salaries not pensions) that:
Comment by Lauren Do — July 14, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Lauren is correct in reporting that the names and salaries of highly paid public employees are subject to disclosure in California. The California Supreme Court decided the issue in IAFF, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319. The public’s right to know how its money is being spent trumps an individual’s privacy right. If you don’t want people to know what you earn, don’t work for the government.
Comment by Alamedan — July 14, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
The issue is that our city leaders ran the train off the track and now we face higher taxes and cuts in services. This happens far too often as government leaders too often forget whose interests they are supposed to be serving. If you think that our city is bad, did you catch this series of articles about the community college district?
http://www.mercurynews.com/alamedacounty/ci_12817669
http://www.mercurynews.com/alamedacounty/ci_12817670
http://www.mercurynews.com/alamedacounty/ci_12817593
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_12817434
We have thousands and thousands of governmental districts in California.
http://www.guidetogov.org/ca/state/overview/districts.html
Each has its own elected officials, staffing and an endless need for more and more money. The average person is not a player in this game except to pay the taxes and hope for some services to trickle down.
I think that a good warning sign that government is out of control is when the average government worker in a community receives a larger compensation package than the average resident in that community.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 14, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Public salaries and pensions are matters of public disclosure, and have been for the 33 years I worked for Alameda County. What worries me about these discussions is that the implication is that something “nefarious” is going on. Public employees have had the same pension schemes for years and years. Some, at least in County service, who have only been in the pension system for the last 15 years or so get substantially less in the way of benefits than we “old timers” are eligible for. Our County pensions are based on a percentage of salary based on a combination of age and years of service. Safety employees (police and fire) always have had “richer” benefits, and recent court decisions have made those even better – the 3% thing is a relatively recent development for safety only. And its not just the union represented who get these great benefits, we who were unrepresented (upper management) got them too. And yes, it is the governing body who sets them, based on the recommendations of the pension boards and their financial folks, input from the unions, and the amount of money available.
Comment by Kate Quick — July 14, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
You can follow the growing public employee pension crisis on a daily
basis at http://PensionTsunami.com. You can even sign up to get a daily headline summary delivered to you via e-mail.
And if you want to help the California Foundation for fiscal Responsibility build a movement to deal with this issue, join our Facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=76289549634
Comment by Jack Dean — July 14, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
ANT – While I agree with your assessment of winners and losers, I still maintain that the current fight to maintain funding for the fire department comes down to greed in wishing to preserve those lush pensions and is not in fact about public safety.
I am generally pro union, and believe they were important in promoting fair wages, but now the pendulum has swung too far the other direction and needs to be pulled back to the middle, and the economic reality that the rest of us are dealing with.
Comment by notadave — July 14, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
#15
Collective bargaining is about getting the best contract that you can for your members. It is the job of management to act on behalf of its investors — or in terms of government, the taxpayers. The problem may be that elected officials are identifying too much with public employees and too little with taxpayers. If you have a garage sale and someone offers you $20 for a broken umbrella, do you take it? That’s business; everyone has the right to bargain for a better deal.
The numbers I would like to see are the campaign contributions each member of the council has taken from the various unions over the years. It isn’t illegal to take union money and then vote for higher pay and better benefits, but taxpayers have the right to question the votes of those representatives.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 14, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
I like Ms.Quick have been a government employee. For 35 years I worked for several local government agencies. When I began work, my compensation pkg (salary and benefits) was 40% less than in the private sector. Over the years as I was promoted and moved to new agencies, my compensation pkg increased. At the same time, local governments began a process of “imitating” compensation pkgs of private businesses in order to attract capable and competent employees. That’s not my assessment but the words of two different elected officials and a city manager.
Knowing who contributes to the campaign of any elected official can be determined from the FPPC. However, just as revealing compensation does not necessarily reveal all the “nefarious” employment situations, neither does having a clear understanding of all campaign contributors.
In my opinion, as both a local government employee AND a local taxpayer, insufficient resident/voters have paid attention, attended council meetings and asked penetrating questions (e.g. and how much will this new salary and/or benefit cost us over the next 5 to 10 years?)in the past. If you want to see a change, be present and ask for answers.
Comment by JABoyer — July 14, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
I don’t have the actuarials, but I’ve been to too many funerals of cops and firemen who retire and in less than 5 years die from one cause or another.
Comment by Joe — July 14, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
#8
Mr. Kennedy, has the City accrued for the estimated pension cost per public safety employee you noted above (16 @ $2 million each is $32 million) and the $75 million you noted above for lifetime medical?
Aren’t these costs what pushed Vallejo to bankruptcy?
Comment by Neal_J — July 15, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Since joining the Board of Education, pension costs for our school district have increased by $3 million per year. In addition, recent accounting rule changes suggest that we pay $600,000 per year for unfunded liabilities for retiree health coverage.
The stock market performance in 2008 and early 2009 has severly impacted state pension funds and as a result, we maybe faced with additional contribution requirements.
While local governmental agencies have some choice in providing benefits to its employees, it creates a recruiting disadvanatage if we are significantly lower than our neighboring agencies.
This problem is a statewide issue. For more background infromation you can read: http://www.mikemcmahon.info/pension04.htm
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 15, 2009 @ 8:02 am
#19
No, the pension liabilities are paid for each year through CalPERS, so technically the City is current on those liabilities. However, as Mike points out in #20, recent investment losses mean the City’s required contributions (just to maintain the current benefit levels) will go up dramatically (approx $2.5-3mil) starting in 2 years.
The medical is an unreserved liability–the City has been paying premiums as employees retired. Thus, for the past 17 years, employees have been accruing benefits for which there is no money set aside to pay for them when they retire. That’s where the $75mil current liability comes from. And that # is growing every day as workers accrue more benefits.
I wouldn’t blame anyone for this, it isn’t productive and we can’t do anything about the past. However, going forward it’s important for everyone to know what’s at stake and if they agree with this system. We can’t blame the unions for negotiating excellent benefits, but if we think it’s getting out of control we need to express our opinion. If not, we should stay mum and keep voting like we have in the past.
And I admire and appreciate the job our public safety employees do–much of my concern is over the City’s ability to live up to the promises we’ve made these people. A promise is only as good as our ability to live up to it (pay for it). I have a hard time seeing that happening if it continues on it’s current trajectory.
Comment by Kevin Kennedy — July 15, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Mr Kennedy-Corporation, and guys like you (who pimp 401k for a living) sold people a bill of goods back in the 80’s. I think the argument went something like this- why limit yourself to a define pension benefit when you can be a millioniare by just contributing a few $100.00 a month and managing your own plan. We all know now that is a lie. You benefitted and corporations benefitted not the individual that worked hard for a living.
Bottom line is everyone who has worked hard deserves a defined income when they retire. I’m not buying your B.S., you have your own interests. Workers in all aspects of the workforce need to fight for what they deserve. Especially during a downturn like this when wolves like you come out to eat.
Comment by Will Mcnabb — July 15, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Hi Will-
I don’t “pimp 401ks” for a living, in the 80’s I was in high school (had no “bill of goods” to sell), and all I’m suggesting is everyone look at the numbers. Take a look at the corporations who continued defined benefit plans (a rapidly dwindling #), maybe GM or United Airlines (where those “defined incomes” were redefined-downward- in bankruptcy court), or biggest of all, our own government, in the form of Social Security, which politcians of all stripes agree will be insolvent in a decade or two. If you want to see how this will play out in Alameda, take a look at the 10-yr Financial Forecast the Fiscal Sustainability Committee did (http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/gov/pdf/2009-2019_long_range_financial_forecast.pdf).
My interest is two-fold: first, the solvency of the place I live and run my business in, and second, making sure these people who worked hard for their benefits don’t see them go the way of Vallejo.
Or we can do the easy thing and ignore it until it all goes toes up.
Comment by Kevin Kennedy — July 15, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
#21: Informative & respectful.
#22: Not so much. Wow.
Thanks Kevin. I think you’ve hit the nails on the head:
1. Looking in the rearview mirror to ascribe blame is pointless.
2. We’re all grateful for the services police & fire provide daily.
3. The unions have done what they’re supposed to do – make the best possible deal they can.
4. For-profit entities did away with defined benefit pension plans years ago because of the steep cost. Government has not as yet.
4. As any finance person will tell you, we can’t continue down this road because the costs are unsustainable.
Comment by Neal_J — July 16, 2009 @ 8:07 am
Like I said here comes all the wolves. Now they will pack-up. The Neal J and Kevin Kennedy of this world will do exactly what they have done for centuries attack workeres when the time is ripe. Good luck fellows, arguing with you would be pointless. As for your report Kevin I imagine its not very objective.
Comment by Will Mcnabb — July 16, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Will McNabb,
Give us a break. Who are you anyway? If your attitude is representative of safety employees at large we are in for a nasty ride. Don’t try to solve the problem, just piss and moan and point fingers at people without any basis for your accusations. Welcome to Alameda at it’s worst.
Comment by M.I. — July 16, 2009 @ 8:32 am
Unless you publish the other facts you mention, your list of individuals is meaningless. What about their:
Years of service
Age at retirement
Starting salary and year
Police and firefighters hired in 1979 were paid what? $20,000? $25,000? Those who worked for the city 30 years and retired at age 50 gave us service and sacrifice in years at risk and hours they served beyond the costs you now list.
What’s your point?
Other countries have pensions systems that are guarantees for all who work – public AND private.
Only in America are those who work told to gamble.
Rookie or veteran, I want public safety employees dedicated to public safety for me, my family and my community. There has to be more reward for them than just admiration and respect.
My life and theirs were at risk for 30 years. That’s what we are paying for. That’s what we are recruiting with.
Comment by Leslie — July 16, 2009 @ 8:55 am
# 23 “Bottom line is everyone who has worked hard deserves a defined income when they retire.”
They do get it. It’s called Social Security. Want more? Then define it and invest at your own risk. Don’t blame someone else for your problems.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 16, 2009 @ 9:07 am
One thing that is forgotten is that most civil servants are not paid what one can get for the same job in the private sector and that they are required to pay into their pension accounts while they are working. Most of us also participated in deferred compensation programs (no match from the employer) and/or had our own IRA’s or other investments to insure our retirement comfort.
While I agree that the pensions are pretty generous, and for some, like Alameda County employees, there are full health and dental benefits, which is also wonderful, all that did not come at no price. When I was a civil servant I ususally worked at least ten hours a day and took home work to do in the evenings or weekends.
Management employees are required to work a 40 hour work week; non-management 37 1/2, but managers were evaluated on getting the work done and not paid overtime, so most worked more than the 40 hours routinely. If you were short-staffed due to illnesses or vacations, at least in the Auditor’s office where I worked, the manager was expected to do his/her work and the work of those not present. And we had no managers who did not have specified tasks in addition to their supervision duties.
The financial issues became huge when three things happened: there was a change in accounting standards that required public entities to show their pension liabilities differently, people started living a lot longer, and pension benefits, especially for public safety employees (police and fire) were enriched when money was available in ways that they could not be easily scaled back when the money dried up.
Comment by Kate Quick — July 16, 2009 @ 11:24 am
A pension is part of compensation. Some employees, such as teachers, are willing to work for lower pay because of the security of a retirement pension. For teachers, the program is conservative and well run. Teachers pay about half the cost of the pension with the district paying the rest. Retirement pension is based on years of service, age of retirement and final salary. It is a modest program. Many teachers also pay out-of-pocket for a supplemental plan. Many teachers do not get health care in retirement.
The problem of health care costs is far worse than pension costs. It is tied to the bigger problem of health care costs in general. The current system is unworkable and is draining government, corporations and individuals dry.
The problem is more complex than blaming government workers. There are all sorts of pensions and all sorts of collective bargaining agreements. It is too easy to pick an extreme example and then generalize from that.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 16, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
In the past, public sector workers were paid low relative to the private sector. To attract and keep them, they were provided relatively good benefits, to make up for generally low pay. Now, state and local government employee unions have figured out how to get hefty pay raises that beat both inflation and annual pay raises in the private sector outside of management. It’s not an hidden story: for most in the US, incomes have not grown at fast enough rates to keep up with cost of living, a tale mostly about folks in the private sector than the public sector. So, please, let’s not get weepy for those public sector. They provide a needed, essential service but they are getting pay, benefits, and pay raises that are just not line with the rest of America.
Comment by Laissez Faire — July 16, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Work in IT for UC Berkeley, making as much as I was making in private sector 10 years ago. Last year no pay raise, this year looks like 7% percent cut.
I am not complaining, I am quite happy here. Just can not agree that I am “getting pay, benefits, and pay raises that are just not [in] line with the rest of America”
Comment by oleczek — July 16, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Many of those listed above make more than a doctor starting our with years of education in the bay area and although there is sacrifice there you don’t have to have a college education to be a police officer or fireman. Although I appreciate what they do, I think they are over compensated in Alameda. I fought fires for 3 years in college for minimum wage. I would expect to make more as a professional but I wouldn’t expect to make more than a Doctor. What about a teacher…there job may not be as risky but just as important…paid a lot less.
GM, Ford, General motors are all in trouble not only because of their product, but also because of the retirement benefits make it so they can’t compete. I think you will see a lot of changes in the next few years in not only the private sector, but the public sector also.
If BART strikes in this economy the Unions will loose all my support. I haven’t had a pay raise in 5 years and before that is was just 2 to 2.5% a year from the time George Bush took office.
Comment by Joel — July 16, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Time for a grand jury investigation here?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/16/BA1E18Q0V6.DTL
Comment by notadave — July 17, 2009 @ 9:14 am
30. (health care) “The current system is unworkable and is draining government, corporations and individuals dry.”
You hear this claim quite often, however by far most Americans (70%) rate their health coverage as good or excellent (Rasmussen Reports Poll of May 14, 2009). More interesting, those without insurance rate their health coverage as good or excellent at a rate of 62% as opposed to only 8% rating their coverage poor.
So the question becomes, would the American people be more satisfied with a system run by government (which certainly won’t reduce overall costs) or would they prefer the present system that everyone says is draining us dry but they like anyway. I vote in favor of the people.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 17, 2009 @ 9:16 am
#35
Actually, the report says, “Overall, including those without insurance, 62% rate the health care they receive as good or excellent, while eight percent (8%) say it’s poor.”
Here’s the link to the base story.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/may_2009/32_would_pay_higher_taxes_to_provide_health_insurance_for_all
I have Kaiser and am usually pleased with it, but up until now, I haven’t been a large consumer of medical care. The concern is always what happens if one loses a job or if the employer cuts back on insurance coverage.
There is more than one way to provide health coverage to all. The U.S. way will probably be unique. Even when one talks about “government run,” that could mean a lot of different things.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 17, 2009 @ 9:51 am
The “government rationed health care” is something ginned up by the insurance and health care industries to make people afraid. Health care for most is severely rationed now by the providers of insurance and hospital corporations. “Pre-existing condition” has been used to deny benefits, as has “this is an experimental procedure”, or “not warranted”. People who need care are denied it all the time, even when they have full coverage, and the insurance companies (who are making gazillions in profit) have folks who get bonuses for finding some “pre-existing” or other factor to deny benefits. They want to scare folks away from having a public option because they will have to compete and then they will make only bazillions instead of gazillions. “Follow the Money” and the source of the ads will tell you all you need to know.
Comment by Kate Quick — July 17, 2009 @ 10:54 am
# 37:
I take it you’re not satisfied with your health provider. Does that mean you were denied “benefits”, or are you just ginning up for spare change?
Comment by Jack Richard — July 17, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
30. I’m not sure pension is a huge motivator for many teachers. When I have queried my wife she has been a little hazy about exactly what the terms for her retirement are believe it or not. I know the health benefits in retirement are not great and terminate at age 65. My point would be that the career choice for her and many of her collegues is more based on public service and effecting lives than benefits.
Something that confuses us is that they don’t get social security so their contribution of half their pension to match half by employer is in lieu of social security. (Jack Richard #28, please take note here). Before teaching, my spouse was an attorney who paid social security as an employee and as a partner paid “self employment tax” of 15% as I do as a self employed person. We are confused what her entitlement will be in retirement in that she has paid into both systems, CalPers and S.S.I..
I know a journeyman carpenter who worked for a high end East Bay remodeling contractor for twenty years, I’m sure he made at least $35 an hour ($70,000 a year) and contractors of that ilk pay benefits of some kind these days like limited health and IRA contributions. My pal took a job as a county maintenance worker for around $45,000 a year but he said the retirement and vacation benefits are killer and he does not have to go re-tarp the roof of a remodel at 2a.m. on a Sunday morning in a rain storm.
As is often said, the world is not fair and that goes for the job market. But in spending of public funds it does seem like we need to strike a reasonable balance.
Comment by M.I. — July 17, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
35. Jack, I have gone to a lot of Pete Stark’s town meetings when he rolls through and he is big on health care. On answering questions about it he always says that many people with good health care from employers are pretty happy with it and so they would react negatively to many of the suggested methods for shifting the coverage. Stark’s point is that most of us don’t like change and if something is working for us we won’t want to change it just because a new system might be better for more people. Also from my admittedly limited understanding I am not at all sure that overall costs can’t be reduced as part of shifting to government delivered health. If you are certain that is the case, could you spell it out please?
I really get angry when I see people like Fred Thompson on Fox “News” blabbering about how Americans don’t want to get into that socialized European medicine where you have to wait for treatment etc., but I’m sure the many uninsured in the country might have a different opinion. The anti-socialist line is so knee jerk.
There was a great article in the New Yorker discussing how it was that Europe developed it’s health care delivery as a result of emerging from WWII where they had cared for everyone during the war itself. The article suggests that to switch over night to single payer would be hugely disruptive and is not likely to happen. How to transition toward an improved system is the huge quandary and truthfully it is so overwhelming and complex I have been exhausted by the details and haven’t kept up.
Obviously removing the burden of delivering health care from these public retirement benefits would lift huge burdens off of public entities.
Comment by M.I. — July 17, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Let’s all listen to Pete!
Comment by jump the stark — July 17, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
#38. Wrong. I have Kaiser, and have had Kaiser for nearly 40 years. I am very pleased with Kaiser and feel blessed to have such comprehensive service under my pension plan. Kaiser saved my life in 1992 when I was seriously ill and in the hospital for a month and at home for another month. My life-threatening illness would have broken us if we had to pay co-payments and had a cap. We paid nothing out of pocket other than our premium. The cost of my care, by at least seven doctors, plus countless tests and follow ups and the hospital stay and rehab that followed I am sure was astronomical.
But what would have happened to us if I had no coverage or was covered by an insurance that had 10 or 20% co-pays or could have found some excuse, like “pre-existing condition” to deny payment? Economic meltdown and bankruptcy, I’m sure. Most of the domestic bankruptcies in this country are related to medical bills. Shamefull!
Comment by Kate Quick — July 17, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
#42 Right so do I. That’s what I thought your answer would be. You hear this same lament time after time. ‘It’s those other people that are suffering but I’m happy with my coverage.’ I’m not in favor of saving the world so everyone can share the same misery. In my view that is not holding true to the experiment that this country was founded on.
Kaiser seems to be doing right by their members. I can’t understand why Democrats want to abolish Kaiser and all other private care health enterprises because that’s what it will come to. It’s my understanding that the House Bill as currently proposed (not that any congressman would waste their time reading it) will forbid any new subscribers into any private health system after the Government Plan is signed into law and will not allow any transfers from one plan to another.
# 40 Mark, I’m not sure how it works with your wife’s case but for federal employees under Civil Service Retirement Service if your eligible for both CSRS and SS the SS is offset (diminished) because of “double dipping” legislation.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 17, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
#43 I am well aware that I would have suffered – a lot, if I did not have the kind of coverage I have. That makes me mindful of the many, even with what they think is adequate coverage, who are going to go bankrupt because we have, as a nation, made no move to control excessive profit in the health care system. Note I said excessive, not “profit”.
I am not sure it is true that the bill as presently constituted will not allow new subscribers into private health care systems, but I will do some research.
Comment by Kate Quick — July 17, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
I’m always surprised that anyone who claims to support capitalism would support our current health care system, because I don’t know of anyone, any average person, who can make sense out of medical bills. It’s not unusual to get an initial bill from a provider that might be 10 times greater than what the insurance finally pays. In what way does this send “signals” that the “consumer” can respond to? I admit to being curious, like why exactly are they charging $500 for this and then accepting payment of $50? Somehow, I don’t remember that happening at the supermarket — and if it did, people would go bonkers. I think there’s kind of an apathy that has long since set in, that we all put up with it because the health care industry and the insurance industry are so massive and well connected that there seems to be little choice.
But it doesn’t make sense, and it can’t be defended.
Comment by DL Morrison — July 17, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
# 45
My Kaiser bill is very easy to make sense of. If I go to the Doctor, I pay my deductable while checking in. End of bill. My premium is deducted automatically each month.
I support free enterprise over government every time. I’d bet dollars to donuts the situation you describe has something to do with government mandates and their required paper pushing.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 18, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Well, no, not really. It’s just the usual arrangement where the insured pay one negotiated rate and the uninsured get hit with astronomical bills for some vaguely explained reason. In neither case is it possible to know what we’re paying for. If medical services cost $50 to provide, then why does the provider charge $500, and if it does in fact cost $500, then how can the provider accept only $50? I am basing this example on a statement that I got for minor x-rays at Alameda Hospital — the hospital charged $500 and the insurer (Blue Cross) paid $50.
This is not government regulation. It’s more like the lack of regulation that has allowed this utterly irrational and incomprehensible billing process to evolve.
Comment by DL Morrison — July 18, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
43. Thanks Jack. If terms for a public employee pension are based on salary at retirement and not over all volume of contribution, I guess the double dip legislation would seem fair. Or perhaps there is a calculation to adjust the amount the SSI is “diminished” according to volume of pension contribution, otherwise if one worked for a short while as public employee before retirement at a low salary ( like entry level for teaching) it seems one could get short changed on years of previous contributions to SSI.
41. I find the congressman refreshing. On the one hand he may have been unnecessarily insulting with Mr. Helfeld about his education, but I understood Stark’s point about debt and I did not feel his anger had to do with crafty Jan somehow backing him into a corner, but to the contrary it was about his absolute contempt for Helfeld being willfully obtuse. When it comes to diplomacy, or lack of it, Stark is a kindred spirit, I just wish I had his smarts. Pete speaks for me. Stark on bailouts: http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=416522&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
Comment by M.I. — July 18, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
48. Running up the debt makes the current voters richer. However, it is stealing from our kids and our kids’ kids. If you think that is “refreshing,” well, no wonder we are in the mess we are in. Others (the minority, unfortunately) would consider it immoral.
Comment by jump the stark — July 19, 2009 @ 7:57 am
[...] Sonoma County, Watsonville, San Luis Obispo County (and also here), San Jose, Humboldt County, Alameda, San Diego, Sacramento, and San [...]
Pingback by CALIFORNIA PENSION REFORM » More ‘$100,000 Pension Club’ lists are being published — July 19, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
49. I find Pete Stark’s honesty about his positions and his responses to antagonists to be refreshing, not increased debt.
I don’t see that running up the debt makes “current voters richer” though some of the current debt from stimulus may succeed in keeping the economy from total collapse if a period of hyper inflation doesn’t set in and wipe us out first.
Certainly the policies of the previous 8 years didn’t help and that debt was created by spending on war which had no capacity for a stimulus outside Halliburton and Blackwater.
Stark was trying to point out the national debt is a little different than your personal credit card debt and the current circumstances are different than anything since the Great Depression.
Still, there are some revisionists running around claiming the New Deal failed too.
Comment by M.I. — July 19, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
More refreshments.
U.S. Bailout Costs May Reach $23.7 Trillion, TARP Inspector Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQEI97EY.fs0
I believe that is approximately $80,000 per person with a pulse within the U.S. borders.
Comment by jump the stark — July 20, 2009 @ 10:20 am
I thought revisionists were like, “…we want change!”, or are they ‘progressionists’?
Comment by Jack Richard — July 20, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
5. Jack I totally don’t get you. I’m talking about people who revise history to justify their point if view, not people who are out to revise the current status quo. I’m not that concerned with labels but consider my self a “progressive”, as opposed to liberal or conservative.
Rather than get sucked into a debate about the national debt or even to discuss pensions , I think since there is a national debate on health care occurring right now and that is a major sticking point with regard to retirement benefits, that we might link the local discussion to the national one by focusing on health care reform as part of a plan for relief from the burden of retirement benefits for public employees.
I have been arguing with a friend about what he thought Stark said about employer health benefits in an interview on KPFA. I claim Stark simply observed most folks who have them are happy with that, while my pal insists Stark defends that as the best primary means to provide coverage. My pal has urged me to stream Amy Goodwin’s interview with Dean, but I seem to need a download. Anyway, here is the link.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/17/gov_howard_dean_on_his_prescription
Comment by M.I. — July 20, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
The latest numbers on CalPERS, a 23.7% decline for last year.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calpers21-2009jul21,0,4629993.story
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 21, 2009 @ 7:22 am
Come on, Mark. Sometimes I think you take yourself way too seriously. History can’t be revised but those who interpret history continually revise historical viewpoints depending on newly revealed documents and research that extends the scholarship of time past.
Case in point, your misplaced umbrage about other “revisionist” interpretations of the effects and degree of success of the New Deal. The idea that one must fall in line with “conventional” thought or be dismissed out of hand does neither you nor your point of view justice.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 21, 2009 @ 8:59 am
56. The new Fox News version of the New Deal doesn’t qualify as scholarship. It is not about an intellectually honest debate of the era, it’s about justifying a current political agenda by selectively revising the past.
The Fox/Limbaugh version of the Great Depression is that the Invisible Hand would have resolved the issues behind the depression better and in a shorter period of time, if FDR hadn’t messed things up with his New Deal and the only reason he got away with it was the war. Yes WWII was good for industry wasn’t it, and that stimulated the economy. But it’s a bit much to ask us to believe that the country could have survived zero government intervention without really serious negative consequences. Perhaps mass uprisings instead of bread lines. Who knows, perhaps the Bolsheviks would have taken over! The right wing alternative version also asks us to dismiss all the social programs which the New Deal brought, such as social security, as being inconsequential liberal folly, evil socialism, etc..
There is ongoing debate about nuking Japan,whether it was logistically justified. We similarly bury facts about our fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden. Some could call our history books revisionist and in the latter part of the century they began to be challenged in the manner you suggest.
Post WWII history books in Japanese schools have for years revised the content about Japan’s actions in China, Philippines, etc. to gloss over war crimes.
The latter at least, is a clear example of what is widely accepted as revisionist history.
I take the treatment of basic fact pretty seriously, as I do many issues, but if I was that serious about myself I would blog much more judiciously or refrain completely. This is sport.
Comment by M.I. — July 21, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
News from the Oakland Tribute. The first article is relevant here; the second isn’t but whatever.
East Bay cities retaining their property tax value
“They’re the East Bay’s elite eight — cities where assessed property values have bucked downward trends and eased the pain city governments are feeling from the recession.
Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda and Piedmont have all seen their assessed property values increase, albeit slightly, according to data from the Alameda and Contra Costa counties’ assessors’ offices.”
(So presumably we could be worse off than we are??)
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_12877843?source=most_viewed
Clif Bar Moving to Emeryville
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_12877802?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
(Was this already expected or not?)
Comment by dl morrison — July 21, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Just where is it you get your “basic fact”, Mark? I doubt you were sitting on FDR’s knee during the thirties. Maybe not the Bolsheviks, more likely the Mensheviks, the real ones instead of the lite version we ended up with.
Comment by Jack Richard — July 22, 2009 @ 9:04 am