For those that watched the City Council meeting on Tuesday will know that the budget outlook for the City is pretty grim. (For scary numbers check out the PowerPoint Presentation)
The big looming problem is, of course, the post-retirement benefits for City employees. Of course, we all did know this was a problem a few years ago, but somehow this issue has been largely ignored by both City Manager Debra Kurita and fiscal guru Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant. Because regardless of how you want to slice it, it’s the City Manager’s responsibility to present an accurate financial picture to the City Council and present solutions and be a part of the solution.
So let me just take out a little bit of time to point out that while supporters of Ann Marie Gallant are still hyping up her financial prowess, she had two whole years (well a bit more than that given that she was Interim Finance Director before Interim City Manager) to work her fiscal magic on Alameda. She spent oodles of money during that time on unnecessary expenses such as vision plans (Civic Center, DelMonte, Webster Street), rebranding efforts, redecorating efforts, urban gardening consultants, alternative fuel consultants, green identity consultants, reorganization consultants, parade “donations”, winter festivities, an eight month $173K Accounting Manager which overshot her contracting authority of $75K without Council approval, “investigations” into a sitting Councilperson, delaying on taking action on the Fire Chief Kapler issue which resulted in him being around long enough to be eligible for his pension via the City of Alameda, and so on a so forth (those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head without digging in my archives).
Because let’s be real here, if Ann Marie Gallant’s supporters are going to give her all the credit for bringing fiscal sanity to the City when everyone thought that the budget was balanced and everything was hunky dory, then when things are indeed, not okay, and we are still working off her budget and coming from her last budget as well, the blame doesn’t all shift to the City Council. But I’m not saying that a certain amount of blame can’t be attributed to the City Council, perhaps they should have been more intellectually curious about the budget and asked more questions. But we’ve seen the result of Councilmembers asking too many questions of Ann Marie Gallant, and it’s not pretty. Although some good questions — and maybe they were raised previously beyond the spotlight of City Council meetings — but a few meetings ago both Mayor Marie Gilmore and Councilmember Lena Tam, when Acting City Manager Lisa Goldman brought back news about the budget adjustments that needed to be made because of the one-time windfall from the sale of Alameda Towne Centre, asked how it was that the City (under Ann Marie Gallant’s budget) was projecting to build up its reserves during a time when revenues were down and there hadn’t been a huge structural shift within the organization. I guess our answer is clear.
The previous Council majority of old had ample opportunity to work with the bargaining units — or rather to direct the Interim City Manager to negotiate with the bargaining units to come up with alternate structures for post-retirements benefits. Because what we have currently is not sustainable in the long run. But, according to Councilmember Lena Tam in one of her responses to In Alameda’s Officially Speaking indicated that there had been a breakdown in communications between bargaining units and City Management (probably the reason why “Labor Negotiations” kept popping up so frequently in Closed Session meetings).
What is good is that Acting City Manager, Lisa Goldman, and Controller, Fred Marsh, have given the Council the straight talk on what the numbers look like for the future, something that previous City Managers didn’t present as plainly and directly. But now — as others have suggested — it is time for the City Council to sack up and provide real direction on how to move forward, even if those directions are not popular. Residents can forgive a City Council for having to make tough decisions, what they will be unable to forgive is if the Council continues to punt on the issue and the City goes under.
At the very least, Mayor Marie Gilmore understands that some of the decisions that will need to be made and implemented will not be popular:
Since we have a budget deficit, not only in this year, but in out years and it’s a structural problem, I think we have to look at doing all of these things, but it’s a timing issue.
…
We’re definitely going to have to look at cost-sharing with the employees, we’re going to have to talk to our employees about, I hate to say this, certain givebacks…we’re going to have to do all of these things over the next several years to make sure that we put out city into a position to be fiscally sustainable.
The good thing about having a new face in the City Manager’s seat is that bad blood from previous interactions will no longer exist between the City Manager’s side and the bargaining units. It’s clear that there was no love lost between Ann Marie Gallant and some of the bargaining units so a break down in communications was inevitable. I’ve actually heard fairly positive things about John Russo’s interactions with the bargaining units in the City of Oakland — ”tough but fair” was one characterization – and I think that is what is needed if we are to ask the bargaining units to move to a tiered pension system or something else.
The blog OCWatchdog has an interesting look about public employee pensions, and it appears the trend is that police and firefighters have been largely agreeing to shoulder much more of the post-retirement benefits because it is largely in their best interest to keep the city they are working on financially solvent. Some interesting items:
- 22% of cities have adopted new pension tiers for new hires
- A change for public safety pensions of 3% at 50 to 3% at 55 or 2% at 50.
- A change for general service employees who have accepted 2 /2.5/2.7% at 55 and even 2% at 60.
- 38% of cities have gotten employees to contribute more to their benefits
- 12% of cities are attempting to eliminate pension spiking by averaging the highest 3 years for public safety workers.
Personally, I’d like to see all of these things incorporated and while I understand that we can’t change the benefits for folks who have already retired, everything should be on the table for current employees if Alameda is to remain fiscally solvent.
On the table as well — in addition to cost cutting — is that the City will need to attempt to raise revenue. A few ideas that have been kicked around is raising the sales tax (ouch), raising the property transfer tax (the sale of Alameda Towne Centre netted the City a pretty penny), adding a fee for ticket sales for the Alameda Theatre, parcel tax, and etc. None of these options will reduce the need for cutting costs or structural changes.
The America’s Cup is expected in inject 1.2bb and 8000 jobs into the bay area. We could get a nice share of that if we were more aggressive. But instead, we have I nice huge pile of toxic mud on display.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 6:20 am
The public employees’ benefits are indeed a major structural problem, but it is not the only one. The other, and far more immediate one, is redevelopment aka tax increment financing.
I very quickly dug up the 2009 financial statements for the Community Improvement Commission (2010 is somewhere but am trying to do this quickly). The commission took in more than 15MM in property tax increment that year, money diverted from the general fund.
A portion of these funds are applied to low income housing and a complex network of pass-throughs to the school district. The bulk of them, however, are used to fund “Development Services,” which is a euphemism for the city engaging in commercial real estate transactions, the most salient being the theater & garage complex. Plainly stated, a significant amount of money was taken from the General Fund — the source of police/fire/parks funding — and instead spent on an entertainment complex and a very large gift to PSBA.
Some would call it an “investment” and cite the sales tax revenues generated by it. Those people are ignorant. The city’s ENTIRE sales tax revenue approx 5MM and the portion of that attributable to the theater complex is miniscule, and doesn’t come within a galaxy of servicing the debt that financed the complex.
Take a look at the Treasurer’s presentation and see what that forgone 15MM in General Fund revenue would fix. What is more important, public safety or corporate welfare?
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 7:12 am
Sounds like we need a good city manager not an attorney. Someone should tell the mayor.
Comment by Dr.Poodlesmurf — March 31, 2011 @ 7:17 am
“But I’m not saying that a certain amount of blame can’t be attributed to the City Council, perhaps they should have been more intellectually curious about the budget and asked more questions.”
Ya think? In honor of the last day of her tenure, wouldn’t it be nice to stop beating the dead horse of “AMG as the mother of all problems”? It’s pointless to dwell on how we got to where we are, and the implication that generations of missteps by the City Council can largely be attributed to one City Manager whose tenure was relatively short, are absurd. If Giltambo is such a force to be reckoned with, I’m sure they don’t need a scapegoat to explain any failures they might have going forward. By the way, whatever happened to the desire to move forward?
Comment by Denise Shelton — March 31, 2011 @ 7:18 am
Poodle, that’s what I was thinking but after watching the KK’s on the video last night, I see how Russo could be a really good choice. This city needs to act quickly and he’ll have a good sense of what can/can’t be done to bring us from the brink. Of course, I could be wrong.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 7:25 am
Denise: When people stop trying to give AMG credit for saving Alameda’s finances, I’ll stop pointing out that if she is to get the credit when the perception is that things are good, she also gets the blame if things aren’t good.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 31, 2011 @ 7:28 am
So what would the citizens of Alameda prefer, higher and ongoing ever increasing benefits to city safety and fire personnel, as dave suggests, or their money spent on the rehab on things they can actually use and enjoy? Can’t have both.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 8:40 am
In honour of AMG’s last official day I would like to offer her this piece of advise.
If you are able to find work again try staying out of the politics of what ever city it is that you work in. The reason you are no longer here is because you decided to pick political sides on the council and your side lost. You were not sent away because you did your job to well, that is just plain old common sense. Good Luck to you in the future.
Comment by John P. — March 31, 2011 @ 8:43 am
8: John, thanks for the reminder that there IS good news to celebrate today. Now I can stop spending half of my posts describing “the soon-to-be-former Interim City Manager, Ann Marie Gallant.” (Whew!)
(I’m just a little bit tempted to post a video clip to a very famous song from “The Wizard of Oz,” but I will not do so.)
I have to give the former ICM credit for one thing: although at least one of her supporters still refuses to speak to me because I frequently criticized her actions, she never snubbed me or stopped talking to me.
In fact, she thanked me more than once for letting her know about the nasty “J Hayes” emails attacking her that Suncal sent during last fall’s campaign.
Comment by Jon Spangler — March 31, 2011 @ 9:05 am
7
Calling benefits “a major structural problem” does not mean that I am in favor of increasing them. Does it sound like it? More than once I have plainly stated they must be brought in line with reality.
Aside, having read your eternal hypocrisy on the subject the last few years, I am not surprised you, a significant beneficiary of taxpayer largesse, would deny others same/similar while recommending expenditure on bread/circus projects.
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 9:07 am
I just read the powerpoint presentation, basically they need to do a combination of everything that they had outlined.
Should think about increasing the cost of parking. $.25 for 10 min of parking instead of 15 min, generates 50 extra cents per hour of parking. Extend the city garage/lot parking to 8pm payment instead of 6.
I loathe to see the sales tax and another parcel tax increased again.
Comment by hobnob — March 31, 2011 @ 10:35 am
10
Yes it does sound like it. I haven’t read anything from you that denies that sound.
(except, of course when you write about all the so called largess I receive…including the largess of Prop 13, which everybody else in CA receives) Also you seem to know more about my personal finances than I do. Are you a census worker?
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 10:39 am
Thanks Lauren for the history lesson. Now that we’ve established who has been in charge for the last 4 years, I agree we should move forward and focus on how to resolve our budget problems.
One thing I would do is dust off the plans Ann Marie Gallant had for some of the city’s assets. I would take a look at some of her ideas and see if we can put some of our assets to work for us.
Comment by Karen Bey — March 31, 2011 @ 10:42 am
You have forgotten that I have come out against retiree benefits many times. They say memory is the second thing to go…
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 10:49 am
14
“…I have come out against retiree benefits many times”
So you’re against retiree benefits? Even though these benefits were agreed to as part of the employment contract? They say common sense is the first thing to go.
I would never be for breaking contracts already agreed to and underway. Future contracts that have not been agreed to and are not underway are a different story.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Against excessive benefits and for their reduction in future contracts.
Your ability to infer seems to have gone the way of your memory, et al. At least your pointless wordsmithing skills are intact.
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 12:21 pm
>>> I would never be for breaking contracts already agreed to and underway.
If I understand the KK’s in Tuesday’s video correctly, if we don’t [modify/break] those contracts…. a bankruptcy court will?
Do I have that right or wrong?
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
and your personal attacks are pointless, but I forget them easily.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 1:15 pm
Where did all the experts go? Does anyone know the answer to 17?
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 3:21 pm
Bankruptcy court’s a whole new ballgame. I doubt the city want to even consider it.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 3:29 pm
So… in order to avoid bankruptcy, do they have to modify/break those agreements?
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
That’s what I heard Jack B.
You don’t need to break them (contracts) you need to sit down as reasonable people who understand this situation and try to come up with something that both parties can live with.
Comment by John P. — March 31, 2011 @ 3:47 pm
21
That or lay off a large number of people, mostly public safety personnel. A bankruptcy court has the power to modify or abrogate a contract.
Outside of that, it has to be done via collective bargaining.
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 3:50 pm
Thanks guys. That’s what I gathered but I am such a novice on such matters.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
Jack B. those already retired and on pensions are entirely off limits as far I can tell. Didn’t Marie Gillmore say that?
All else in theoretically on the table. A two tiered system for new hires is what is most often referred to, but new hiring is so slow as to have barely any impact.
What I am not clear about is changing horses mid-stream. For ongoing employees who have worked under a 3% and 50 system for a while, it’s not clear to me exactly how changing to 2% and 55 would effect them if they keep working. Is 3% and 50 a carrot on a stick which is completely taken away or is there a system of being credited for one system up to now and another from here forward? Obviously changing retirement age to a higher age applies to all who continue to work, though various cut offs for years worked, or proximity to retirement ages could be considered. In that sense everything should be on the table if it’s not. But to work 29 years toward retirement at 50 and then at age 49 have the bar raised by 5 years is cruel on some level.
For people who are actual experts, I think it is fairly fundamental to lay out options. The hard part is negotiating agreements.
I’d like to see a general public discussion for educational purposes of CEO and administrative salaries, as well as safety and fire positions top to bottom, in a broad context of salaries nationally, with realistic adjustments for cost of living. The purpose being to provide solid material to base a rational debate before all the self professed experts and real stake holders weigh in.
During the parcel tax we were launched into discussing how to value teachers and though everybody feels entitled to their opinion regardless of what they know, not all opinions were entirely well informed.
BTW, I think tax payers are real stakeholders, but I view those whose livelihood is on the line to be primary stakeholders whose rights are important.
Comment by M.I. — March 31, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
M.I. I know she said that. But for the sake of discussion… are those already retired on pensions off limits to a BK court? If so, then I imagine they are open to modification before that point, alas those retired could be worse off under BK.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 4:07 pm
I meant if not, apologies.
Comment by Jack B. — March 31, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
The great majority of those already retired are in the CALPERS and would be unaffected by an Alameda BK.
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 4:48 pm
Though their healthcare payments could be at risk in Alameda BK.
Comment by dave — March 31, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
Outsource some things (maybe City Attorney’s office for starters and maybe ambulance services) and cut departments heads pay. and furloughs please!
Comment by Drudge — March 31, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
Drill for avgas at the Point. Wells only have to be couple of feet deep in a lot of places.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 6:15 pm
25
Teachers can retire at 50?
One way to have decided for us who are “stakeholders” is to go into chapter nine and let the court decide who has the best claim.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 31, 2011 @ 7:35 pm
Pension benefits are paid into by employees and paid out of special funds set aside for that purpose; not the general fund. They are not the only source of our financial difficulties; diminished revenues from tax revenue shortfalls are the biggest problem municipal governments are facing, along with diminished revenues from the state and the feds as they cut back as well. The advent of the 3% at 50 payouts for badge personnel did really up the liability for pensions.
The whole matter of our budget crisis cannot be solved by pension reform alone; it must be attacked by increasing our dwindling revenues, better investment policies, more intelligent use of resources, and yes, cuts to services to the community.
I watched the meeting and Kevin’s “bankrupcy in two years” speech was, indeed alarming. However, I think we should be rather careful in our approach and our words as it may work against us with our bond sales or other revenue/investment plans if we portray ourselves as going down the tubes.
It is right and good to be realistic and dedicated to resolving the problem, but it is going to take a very complicated and sophisticated set of well reasoned, multi-pronged strategies to get that resolution.
And yes, for those who always like to go “personal”, I am one of those retired civil servants living off of my pension. I certainly do not hope that I lose my major source of income that I paid into for 33 years, but I do recognize that demonizing civil servants and retirees is not going to solve the fiscal problems of Alameda.
Comment by Kate Quick — March 31, 2011 @ 10:27 pm
Pensions are not even close to the biggest problem. As Kate says, they are largely funded already. They are also easily fixed: run the actuarials, set contributions levels.
On the compensation side, the problem is healthcare. It is difficult if not impossible to reliably estimate, though one can be sure it’s an ever increasing number. There is little or no pre-funding either. Retiree healthcare will sink us long before pensions do.
Comment by dave — April 1, 2011 @ 6:08 am
34. dave, are they largely funded already? I thought we have been told over and over that there are looming deficits because of deferred contributions.
Health care really is a crisis and a national fix and some kind of deep overhaul on cost control are needed, but it’s not likely to happen, at least soon. I heard one congressman say that it may be good if Obama’s health care falls in the supreme court on the issue of forcing people to carry it, because it will bring us back to single payer. But that in turn will lead to Tea bag riot.
Meanwhile, I have a friend at regional parks who at retirement will go straight to Medicare and her younger ( self employed) husband will have to try to get back on Kaiser like before they married. Alameda fire personnel get full coverage for whole family for life. We should all have that, so I am hesitant to lobby it be reduced, but the cost has to be horrendous.
The relativity is important. I saw an Ohio fire fighter last night on the tube who was complaining that a pension of 60% of his best 3 years as retirement was measly. They are currently promised 100%! He said his best salary to date is $70K with the forced over time as happens here. I recall a similar base salary here in the $90K range being $119 with overtime. NYFD salaries were discussed here in a similar range but a quick check I see a wide range from starting at amazingly low $48K to what seems like average $90K.
I’m wary of too much focus being put on public employees because of current conservative back lash which is overly divisive, but San Jose for example is in similar straights with fifth highest salary for fire fighter in the entire nation.
Outside circles of high end remodeling, construction is still in a race to the bottom mode for competitive bidding. I don’t want to see working people cannibalize each other while the 3% continue to stash the majority of wealth in off shore accounts, but it does look like it’s up to local municipalities to figure out how to survive until both the economy gets better and larger systems of government finish being dysfunctional. It would help if we could stop bleeding a billion a week in Afghanistan.
Comment by M.I. — April 1, 2011 @ 8:05 am
They are not fully funded and there will need to be additional payments, but they are predictable. Healthcare is not prefunded at all and is unpredicatble (though certain to be large).
Comment by dave — April 1, 2011 @ 8:49 am
35
The only possible solution to the “health care” problem (which isn’t a problem at all) is to eliminate the involvement of federal, state and local governments and the elite politicians housed within, who are herding the citizen sheep over a cliff.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 1, 2011 @ 9:13 am
Dave is right, the only portion of government retirement payouts which is not funded with special retirement invested funds is the health and dental portion, and those costs have been ballooning for years. Those of us who get these benefits now know that that part of our retirement can go at any time it cannot be funded.
Comment by Kate Quick — April 1, 2011 @ 9:37 am
How can we ever get a fair decision on health care when the people making it are insulated from the result? If our legislators had to take whatever health care plan We the People got, we’d have a great solution. Until then, they preen themselves and we suffer. Our COBRA payment for a family of three is $1,300 a month. Luckily, we have a retirement account to dip into, so we haven’t lost our house yet. Not everyone has been so lucky.
Comment by Denise Shelton — April 1, 2011 @ 2:03 pm
The average annual salary in 2010 in California for active working educators enrolled in CalSTRS was $64,156. The average retirement benefit paid out by CalSTRS in 2010 was $4,256 per month. That’s $51,072 annually.
http://www.calstrs.com/help/forms_publications/printed/SumReport2010.pdf
For comparison’s sake, the average retired educator’s benefit from CalSTRS is higher than the average pay for the average teacher with less than 20 years experience in the US.
http://teacherportal.com/salary
Comment by Jack Richard — April 1, 2011 @ 2:04 pm
FINALLY!! The story of Gallant’s inability to manage the budget comes out. She was blowing smoke to everyone and that cat is so far out of the bag, people are urging us to “MOVE ON.”
I was wondering where the Kevins were when the Great and Powerful Gallant was telling everyone that her cuts and actions had rescued the city. OH, they were praising her and sitting in her lap buying everything she said. You would think the AUDITOR could see the handwriting on the wall, right? And the Treasurer was on OFFICIALLY SPEAKING posted on The Island just singing Gallant’s praises.
Look at the record people! Not only has Gallant sued every community she’s left, she also left them in near financial ruin. She hires her friends from the outside, spends money frivolously and then leaves.
And for you folks wanting to blame the Council for this structural problem, well, look no further that wonderful numbers wizard Bev Johnson. Not only do we have her years as Mayor, you have her years on Council too. Wasn’t she saying how great Gallant was and how lucky we were to have her? To quote Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” I personally cannot wait for Bev’s term to be up on Council and we can finally get her out of here before she can do more damage.
Go Lauren, tell the story! Everyone thought we were in such good hands, and look what a mess she’s gotten us into. Thank God Lisa Goldman and Fred Marsh laid Gallant’s cards on the table, she was holding 5 jokers, we call them Frank, Doug and Bev, also known as the Council majority with an Auditor and Treasurer
Comment by Jason Gee — April 1, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
Copied from The Island:
Kevin Kennedy says:
April 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Glad to see a spirited discussion of this important topic. As some comments I’ve made in the past have been brought up, I felt I should respond and clarify them:
1. I do believe our former City Manager did a good job on fiscal matters. Staff reductions, consolidating City Hall West, overhauling the Planning Dept to better reflect the diminished construction environment, rebuilding reserves from dangerously low levels to generally average levels. It is a start, had that not een done we’d be in worse shape right now without question. But the fundamental, structural problems like the pension system and retiree healthcare are the biggest issues, and those remain unchanged. I’m not sure if it was as much from a lack of effort as it may have been from a lack of political will, but I guess we’ll find out now that we’ve got new folks in these positions.
2. Not to get into semantics, but “verge of bankruptcy” implies a short timeframe (verge: edge, brink). In the situations I’ve seen in the corporate world, as an organization moves closer to insolvency, everyone “smells blood in the water” and the process accelerates–vendors stop doing business with you, employees panic, customers go elsewhere. So implying that we were on the verge of bankruptcy has many potential negative ramifications. That said, here we are two years later and our policymakers (Council) haven’t done anything to address those core issues in #1 above. I don’t know what time frame “verge” is for you, but if it’s 24-36 months feel free to whip that material out now. I’m a logical person by nature, and I had hoped this situation was so clearly unsustainable that it would be addressed, but here we are…
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2011/03/alameda-facing-millions-in-budget-deficits-treasurer-says-city-heading-toward-bankruptcy/
Comment by dlm — April 1, 2011 @ 6:06 pm
His point #2 is what I was trying to say in #33 – it is not good to run amok with “the sky is falling and our city is going down the tubes” public talk when you are at the same time trying to get the best financial deals to improve your interest rates or leverage other investments. We need to be frank and realistic, but not portray our situation as imminent bankrupcy, because that is not what it is. And if such statements are made, we should have balancing information as to what our financial strategies are going to be to turn it around and statements of committment to the fixes. This is a nervous time for the money boys and they aren’t going to help a ship that is floundering.
Comment by Kate Quick — April 1, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
43
The point is the ship is floundering and those at the helm are aiding the floundering instead of fortifying the ship.
It does nobody any good to shoot the messenger (who doesn’t make policy, just reports it). The idea that the money boys will be fooled into thinking the ship is seaworthy when it isn’t is unlikely.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 2, 2011 @ 9:33 am
The new captain can write an injunction against further bankruptcies. That’ll right the ship. Arrrrh!
Comment by Adam Gillitt — April 2, 2011 @ 1:03 pm
I am not a believer in shooting the messenger – having had the role of the messenger many times – however, how the message is delivered is often an important thing. It must be delivered, but not in such a way as to interfere with the possiblilty of corrective actions. Kevin did well to deliver the message and I am just suggesting that some balance be found in giving equal “face time” to the fixes.
Comment by Kate Quick — April 2, 2011 @ 1:14 pm
In the past the message has been couched in bureaucracy-speak that always attempts to smear lipstick on a moribund pig hoping no one will notice the smell.
The broken side of the equation must be known and understood prior to corrective action. The PP Demo should have made the message known. The next step should be taken by those who have the authority to direct and change policy.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 2, 2011 @ 4:14 pm
40. you have a specific point? Maybe you are arguing that working teachers with less than 20 years experience are not paid enough? Our monthly contribution to health premium under AUSD is about 19% of my wife’s pre-tax salary and she has been at it 13 years. Maybe that “isn’t a problem at all” for you, but it’s a burden for us.
And it’s no problem at all because ?…in addition to being on Prop 13 welfare for property tax you have a fat government pension or something?
In rant 35 above I forgot to put quotations around the adjective “measly” used by Ohio fire fighter in reference to 60% full salary pension. His 60% looks good next to my projected SSI. I support Labor, but I guess I have limits.
On the other hand, no meaningful reform on Wall Street, tax loopholes G.E. can drive a $14 billion dollar corporate truck through, and $1 billion dollar a week war are bigger problems.
Comment by M.I. — April 3, 2011 @ 9:47 am
Right on Mark, I think teachers should make more than fire fighters and fat gov retirees combined…and have all their health benefits paid for from cradle to grave. And it should all come from closed Wall Street loopholes.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 3, 2011 @ 10:31 am
49. and teachers as government employees should also retain collective bargaining rights too, right?
But what about comment health care “no problem at all”? whether it is paid for as benefit or contributed to out of salary the premiums are a huge problem.
Part of the reason Kaiser is cheaper is because they manage the costs. I got an MRI through Blue Cross for which I was grateful because of conclusive information provided, but I met a Kaiser radiologist socially who explained how Kaiser probably wouldn’t have authorized it because my condition indicated that the information would not help inform any better care than the physical therapy I have pursued. That is in fact true, but I wouldn’t know that without the MRI. I would have had to trust a Kaiser Dr. to be correct about my condition while I worked through the pain and insecurity which came with it. Now that I know a little more about my condition, I can lower my expectations for treatment without freaking out.
I get the Ohio fire fighter being pissed about having 40% of is pension cut, which is a huge percentage. The problem is the remaining 60% is barely less than I often make in a year in a more expensive state and my income has no benefits other than what I put in 401K out of net amount.
We may have promised public employees too much, but guys like Marshall Cromer in the Friday My Word in the Journal have no right stomping around calling all public employees “greedy”. Anybody can quote conservative think tank stats to make a grouchy argument to attack some strata of middle class, but when are the Cromers of the world going to get just as pissed about Wall Street bonuses being paid with bailout money?
Comment by M.I. — April 4, 2011 @ 4:26 pm
50
“…government employees should also retain collective bargaining rights too, right?”
Though I’m fundamentally opposed to unions of any sort and most especially opposed to public employee unions, I understand that you all (well not you personally) are members because you think you all brought decent wages and benefits to the working man in the United States, which is pure hogwash but it sounds good and you all believe it so yes, I agree with the above,…as long as salary and working conditions are off the table.
And I wouldn’t call all gov workers greedy, they’re only trying to make a buck or two.
Your MRI episode made me think back when I was one of those gov employees, in the missile building out at the base while watching the Sparrow missiles wend their individual way from being a poor broken shell of electronics torn apart and tested by a group of very highly trained technicians then built-up with new parts by highly trained technicians making those little Sparrows better then when they were new, I would ponder how much better this operation would be if it were humans wending their way through this test and repair line being made new by machines.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 4, 2011 @ 5:40 pm
Two pieces in the Jurinal today by the Adam and dave tag team.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 15, 2011 @ 2:36 pm
I can haz an army.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — April 15, 2011 @ 3:35 pm
52 I meant to insert “good” between Two—pieces”, but I’ll modify that by putting “excellante” between ‘em instead.
Comment by Jack Richard — April 15, 2011 @ 5:45 pm