CA budget

nobody456

Active Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
3
Anybody have any thoughts on the current budget impasse for CA??

Pensions remain a hurdle to California budget deal - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee


There's a lot more to the story and so on, so ask questions and hopefully I can point you in the "right" direction. Don't worry, it's not a cliff.
______________________________________________________
And any thoughts on how to fix it?

No, I won't berate you if I don't think it "fits" my frame. I can play either side, but it's helpful to try get a better picture as a whole. In other words, I'm a strange dude trying to understand problems.

My background is a BA from UC Davis in Political Science and currently work for the state of CA in the prison system.
 
Update. Day 90

Tax breaks for oil companies part of budget deal?
Capitol Alert: Republicans seeking tax benefits for cable, oil companiesr

Pension talk. Still surprised the rest of the non-sticky budget issues weren't already set 90 days ago.
Pensions remain a hurdle to California budget deal - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

"Big 5" meeting canceled for the day. A bunch of cry babies.
Calif. governor, lawmakers cancel budget meeting - Sacramento Business, Housing Market News | Sacramento Bee
 
Craig, the link re: "pension hurdle" wouldn't parse/open so do you have a handle on the basic problem with that issue?
 
Well, voters voted no tax increase so they gotta expect that they'll lose services.

Amazing how stupid people are. They whine expecting CA to pay them when they have no money and the only way is to tax them more.

OH wait, it's true for the rest of America. They claim to be for less government but let's cut services and you'l hear them whine.
 
Pensions remain a hurdle to California budget deal
Share

By Kevin Yamamura
kyamamura@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Sep. 28, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Tuesday, Sep. 28, 2010 - 1:20 am
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders have expressed nervous optimism about closing a budget deal soon and ending the state's record-long impasse.

But several contentious items remain, none thornier than the state pension cuts that Schwarzenegger demands be part of the budget package.

The Republican governor wants a two-tier system of pensions that reduces benefits with stricter retirement formulas for new state workers. He also wants to reduce pay by roughly 10 percent for existing state workers this fiscal year through higher pension contributions and unpaid leave days.

The rub? Democrats still insist that Schwarzenegger negotiate any reductions with the labor unions that have not yet struck contract deals. The governor, meanwhile, says lawmakers could impose cuts on their own.

Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders announced Thursday that they had agreed on a "framework" for a budget deal. But they emerged from a 90-minute session Monday without a grand compromise and said they would return today.

Three of the four legislative leaders, including both Republicans, cited pensions as a specific issue dividing the leaders.

Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth pointed the finger at Democrats for prolonging the pension debate. Democrats contend that the governor and unions must resolve the issue on their own.
"We still believe that collective bargaining is the appropriate and important way to finalize agreements with the representatives of the state employees," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, after Monday's meeting.

The governor, who has not yet struck deals with 15 of the state's 21 bargaining units, has not backed down on his pension demand.

"We're negotiating with the unions, but we also believe this could be done legislatively," said Schwarzenegger press secretary Aaron McLear. "The Legislature got us into this mess and they have the responsibility to reverse that mistake."

Lawmakers and then-Gov. Gray Davis approved a bill in 1999 that enabled the state to abolish the two-tier pension structure in place at the time. Unions say they obtained better pension benefits but gave up pay hikes they otherwise could have received.

Six bargaining units have struck deals this year with Schwarzenegger to change the formulas that govern pension benefits for new workers, such as increasing age requirements. The deals require current employees to increase pension contributions by as much as 5 percent. Some require workers to take 12 days of unpaid leave in exchange for a 5 percent pay cut. The deals include eventual step pay raises for those at the top of their job classifications.

Schwarzenegger officials are in the midst of talks with the biggest state employee union, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which represents 95,000 workers.

The governor is not in ongoing discussions with any other union at the moment.

Democrats hope that SEIU negotiations lead to a deal soon. Absent an agreement, Schwarzenegger wants Democrats to impose cuts on state employees through legislation.

"The governor basically wants to sidestep collective bargaining, which is not a popular position from our view," said Dave Low, a lobbyist representing a union coalition. "His responsibility is to bargain these things out."

Democrats will find it difficult to approve cuts to state workers that their unions have not negotiated. Doing so would require Democrats to defy their allies by going outside the collective bargaining process, a sacred institution for state employee unions.

Schwarzenegger last month said lawmakers want him to take the blame for political reasons. He included in that charge Republicans, who receive support from public safety unions such as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

"It's about cover," Schwarzenegger told the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce. "They don't want to look like we're going to go and shove it to the unions."


Read more: Pensions remain a hurdle to California budget deal - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee
 
Craig, the link re: "pension hurdle" wouldn't parse/open so do you have a handle on the basic problem with that issue?


hmmm...the link is working for me under Google Chrome...and I know sacbee sometimes takes down their articles for "refreshment". Try it again and see how it goes...if not, I'll copy and paste the article in here...

Thanks for the heads-up:wave:
 
TXGolfer! Thanks for that.....I am a member of that pension fund (PERS, the largest in the country if not the world) and I just got their latest newsletter and they said the Fund grew 11.4% this past quarter.
 
TXGolfer! Thanks for that.....I am a member of that pension fund (PERS, the largest in the country if not the world) and I just got their latest newsletter and they said the Fund grew 11.4% this past quarter.

Yeah I figured you were.

Wow @ growth
 
Well, voters voted no tax increase so they gotta expect that they'll lose services.

pretty much a bunch of levers to fool around with until the pressure/balance is just right. Voters don't have that leverage; mostly through propositions. Leg Terms are limited to 2. Special interest group $$ has increased a lot over the past 5 years. Some over dependence on the "Big 5" concept of negotiating.

Amazing how stupid people are. They whine expecting CA to pay them when they have no money and the only way is to tax them more.

Yes, indeed. Yup. And when the budget is late, businesses that contract with the state don't get paid. When the budget does get signed eventually, the State pays interest for every day that it was late. This can negatively affect small businesses a bit disproportion to bigger businesses and smaller markets. and especially if they don't have the cash flow to support a budget impasse like this. Smart Contractors will save up/diversify but I still hate getting phone calls like "hey I have to go to bank to take out a loan now". The interest is paid by taxpayers. Who wins more? bigger businesses. It may a marginal difference, but still something I think about.

OH wait, it's true for the rest of America. They claim to be for less government but let's cut services and you'l hear them whine.

Somebody always whines. At least someone does...cause uh...in North Korea...that probably means that whine is never heard again.

I always thought of gov't as having different levels or tiers of gov't (local to fed) and sometimes people don't really think about the federal/state "balance" that usually resides. I mean, how many state legislators are controlled by Republicans as opposed to federal legs? I'm not saying I don't oppose austerity measures or tax increases on targeted segments but let's keep in mind what different levels of power do to budgets.
 
TXGolfer! Thanks for that.....I am a member of that pension fund (PERS, the largest in the country if not the world) and I just got their latest newsletter and they said the Fund grew 11.4% this past quarter.

Seriously? That's good...maybe more people will retire?

I usually ignore everything from SIEU and glance at my quarterly PERS statements. At 25, I have almost 3 years in, but I'm not planning on staying with CA forever (and not 55 :eek3:). But we'll see after (and if I get there) law school.
 
Shows how little you both know about Jerry Brown. Brown was more fiscally conservative than Reagan, Duekmajian, or Wilson (to say nothing of Davis or Ahnold). He also supports (or at least used to) a flat tax. While he was governor, he kept a small apartment close to the capitol and drove to work in a sedan. He never wasted money on lavish parties or receptions. You know... all those little things "conservatives" are supposed to do, but don't.

He's probably the best governor the state has ever had. He rejuvenated the city of Oakland and kept all (or most, anyway) of his promises while he was mayor. As the attorney general, he's protected the rights of the people time and time again while standing strong against drug cartels and violent criminals. He has the backing of all the law enforcement agencies, labor unions, educational boards, etc.

Seriously, before you throw out your snide little jokes, you ought to check the facts on who you're talking about.
 
Shows how little you both know about Jerry Brown. Brown was more fiscally conservative than Reagan, Duekmajian, or Wilson (to say nothing of Davis or Ahnold). He also supports (or at least used to) a flat tax. While he was governor, he kept a small apartment close to the capitol and drove to work in a sedan. He never wasted money on lavish parties or receptions. You know... all those little things "conservatives" are supposed to do, but don't.

He's probably the best governor the state has ever had. He rejuvenated the city of Oakland and kept all (or most, anyway) of his promises while he was mayor. As the attorney general, he's protected the rights of the people time and time again while standing strong against drug cartels and violent criminals. He has the backing of all the law enforcement agencies, labor unions, educational boards, etc.

Seriously, before you throw out your snide little jokes, you ought to check the facts on who you're talking about.

umad, man? Doesn't take much, huh?
 
Back
Top