Marie, where is all this additional education funding suppose to come from? The state already executed your "balanced approach" and increased taxes during the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Are you recommending more taxes? What other programs should be cut in order to shift more money to education? How can our education system operate more efficiently so we can put more money into the classroom? It isn't enough to complain about a lack of funding, please make some suggestions where we will get all the additional revenues.

Marie, here is an article from the LA Times that discusses the widening budget gap for the City of Los Angeles. Note that based on investment losses pension costs are currently projected to DOUBLE within the next few years, which will cost the city an additional $300 million to fund.

Why is this relevant? Because school districts will also be affected by pension fund losses and will have to dramatically increase contributions in order to make up the difference. That means that more and more school funds will have to be diverted to pay for unfunded pension commitments. Even if you could come up with additional funding all of it and more would be gobbled up by the pension system. Don't forget that during the boom years of the past decade school districts throughout the state have also been raising promised pension benefits. All of this has been done in the name of offering "competitive" wages and benefits. Now it is time to pay the bill.

Sorry for being a "Negative Nelly", but I think you need a small dose of reality here.

Bubba, this budget is not a compromise it is the result of Republican legislative thugs sticking up the people of California. There were huge tax decreases for large out of state corporations. Taxes that were raised were sales taxes and other regressive taxes which disproportionately impact people who have to spend all their money to survive. The obvious solutions, increase the top rates and end corporate welfare, causes such caterwauling from the yacht club and pinkie waving crowd that our children who don't have a vote, get the short end.

I understand your solution, Bubba, is to stop teachers from buying their own corporate jets. When you come back from lala land hopefully the incalculable cost of a generation of uneducated kids wont smack you in the face.

We have all been "Bush-Whacked" over the past 8 years! Sales of extreme luxury items, like fancy private jets and large yachts, have boomed over the past 8 years. This is what happens when you give tax breaks to the very wealthy and deregulate financial firms. The Bush gang first honed their craft of stealing from the public treasury during the S&L scandal of Bush Sr. By the time they stole the Florida election and got Bush Jr. in, they took the public treasury rip off to a whole new level! It will take years to get us out of this mess, but hopefully education can survive well enough until a better government and economy is implemented. Material excess and greed emphahsis will hopefully give way to volunteerism and community activism in improving our shared city. The Bubba/Reagan "individualism" outlook does not work well for long. We have been forced into something like the Roosevelt New Deal era by Hoover 'esqe corporate greed and corruption!

Like Marie says, we will come out of it fine. We are just lucky to live in such a desirable location where the natural beauty, weather and overall good quality people make it cheap and enjoyable to remain "home" and save on travel and entertainment costs! My wife and I just spent a 3 day weekend shopping locally, going to the beach and hiking our local hills. No big gas cost or hotel cost involved to travel somewhere nice. I have lived in a valley town where you had to spend money every weekend to travel elsewhere to get relaxation and geographical variety. Ventura is a godsend for us to live in during these tough times, if you have your basic expenses met. Those of us who are getting by ok should volunteer and donate to help others and our community get through the downturn.

Instead of having a negative, glass-is-half-empty outlook like Bubba, think of how lucky we are to be able to complain about the minor sacrifices we may have to pay to help get through a "hard time" economically. We could be living in an area like "Slumdog Millionaire" showed over in Mumbai, where you used communal outhouses. Well, we do have that on a certain scale by allowing those homeless to live along the Ventura River, but most of us can take our plumbing, water and full stomachs for granted. Ventura County is also not a good place to live if you are a mountain lion or cub, as people freak out and call cops who are delighted to shoot you. But, those are some things we can add to our lists to improve. Some people are even having to revert to a dial-up connection to save funds, Bubba! You certainly have no problem affording Broadband. I save money buying a little cheaper wine and spirits, BBQ at home more often and get some goods at Thrift Stores to make up for some of the current monetary gaps and any new taxes. Right wingers, Turn off O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh! Not having all that negativity and doom-and-gloom pounded into your minds each day may make you realize this is a period where we can all pull together to help maintain our relatively high-quality lifestyles. Most people in the world think it is a "good day" if they have food in their stomachs. So, we should be able to maintain a good outlook and work cooperatively to get through the current economic uncertaintly. Such events sometimes lead to greater good and focused value prioritization. If you have kids in school, work on behalf of that. If you have a relative buried in that dog park anonymously, work on behalf of that. If you want a Wal-Mart, or not, vote and work on behalf of that. If you want to maintain your hill and ocean views, work on behalf of that. If you want to keep your local libraries, work on behalf of that. If you want to improve Grant Park, support that. Get out there and help out personally. You will meet new friends!

You guys may not want to hear the truth, but that won't stop me from telling it. California's fiscal problems are homegrown. It seems to be the typical reaction of liberals to blame every problem in the world on GWB and republicans, but all it does is keep you in denial. You can shirk responsibility all you want and keep delaying making the tough decisions, but all it will do is make the eventual outcome much worse. You guys are no different than the narcissists who relied on creative financing to live a lifestyle well beyond their means. And now that the house of cards has imploded they want to blame somebody else for their own decisions.

I am going on record with my predictions about what is about to unfold. You can choose to keep your heads buried in the sand (or wherever else you bury your heads), but time will tell who is right and who is wrong. It it won't take that much longer as we are already at the tipping point.

Bubba, I understand the pension issues and I did make a suggestion on the other entry.

I made three points with this entry:

1) Nobody else is writing about how deep these budget cuts are to our schools. I can find very little out there. I have O'Connell's report sitting here. This went to every school district in the state.

We did indeed include a $1 billion corporate tax break in this budget to get Republicans to sign off on it. In addition, over the past 15 years we have doled out $100 billion in these tax breaks to special interests, money that comes right out of our treasury. The LAO identified some of these for elimination.

This budget asks kids and the middle class to pay instead.

2) This budget was cobbled together precariously and hinges on complicated ballot measures that voters will not understand. You should at least find this very disturbing. Again, I don't see anybody else writing about this.

3) Our schools need definitive answers by March 13 and will have nothing at least until until June. This is madness.

throwing money at the problem is not the solution. i think the last century has shown us this.

Daniel, can you write something besides right-wing talking points? "Throwing money," "fraud, waste and abuse," etc.

Sure there's inefficiencies and duplication. But not $41 billion of it that we can identify right away to fix our shortfall.

I've posted this before, but I will do it again just for you:

Gov. Schwarzenegger's bipartisan Committee on Education Excellence released a 300-page report a year or so ago on how to improve the state's education system.

It worked two years, backed by foundation-funded research, to come up with ideas to turn the schools around.

There was much consensus among the group, and its members ranged from conservative Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek to ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum.

All agreed that more money was needed but must be tied to reforms, including new ideas to train, evaluate and pay teachers and administrators; a new evaluation system that rewards as well as sanctions schools; more extensive data on student performance, and more district control over school management and spending.

With this last budget, we did achieve more local control.

The report recommended an additional $10 billion in funding for schools: $5 billion for poor and English-learning children, $3 billion for additional training and performance-based pay for teachers, and $800 million to expand preschool.

Standard and Poor's did research that low-income kids need 35% more funding; ELL need 20% more. For low-income students, CA provides just 5.5% more, compared to the national average of 17.2.

The committee recommended a somewhat higher per-pupil funding level for districts who serve these students. They want to use targeted funding grants.

But we can't afford to do any of this right now and are instead busy sending pink slips to more than 700 teachers in this county.

Spending on K-12 education above the rate of inflation and population growth has been flat over the last 10 years. I have said this repeatedly here as well.

Marie,
"Throwing money at the problem" has a very clear definition. That is when the system is failing no matter how much money or funding is added. Yes it is cliche, just like the "worst economic crisis since the great depression." The point is, Daniel is right. Until you fix the education system and the budget system, just adding funding every year won't make our students any smarter.

On a side note: Let's cut all welfare spending and put that into Education. Let's get rid of every tax but consumption taxes, if you want to be "fair".

Someone else on this blog was blaming Bush and conservatives for this problem, but in reality it is all the social spending that has wasted any money would have to add to the funding for education. As far as tax breaks for corporations. The conservatives are using the same logic as the people pushing for more funding for schools. We have to compete to keep (teachers/businesses) here, so both sides have made promises to that end. If you're going to use the argument to prove your point for more funding for schools, why is it not a valid argument to keep business here that provides the jobs to the citizens that end up paying the taxes?

As for the ballot measures, another one that you will see go down in flames will be Maldonado's open primary.

We are currently taking money away from our schools. I am not advocating for increases now. However, I just showed you studies done over a two-year period, commissioned for our state by the governor, that show certain populations of students do need more money.

Increased funding plus targeted reforms is what they advocated for but a couple of young bloggers know better, I guess.

When you account for population increase and inflation, social spending, such as CalWORKS, has been flat. We are spending more on our prisons and more on medical care, not welfare.

Faux right-wing talking points don't cut it here.

Aw, don't confuse them with facts. They like their Limbaugh and O'Lielly talking points.

Why is it that our blog moderator brands people who have opinions different than her own as mindless drones who repeat "faux right-wing talking points". That is a pretty condescending opinion to hold Marie. Are you so certain of your own beliefs that anybody who disagrees with you is automatically wrong? It sure seems like you believe that. It also sounds like you don't want to have a healthy debate of the issues since you choose to stereotype anybody who expresses opinions that differ from your own.

You can call it my protest against laziness.

Can you provide specific examples of when conservatives on your blog have quoted Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Fox news, etc? Seems to me that it is far more lazy to fall back on ad hominem attacks and stereotypes instead of engaging in an informed, well reasoned discussion of the issues with somebody who may happen to disagree with you. If I disagree with your opinion is it fair for me to respond by accusing you of mindlessly reciting DNC talking points? Seems to me that such a position serves no purpose other than to inhibit participation and the free flow of ideas.

Marie,

You are making a very important point that CA is still in big trouble, as is NY.

You are doing valuable bottom up analysis or the micro view.

Others are doing a macro top down look. They must be reconciled:
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2009/02/the-coming-blue-state-collapse.html

quote-
Here's a quick and dirty guess: Upper-middle-class families in blue states--those President Obama calls "the rich"--will soon be paying 20% more a year in state and federal taxes. If you pay $100,000 off of a $300,000 income now, look for $120,000 in a couple of years.

Federal income taxes are going up, and deductions are going down. That much we know. What we don't know yet--but I would bet money on it--is if the 7.65% Social Security and Medicare tax ceiling will be lifted from $102,000 to $150,000 or so.

Taxes are headed up at the state and local level too. Residents in blue states like California and New York will be socked hardest.

Take California. Its top income tax rate is the nation's highest at 9.3%. More appalling, it kicks in at only $47,056 a year. Make too much gold in the Golden State--a million a year--and you are pinched by a 1% surcharge. California also has a 7.25% sales tax, but that's just a base. "Local supplementary taxes are allowed up to 9.25%." Capital gains get no preference. They are taxed like ordinary income.

For all that, California spends more than it takes. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy and just passed a budget with $12 billion of new taxes. ........
unquote

Bubba,
The remark about Rush Limbaugh was left by another blogger.

I have twice presented evidence of an exhaustive bipartisan study recently commissioned by our governor that does indeed conclude more school funding is needed, along with reforms, to get the job done in California. (But I realize that it is not possible now)

That was as informed and as well reasoned as it gets. You have been unable to refute it and are instead attacking me for asking for more than one-liner talking points from Daniel, which hardly qualifies as an ad hominem attack on my part. You are sounding pretty hypocritical to my ears about now.

Daniel is a big boy with his own blog and doesn't need Bubba from Simi to back him up.

I am glad to see that blogger Marty caught on to my point about the precarious way we have pieced this budget together, another point you continue to ignore. It seems to be your mission to attack Star blog moderators these days. You hammered Brian yesterday. Today it's my turn.

And it is also time to really get behind your local NGOs and make sure your city council knows how to coordinate resources. NGOs like the Food Bank, Salvation Army and Sisters of Charity. God gave them to use for times like this.

Here the leading financial journalist for the EU, Ambrose-Pritchard:

QUOTE
My favourite China guru, Michael Pettis from Beijing University, is in despair – as you can see on his blog (http://mpettis.com) . The property bubble is bursting. Developers have built more offices in Beijing since 2006 than the entire stock in Manhattan. There is a 14-year supply glut. We have seen this movie before.

Factory output is collapsing at the fastest pace everywhere. The figures for the most recent month available are, year-on-year: Taiwan (-43pc), Ukraine (-34pc), Japan (-30pc), Singapore (-29pc), Hungary (-23pc), Sweden (-20pc), Korea (-19pc), Turkey (-18pc), Russia (-16pc), Spain (-15pc), Poland (-15pc), Brazil (-15pc), Italy (-14pc), Germany (-12pc), France (-11pc), US (-10pc) and Britain (-9pc). Norway sails blissfully on (+4pc). What do they drink up there?

This terrifying fall has been concentrated in the last five months. The job slaughter has barely begun. Social mayhem comes with a 12-month lag. By comparison, industrial output in core-Europe fell 2.8pc in 1930, 5.1pc in 1931 and 3.9pc in 1932, according to RBS.

Stephen Lewis, from Monument Securities, says we have been lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of "soup kitchens". The visual cues from Steinbeck's America are missing. "The temptation for investors is to see this as just another recession, over by the end of the year. But this is not a normal cycle. It is a cataclysmic structural breakdown," he said.
UNQUOTE

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4884975/We-need-shock-and-awe-policies-to-halt-depression.html

If this global deflation does not subside, issues like 'gifted students, college preparation, middle and high school counseling, deferred maintenance' will be deferred until 2017.

Conspicuously absent from the discussion here is any reference to our
recently-elected State Senator's proposed solution to the budget problem.

He was elected on a promise of "independent leadership". His demonstration
of "leadership" was to threaten 14 other Republican state senators with
punitive sanctions if they dared to participate in the budget process. His
obstructionist tactics frees him to avoid any responsibility for the drastic
cuts to education, public safety and essential social services while
standing firm against increasing state revenues necessary to provide such
services. His favorite mantra, second only to "No New Taxes" is The state
is using its residents' pockets as a personal ATM!" And he loves to point
out that a family has to tighten its collective belt and reduce spending
when times are tough, without acknowledging that a family does not
voluntarily reduce its source of income as the state did when it reduced the
vehicle license fee and gave tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers and
multi-national corporations. The oil severance tax, imposed by Florida,
Texas and Louisiana, is also rejected as a source of income.

So, what is Senator Strickland's solution? Does Bubba Kidd have any
interest in learning what suggestions his State Senator proposes to fix the
budget mess? Did we elect a representative who doesn't have a clue? Does
his wife have a recommendation other than looking for fraud, waste and abuse
beyond the management of her own office?

Man, are we back to this blame game again? Marie you demanded a budget, we all debated the issue and told you something like this was going to happen if we allowed the budget to pass. Now you have the budget you were blogging for and 2 weeks later you find out the consequences of doing the budget like this. The props were a bribe for a vote, you cannot get ethical legislation when things like that are going on. I told you this would happen, they would choose cutting school funding over any of the handouts they give their buddies. Not one party is to blame here, not one person is to blame. I don't care if its 70 percent 30 percent blame, they all have an equal share in this now. They should all be thrown out regardless of party.I believe Schools will have to re-structure themselves and learn to live with less and its a shame that the first place to cut was the education and not the special interests. They raised our taxes then turned around and did this. You yourself Marie were in favor of the taxes to keep our school funding and they just screwed all of us. Even Arnold made this situation worse. Oh well, this is my last post on local issues. The budget they passed was the last straw for my family. I just sold all my personal belongings and set my date to move to Colorado in 2 weeks. I hope things get better here, but Im afraid they will only get worse and the first to suffer is the schools and teachers. The Unions will be safe and so will the other special interests, but our schools get it again. I think maybe you should change your argument to

"Why are the people who Champion Schools making cuts to them?"

"Why do politicians need to get special favors to back something they disagree with?"

Jason

Observer,

The honorable state senator's plan is to get the state back on a conservative agenda concerning fiscal policy and that way bring reform and efficiency to the system rather than just adding more money to the teacher's pension plans, and salaries. While I believe, and the senator believes teachers should be paid a competitive wage in California to ensure we have enough instructors for our children, the fact of the matter is that there is no more money to draw from. There hasn't been for 3 to 6 years depending on which side of the aisle you're on. When liberals spend during flush economic times, it leads to cuts and hardship during harsh times. This is an economic fact. There is no way to fix the problem other than to get rid of spending that we deem less appropriate to spend tax payer money on.

The real, politically incorrect truth is: If you really wanted to be able to spend more money on education, don't provide welfare, or health care to people who can't afford it, are unemployed, and are too selfish to get a job tghey believe is "beneath" them. That will take billions of dollars off of the budget, and you can give every teacher a gold plated Caddy, with the money we would save. However is it in the liberal agenda to provide the welfare/nanny/Soviet state. Because of this agenda, they will not cut on other spending that "keeps the poor" from facing the same problems the middle class faces. The reality is that the liberal agenda is to expand government to the point where there are no more personal liberties, and every action you do is approved by the state. That way they can have their utopian dream, where everyone believes as they do. So long as there is one person who dissents from that opinion the ideal is flawed, unless that person is executed (ie Soviet Russia). Of course the liberals aren't going around killing people who disagree, but they do blame every person who has an accurate understanding of economics as a evil, capitalist, big business lackey, and greedy tool that is being used by lobbyists. Liberalism(communism) only can exist successfully if greed is eliminated from human behavior. No matter how many laws the liberals pass, there will still be greed and corruption (this is human nature if you have read 80 percent of all philosophers), meaning that their spending is less efficient than the conservative belief that the tax payer should pay as little as possible and receive the most benefit from it. You could spend 10 billion more in education, and the reality is that students and districts in California are complete failures do to the "english as a second language" programs, and wasteful spending on the arts and music instead of vocational training. If our students are so important to ensure we can compete with the rest of the world we have to cut dead weight. Plato would have left the elders on the mountaintop to die once they could no longer service society. Are you more concerned with society's well being or each individual's freedom to live and pursue happiness, because you can't have both?

While I don't doubt that many of the recommendations on the committee for educational excellence have merit, the bottom line is if it were truly bipartisan it would sail through our state legislature and be signed by the Governor who commenced the study. But, it hasn't... Why?

The fact of the matter is that the political will for structural reform as recommended in the report is not there from the majority party who certainly is able to write the bill and move the reforms. To my knowledge, there isn't a 2/3rds rule to make reforms to the 100,000 section educational code. The majority party could jam these reforms through with little input from the minority and get a quick signature by the Governor. But the majority hasn't...

Marie: Why hasn't the majority moved these recommendations?

Perhaps, as I've grown accustomed to with this Governor, he now opposes all the recommendations he once supported ie the car tax.

A quick look at the Committee shows the major flaw with the 2005 study. There isn't a member of the CTA (California Teachers Association) or AFT (American Federation of Teachers) on the committee. They were included and information from the Teachers' unions were passed to the committee upon request, but no committee members?

Are we really so naïve as to think the majority in the legislature, that are elected by the power of these two stakeholders, are going to move reforms by a committee that didn't include these powerful groups' as decision-makers at the table?

Let's be realistic. If you want educational reform in the state of California, it must have at least garner the blessing of the teachers unions. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I just don't see many education reforms being proposed that sail through our state government that are opposed by the teachers' unions.

If I'm wrong, please provide examples.

Without that understanding, this report is much akin to Twain's definition of a classic. It is "something everyone wants to have read, but nobody wants to read."

Haha, there's an old phrase, "Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself." I think you just did it. I know you said you're a Strickland insider and attended his swearing in. If your views are indicative of the man and his supporters, you've just reaffirmed why I campaigned so hard against him.

Wow.

Scott,

The education report was released by our governor just over a year ago when the state budget was going south. Last year was supposed to be our governor's "Year of Education." The report was quickly swept under the rug because it called for $10 billion in new spending.

The preparers called for it to be implemented in its entirety -- reforms and spending increases alike.

The fact that there was not huge CTA participation should stand out to the "throw dollars" crowd. Here is a report prepared by a bipartisan group of education experts without large union ties and they said yes, funding increases are needed to remedy issues in certain target populations.

Jason,
Good luck to you.

Marie,

Why is it that you expect to be taken seriously when you present evidence in the form of a study when you don't extend the same courtesy to others? In another thread I recently cited a detailed study about the level of taxation in California, but you dismissed it as just another "poll". When I presented strong evidence that there was no turnover problem in the fire department to justified a 50% pension increase, you responded by quoting comments from another blog. When others have presented you with evidence that there is no established correlation between education funding and academic performance, you simply ignore it.

I have repeatedly provided you with informed and well reasoned opinions on a number of topics, but you have a tendency to ignore things or resort to one-liner talking points when the facts get a little too inconvenient. So before you demand that others refute your evidence maybe you should first apply the same rules to yourself. Courtesy is a two-way street.

Marie,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I want the schools to get more money, you want the schools to get more money, and the senator wants the schools to get more money. I want that to be painfully clear.

YOU, NOW TELL ME WHERE IT WILL COME FROM? HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT IT GOES TO THE STUDENTS, AND NOT THE TEACHERS' UNION?

My previous post was not a political argument, but a philosophical argument. If you can't tell the difference, it is because you don't have your degree in political science, or philosophy (My guess would be, if you have one, English, and not Journalism). But I am clearly talking about the polar opposition in terms of political theory, and not the practical application of government debate.

Yes, I am an insider. (Please, no one ask me to send messages to the senator or his wife, as I can't do that for you. Call their offices.) I understand why you aren't a conservative, and why you would campaign so "hard" against the senator. At the same time, more than half the people (granted it was 800 and climbing when HBJ decided to conceed) in this district agreed with him and I, and we won that race against a complete tool for the unions. Though I think Taxin' Jackson is a very nice, personable lady, and presents herself well, and speaks well, and her ideas are flawed fundamentally. She would know that if she was a city planner instead of a district attorney before her political career. Audra is working hard for the elderly in her district, so don't take my Plato comment out of context. No one wants old people exposed to death.(hyperbole) As far as social spending there is a place for it, and it used to be called CHURCH. Unlike most liberals, who don't attend any church, conservatives believe that charity is work that should be carried out by the religious leaders of the community, and not the state. That is why state funded welfare programs are a bad idea. Unemployment insurance would be a fine deal for government, if 2/3s of the people on it weren't just scamming the government due to laziness.
(Case In Point:) A conservative employee of the Strickland campaign is now trying to demand his unemployment benefits, when he has two separate contracts detailing that he is responsible for his own taxes, and specifically unemployment insurance. And yet after the election, he is asking the campaign, and the state, for money because he didn't save any during the campaign. While he has marketable skills, he is too lazy, and too stupid to go out and get a job that he feels is "beneath" him. If someone had just taught him welding in highschool instead of how to play the trombone, he would have a job right now. The system is flawed. There is money leaking from every crack in government.

The real political problem is logical: If you give your citizens money when they are in financial trouble (welfare state), you can demand how they should and should not behave because they are only surviving do to your intervention(nanny state). The recipients have an obligation to do whatever is in their power to get back on track and during that time, the government logically can take away any rights that person has because he is now relying on the tax payer's money, and has an obligation to do what they say, and not put themselves in any danger. When we get to the point where people on medicade, and medicare are arrested for smoking, I'll make a big stink about it then too. But for now I am only trying to point out that it isn't the government's job to do everything for society. Education should be a top priority, but so should economics, and business.

California had a part time legislature until 1970. Aside from world wide economic problems we faced back then, the legislature did a damn fine job, and got paid very little. It was the liberals who expanded government in this state, and continue to do so, even though we are getting less and less efficiency in Sacramento. And it has been the liberals' spending policies that have created a giant black hole in the budget, that conservatives have tried to keep contained, when every year the liberals demand more spending go into the black hole. Our children are our investment in the future right? Why is their education the first thing on the chopping block? Why not welfare, or closing half of the government buildings and laying off people who have office experience to go work in the private sector? Why did the democrats who wrote the budget put the kids up first? We are number one in the amount of money we spend on our kids schooling, but are 47th in per pupil funding. How can this be if we are the highest taxed state on every single tax except for property taxes?

Remember a few weeks ago? "Finally A Budget!", and previous to that, when every conservative on this blog told you how horrible the budget plan was, and how it was going to hurt this state? Now that you can see it for yourself, and our most valuable resources, our teachers, are being put on the chopping block before welfare spending, you have to admit that the Democratic budget that was passed is worse than a spending freeze at current levels, until a rational compromise could be found. Instead we are firing staff at schools, and still sending out checks to people. Soon those people will be the teachers we will fire, and you are trying to tell me that the welfare system isn't part of the budget problem?

Enough rope to hang myself? You didn't give me the rope, you took it, tied me up with it, and are now forcing me to pull the entire society's load on my back with it.

Please also note that post was at 4 am, and I didn't proof read it at all. I've been working late to make sure I can pay my rent, now that my taxes are going up about 66 percent. Love ya, Marie, and this is why I don't post on Brian's blog: You can keep me on my toes without calling me a kool-aid drinking sheep, and I appreciate that.

Just as a side note, Katie doesn't know this, but I've met her also, and she was the meanest liberals I have ever met. When she found out who I was with at the event, she snarled like a rabid dog, and immediately changed her tone from a welcoming, friendly one, to one that reminded me of How George C. Scott spoke about his troops in the movie Patton. She no longer cared about the content of our conversation and instead ignored everything I said, only to respond by saying that my candidate is "a liar, and a fraud". Then she proceeded to tell me that I was a horrible person for supporting Tony, and left without explaining why my support for a candidate she thinks is a bad person made me a bad person. The honorable state senator is neither of those things, and she should never have made those kinds of statements to another constituent, who just happened to support the other person. But this is an example of when policy is dictated by emotion rather than logic It is sad to see budget cuts, but they are logical necessities.

Oh my, we're all so testy!

- Bubba, as I recall, you and I were discussing the merits of the California Budget Project study on CA taxation and the Americans for Tax Reform study and I presented a very long and clear argument why I thought the CBP study was a more accurate picture of our taxation situation.

- We were never arguing about firefighter turnover issues, I was presenting other evidence, including an administrative report, about recruitment.

- Not one person has ever posted any evidence on this blog to refute the comprehensive study on education reform in CA that I refer to.

----------

Haha, surely you understand that your comments about ending social programs are pretty far out of the mainstream. And your extrapolation about the "liberal agenda" was just plain silly.

We aren't the highest-spending state on education by a long, long shot. Our teachers are barely paid enough to make ends meet in a state with such a high cost of living. Welfare spending has been flat. We are spending lots and lots of extra money on prisons, though.

Our budget included nearly $1 billion in corporate tax breaks and $8.4 billion in cuts to schools. Something is wrong with this picture.

We could've had a better budget if your guy and his obstructionist pals had sat down, rolled up their sleeves and compromised early on. Instead we're stuck with this one because we were literally going to lose nearly half a billion in state funds from halting construction projects the next day if it wasn't passed.

I don't like Tony Strickland at all. His voting record was abysmal on children's health issues, environmental issues, women's issues, education issues and the list goes on. He voted against a measure that protected children from serious pesticide overspray incidents near their schools. This measure was passed and signed into law because of an incident that happened at my daughter's school. She was one of the kids who got sick. The legislation was written with the help of the agricultural industry and to this day Strickland has not been able to clearly articulate why he voted against it.

He's a terrible debater and speaks in cliched sound bites. He has had his campaign finances investigated numerous times, mostly by fellow Republicans, and he LIED all throughout his campaign about being an "Independent."

Katie was right on!

The reason why big government types like to cut education first is because it is a way to hold the public hostage. Here's how it works:

A: During the good years when tax revenues exceed projections public employee unions demand their "fair share" in the form of pay and benefit increases. At the same time, new government programs are created and existing programs are expanded. If there isn't enough money for these new programs just borrow what you need. Everybody is happy, and nobody worries about setting aside money for a rainy day.

B: During the lean years when tax revenues fall short of projections the same public employee unions resist cuts and instead lobby for "revenue enhancements" to keep the gravy train rolling. If there isn't enough money to cover the shortfall just borrow what you need.

C: If cuts are inevitable then the first programs put on the chopping block are vital public services. So, for example, citizens are given the choice of increasing their tax burden versus, say, closing prisons and releasing violent criminals on to the street. No other options are put on the table, except for maybe borrowing more money.

Which is why education is the first to be put on the chopping block, while big government give-away programs and the public employee gravy train are maintained. People like Marie should be angry that libraries are being closed while firefighters are simultaneously getting a 50% boost in their already generous pension checks. But instead she directs her anger at all those pesky republicans who won't vote for tax increases. But all of this ignores the source of the problem and give a free pass to those who are irresponsible and squander our scarce fiscal resources. That type of thinking also values lucrative pension benefits for a select few over the safety of our neighborhoods and quality of life in our communities.

But I suppose all of this just makes me a "Negative Nellie". It's just so much easier to blindly blame all the problems in the world on the usual scapegoats, like rich people, corporations, or politicians from the other party.

I have told you this 10 times, but here it goes again: The pension boost for local firefighters is no longer on the table. So you can quit kicking that particular dog.

Education gets cut because it encompasses almost 50 percent of the state budget and there is no possible way to take down a $41 billion deficit without touching education. No way. I get that.

But we don't have to simultaneously dole out $1 billion in corporate tax breaks while doing it, either.

Not one of my family members belongs to a union or ever has. I do lots of private fundraising for public causes and I work my tail off doing it. All volunteer. I am part of the solution, not part of the problem. I pay enormous amounts of taxes. I give to many charities. Find somebody else to spew your anti-union rhetoric at, Bubba.

Why can’t you knee-jerk folks speak to the issues instead of resorting to attacking the messenger? Marie does her homework and doesn’t make unfounded statements about budget facts and education dollars. If this were a debate you guys would lose the argument.
You need to know that California’s students are getting at least $2000 less per student now and the cuts coming down the pike are going to further damage the whole system. Who suffers? I would guess that none of the bloggers of right wing persuasion will admit that their children will suffer or perhaps they don’t have school age children attending public school. I know families and children who are getting less and the long term result will be less qualified and trained young adults for the jobs of the future. Please get a grip and think of looking toward the future of our communities.

California, the richest state, is 47th out of the 50 states in funding for and quality of education. California is one of only three states that require a 2/3 vote to pass a budget.
Uncanny how the numbers fit together, isn't it?
What this seems to mean in practical terms is that the vocal minority of either oblivious or pathologically insensitive citizens (so lavishly represented here) and their representatives, like the Stricklands, are able to prevent any positive reforms--in education, in transportation, in health care, in social welfare, in protection of the environment, and on and on--and the funding these reforms would require.
Where is the money to come from? Higher taxes for the wealthy, for corporations and successful businesses? Hell yes!

Finally stands up to the political machine that is Marie Lakin. She is tough on her principles but like haha said, she does not appreciate anyone elses views. I've made snide comments here and there but they hold their water no matter how simple they are.

And for being a right wing talking points, i must be pretty good at what i do because i made that up myself. Maybe I should be the talking head of the party. Then we'd get something done.

Ooooooh. I'm a political machine. Oh goody.

I'll let my kids know.

I'd take that as a compliment Marie. ;)

Actually, Daniel Goldberg, your usage of the term "political machine" is incorrect here. I feel that it is my duty as a student of politics to correct your ignorance:

A political machine refers to an organization that was used to gain political power starting around 1830, finally dying (with a few notable exceptions) around the 1950s. Machines were utilized by ethnic minorities during this period, especially the Irish. I have it on good authority that Marie is neither an ethnic minority, nor Irish. Marie is also not an organization, nor was she alive from the years 1830 to 1950. And if she had any desire to gain power (at least in the economic sense), she would not be writing this blog because blog-writing does not pay and it uses significant amounts of time.

Political machines actually had no principles; they simply did whatever enabled them to gain power. This included anything from extinguishing fires of loyal supporters to buying votes. As one former machine insider once said, "enthusiasm for the cause [i.e. ideology or principles] is short lived, but the necessity of making a living is permanent." Marie has never been a firefighter, and as you said yourself she is tough on her principles.

For one who seems to be such an ardent follower of politics, you sure don't know much about its history. You might want to be more informed before you go about making claims that are entirely unfounded.

Actually, Daniel, your use of the term "hold their water" is also incorrect. The term is "hold water."

The other usage implies waiting too long to go to the bathroom.

Marie, why is it that you get to cherry pick when you want to discuss an issue or not. I bring up the very recent 50% increase in firefighter pensions that is impacting your city budget and you don't want to talk about it because it is "no longer on the table". Seems like your reasoning is that once it was approved it is now in the past, therefore there is no point in talking about it and we should all just move forward and instead talk about the necessary "revenue enhancements" that will now be needed to close the budget gap. You express so much anger at republicans for resisting tax increases, yet you give a free pass to your city leaders on their fiscal irresponsibility.

However, you yourself have repeatedly complained about things like Prop 13, a ballot measure that was passed over three decades ago. In that case you clearly don't follow your own advise as you have no problem discussing the past and its impact on current budget. Over and over you lament about all the lost revenue opportunities because of Prop 13. The same applies to all those so-called corporate tax breaks that you keep complaining about. Corporate tax breaks aren't "on the table" anymore since the budget has already been passed, yet you keep complaining about it. So which is it, can we bring up the past or can't we? You seem to want to have it both ways.

And here we go again with the propaganda of California supposedly ranking 47th out of 50 states in per pupil funding. But we all know that the actual ranking is 26 out of 50 states, since your imaginary ranking is based on "adjusted" numbers published by teachers unions. But whenever I post the real rankings you challenge those numbers, yet when your friends post their "adjusted" numbers you accept them at face value. Again, you seem to be cherry-picking your information to support your particular point of view.

I also believe that your characterization of me as "spewing anti-union rhetoric". It seems like whenever you don't like the opinions of a blogger you fall back on those types of one-liner stereotypes. I can't complain about the unnecessary squandering of taxpayer money without being branded as "anti-union"? So when you repeatedly complain about all those corporate tax breaks would it then be fair for others to characterize you as anti-capitalism? Again, you seem to want it both ways.

"- Not one person has ever posted any evidence on this blog to refute the comprehensive study on education reform in CA that I refer to."

Marie, in rhetoric the above is called the "fallacy of ignorance". (Please note I'm not calling you ignorant, just that the proof does not follow the choice above.)

Essentially your support for this proposal is based on no one refuting the study. However, I would point out, and you appear to agree, that the entire report is pretty much DOA as it has no legislative appeal by either party.

Do we conclude that aliens exist because no one has proven they don't exist? Of course not.

Perhaps, this is what you mean by "bipartisan" agreement. Everyone in power pretty much agrees for one reason of another that no one wants it.

The burden of proof is on you to prove why this report is workable and the proposals will work, not for us to prove the report wrong, otherwise it's a great report.

In addition, bipartisan does not necessarily equal that it magically will work. There have been quite a few "grand bargains" done through bipartisanship that have turned out to not be such good ideas in retrospect. Just because people slap bipartisan on the front of something doesn't mean it's somehow good.

I'm still working through the report, but again, if you think it's a good idea and will work, the burden is on you to explain why, not for bloggers to prove the report wrong.

Our current deficit and many state programs are evidence to the fact that continually throwing money at failed programs has never and will never work."

- Peter Foy

“Pouring millions of dollars into this crumbling prison built over 150 years ago is a massive waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. It’s absurd to throw money down this pit when the state is $40 billion in debt.�

- Jeff Denham

"Despite one of the greatest surges in revenue in State history, the budget isn't balanced and we continue to throw money at programs and departments that cannot justify additional spending based on performance and efficiency."

- blogger on right-wing blog Flash Report

"Watching Washington rush to throw taxpayer money at Wall Street has been sobering and a little frightening."

- Newt Gingrich

"Urologist" -

That's funny. If we all can't have a bit of humor during these dark times, we're really in for it.

Have a good one.

Bubba, I don't recall blogging much about Prop. 13 other than to say ever since it passed, our state's revenues have been dependent on less stable sources. That's fair and a heckuva lot tamer than suggestions Warren Buffet made.

I said the pension increase is no longer on the table because the firefighters have given it up for the forseeable future. It's gone. You don't answer lots of stuff I ask you. And I have no control over statistics other bloggers throw out.

Scott, I'm glad you're reading the report. Don't give up. There is much there you will like including your favorite idea to torpedo county school offices.

I must really bug you guys. What fun we have here.

Marie,
You could be a machine, how would we ever know? Post A full body CATSCAN NOW! Of course, I believe the reference there is that Marie, you are part of the liberal machine, that skews the empirical truth to gain acceptance of your ideas. Please tell your kids, you're so popular people think you are more than human.

Bubba,
Remember the 3/5ths compromise, That was a bipartisan deal was it not? Isn't that proof that coming together to mix our ideals is always for the greater good? (Please detect sarcasm, and irony here)

back to Marie,

Of course I was extending the truth in terms of the "liberal agenda", because American liberals are obviously not Soviet Russians. And of course, as we are the most powerful and richest nation in the world we should be able to take care of our sick, elderly, and unemployed citizens.

In terms of teachers being able to earn a living wage, I must make the point that if you didn't raise their taxes every chance you get, they might have more of the money we are already paying them to live from. Good teachers should be paid well. But how much is the right amount to pay a bad teacher?

There has never been a study done that correlates or shows causation that the salary of the teacher has any effect on the drop out rate. Why is ours almost 50%, and more than that in inner city LA? And, why maintain that it will be a terrible sacrifice if we will lose art teachers, if the kids need more money to learn math?

In terms of "obstructionists", if they had received a decent budget proposal in the beginning, and the many years previous, maybe they wouldn't have had to take such a hard line stance. Maybe they actually believe that this budget, and raising taxes will only make things worse for our economy, and that will then hurt our revenue again hurting our funding for education. Senator Strickland wasn't there when they passed the budget the first time, while everyone else played it off like things would be alright, so they could get reelected. Maybe a freeze in government spending would have woken the liberals up to the idea, that there is no more water in the well, and it's time to start rationing what we have left in reserves, until it starts raining again.

In terms of education spending, We are only 47th in per pupil spending, which I agree is not a happy number to hear, but also is only one way to view education spending. Even conservatives would like that number to get better. But that is not what I said, and not what the true amount is. In raw dollar amounts we are number one. 53.7 billion dollars in education funding, not including any federal money. I clearly pointed that out in the previous post. Unless someone knows of a state that is spending more than 53 billion dollars on education? New York is spending 26 billion this year, and they cut 1 billion of spending too. It's when the only statistic you use to prove your point, is the one coming from the teachers' union, and that education spending should be increased, it is another example of the "fire starters" causing fear. Be objective and give people both numbers, why only tell them the one? Because if people realized the amount of spending this state does in raw numbers, they might realize the problem, and start voting out the democrats in sacramento.

As far as your personal opinion about our senator. A: Even if you hate him, why should I be treated like the devil for liking him. What failed policies did I have that you want to reference? As for the pesticide issue, which I am well versed on, it seems that the problem could have been resolved without the use of legislation, judicial action maybe, or maybe just sit down and talk about it without calling the other side names first. It is a conservative ideal that the government that governs best, governs least. It is a liberal idea that the job of the government is to pass more and more laws, in the name of public safety and social welfare. I am sorry your daughter got sick at that school, it was a a terrible idea of the agro next door, and they never should have sprayed during the day with the kids outside. About Tony calling himself independent: Why can't you be an independent conservative republican? He has never been told how to vote, or what to say by the party leaders. It just so happens that some of what they believe is what he believes. Why is that a shock? But to my original point, why is it ok to treat me like a second class human being because of my political views? Why is it ok for Katie to treat me like that? Can I start talking about liberals like they are dogs compared to conservatives, and that would be fine?

throwing money,

What about "the worst economic crisis since the great depression"?

Marie:

You don't bug me. My problem is I don't have any time, so I'll post, then by the time I get back to it, the thread takes a whole different angle.

We all have views. The problem is your views are wrong and mine are correct. ;)

The faster I can make everyone exactly like me in my views, the faster we'll be off to a better world. See how open-minded I can be? :)

Seriously, I know we all really disagree, but we have some very tough times ahead and I'm not being a "negative nelly." It is and it's going to be ugly, so hug your friends and your enemies because we are seriously all in this together whether we like it or not.

Partisan politics is the luxury of those who have a home to go to, a table full of food, and kids who have a full belly.

We should all hopefully be cognizant of that fact.

Political Machine? Come on Daniel, pull up your big boy pants and quit whining.

Bubba and Marie:

Couple of items I'm interested in watching unfold. First, the city of Los Angeles recent pension issues is contributing to billion dollar deficit projection? How are they going to close that?

It's my understanding pension funds will report in June again and we'll know the magnitude of it's potential real estate portfolio losses. Thoughts?

On taxes, the assumption is people will pay them. This is just anecdotal, but a few people I've spoken with about taxes have very low withholdings and get a refund around tax time. They overpay because they like the big check this time of year.

They've now gone to their yearly tax professional who is reporting to them a state IOU for whatever their overpayment was. However, what is happening and may continue to happen is taxpayers start maximizing their withholdings as it makes no sense to overpay the state of California and be stiffed next tax season again.

In the property tax side, defaults are still growing, so I can't imagine property taxes are being paid and in addition, we all know many homeowners are filing for reassessment on their homes to reduce their property tax liability.

Car tax - most will pay, but I can tell you there are plenty of cars on the roads without their updated sticker who probably haven't paid. They'll stretch it longer and risk impoundments.

I also think you'll see increases in what is called the underground economy whereby businesses are formed and services performed without filing the proper paperwork and will operate free from the tax system.

Just think cigarettes on the black market. In Manhattan, studies have been done that reflect 50% of cigarette sales are done in the black market.

The problem isn't just the high rate, it's also the multiple collection points to pay taxes and fees that is burdensome. I'll have to find the number, but an IRS 2008 estimate from the taxpayer advocate says it costs $2-300 billion dollars annually for businesses and individuals to remain compliant with our tax laws. That's almost half the stimulus package right there.

Add to this continued job losses and corporate closures and I think the state deficit estimate is too optimistic.

Hey laura, you stole my big boy pants line! But that's OK, you can still tie me up with my little red necktie anytime. Grrrr!

Scott, I think that public employee pensions are the next great bubble that is about to burst. That is why I have been discussing it so much, especially in light of the fact that pension escalation is still continuing. I've also been warning that a significant downturn in the stock market will expose those unfunded pension liabilities, just like how the downturn in the real estate market exposed all of the poor lending practices in the mortgage industry. State and local governments have been making promises based on paper profits, but now that those phantom profits have evaporated it is the taxpayer that is left holding the bag. It is nice to want to reward hard working employees with generous salaries and benefits, but it is irresponsible to increase compensation unless those obligations are properly funded using conservative, sound fiscal planning. When Ventura approved the pension increase for their firefighters I stated that there was no justification for the increase, that funding had not been set aside for the increase, and that the actual cost would be much higher since the initial actuarial estimates were based on overly optimistic projections on investment returns. I still stand by all of those statements.

With regard to the city of Los Angeles, they have reported a 25% loss in their pension plan investment portfolio. My guess is that those losses are understated as more recent losses in the market over the last few months have yet to be reflected in their numbers. Unless the market has some sort of miraculous recovery (which is unlikely) the city of LA can expect their required pension contributions to increase by at least $300 million PER YEAR by 2010. The reason for this is because the required contribution rates for the city have to be adjusted to account for the pension fund losses, which means that the taxpayers now have to make up the difference. Personally, I think that these these estimates are too low and that the real impact on rising pension costs will be even worse than the published numbers. Either way, this is a massive financial implosion with no easy solutions.

But this does bring up an important issue, which is the ramp up of pension benefits during the good years, but the inability to reduce those benefits during the lean years. When the stock market was going through its own bubble their was a push by public employee unions to increase pension benefits, with the argument being that investment returns would pay for the increases, making the increased benefits essentially "free" or, at the very least, fairly inexpensive. But, like we saw in the housing market, that relies on the assumption that the stock market always goes up and never comes down. Sure you can afford to give cops and firefighters early retirement at 90% pay, just so long as the stock market goes up 20% every year, year-after-year. But now that the bubble market has finally collapsed, and wiped out 12 years worth of investment returns in the process, the true cost of these pension deals is now being revealed. Any first year business student should have been able to tell you that these pension agreements were based on faulty assumptions. The problem is that the pension giveaways were done at all levels of government, which means that it will set off a fiscal crisis at both state and local governments. By next year I predict that there will be a wave of municipal bankruptcies that can be directly tied to the pension timebomb. Yes, I know that makes me a "negative nelly", but facts are stubborn things, and you can't hide from reality by trying to pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

On taxation, I think that there is a faulty assumption by some that increased tax rates automatically results in increased revenues. Scott brings up an excellent example of the NY cigarette black market that was the outgrowth of having the highest cigarette taxes in the nation. Increased taxation can be a drag on the economy and stifle economic activity, and actually result in LOWER tax receipts. It also creates a powerful incentive for businesses and individuals to avoid taxation. When tax levels are reasonable the public doesn't try very hard to avoid payment. But when tax rates are exhorbinant people will modify their behaviors to avoid taxation, even going so far as cheating on their taxes or participating in the black market. Which is why I believe our revenue assumptions in the current California budget are overly optimistic in light of the weak economy.

I'd also like to talk about my thoughts on the education issue, but I've already been long-winded on this response. We are covering a lot of topics in this thread.

Marie, I hope you don't take my responses personally because I don't mean it that way. I do appreciate you providing us a forum to discuss these issues. At the same time, I also believe that we are in an economic crisis and it is important for us to be able to share all perspectives on the causes and potential solutions to the problem. I don't think that we should be shutting anybody out of the debate or leaving any issue off the table. Which is why I keep harping on the pension issue, because I believe it is so large that we cannot resolve the fiscal crisis in government unless this issue is addressed. This mess was not created by one political party, and it cannot be solved by one political party. And you cannot work toward real solutions until you at least acknowledge where the problems lie.

Bubba, I could never survive if I took this all personally. My friends ask me every single day how I manage to do this. The pay stinks, I use my own name and lately I've been beat on by every conservative with a bone to pick. But it gives me a good venue to promote causes that are really important to me, so I hang in here. In between I try to put up entries I think people want to discuss.

I've known about the pension issues for many years. I told you outright I didn't agree with the local votes both in your city and mine. But I also felt compelled to present both points of view. I mentioned that at some point we should switch to a two-tier system. I hear a lot of complaining from you but I have not heard one workable idea on how to fix it.

What are your practical solutions to this dilemma?

I have many things I am angry about that I also believe contributed to this fiscal crisis.

But I am less angry about paying taxes to keep our schools afloat than I am at our credit card company for raising our interest rates an obscene amount. We are good customers and are being forced to subsidize their bad business practices. There is an article in the LA Times today about this:
http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-lazarus4-2009mar04,0,6475644.column

Scott,

I didn't realize the state is handing out IOU's. We just did our taxes and are due a refund and the state said no such thing to us. Are you sure that information is current?

Actually Marie, I have given you a list of recommended solutions. But the only long-term solution is for our political leaders to do a better job on fiscal management. That can't be achieved unless there is better transparency. Unfortunately it is all too easy to make commitments with future taxpayer dollars so that our children and grandchildren end up paying for our reckless spending. It is also too easy for elected officials to rely on accounting gimmicks to kick problems forward so that it becomes somebody else's problem.

The solution? Well, first of all we need to get really angry when our elected leaders make stupid decision with our limited resources. Like when the Ventura City Council approved an unfunded 50% pension increase in firefighter pensions during the middle of a fiscal crisis. Anybody who voted for that increase should be thrown out of office. People should be angry and they should be vocal. Don't let them off the hook by letting them change the subject into discussing "revenue problems" when the real issue is their fiscal mismanagement.

Second, contract negotiations should be subject to the Brown Act. It is ridiculous that elected officials are required to have full public disclosure in order to spend $1,000, but they can commit taxpayers to millions of dollars in compensation increases done in backroom meetings.

Third, any decision that has a fiscal impact needs to have an identified funding source and a detail analysis to project costs based on best and worst case scenarios. It isn't good enough to rely on cost projections provided by the same people who are benefiting from the decision.

BTW, I think the only long-term solution here is to grandfather old employees and convert all new hires into a defined contributions system. That is the only responsible way to manage a budget since the real costs are predictable and the taxpayers aren't liable for unexpected increases in cost. I also think that your city council needs to open up the union contracts for re-negotiation, starting with public safety. It isn't good enough for them to offer to "defer" increases for maybe a year. This is a serious situation, and they need to put something on the table that will provide givebacks that will cover the true additional costs of the pension plan PLUS a 10% additional cut in compensation costs. They are the biggest part of your budget so you need to start there.

The bottom line is that you need to start making serious cuts to your compensation costs in order to minimize layoffs. It would be truly a shame to start laying off clerks while simultaneously jacking up pension benefits for firefighters. That is not only unfair, it is unethical.

I've already provided you with a list of other recommendations in another post. But, like school funding, this crisis is too big to have sacred cows, and we need to make the cuts were the bulk of the money is being spent.

Only a few minutes here, but I would start w/ a little Robin Hood accounting/balancing; so typical that the Past Party always hits those who can ill afford the cuts - education, the disabled, & the elderly! & if it be via taxes, Bubba, so be it, or would you protest a higher % of taxes on the rich ?

To Bubba Kidd:

Do you think your city council should also be thrown out for approving wage increases for police officers recently?

Bubba, that was just grossly overstated. First of all, all surrounding agencies, including the county, compensate their public safety personnel better than Ventura does. By your standards, all those cities and the county are guilty of even worse fiscal mismanagement. Two of those cities have asked for and received sales tax increases just last fall, many months after the split vote over our firefighters.

Your city, Simi Valley, contracts with County Fire for services. We provide much better value to our taxpayers by not contracting with County and not compensating our employees as highly. They have estimated it would cost us $10 million more per year to contract with County.

Your own city just agreed to give their police officers a raise. But, unlike our firefighters, they have not agreed to give it back. All our employees have agreed to pitch in with givebacks.

Finally, Standard & Poor's just upped our city's credit rating. It is now higher than Oxnard's. This generally does not happen if a city is guilty of "fiscal mismanagement."

And a final note, why does every single post I put up turn into your own personal manifesto against public employees? It's very curious. Do you have anything more to say about the world? How long have your fingers been typing the very same words over and over?

I am far, far angrier over the ruin the Bush administration pushed on us than the now-rescinded pension boost of a handful of firefighters. Find yourself some perspective. Many thousands dead in a useless war. Financial ruin from greed and the lack of regulatory oversight. It's just astounding what has happened to us in eight short years.

Or doesn't that fit into the world view of a party the majority of the public has turned its back on?

Bubba,

I think you should ask Marie what she really thinks of the pension increases given to firefighters in Ventura. I really want to read more from both of you on that issue.

NM, we have already increased taxes, and unless you haven't noticed, we are in the worst economy since the great depression. And finally, we already have the highest marginal tax rate of any state in the union, meaning that we already tax the rich higher than any other state. It should also be noted that wealthy people also have volatile incomes because these individuals earn a lot of their income from things like stock market investments, bonuses, business income, etc. Which means that the income of wealthy people goes up in a good economy and down in a bad economy. One of the principal reasons for the volatility in tax revenues in this state is the fact that our tax system is overly progressive. It also ignores the fact that rich people can choose to leave this state and take their tax dollars with them if taxes become excessive. So I don't think that continually taxing one group of people is good public policy, nor do I think that class envy and punishing people for their success is consistent with American values.

In response to Back to SV, certain members of your city council should be thrown out of office for incompetence and fiscal mismanagement. They approved an overly generous benefit increase to a select group of public employees with no valid justification and with no resources to fund the increase, all of this during the middle of a fiscal crisis. Now just a few months later they are closing libraries, slashing public services, and going back to taxpayers for more money. Its like falling behind on your mortgage payments and suddenly deciding that its a good idea to purchase a new Mercedes Benz. It was not only an irresponsible decision, it was also unethical since other city employees will likely be laid off in order to offset the additional costs. Your city is about to have a fiscal meltdown and your elected leaders fiddling like Nero while Rome burns.

I was asking a question in regards to Simi Valley. I thought you lived there. Do you want to throw out Simi Valley Council members for the union contract that included wage increases for police officers that they approved?

There is no longer a pension boost in Ventura but there is a big salary boost for police officers in Simi Valley. Let's turn Bubba loose. Go tell the cops to give back the money. We demand justice.

Marie, it wasn't that long ago that companies like Citigroup, Countrywide, Merryl Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, and others had gold plated credit ratings. But these companies imploded because they underestimated their risk exposure and they were riding the wave of a bubble market. The city has made financial commitments based on the same bubble economy, and the collapse of pension fund investment portfolios are going to wreak havoc on your city finances. The city has already lost millions of dollars in investments, but the pension fiasco is going to swallow them up. It is no different than people who purchased homes with creative financing who assumed that everything would be fine so long as prices continually went up. The problem is that prices don't always go up, and now these people who were living large just a few years ago are losing everything. Your city is in the same situation. I guarantee that your city finances will deteriorate significantly over the next year. I know you don't believe me, but pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

I also know that it annoys you that I keep saying the same thing over and over. But people need to speak out against fiscal mismanagement since it affects all of us directly in the form of reduced services and higher taxes. You may not like what I have to say, but I don't see you telling those opposed to Prop 8 to shut up, or people opposed to the war in Iraq to go away. You harp on education funding over and over and over again to anybody who will listen. Why then do you want me to be silent on an issue that I think is equally important?

I also find it perplexing how you continually rationalize the pay and benefit increases to public employees based on comparisons to other cities. Just because other government entities make bad decisions doesn't mean that your elected leaders shouldn't think for themselves. The same reasoning was used by people who purchased overpriced homes they couldn't afford with exotic loans they had no ability to pay back. The reasoning was that everybody else was doing it, so it must be OK. Well it didn't seem to work out so well for them. It is a very simple principle: your city should not be spending money it doesn't have, no matter how worthy the cause.

And for the love of God, stop trying to justify everything by blaming the problems of the world on the Bush administration. That type of argument is intellectually lazy. We should be able to discuss your local issues without continually bringing GWB into the debate.

I have already gone on record numerous times opposed to the pay increase for SVPD. But, for the record, I will not go away just because what I say may be uncomfortable for some people to hear. The purpose of these blogs is for people to discuss and debate the issues. If you have something valuable to add then please contribute, but trying to silence people because you don't like what they have to say is downright un-American.

Let's also vote to turn out the bums who asked for the overly generous corporate tax breaks while slashing services to our kids in the schools.

Bubba says:
"Marie, it wasn't that long ago that companies like Citigroup, Countrywide, Merryl Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, and others had gold plated credit ratings. But these companies imploded because they underestimated their risk exposure and they were riding the wave of a bubble market"
and
"And for the love of God, stop trying to justify everything by blaming the problems of the world on the Bush administration. That type of argument is intellectually lazy. We should be able to discuss your local issues without continually bringing GWB into the debate."

Don't you think that the two may be related?
Had the shrub and/or his cronies kept their eyes on these financial institutions, we might not be in this mess. Since we are in this mess it is affecting us locally.

Seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Difficult to talk about the economy of a city or a state without considering the root of the problem: the failed policies of an incompetent presidential administration.

Bubba, for the love of god, you have made your point over and over and over and over and over on numerous entries. We understand your anger. If you have something new to add, do it. But the longer you go on, it seems like you're trying to sidetrack the conversation away from the blog topic, which was education funding. This is an comfortable topic for Republicans. They don't really like public education.

Today's topic is Firefighters. I don't like that we give them overly generous pensions. Their unions do not donate to Republicans. I ignore the overly generous tax cuts for corporations because they give Republicans lots of moola. I ignore the overly generous golden parachutes given to departing screwup executives because they buy Republicans overly generous trips to Aruba.

Tomorrow's topic: Overly generous pensions for police officers.

eight years,

Obviously you can't move on, and I thought that was the whole point of voting in your messiah. You want to keep blaming bush for the world's economic crisis, fine, go ahead, you have that right. But you're a fool, and a fool that has very little to say that actually could improve or impact our society, so why don't you go back to your NPR underground lair, and keep talking about how wonderful Obama will make our country, and when it doesn't work, where will you be? Jobless like 10 percent+ of the population in this state. I hope your disdain for our previous executive will keep you going through the days when you have to figure out which meal you're going to skip because you can't afford to each breakfast, and dinner. You are a sickening example of someone who even "moveon.org" who offered me a job years ago, that I turned down would tell you to stop blaming the past and start being proactive in helping our future. It was Clinton's appointees in charge of freddie and fannie, not Bush's stop living in a world where facts are based on Al Frankin's latest book. Go read Orwell's Animal Farm, you dolt. Everytime I see you on these blogs all you do is blame the federal government under Bush. This is a city/county forum. Even if you hated him, he's back home in Texas, and you can't blame him for the stock market crashing after Obama's speech the other day, or the fact that California (One of the most liberal states) Has a serious spending problem, that is completely unrelated to Federal Policy. Obama is increasing spending, but he would rather give illegal aliens health insurance, than provide your kids with a decent education. I hope you drink the kool-aid of the messiah, so no one has to hear you randomly blame Bush everytime you think that you'll get support from the left. I could go around talking about how this all started with Carter, then go back to FDR, or Hoover. Where do you start caring about the now, and stop blaming the past. Get a job, unless you're a teacher, then get a real job, because you're worthless to our youth.

Tired tirades of the right are getting dull.

For the record, the pension crisis affects education funding. The more that school districts have to pay for bloated employee pension plans the less funds are available for kids. You have to decide which is more important, but you can't pretend that one is not related to the other. At the very least we should be talking about how we should be spending our existing resources more wisely rather than simply griping about not having enough tax revenue, or blaming all the problems on the federal government and former administration. The problems are more complex than that. What I'm trying to illustrate is that our elected leaders are being irresponsible with the money they do have, and when they make bad decisions they come back to the taxpayers for more instead of correcting their mistakes. School districts are just as vulnerable to the pension timebomb as all other government entities. More and more of your education dollars are going to be swallowed up to pay for unfunded commitments based on a bubble economy, so we better start having some honest discussions on the topic and show some backbone to make the tough decisions.

And as much as some people don't want to hear what I have to say I'm not just going to roll over because you want to have a one-sided debate. It seems that some of you just want to sit around and agree with each other, blaming all the problems in the world on republicans, corporations, and a supposed lack of tax revenues. At the same time you want to give a free pass to fiscal mismanagement by your elected leaders and to politically connected groups who are looting the public treasury. Many of you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the coming financial storm that is going to significantly impact state and local government because of selfishness and poor fiscal planning. Sorry to disappoint you, but these are real issues that need to be discussed. You have to decide whether you want to slash education programs in exchange for maintaining overly generous pension programs for teachers. You have to decide if you are willing to gut programs to the elderly, homeless, poor and disabled in exchange for allowing firefighters to retire at up to 90% pay as early as age 55. Why should we be giving pay raises and benefit increases to select groups of public employees while laying off other public employees? As I see it this is a moral issue.

Today's topic: overly generous pensions for teachers. I don't think teachers should be able to retire with more than Burger King workers do after working 30 years in classrooms of 40 to teach Johnny to read. Teacher's unions do not donate to Republicans. I will complain about that instead of overly generous bonuses given to Wall Street workers with federal bailout money. Wall Street donated to Republicans. I like Wall Street.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I have not been in favor of bailouts to Wall Street firms, nor am I in favor of lowering teacher salaries. It is ridiculous for you to even suggest such a thing. If you want to engage an intelligent discussion of the issues then please contribute, but equating the pension issue with Burger King pay is just nonsense.

Bubba,
This is what happens when ignorant people decide that they want to disagree with valid arguments, but have no evidence to prove themselves right. So, instead they decide to change what you've said, so their arguments become valid. Typical response from the unintelligent.

Today's topic: Cut off all social services. You poor, sick, mentally impaired or elderly? Well tough. It's your own damn fault. Don't listen to liberals. They want you to be Russians. I like Tony. We hang out. He lets me shine his shoes sometimes. Katie is a meanie.

To Bubba Kidd:

Tell me more of this firefighters pension issue.

mercy, please!

Hey Bubba,
Thanks but I know all that, but let me ask you again, what do you have against police & fire being compensated as they are, w/ pension increases ? For the schooling, training & the very fact they put their lives on the line, to help, protect & serve a majority(99%) of people they don't even know, are they not deserving ?
I'll ask you your feelings towards our medical professionals another day as I am afraid of your answer. I hope you surprise me & have a more positive opinion.
Also, you don't like taxes, even a 1/4 of 1 penny, you don't want to tax the rich, who can obviously afford it far more than can the middle & lower class, so how do you propose we pay for the necessary items in a budget ?
Let me ask it this way, would you rather cut education, bennies for the elderly & disabled, or have the rich pay more in taxes & cut our police & fire forces ?
Also, you're generalizing re" wealthy people as you should have said some wealthy people have volatile portfolios, as not all & my guess that most don't.
Laslty, I don't believe you ever responded back to my point re: WalMart, so while I have your attention; don't you think it's hypocritical of you to shop at WalMart, for your hard to find item, but continue to shop for your other items there as well ? You suggested on more than one ocassion you think a city's residents should keep their tax dollars(& ultimately sales tax revenues) in their own city. So by you shooping for the balance of your shopping list in Oxnard & not Simi Valley, you are not practicing what you preach; am I wrong ?

By Bubba Kidd on March 4, 2009 10:24 PM
NM, we have already increased taxes, and unless you haven't noticed, we are in the worst economy since the great depression. And finally, we already have the highest marginal tax rate of any state in the union, meaning that we already tax the rich higher than any other state. It should also be noted that wealthy people also have volatile incomes because these individuals earn a lot of their income from things like stock market investments, bonuses, business income, etc. Which means that the income of wealthy people goes up in a good economy and down in a bad economy. One of the principal reasons for the volatility in tax revenues in this state is the fact that our tax system is overly progressive. It also ignores the fact that rich people can choose to leave this state and take their tax dollars with them if taxes become excessive. So I don't think that continually taxing one group of people is good public policy, nor do I think that class envy and punishing people for their success is consistent with American values.

Marie Lakin,

I challenge you! Please write 3 subjects for upcoming blog entries and see if Bubba Kidd can connect them to the firefighters and their pensions.

We can do it Kevin Bacon style but with only two degrees. If he connects it in only one or two degrees then he wins.

What do you say? Here, I will start the challenge.

1. The governor flies a jet to Sacramento on many work days but promotes regulations against global warming.

2. President Obama is sending more troops to fight the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

3. I like chocolate milk.

4. I get confused on the differences between alligators and crocodiles. Does it really matter?

5. Ninjas are highly respected but yet their record as assassins is minimal or non-existent.

6. There are many Mexican restaraunts in Simi Valley. I really like Mexican food.

7. There are two stories of creation in Genesis. But somehow most people only know the first. What is the impact on faith?

8. Will Ferrell is highly talented but that last basketball movie wasn't that funny. I was disappointed.

9. Magnets fascinate me. They seem expensive, but I would like to build more things with magnets.

10. I don't own a pair of Crocs. Are they really that comfortable?

11. Are there words in Spanish that rhyme with orange? If so I have a great answer next time someone brings up that nothing supposedly rhymes with orange.

Just giving you a hard time Bubba Kidd. I would like to hear more facts on pensions of public employees across Ventura County, but focusing on Ventura Firefighters only is starting to grow tiresome. Although it is entertaining.

OK, "The People" you get first prize for funniest post ever on my blog or any blog. :-)

I really needed to laugh!

I vote for number 3, 9 and 10, Marie! Do it and see if the magic happens. :)

The haha blog,

Wouldn't that be something interesting to read?

Thanks for the vote of confidence that Marie is now irrelevant, and Bubba and I can take over this page. Marie, sorry, but as you can see it is demanded by the people, and this is a democracy.

Back to my blog,

If I cared what nameless, jobless, ignorant anonymous commentators thought about me, maybe I would put my name up there, and then laugh my way all the home. You are pathetic. You either didn't bother to read anything I've posted, or you're illiterate and had a friend post that for you. I hope you feel like a big person now. If you think I am anything less than equal to Tony, you should read the Declaration of Independence. You got one thing right, I do like Tony. If you are poor in this country, and you aren't hurt or insane, it is your fault. The economy sucks, but there will always be ditch diggers somewhere, when unemployment hits around 25% I'll reconsider the whole state government, completely, and we should all look ourselves in the mirror, and weep in shame. Get a job. But let's not cut social services, and watch our education system take another billion dollar hit. Let's watch as the drop out rate goes up, and our children can't even compete with kids from out of state, let alone in other countries. Then unemployment will go which way? When Putin comes out and says that America should learn from the mistakes of Soviet Russia, based on the liberal spending plans, I think there is some ground for debate as to which Russians you're referring to. Do you think liberals are the Soviet Man Russians, or the Post Soviet-Can't afford food for their family Russians? Of course you don't have to feed your family if they all die because of the lack of competitive health care, and the emergence of waiting lists for emergency surgery. Don't listen to liberals, they will spend us into the ground, and then demand the citizen pay for it with new taxes. It is a dumb idea. I've never called Katie "mean", though she is irrational, and a bigot. She is a conservative who voted for the most liberal candidate she could. She says she is "pro-life", and then votes for a candidate that is strongly against parental notification. Not until after she learned who I was attending the debate with, did she start treating me that way. If you think of it in a different setting, like a library, and she asked who I was with, and I turned around and said "my boyfriend", and she was acting homophobic, it was the same feeling that I felt that day. All of the sudden because I didn't think like her, she treated me like a second class citizen, and that is prejudicial at the very least.

Toast to the people! That was very clever, and hilarious.

Marie, I really hoped you enjoyed your laugh. It will be difficult to even smile very soon, I'm afraid. And again, I appreciate your forum.

Possible answer, 7: it is to keep you from questioning your faith because of conflicting biblical images. In Judaism, they teach both stories more often, and promote the questioning of why there are two stories, and explain it by saying that "sometimes in the scripture the numbers are symbolic, and each story has different messages about the way to live your life". There are Jewish firefighters. Bubba take it from there...

Actually, I think that our recent debate over pension funds is a refreshing change from the regular stuff that is repeatedly tossed around here. You can complain about me droning on for the past few weeks about this topic, but a better representation of the normal content on this blog is six degrees of Strickland. It goes something like this:

1. Tony and Audra were seen having lunch at a sushi restaurant
2. Sushi was invented in Japan
3. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
4. After Pearl Harbor the USA declared war on Germany
5. Germany was responsible for the holocaust
6. Tony Strickland hates Jews

But usually around here it only takes two degrees. More often it goes like this:

1. Because of the budget crisis California has to cut funding to schools
2. Tony Strickland hates children

Bubba,
It's not that any of us are discounting your pension concerns, it's just that the topic has been exhausted here by you and we are eager to stretch our minds and pursue other thoughts. Is that fair? If you have other ideas for blogs, email me.

This blog was not about Tony Strickland. I wrote this last week and my intent here was threefold, as I posted earlier:

1) Nobody else is writing about how deep these budget cuts are to our schools. I can find very little out there. I have O'Connell's report sitting here. This went to every school district in the state.

2) This budget was cobbled together precariously and hinges on complicated ballot measures that voters will not understand. You should at least find this very disturbing. Again, I didn't see anybody else writing about this until Timm put up a column 2 days ago.

3) Our schools need definitive answers by March 13 and will have nothing at least until until June. This is madness.

Do you think voters will understand and approve these ballot measures?

P.S. I don't need to keep taking swipes at Strickland. Others do this far more often than I do. Look at the editorial page today:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/mar/06/ignoring-educators-gop-lawmakers-no-shows/

123: The budget was written by democrats! BLAME THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Most voters are idiots, so we won't know how much they understand about these ballot initiatives until someone does TV commercials in the greater LA area, maybe even Michele Pfeifer from Dangerous Minds. Our schools won't get any answers, and they won't fire 20k teachers either. If they do, I'll admit I was wrong. I'll say it again, yes, cutting the budget for education is bad. BUT WE HAVE NO MONEY TO SPEND. IF YOU RAISE TAXES YOU WILL HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND. And please no one respond with the, "We don't want to take the water out of your side of the bucket, just the rich side of the bucket." You are wrong. That is not how taxation and economics works.

PS Your reference to you not being the one who is taking swipes at the Stricklands, this is the same story that you wrote about in January, so yeah, that umm.... well what do you mean you aren't doing it?

The budget was hammered out by the Senate and Assembly leaders with our governor. It is was a bipartisan agreement. And it's a mess, full of things added in to appease a small minority of Republicans.

I said I don't NEED to take swipes at him. Plenty of other people do.

Marie, how can you talk about wanting things to be "bi-partisan", yet constantly whine that compromises were made to "appease a small minority of Republicans"? It isn't bi-partisan if one party crams it down the throat of the other party, which seems to be what you would prefer. What is so wrong in letting republicans have some say in the budget? Seems to me that democrats got almost everything they wanted, since the eventual budget was a fairly equal balance between spending cuts and new taxes, and was not much different than the early proposals from democrats. And the original plan offered by the democrats included the same heavy cuts to education that was adopted in the final budget, so you can't blame republicans for all the cuts to public education. You keep claiming that you favor "bi-partisan" politicians who can reach across the aisle, yet whenever it actually happens you complain.

My principal complaint is the 2/3rd majority needed to pass this budget allowed one minority senator to dictate terms for both houses to get something that would personally benefit him.

Isn't that how politics works? You can't tell me that democrats in the state legislature don't put things into the budget that are of personal benefit. In fact, it happens all the time.

Maybe you should be more concerned about the criminal investigation Senate Pro Tem Don Perata (D) for the misuse of and misappropriation of public funds, falsification of legislative employee timesheet records, violation of California labor laws by coercing public employees into political campaign activity, and threatening state Senators with removal from committee chairmanships and memberships if they did not provide him with the requested bribe of political campaign services. That seems like a far more serious issue of political self-dealing than the complaints you continually level against republicans.

I'm not a Perata fan, so you will get no arguments from me there. The guy is shifty.

There were a couple of little surprises worked in the budget. I was going to blog on them but decided they were too wonky. There were CEQA exemptions for various highway projects worked in and another surprise requires school districts to pay a fee to the Department of Industrial Relations of up to 0.25 percent of total project costs to cover that agency’s costs of enforcing prevailing wage.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think voters will understand and approve the ballot measures? Sometimes I think you're more concerned with shooting arrows than you are real discussion.

I like doing both.

Honestly, I don't know if the voters are going to approve the ballot measures. It will be confusing and a tough sell. But if the unions cooperate as expected it will be a one-sided debate, so I suppose the assumption is that the ballot measure will pass as long as there is no organized opposition campaign. And given that the voting trends historically favor measures or candidates where one side has organization and funding that far exceeds the other side I would say that the odds favor passage. The only wrinkle are the talk radio shows that are trying to stir up some opposition, however it remains to be seen whether that will be effective. So the short answer is I think they will pass, but only if the public tunes out and bases their voting decisions on the number of TV commercials they see, which is usually the case. But if they don't pass then things should get really interesting.

Bubba ? Still waiting.

Still waiting for what? I've already answered that same question in previous posts. Asking the same question over and over will not change my answer.

I don't think you answered my questions directly; seems you are clearly avoiding them,. when in fact, I see you answering others questions time & again.

So again, please answer directly; thanks

Are our law enforcement & firefighter/paramedics not deserving ?

Also, you don't like taxes, even the idea of a tax of 1/4 of 1 penny, you don't want to tax the rich, who can obviously afford it far more than can the middle & lower class, so how do you propose we pay for the necessary items in a budget ?

Here's a very straightforward question: would you rather cut education, bennies for the elderly & disabled, or have the rich pay more in taxes & cut our police & fire forces ?

Also, you're generalizing re" wealthy people as you should have said some wealthy people have volatile portfolios, as not all & my guess that most don't.

Regarding the WalMart issue, I do apologize Bubba as that was John Doe who failed to answer the claim of hypocrisy, not you.

It is not a function of whether police and firefighters are "deserving". If that is the criteria why not pay each of them $1 million per year with multi-million dollar pensions? For that matter, why not do the same for teachers, or nurses? How about our soldiers fighting in Iraq? If a cop is worth a $1 million per year, then a soldier must be worth at least $10 million per year. Your argument is ridiculous on its face.

According to your reasoning nobody can question the compensation of police or firefighters, and it doesn't matter how much we pay them since we can just keep taxing "wealthy people" to pay for it all. The fact that California already has the highest marginal tax rate on the wealthy is of no consequence, let's just keep raising taxes to whatever level we need to pay whatever cops and firefighters whatever they say they "deserve". I'm sure that's a great plan. Then eventually we can tax the rich right out of existence and be just like Cuba.

And you have it backward, it is the excessive cost of benefits that is forcing government to cut services to the public. Your local government has limited resources, and the more money you spend offering 90% pensions and early retirement to firefighters the less money you have for the poor, homeless, elderly and disabled. And in these though economic times it is unethical to be giving pay and benefit increases to cops and firefighters while you are simultaneously laying off clerks and librarians. Granting unnecessary benefit increases that cost millions of dollars will guarantee pink slips to a lot of other employees and higher tax burdens on the rest of us.

So why don't you answer some questions. Do you think that we should be giving pay raises to one group of public employees while cutting the pay or laying off another group of public employees? Do you think that elected leaders should be making unfunded commitments that guarantee benefits to a select group of public servants that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren? Do you think that people should be punished for being financially successful and achieving the American dream? Should we just tax the rich out of existence so that we can redistribute their money to people who are more "deserving"? And why should taxpayers, most of whom have to work until the age of 67 for a small social security check, to have to pay more and more taxes to support a select group of employees so they can retire as early as age 50 at 90% pay?

Average firefighter salary in California
$45,000

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Firefighter&l1=California

Average Police officer salary in California
$43,000

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Police+officer&l1=California

Nurse in CA
$61,000

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=nurse&l1=California

Teacher in CA
$50,000

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=teacher&l1=California

Bank vice president in CA
$75,000
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=bank+vice+president&l1=California

Soooo, Bubba, when you have a heart attack or your house is burning down, would you rather have a firefighter or a bank vice president come?

You data is flawed. First of all we are discussing a local issue so you need to look at local data. I have already posted salary information on my local police department that shows that virtually all police officers with just a few years of experience earn six figure salaries, which will guarantee that virtually all current police officers will also eventually retire on six figure pensions. The Star has run numerous articles over the years showing that the highest paid public servants in this county is a whos whos list of firefighters, with many of them earning well above $200,000 per year with overtime.

And it is intellectually lazy to justify every argument based on overpaid executives. The reasoning is that if there are overpaid executives in this nation that we cannot question anything else. That is nothing but a diversion to avoid the topic at hand. But I'm not going to continue wasting my breath debating this with you since you clearly have no interest in having a rational discussion.

NBA Top point guard salaries:
http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml

1. Jason Kidd, Dallas, $21.37 million.

2. Stephen Marbury, N.Y. Knicks, $20.8 million,

3. Mike Bibby, Atlanta, $14.98 million,

4. Gilbert Arenas, Washington, $14.65 million.

5. Steve Nash, Phoenix, $12.25 million.

Firefighters in CA:

Firefighter Senior Officer in California, $121,000
Firefighter Emergency Medical Technician in California, $41,000
Firefighter Hazmat Technician in California, $47,000
EMT Basic Firefighter in California, $36,000
Firefighter Basic Life Support in California, $44,000
Paramedic Firefighter in California, $49,000
Lead Forestry Technician Fire in California, $35,000
Firefighter EMT in California, $40,000
Firefighter in California, $49,000
Firefighter Paramedic in California, $48,000
Forestry Aid Technician Fire in California, $30,000
Forestry Aid Fire in California, $27,000
Lead Firefighter in California, $51,000
Lead Range Technician Fire in California, $45,000
Wildland Firefighter Range in California, $28,000

California, with the highest median home price in the nation and home prices that far outpace incomes, only ranks eighth in the U.S. with a median household income of $59,948. California's median income is not near enough to afford the average California home or even a starter home.

To purchase the median-priced home – $465,000 – with a 30-year conventional fixed-rate mortgage and a 5 percent down payment, a household needed an income of $113,162 – nearly double the statewide median household income.

You can only pay what you can afford to pay. Comparing firefighter salaries to that of NBA players is absurd. In the real world we have to make choices, and that includes balancing the salaries and benefits of public servants against services to the public and the taxation needed to support government. There is no point in raising salaries and benefits beyond levels that are reasonable or sustainable. Sure, you can choose to pay NBA wages to firefighters, but in the end you'll have a an overtaxed public, crushing cuts to other public programs, and a two man fire department putting out fires with buckets of water. Maybe it is you who should "get real".

Should firefighters make enough to afford a home here?

Since when was 30k a year "underfunded", and 125k a year still "underfunded". But if you live with two people making 125x2=250k a year, you are RICH.

Do cops and firemen deserve more money? They do as much as I deserve more money. I have no union to back me up, so my competitive skills in the market determine by pay and benefits. Do you have millions of dollars of campaigns trying to convince your boss to raise your salary or your pension? I think not. Cops are mostly normal people, but like everywhere else There are some freaks, and cops hate the constitution more than liberals do.

PS WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO BUY A HOUSE? RENT FOR A WHILE UNTIL YOU HAVE A BETTER JOB, OR MORE MONEY.

Why would anyone take a job at which they risked their life every day for less wages than they could make in the private sector doing something else?

Firefighters already make more than enough money to afford homes in Ventura County. You keep pretending like they're paupers. When you look at the salaries, generous benefits and overtime these are some of the highest paid public servants in the nation. It is not uncommon for local firefighters to earn more than judges or airline pilots.

The City of Vallejo went bankrupt because of excessive public safety salaries and benefits. Click on the link to see the highest paid employees in the City of Vallejo in 2007 and you'll see at #1 cop who made $435,638, and at #2 a firefighter who made $350,212 (click on the link). Note that 21 fire department employees earned over $200,000, 56 earned over $150,000, and 23 who earned over $100,000. The police department shows 9 employees making over $200,000, 29 over $150,000, and 241 over $100,000. And I seriously doubt that any of these employees could be earning more in the private sector, especially when you factor in that these employees all have the ability to enjoy early retirement at 90% pay.

The City of Vallejo has a population of 116,000 people, making it just slightly larger than Ventura. Among all of their public employees 292 made over $100,000 per year, but it is important to note that only 39 of those employees worked outside of the police or fire department.

And for some local comparisons, here is an article from the Star from a few years back showing the top 20 highest paid County of Ventura employees. On the list were five fire battalion chiefs who earned $218,991, $200,683, $184,510, $183,633 and $181,914 respectively, an undersheriff who earned $214,035, a sheriff who earned $197,855, a county fire chief who earned $196,795, a fire captain who earned $189,755, two chief deputy sheriffs who earned $188,200 and $187,390, and a sheriff's sergeant who earned $182,206. These were wages for the year 2006. Please note that the current contract for the Sheriff's Department provides for 18% pay raises over three years, so, no doubt, these salaries are even higher today. These contracts also include guaranteed overtime, which can also factor into pension benefits for many employees. And don't forget that these employee also enjoy lucrative pension benefits that allow them to enjoy early retirement at close to full pay.

Do you think that any of these people have a hard time affording a home?

Typical firefighter salaries in V.C.:
Ventura: $81,936
Oxnard: $83,496
Ventura County Fire (serves Simi Valley and other areas): $91,860

This includes retirement contributions, uniform allowances and incentive pay.

You need an income of $113,162 to buy a house here.

That is a lie. Show me your source for that data on "typical firefighter salaries" that INCLUDE retirement contributions, uniform allowances and incentive pay. The information published by the VC Star speaks for itself and has never been disputed by any public safety union.

--Adding to its recruitment challenges, Ventura is the only city in the county that requires new hires to be licensed paramedics.

A Ventura firefighter earns about $6,828 a month, compared with $6,958 in Oxnard, $7,388 in Santa Barbara and $7,655 in the Ventura County Fire Department, according to 2008 compensation figures that include retirement contributions, uniform allowances and incentive pay for such things as knowing how to use a defibrillator.--

Do the math Bub.

WHY IS 90K in the POOR HOUSE? Has Obama driven the dollar to that little value. If you're getting paid to do a job, there should be no built in clauses to raise your pay, and guarantee your pension. You work, you get paid, you work harder, you get paid better, that is what America was about once, now you all want overpay everyone, and take money from the "rich". You can't even decide on who is rich and who is not. A giant cluster f***. A black hole, even light won't escape. You are fools if you think paying more to our civil servants will make them better, or stay longer, or anything else until another place offers better everything. Keep getting mad about pensions. The unions twisted the screws so hard on the liberals, we've now had to raise taxes, and cut education to pay for them. WAKE UP. Are you all crazy? Stop "feeding the beast". Stop eating fast food, and stop smoking cigarettes. Legalize pot. And we can have a giant one party government. There is no direction but down in the future, SOMEONE PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!

How long did it take for Rome to fall?

The article you cite provides no detailed list of salaries. Are we talking about average salaries, or are we talking about the salaries of entry level employees or trainees? Are we talking about base salary, or are we talking about total wages earned including overtime? What are the pay scales? It doesn't say. But the earlier article from the Star that shows many fire department employees in the county earning close to or over $200,000 per year, which indicates that you are probably looking at base entry level salaries. It also doesn't take into account that these employees are contractually guaranteed a minimum amount of overtime, making it a certainty that everyone earns far more than these amounts.

It seems that your local fire department doesn't publish detailed salary information on their website, at least not as far as I can tell. The reason for this is obvious. But I was able to find a summary of the City of Ventura Fire Department budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year (click on the link). In it I noticed a line item for $475,000 to budget for employee costs for a newly planned three man fire crew. If the cost of the "typical firefighter" is just $81,936, why then did your city budget $158,333 for each position on this three man crew?

Also note that fire with fire does not dispute the fact that we have firefighters in this county earning close to or over $200,000 per year (not including benefits). I think he needs to check his math.

I can answer that one, Bubba. It was actually a four-man crew. A chief plus three firefighters. There were other costs associated with the crew as well. And the whole thing has just been cut from our budget.

I would say without detailed information from any one fire department plus a representative to explain the information to you, that you are just making random assumptions. Maybe I can ask Jason from County Fire to come on here and I can devote yet another thread to Bubba and his/her beef with county firefighters.

My friend's husband, who works in Santa Barbara County, usually only puts in for overtime when he's out fighting wildfires, I believe. Recently half of Montecito burned down, so he was likely out "ripping off the taxpayers" trying to save lives, homes and animals. The swine. (sarcasm alert here for anyone who isn't reading carefully)

Surely something else besides salaries for emergency personnel troubles you, Bubba. Even when other bloggers provide you solid facts and links, you deny them.

You don't seem to blog much about the other financial troubles plaguing us these days, things that happened under the GOP watch nationally. (Yes, haha, Rome is burning and your pals lit the match.)

By the way, Bubba, I told my friend about your endless complaints here. She doesn't blog. But she told me to tell you that all the data shows the lifespan of a firefighter is not all that long, so not to worry.

Sorry, Bubba, one more thing. I mentioned the overtime for fighting wildfires. These are happening more often now for many reasons -- drought, global warming, whatever. But one reason we have to fight them so assiduously is because more and more people are building their houses in fire-prone areas.

Many people have proposed extra fees be leveled on these folks to pay for firefighting efforts rather than having the tremendous costs spread to all taxpayers. Our LAO proposed this, for instance.

Marie, why is it that you continually cherry pick the information that you want to believe and then accuse others of ignoring "solid facts and links"? Somebody suggested that these poor underpaid firefighters cannot afford homes and make paltry wages and you take that at face value. Yet when I provide hard data that shows many local firefighters actually making close to or more than $200,000 per year you say nothing. And you keep brining up the sacrifices that they make, as if that is the trump card to dismiss any discussion about pay and benefits. So are you OK with paying public servants $200,000 per year plus early retirement at 90% pay? Tell me, what program for the poor, sick, homeless, disabled, or elderly are you willing to cut to continue to allow these runaway cost increases? How many more libraries should we close, and how many clerks should we lay off so that we can continue to generously fund pension increases for a select few? Or is this just one more problem that you can just casually blame on those dastardly republicans, greedy corporations, and evil rich people that you hate so much. What is the solution here Marie, pay them whatever they want and keep raising taxes?

My what hyperbole! Now I hate rich people, huh? Do you know anything about my background, family or friends? No. Other bloggers present facts to you and you call them liars. Oh, anonymous Bubba from Simi Valley, you do love to stir the pot.

You are indeed cherry picking -- jumping around to a few random internet links and selectively revealing formation. Neither one of us qualifies as a firefighter salary expert.

I think what you are complaining about is the overtime for a select few. My friend doesn't make anything close to $200,000, says overtime is not built into his pay and he contributes about 15 percent of his paycheck toward his retirement. Overtime expenses occur during incidents like wildfires and when one of the guys in a station is injured and the other guys have to cover, he said.

You got anything else to complain about?

Firefighters bad.
Rush Limbaugh good.

Marie:

Time to stop beating-up on our firefighters and other emergency first-responders and focus all our anger on the real budget flunkers, the State Legislature and our Girly-Man Governator.

Regarding the 2/3's requirement for raising taxes, in this Democrat's opinion, it shouldn't be lowered, at least not by this bunch of political amateurs. The pitiful way in which the dealt with the State’s budget crises shows me I can’t trust any of them..

Especially the way in which they all have put the good citizens of this State through fiscal hell during the last six months. With such an abysmal fiscal stewardship record, why should they be rewarded now with more power over our hard-earned dollars?

After all, they all, in their own way, fiddled, while the State's fiscal house burned, almost to a crisp. If anyone doubts that, check out their fundraising data during that period.

I assure you that all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike, didn’t miss a beat in raising money for their re-election coffers, even while the State came precariously close to bankruptcy.

We here in the Ventura County had real taste of their hubris and lack of caring when HBJ and Tony Strickland, and their special interest contributors and caucus masters spent more than $11 Million on the 19th SD.

Can you imagine how many school supplies, text books, and/or computers that $11 Million could buy?

Then, at a few minutes before fiscal midnight, the Big-Five, manage to muster the two-thirds votes in both houses required to pass their latest government ponzi-scheme which they have the fiscal chutzpah to call a balanced budget. I wonder if any of them hang-out with Bernie Madoff?

Given this fiscal madness, we'd all be fools to make it easier for these Bloviating Bozos to reach their grubby little hands into our pockets and grab more of our hard-earned dollars.

As it is, the so-called Democratic leadership, with a little help from a few of their Republican friends, pushed-thru a budget which will cost the average working-class family of four (that is if they still have a job) in this State somewhere between $1,000 to $1,200 more in State taxes and fees in the next year.

What's worse; among taxes that they increased include the sales tax, the most regressive form of tax available in the mix of government funding options.

And to add insult to injury, they came-up with the sliding scale income-tax surcharge, based on the amount of Federal Stimulus bill aid that will be received by the State, measured (are you ready for this?) on April 1, 2009 (See AB 16XXX) That’s one hell of an April’s Fool Day joke on the State’s taxpayers!!

Even if there was no recession (or more likely soon to be a global depression) such tax increases on hard-working families would be fiscally unsound. Under current economic conditions, they are morally unconscionable.

With apologies to Howard Dean, I'm from the working-class portion of the Democratic Party. Not the Montecito, latte-sucking, limousine-liberal portion that sells-out the least amongst us, the working poor, the old, sick and disabled, hardworking school teachers and our future, the kids in school, in favor of tax-cuts to Silicon-Valley technology corporations and Hollywood film giants.

Can we say thank you to all your High-Tech and Hollywood high-rolling contributors, State legislators?

And what's worse, that State budget was based on rosier revenue projections made by Mike Genest, the Governator’s Director of Finance back in November, well BEFORE the worst of the last three months of growing joblessness, consumer constipation, and market-meltdowns.

And don’t take my word for it, read the latest from Democratic State Controller, John Chiang, the guy who signs the State’s checks, as rubbery as they may be.

Here’s what he told the California’s Capital Blog during an interview yesterday, March 8th. Controller Chiang was asked by Blogmeister Greg Lucas whether or not he thought that the State Budget just passed solved the State’s fundamental budget problems.

His final answer: “.Not even close. This budget doesn’t anticipate if we have further deterioration in the state revenue situation. They’re going to probably find themselves out of balance because the economy is getting a lot worse.

The current numbers are based on November and December. Look at more recent numbers. Within the last few weeks, the national Gross Domestic Product was revised from its original minus 3.8 down to minus 6.2. Unemployment was a little over 8 percent last November. Now it’s at 10.1 percent.

They ought to have solutions in place already for next year’s budget to anticipate a weakening economy.

We had bad numbers for the month of February — $900 million less than expected. The disbursements came in light. It could have been a lot worse. But it’s still a $900 million net loss to the state budget..� So says the guy who signs the State’s checks…

Even though I strongly disagree with the budget that was passed by the skin of two-thirds of the Legislature’s political teeth last month, I gotta hand it to old Abel Maldonado. He’s the only one up in Sacto with both the brains and balls to bend the good old-boys’ political reality to his political will. And that’s about as good a definition of political power I’ve encountered.

If the Republicans had a Willie Brown, he'd be it. Who knows, Abel may be the Republican’s Dark-Horse favorite for Governor in 2010!!

NostraDemus

Great thoughts, ND. Finally, 111 comments later, somebody responded to the spirit of my original post.

However, my friend, you did not say how you would've balanced the budget differently. That's the trick, isn't it?

Question for you: Do you think all those special-interest business tax credits serve their purpose? There are at least $100 billion worth of them. Do you think the jobs gained through this sort of business stimulation replace those lost through cuts by not having that revenue in the pot?

In Willie Brown's day, they got budgets passed by doing a favor for somebody's brother. Now they have to amend the State Constitution.

I was saying weeks ago that this budget was a joke. Thanks for the credit, Marie. The trick is not spending us into the ground over the past 14 years to begin with. Rome is burning, but we all lit the match years ago, and it wasn't just my pals. It has been a failure for decades, I dare argue since the legislature was no longer part time. Or even FDR and his, and Hoover's failed economic policies that were overlooked by a World War.

11 million dollars on a campaign. It is sad, but that was the democrats trying to get their Magic 2/3s vote to raise taxes, and the Republicans fighting like hell to keep California a two party state. Did the 19 Senate race help our budget problem, no. Sad to say, Senator Strickland couldn't get taxes removed from our budget. HBJ would have voted to pass even more, and Maldonado would have been irrelevant, just like he will be after he gets termed out.

Our legislature passed phony budgets ever since the governator took office, and before when we had the boom under Davis. And to add to the mess, the people have passed propositions and have had executive orders that have cost us billions in dollars on high speed rails, stem cell research, solar, and global warming special interests. We have a giant illegal immigrant population, most of whom only pay sales tax, the supposed "most regressive" tax. Even with prop 13 our property tax is about average, and our property is worth more, and there are more homes. And we pay the highest tax on every other thing possible.

So what do we do? Keep raising taxes? Or do we fix the problem with all of the unions, including the prison guards? Do we scrap the legislature? Or just hope redistricting will fix that problem? What's the big solution?

On a side note: I'm sure "the conservative mind" came with Dennert. I told you so.