I commend and thank the City for trying to reach out to the community on this one. It's very difficult for people with young families to attend meetings and the City and this committee employed other means of soliciting input. They have an on-line forum and I know many committee members emailed their contacts asking for input (thanks, Angie!). Kudos to those who care enough to serve on these committees and thanks to the City for their attempts to get public feedback.

Imagine that.....
A 'blue ribbon' (hand picked) committee doing exactly what the city council wanted.
Was there ever a doubt of what the outcome of this exercise would be?

I'm with Jenise, many people have difficulties and family issues preventing them from attending this 'theater'. What would be the point anyway? This particular 'event' was pre-ordained to come up with this solution.

As Committee Vice Chair Michael Case said: "Government is very transparent as compared to business". Transparent is a very good analogy. There was no hiding the fact that this committee would recommend a tax measure.

And while "the group voted to ask that priority be given to public safety, infrastructure, libraries, and economic revitalization" if this measure passes, the city council is under absolutley no obligation to spend the money on anything other than what they want.

I think it's a good thing that this measure will share the same ballot as the view initiative, the anti-big box ordinance, and City Council and Board of Education races. It will give voters the chance to see WHY they have to vote on this. The local city Government is broken and maybe this will spur voters to fix it.

The point I made last night when I spoke was that I think the citizens should be given a right to vote on it. If it goes down in flames, then that is democracy. We get to determine what kind of city we want to be. It should be our decision. Angie Hecht emailed a long list of folks yesterday and said she had not yet made up her mind.

I can tell you, though, that judging by the amount of scathing commentary running through the room, a lot of these folks weren't going to roll over.

I keep writing about this over and over, but it is truly the same bunch of people who show up to the city's public meetings, charettes, etc. It is a very narrow band of input.

I have a family, too, and I loathe public speaking. If I can get up there and make myself do it, anybody can.

I think by having it on the same ballot, it has no chance of passing. I don't like taxes more than anyone else, but I also realize the need to do so, as we are in a severe financial mess, as most in the Nation are. No matter the reason, at this point in time, we must do something to raise the necessary revenue to pay for much needed services. But JD makes a good point, that there seems to be no accountability in how this new tax revenue would be utilized.
I would vote Yes on it, if there was language within stating clearly that the revenue must be used properly & specifically, if not, I would vote No.
I did vote for the minute 1/4 of one penny tax for more police & fire personnel - sad that the majority voted against that - c'mon people, taxes are needed, if used responsibly as it goes for services & things we use on a regular basis, but take for granted. I mean, 1/4 of 1 cent & it was voted down ? There are just too many that see the word Tax & tuck their collectivbe tails, run & hide.

continued...
I did note that several ex City Council members are on that panel, FWIW.

Actually the majority voted FOR the 1/4 cent sales tax. It just needed a 2/3 vote because it was a dedicated use of funds. This one is a general purpose revenue measure, but I imagine the Council will vote for strict oversight of funds. True, the suggested uses are not legally binding, but they are politically binding and in no way can I see the wishes of this committee being ignored.

Thanks MArie as I stand corrected, re: the vote. To your other point, why, so far, is there no apparent language re: the specifics of where the added revenue should go ?

Because to specifically spell out where the money would go is to automatically trigger the 2/3 vote requirement. We couldn't pass that before; we surely won't this time.

It would be foolish to give your incompetent and fiscally irresponsible City Council any more money, especially with no strings attached. This is the same group that brought you the ridiculous and legally questionable 911 fee, the same group who lost $10 million in taxpayer money on bad investments, and the same group who recently approved a 50% increase in pension benefits for firefighters in the middle of a fiscal crisis. The whole purpose of this so-called blue ribbon committee was to give the City Council political cover now that they are, once again, trying to dig deeper into the taxpayers pockets to fund their foolish decisions.

And don't be tricked into the idea that this is a "temporary" tax increase. There is no such thing. After four years they will be back with another ballot measure to make it permanent, arguing that allowing it to expire would result in massive "cuts" to vital city services.

I still predict that the voters will be in no mood to increase taxes further, especially given the state of the economy and the fact that the State of California has already passed substantial tax increases on the public. Also don't forget that the teacher's unions are putting together a campaign for a 1% increase in the sales tax to fund public education (yet another tax increase that I'm sure Marie will blindly support). If all of the above pass you could be looking at local sales taxes of 9.75%. Hold on to your wallets!

The one thing that seems to be missing from all of these sales tax discussions is any concern for the impact on people who are already struggling to make ends meet in a tough economy. Over 10% of the California workforce is unemployed, millions of people are losing their homes, and thousands of businesses are failing. Yet there is no concern about any of this, the only concern is how we can shake down businesses and taxpayers for even more money in order to continue feeding government bureaucracy. Check out all of the angry comments in the Star about the tax increase article it looks like getting this thing passed will be an uphill battle. People are getting pissed off about out of control government spending, and they have every right to be angry. But hey, this is a democracy, so if you guys want to tax yourselves into oblivion so be it.

Thanks for commenting, Bubba. I apologize that your comment did not appear here sooner. I have been really busy lately and have not checked my blog's spam filter. Sometimes if you leave a link with your comments, the filter thinks it is spam and holds it for approval. If this happens, use your browser's back button, remove the link and it will post.

I am not censoring you, as your rather scathing private comment to me suggested. If you are having problems, I suggest in the future that you send me an email and tell me that you received a notice when you posted that your comments were being held for approval. Another blogger did just that and I approved his comments right away. And this was a Democrat, I might add.

Also, I don't think it's necessary to make snide personal attacks on me in every post (i.e. "blindly support.") Maybe you could just stick to the topic at hand without including my name.

911 fee: not there any more

Pension increase: not there any more and not one penny of this included in this current 2-year budget

Investment decisions: made by city investment committee comprised of city staff and one outside representative. Lehman bond fund was still highly rated when they closed their doors. City's investment strategies are very conservative. Loss represents 6% of city's portfolio. City one of hundreds of public agencies caught in bond tumble.

Nobody would blame you if you really did ban the snotty jerk.

I agree w/ you on one point Bubba & that is the folks here will not vote for it; why would they when they wouldn't for a 1/4 cent tax increase.
But I have to say, I am struggling in a huge way, financially, yet I will vote for the tax as I realize we need the funds & where else can we get them at this point in time. Let me ask you directly, Bubba - what would you do, at this juncture, to raise the funds needed ?
And does your city have a Blog somewhere & if so, what do you say in it ? Or do you just like bagging on the employees & residents, of a city for which you are not even a tax-paying resident ?

Our Simi Valley Republican commentator doesn't know anything about Ventura beyond what he reads in online comments (which lean right and come from everywhere, not just Ventura) and a few newspaper articles.

Ventura has been operating lean for years and has been fiscally responsible in correcting any structural deficit. The purpose of the P6 initiative and the 911 fee were to add public safety personnel.

We have successfully balanced the budget each year; and the current cuts are simply an attempt to do that yet again in an extreme and unexpected “down” year.

If the residents of Ventura wish to expand the revenue base, that is their decision to make. Nothing will be imposed upon them.

Increased sales taxes could potentially make things worse for everyone, City Hall included. Less discretionary income means less spending, which discourages trade and impedes economic recovery. Also, property owners will have less money for development and maintenance, which will drive values (and tax rolls) down further.

Remaining locally competitive on sales tax could possibly result in greater net revenue to the city, both short-term and long-term.

Marie, I apologize for assuming the worst. Thank you for clarifying what happened.

To answer NM, I do participate in a local SV blog, and I have always been consistent in my opposition to irresponsible government spending. I have been critical of my local government, the state government, the federal government, and, yes, the City of Ventura. Lately I have been especially critical of Ventura because of their recent approval of a large pension increase in the middle of a fiscal crisis. It is particularly outrageous considering that they had already gone to the taxpayers begging for more money to supposedly fund vacant public safety positions (in the form of the defeated 1/4 cent sales tax increase and the controversial 911 fee), yet they turned around and spent money they didn't have on a perk for already highly paid employees instead of filling those vacancies. That's why they don't have any credibility in coming back to taxpayers for even more money to solve a fiscal crisis of their own making. That's like having a relative ask for help because they are behind in their mortgage payment, but after you give them money they go out and buy a new car.

Give them money at your own peril. Don't forget that, following the increase in firefighter pensions, your local SEIU is now demanding a 35% increase in pension benefits for their members. If you approve the tax increase don't be surprised if your City Council suddenly finds money to fund another giveaway of your tax dollars.

To Ventura citizen, saying that your city has been "operating lean for years and has been fiscally responsible" is a joke. The facts say otherwise. I stand by my prediction that your city's finances will continue to deteriorate over the next few years, even if the economy recovers. This isn't about expanding the revenue base, it's about trying to cover up for all the unfunded commitments they have made over the years. You can choose not to believe me, but facts are stubborn things and your fiscal problems will not go away because you wish it to be so. The pension benefits I speak of will cost your city millions more than projected, and other programs, namely for the poor and disadvantaged, will have to be slashed in order to fund these lavish perks. Even if the 1/2 cent sales tax increase is approved it simply won't be enough. Just because your city has had a balanced budget in past years doesn't mean that their finances are strong. The recession and stock market collapse will expose their fiscal recklessness, just as it exposed Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.

Time will prove whether I am right or wrong. Your city won't be able to continue to count on a federal bailouts, eventually they will reap what they have sewn.

Your city has recently increased wages for police officers to be higher than other cities. How come your city has to pay police more to work in better conditions? Have you been as critical of the mayor, city manager, and political class of that city?

I have read your posts and the answer is no. Feel free to mention them by name in your critical comments. After all their salaries, which were massively boosted yet again, determine their retirement.

Your city won't even post the average salary of a police officer!

I have already spoken out numerous times against the 7% raise for SVPD. It was irresponsible for SV to give out that pay raise while simultaneously handing out pink slips to other city employees. I have also listed the salaries of SVPD officers in posts on the Dennert blogs and stated that they were excessive. For many years I have spoken out against the irresponsible 3 at 50 pension benefit that SV approved for its police force, and even one of our city council members, Barbra Williamson, agreed that she did not support that enhanced benefit. I also don't believe in having contracts that are tied to salary surveys (as is done in SV and the County of Ventura), which ultimately leads to a continual salary escalation. Don't forget that it was a salary survey that let to ongoing large pay raises for tax collector Larry Matheney at the same time that the public guardian's office under his supervision was grossly mismanaged and involved in criminal activity against clients under their care.

I have been consistent in my opposition to irresponsible fiscal management by our government. Anybody who has followed my comments over the years would know that.

Our unions have negotiated and agreed to significant cuts in wages and benefits, including the pension increase which is not a part of the current budget.

You apparently are missing some significant information.

The purpose of P6 and the 911 fee was to add personnel, not cover missing positions. Again, you are misinformed.

I am not misinformed, I know exactly what I am talking about. You are the one in denial. What "significant" cuts in wages and benefits have been negotiated? Firefighters agreed to defer the 50% pension increase. That's like AIG executives giving themselves million dollar bonuses and then agreeing to defer them for a few years. What a joke.

I have already gone on record by complimenting the unions that agreed to a 5% pay cut. But firefighters are getting increases in benefits while clerks and librarians are getting pay cuts. That is why I have been critical of the firefighters.

Bubba, I appreciate your honesty but would also like to ask for the URL to where you Post re: SV.
It does seem to me, & a few others, you are just anti-government; am I wrong ?
And you never answered me as to how you would raise the revenue needed to correct the fiscal issues we all deal with.
I do agree w/ you that the 911 fee was a joke, but it came to light, due to those anti-tax, anti-government types that would not even fork over a 1/4th of one penny! Even I, with a poor financial stauts & outlook - medical just raised my premium by $50.00 a month & I am on a very fixed & tight income! That said, I still want to do what's right, with respect to Public Saftey, especially & while some take issue, for some reason, of adequate compensation for law enforecment, firefighters & paramedics I am not one of them as IO know several Sheriff'S Deputies personally, been on ride alongs, listen to a Scanner & it is not peaches & cream out there. Not eveyrone has the make up to be any of thiose positions, whereas, my jobs could & have been taught to anyone & I never had the GP's saftey as a part of my responsibilities.
I feel the same for our medical professionals, having had 3 lumbar surgeries, & recently having my 3rd neck/cancer surgery; for my money, they deserve all they get.
Back to public safety employees, Bubba, I have to say, Simi Valley is not a hot bed of crime & some would say, they are over paid for what they actually do. A fair point, perhaps, but don't argue that that SV has a low crime rate due to the police, rather, it's a matter of demographics, plain & simple. This is based on, again, all my friends employeed by the VCSD, crime reports & demographic studies.

Marie, I thought the Firefigther's pension was delayed - can you clear this up for me & others here ? Thanks, as usual.

Simi Valley, not sure to whom your Post is directed; please elaborate - thanks

Here is what I posted back in January about 7% pay raise for SVPD:

(http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/mlakin/archives/2009/01/do-the-wright-thing-its-time-t.html)

According to this job posting an officer with SVPD makes between $56,676 and $78,180 annally. Keep in mind that higher level positions pay more. For example, you can rise to become a sergeant, lieutenant, captain, etc. This is the compensation for a basic entry level position (no degree required). It also excludes any overtime compensation, which I imagine could be significant. If you work in the canine unit you get an extra $589 per month, detectives $100 per month, motors $100 per month, and if you are bilingual you get another $100 per month. The City also contributes $100 per month to your deferred compensation plan. If you have an Associates degree you get a 2.5% increase in salary, or if you have a Bachelors degree you get an additional 5%.

The posting also mentions that officers work a 4/10 schedule, which means they work 10 hours per day four days per week. As far as benefits are concerned, officers get a 3% at 55 retirement, which provides a maximum 90% of final year salary after 30 years of service. The City pays the full cost of the pension, with no employee contribution required. Officers also do not qualify for social security, but at the same time pay no social security taxes (who needs it when you get 90% pay at retirement, plus it also lets you pocket up to $6,324 per year that would normally be deducted in Social Security taxes). After 25 years employees also get lifetime medical coverage for themselves and one dependent.

Officers get 21 days of paid leave, which increases to 26 days after five years. Plus there are 11 paid holidays (paid out at 10 hours). The City contributes up to $1,526.66 per month for employee health insurance. Dental and vision insurance is provided for free, plus a $100,000 life insurance policy. Each officer gets a $1,600 annual uniform allowance, and a few other miscellaneous benefits.

So adding in the 7% pay raise a base level police officer can now earn up to $83,652 annually. If he works in the canine unit, has a bachelors degree, and is bilingual the base pay rises to $96,102. Add in a little overtime and it is no problem for a police officer to earn well into six figures. Of course, if that officer gets promoted to higher levels then compensation would rise accordingly. So it is easy to imagine that virtually all police officers will be promoted during the course of a 30 year career and retire with six figure pensions.

If you look at the City of Simi Valley fiscal year 2008-09 Budget it lists salary ranges for sworn positions as follows:

Police Officer Trainee: 49,649
Police Officer: 56,680 - 78,187
Police Sergeant: 74,131 - 102,148
Police Lieutenant: 98,724 - 127,160
Police Captain: 112,933 - 145,631
Chief of Police: 132,711 - 174,524

Keep in mind that these salaries are before the scheduled 7% increase. The police department has a personnel budget of $25,955,300, of which $14,115,500 is regular salaries. The overtime budget is $2,899,000. If you divide the overtime budget by the regular salaries budget overtime represents an incremental cost equivalent to 20% of regular salaries. So we can assume that, on average, police personnel earn about 20% of their annual salaries in additional overtime. So you can take the salaries above and increase them by 20%, plus the 7% increase to estimate what the average officer earns in annual compensation by pay grade. Which means that a police sergeant who is at the maximum pay scale, earning 20% in additional overtime pay, with a bachelors degree, plus adding in the new 7% pay increase should expect to earn around... $137,715!

Don't forget that the deluxe pension plan is also costing local taxpayers $4,457,500 per year, which represents the equivalent of 31.6% of salary. That means that it costs taxpayers $31,600 every year to just fund the pension plan for a police officer who has a base salary of $100,000 per year. Now with the steep losses in the stock market taxpayers should expect the cost of these pension benefits to rise dramatically in the next few years.

To show that I am consistent, this is something I posted in Brian Dennert's blog back in December 2006 concerning Larry Matheney's pay raise:

(http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2006/12/-larry-matheney.html)

The Supervisors voted to raise his pay as part of a larger pay package for various non-union county positions. Union jobs are covered under the various MOUs that are negotiated each contract cycle. But for other non-represented workers the Board of Supervisors must vote annually on pay raises.

This year the Supervisors agreed on a 3% cost of living increase to these workers. However, the Board also conducts salary surveys to, ostensibly, determine if the level of compensation for certain positions is in line with the amount being offered by other large counties. If a position appears to be significantly below that of other counties there may be an additional adjustment to bring the pay up to a more competitive level.

In the past these adjustments could be very large, especially if other counties approve large pay increase for their employees. This also created a situation where, from time-to-time, the public would get upset when highly compensated public employees were receiving double-digit pay raises as a result of salary surveys. That, combined with the use of parity agreements in MOUs, also resulted in a situation where Supervisors had a difficult time controlling the growth in the cost of employee salary and benefits. As a result, the Supervisors a few years ago capped annual pay raises to non-represented employees to no more than 9%.

In the case of Matheney, his pay is being bumped up as the result of salary surveys that indicate that he is being paid less than many of his counterparts in other large counties. These same surveys also awarded a 9% pay raise this year to Greg Totten and Bob Brooks for the same reason. That is also the reason why Matheney and others received a 9% pay raise last year.

Basically what we have here is a Board of Supervisors that is blindly raising pay based on salary surveys. The problem is that this is a game that is being played all over the state at all levels by public employees. All it takes is for one public agency or department to approve a generous pay package and, as a result of salary parity policies, all other departments follow suit. That is why we have seen a rapid escalation in salary and benefits to public employees throughout the state. The shortfall of this approach is that it fails to make any connection between compensation and performance. In the case of Matheney, his pay raise simply defies common sense.

The solution is for the Supervisors to also consider performance as part of their process for reviewing salary adjustments. Their failure to do so shows that they are asleep at the switch.

Yes, any increase in pension benefits for any of our employees is completely off the table now and not included in any present budget figures, according to my very reliable sources. As long as we are in this period of lowered revenues due to the economy, I don't believe it will be back.

We are the only city in the state of our size that does not have the 3% at 55 for its firefighters.

And most firefighters start with us after working somewhere else, or after doing something else, so they don’t start till their late 20s. They might retire in their early 50s after about 25-30 years. Under our current system, that would be retiring at 50-60% of pay.

NM, I would also like to point out that I agreed months ago with Marie that we needed some amount of revenue increases to solve the $40 billion state deficit. By I still stand by my complaints that the fiscal problems we have are self-inflicted.

For example, revenues to the state increased by 167% between 1990 and 2008. Had California simply limited spending increases to the combined rate of inflation and population growth during that period of time we would now have a $15 billion surplus.

Which is why I'm not so quick in agreeing to tax increases to bail out poor fiscal decision made by our elected leaders. We need to also hold them accountable. With regard to the City of Ventura, your city leadership has made such poor financial decisions that I simply wouldn't trust them with the extra money. I also don't think it is wise to continue to increase taxes during a recession. You may actually make things even worse for you local economy.

Marie, based on the recently approved pension increase your firefighters will get 75% pay after 25 years and 90% pay after 30 years. Where do you get this figure of 50-60% pay after 25-30 years?

Then again, getting 50-60 percent pay after such a short career seems pretty generous. Almost everybody else has to work until the age of 67 to get full social security benefits, and their pension check will be just a tiny fraction of what will be earned by a firefighter at age 55.

But all of this is irrelevant since your city didn't have the money to fund this pension increase. And that has always been the real issue. Your city council likes to spend money it doesn't have and then go back to the taxpayers crying poor. And it is unethical to be granting lavish benefit increases for already highly paid government employees and paying for it by slashing benefits to the poor and disadvantaged, which is what your city is doing and will continue to do as your fiscal condition deteriorates.

The pension boost is off the table. So my figures are based on our current pension system. I received them directly from a City Hall source.

I believe our Simi Valley friend is asking that Ventura city firefighters be significantly undercompensated in wages in comparison to peer cities in addition to having lower pension benefits than peer cities, am I correct?

Given Ventura's stringent extra requirements in paramedic training, this could present problems. I don't have a problem with them retiring on 50% of salary when they do life-threatening work and respond to emergency calls which save the lives of our citizens. And, as my friend who is married to a Santa Barbara County firefighter told me to tell you, life expectancies for firefighters are lower anyway.

We have only asked for one increase in taxes and that was for a 1/4 cent sales tax measure which would have dedicated all funds to hiring new public safety folks, not filling current positions.

On state spending:

Between 1998 and 2008, General Fund annual spending in our state increased by about $46 billion. Of that, $31 billion is due to inflation and population growth.

I have tracked where this has gone in previous posts: prisons, backfilling revenues to local governments lost when he governor cut the vehicle license fees, and increases in medical costs. We also spent billions on debt service from bonds approved by voters.

Other than a pension increase (now given back) which was approved early last summer on a 4-3 vote when the 911 fee revenues were coming in and the full meltdown of the economy was not yet known, what other poor financial decision can you name that was made by our City Council?

Thanks Bubba for the link & your posts, but again, no word how you would raise revenue. I agree, the leaders have dropped the ball on more than one ocassion, but why punish the GP for the actions of a few ? We deserve law, fire protection & medical services & we can't look back, rather, again I ask, what would you suggest we do to raise revenue ?

And again, it sure seems you are simply anti government, anti tax; tell me, am I wrong ? & if so, why are you so cynical towards them, esp. public service employees ?

I would argue your police officers do work more than the 40 hr. minimum, as our officers do & my friends in the Sheriff's Dept. all work an av erage of 60-70 hours a week.

Not sure of your local police, but I think all law enforcement officers have to have a POST certificate to become employed as one. But that asied, degree or not, what they do is dangerous & requires a lot of hours per week & again, it takes a special type of mental/physical make up to become one.

I don't mean top pick on you personally but again it seems you are just anti government & if my assumption is correct, I'd like to know why that's the case.

Marie, thanks for the pension information as I thought that was the case. But Bub, an AIG analogy is way off the mark & I need not even explain why.

Marie, who is going to retire in the next two years when they can get a 50% higher benefit by waiting? I guarantee then there will be no retirements until the new benefit is in place, then you will have a flood of retirements and will be paying the full cost of those benefits. You keep saying that it is "off the table". All that means is that it is delayed. But your city will already have to begin paying for a scheduled increase in benefit since it has to be factored into the actuarials used to calculate contribution rates. And don't forget that the stock market losses are going to cause the cost of these benefits to be significantly higher than advertised.

And please stop with the word games of "off the table" and "undercompensated". What does that mean? Your firefighters are already generously compensated, so how can you call them "undercompensated"? They use salaries of other local firefighting agencies to justify their own levels of compensation, and I've already proven that many local firefighters are making over $200,000 per year with overtime. This morning I just had to read the story of another young man who lost his life in Afghanistan, so please excuse me if I'm tired of the sob stories from firefighters trying to justify their early retirement with six figure pensions. Statistically the most dangerous occupations in America are loggers, fishermen, pilots, metal workers, drivers-sales workers, roofers, electrical power installers, farmers, construction laborers, and truck drivers in that order (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

And you are slashing programs to the poor and disadvantaged. Your city has already cut programs for the homeless and for the elderly. They are also cutting back on library services. I guarantee that all of that is just the beginning since the actual cost of these pension increases has yet to be felt since the contribution rate increases won't kick in until 2010. That's when the real fun begins.

How nice that you support a 50% pension giveaway, but you never answer where the money is suppose to come from? There was no money to pay for this benefit, which means that you will either have to slash services to the poor and disadvantaged, or increase taxes. And all because your friend who is married to a firefighters says so. The bottom line is that you can't spend money you don't have. Taxpayers have to pay for this with their hard earned money, and we have to prioritize these expenses against other programs. Your city has already demonstrated that it values pension increases for highly paid public employees over libraries and services to the homeless. They also don't seem to care about the plight of struggling taxpayers who are already losing their jobs and their homes in a tough economy. You seem to share those values.

On state spending, I stick with my longer-term data over your cherry-picked data from 1998-2008. The bottom line is that California would not be in this fiscal mess if it had limited spending growth to the combined rate of inflation plus population growth over the previous 18 years. That is a fact.

People can be in favor of wise fiscal management without being anti-government. CEOs are expected to keep costs at a minimum for their customers and shareholders. This is NOT anti-business mentality, but rather, the only way to survive.

The flip side of the "How do we raise revenue?" coin is always, "How do we minimize expenses?" To be fair, one can not keep asking only one of these questions without also asking the other.

I also think it's fair to look at discrepancies in compensation between the public and private sectors. Depending upon which way the economic pendulum is swinging, each group depends upon the other. Government should receive more from the private sector when times are good, and the private sector should receive more from government when times are bad.

NM, I do no agree with increasing revenues any further. The state has already enacted tax increases in the middle of the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. More that one in ten people in the California workforce are unemployed. Millions of people are losing their homes and thousands of businesses are failing. Your city will need to learn some painful lessons. It is time for our government to learn to live within its means.

Balancing the budget will be difficult, and I think that we should try to minimize the cuts to the poor and disadvantaged. I think that those who have benefited the most from the growth in government spending should make the biggest sacrifices. I think that firefighters should take some significant pay cuts to offset the increased cost of pension benefits. If they want to retire at 90% pay instead of 60% pay then the difference should come out of their own paychecks. We can't keep pretending that this is free money. It is also irrational to think that any public servant, regardless of their occupation, should be entitled to early retirement with 90% pay. That is an unfair burden to taxpayers who themselves are delaying their own retirements and facing increased tax burdens. It is fiscally irresponsible and morally indefensible to gut services to the poor, homeless, elderly and disabled in order to fund lavish pension benefits for a select few.

Taxpayers need to say that enough is enough. The answer isn't more revenues, it is being responsible with our finances. How nice it would be to live in a world where I could spend more money that I have, and when I got into financial trouble I could just force my employer to give me a pay raise so that I can keep right on spending. I could complain to my employer that I need a pay raise because I can't keep up on my mortgage payments, but then go out and buy a new car. That's how your city leaders are behaving.

Our city does not currently finance library services. That is the county. Please get your facts straight. One part-time homeless outreach coordinator position which will be rescued with grant funding is the only thing I can think of offhand which will affect disadvantaged populations.

Why do you keep saying I supported the now-rescinded pension increase? I never said I did.

The pension increase is NOT INCLUDED in the current budget now or in the future.

I may remind you that I was the only citizen in this city to get up and say to our City Council in a room full of firefighters that I thought our unions should do some givebacks to save jobs. (And it was unnecessary because, as I was told later, they were already negotiating to do it.) I also asked for the fervent anti-fee folks to give it a rest and told the anti-development crowd to ease up, too. I did this despite my pretty extreme phobia about public speaking.

So tell me, oh anonymous taker of potshots, when was the last time you did this? Did you go speak at the Simi Valley Council meeting when they canceled the DARE program for our kids at the same time they gave the police another raise? Did you?

You won't even use your real name here.

Not only did our Bubba not speak at the SV Council meeting, Bubs did not even leave a comment on the entry Dennert put up about it:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2008/12/simi-valley-cit-8.html

Dennert's entry on SV police raises:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2008/11/simi-valley-pol.html

No one follow that link, it is a trap. Once Dennert's readers get on here they will start to just rail against republicans over everything and any real discussion, not like this one is going very smoothly, but That will only make it worse.

I would still much rather live in Simi Valley than Ventura, no offense to those of you who love Ventura.

Simi Valley Republican Bubba - were you also protesting in Oxnard and Port Hueneme when they passed sales tax increases last fall? Quit telling us about your selected blog activism. It's lame and we're not impressed.

Bub, as I said previously, we are now in this mess, so what do you suggest we do to pay for these much needed services ?
Also, can you answer me re: this repeated question: are you anti government, anti tax ? AGain, we all need firefighters, law enforcement & paramedics & God forbid you ever need one or the other for you or your family, but they cannot respond because you & others didn't want to part with that 1/4 cent on the dollar.
Taxes, good, bad or otherwise, are a much needed source of revenue, as you well know, so if a 1/4 of a penny here or there can indeed help out w/ Public Saftey, then what is so wrong woth it ?
Granted, we wish we weren't in this financial quagmire, but we are, & now, how should these services be paid for ?
And I know I need not remind you what BuSh & his cronies did & didn't do to help create some of this mess. Was it all their fault, of course not, but they have a lot of blamed placed at their feet & rightly so.

Haha,

You are a odd ball. Marie is clear with her opinions and is by far the most outspoken of the two. That's one of the main reasons I like her.

Check out this from her greatest hits:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/mlakin/archives/2008/06/tony-strickland-searching-for.html

But if the readers of this blog are less partisan that is because at this point the only real topic is pensions for firefighters.

Here is a comment I posted before on the subject:

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 restaurants 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.

That's right, Haha, somebody has now unleashed the gates of hell. Dennert bloggers have arrived on the shores of Making Waves.

Republicans are evil!
The GOP is slime!
Neoconservatives suck!
Paleoconservatives stink!
Wingnuts rot!

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 restaurants 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.

I already answered number 7 in the last thread.

I have posted on the Dennert blogs repeatedly about the SVPD pay increase. In the case of the particular thread that was citied by "bubba silent here too" I posted under the name "bad news for taxpayers". Yep, that was me. You can have Brian confirm the IP address if you wish. I've made my views perfectly clear for many years on these blogs that I am against fiscal mismanagement, and I have spoken out against irresponsible government spending at the federal, state, county and local level.

I'm glad to see that Marie is active in local politics. I am as well. But, as you can see, people can be openly hostile to those who speak out against uncomfortable truths. Try to stand up against the police, firefighter or teachers unions and you'll know what I'm talking about. Many elected officials and public employees that I speak with know what I'm talking about and some even share the same concerns, but almost none are willing to speak out for obvious reasons.

Marie, I did not speak out against the canceling of the DARE program because I don't believe that it is the most effective way to fight drug use among our youth. It is a very expensive program and requires a significant amount of law enforcement funding to operate. There are no studies that have shown the DARE program to be particularly successful. I don't believe in continuing unsuccessful programs just because they are politically popular. We can offer the same programs in our schools at a fraction of the cost without diverting resources from local police departments. I would prefer that SVPD put more officers on the street keeping our neighborhoods safe than assign them to work DARE. If the program worked I would support it. But we can't blindly support ineffective government programs, especially when it diverts needed resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.

I think that it is inaccurate for you to refer to the 50% increase in fire pensions as "rescinded". According to the dictionary rescinded means, "To make void; repeal or annul." All they did was delay implementation of the increased benefit. And if you don't support the increased benefit then why do you continue to make arguments justifying it? If you agree that it was a bad idea then say so. But for months you have done nothing but rationalize and defend the decision. And even a delayed increase in benefits must be included in your budget since future pension costs need to be factored into the contribution rates. But it gets worse, because the recent stock market losses won't be felt until 2010 when the contribution rates are adjusted. I would expect pension costs to triple from what you are currently paying, and I see no way for your city to cover those costs, even if the proposed 1/2 cent tax increase passes. That increased retirement benefit is going to blow a HUGE hole in your budget and there will be no way to avoid massive cuts in city services once it happens. Plus your city has yet to realize the full impact of the downturn in the real estate market since property tax revenue reductions also have a lag effect.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the worst is yet to come. I don't say that because it gives me any pleasure, I say it as a warning that you need to get our financial house in order because of the coming storm. Even if the economy recovers it won't stop what is about to happen to local government because of their long-term fiscal mismanagement. Ventura is not unique, except in the sense that they are still increasing pension benefits long after other cities have figured out that they are a fiscal train wreck.

NM, to answer your question, I am not anti-government, nor am I anti-tax. I am for fiscal responsibility and sustainable government. I think that we need well-paid, well-equipped police and firefighters. But we also have to acknowledge that lavish pension benefits don't make our communities safer. I'd rather fill vacant positions than to retroactively boost pension benefits for the cops and firefighters we already have. Tell me, what does your city get for increasing pension benefits for past years of service? Ten years ago the typical pension plan for police and fire throughout the state of California was 2% at 50, which provided a 60% pension plan after 30 years of service as early as age 50. It was a generous benefit by any measure. Generations of cops and firefighters retired with that benefit, so why is that suddenly not good enough? Our state is spending BILLIONS more on increased pension benefits for public safety employees. It has driven the cost of hiring employees so high that most agencies can no longer afford to fully staff their departments. Benefits have gotten so rich that the most experience veterans are walking out the door because there is no benefit in working past their early fifties.

Ask yourself this, would you increase pension benefits to teachers if it would result in larger class sizes, cuts in education programs, and understaffed schools? That is what we have done with our public safety departments. It is fiscal insanity to think that we can afford to pay for public employees to enjoy early retirement at close to full pay. It wasn't that long ago that people thought that the real estate bubble would last forever, and that it made sense to 100% finance homes with payments they couldn't afford. We now know that it was unsustainable, just as we are about to find out that these outrageously expensive pension plans are unsustainable.

Bubba,

If DARE was a waste of money why didn't you show leadership and speak out against it before it was canceled?

There is no future or present increase in pension benefits built into the current budget. End of story. Can't quite drop it can you?

Stop playing word games. Your city has promised to increase pension benefits to firefighters by 50%. Delaying that increase does not change the fact that you have committed millions of local taxpayers dollars with money that doesn't exist. Defending it by saying that the increase isn't "built into the current budget" is no different than taking on massive debt but saying it is OK because no payment due until July 1, 2010. You will still have to pay the bill, whether it is this year or next. Unfortunately you don't have the money, which means that you will have to slash services to the poor and disadvantaged in order to fund these lavish benefits for a select few. Time will prove that what I say is true.

Extreme hyperbole over a situation that no longer exists. Payment is not due until the union and management agree to bring the agreement back to the table.

Bubba....what is the problem?

Just get out of the closet and SAY who you are!

Do you lack the courage of your convictions so much that you must post here anonymously?

You express such strong opinions...a shame you don't have the spine to stand up and declare them.

I honestly think the Star should change policies and prohibit posting under an "alias".

The Star requires identification to publish a letter to the Editor in it's hard copy edition...why should these electronic pages be any different?

My guess is the shrill rhetoric would tone down a lot if posters knew that their friends, neighbors and co-workers knew more about the beliefs they expound upon so frequently here.

To VC, the only way for the situation to not exist is for the city and the union to agree to permanently retract the benefit increase. That has not happened, which means that you have a looming fiscal crisis that will be made even worse when these increased benefits eventually kick in. It is a joke to pretend that this isn't a serious problem that will have dire financial consequences for the city.

To TJ, if anonymous bloggers annoy you so much then perhaps blogging is not for you. It is anonymity that makes blogging such a powerful tool, by giving people the freedom to express their thoughts without fear of retribution. If you've got a problem with that then go whine to the Star, otherwise get over it. I will, however, give you one hint about my true identity. I'm your daddy.

Hey if you spell the last part of your fake name backward Bubba Kidd that sort of tells us what you are.

Tell that to Arleigh, I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of it.

Tom - I agree with you - alot of the bullying that goes on would certainly cease if real names were used. I would find it very refreshing if people spoke up using their names.

One of my husband's guitar website was so vitrolic that the admin starting posting IP addresses but didn't mandate that real name be used. Just by posting the IP addresses cut the vitrole waaaaay down.

Right now we have a poster that uses several fake names and reposts the same erroreous stuff. If his IP address was published, that would stop. And his employer might be suprised as well.

Bubba, if you choose to hide behind a fake name that's your business, but I ask that you treat with respect the people who have the courage and conviction to post under their own names.

I appreciate these folks very much and I will look out for them here.

When I started this blog I said I would use my own name, and provide a photo and my email address. I will never shrink from my opinions or sit on the fence because I am afraid of criticism.

It is amazing how hostile some people get when you try to challenge their pre-conceived views. It's like in the Matrix when Morpheus warned Neo that most people had become so brainwashed and dependent on the system that was imprisoning them they would actually fight to defend it. But somebody has to speak the truth, regardless of those who are unwilling to listen to it.

Marie, I would have more respect for your admonishment if you were consistent in your criticism of anonymous bloggers. I have seen some pretty rude comments from a variety of anonymous bloggers, yet you seem to direct your complaints only to those who disagree with your political views.

Let's take this thread as one small example:

Somebody named 'GOP Paranoia' called me a "snotty jerk". Another blogger actually called themselves 'Cowardly Bubba'. And a blogger named 'Blubba' basically called me a dick.

There are certainly lots more examples in other threads. Seems to me that anonymous bloggers can say pretty much anything they like without getting called on it, so long as their views are consistent with the blog moderator and other like-minded contributors. Am I suppose to take that sort of selective outrage seriously?

You've been as hostile as anyone here. Maybe it's time for everyone to ratchet down the rhetoric.

I don't think anyone opposes what you say as much as they dislike your penchant for fixating on one point to the extreme and killing other discussion.

I take more care in protecting people who use their own name here. One anonymous name calling another anonymous name some idiotic thing is pretty junior high.

Tell you what Marie, if you don't think I don't add value to your blog just ask me to leave and I will respect your wishes. If you really believe that I am a source of hostility, or that the opinions of people who live outside your city limits are irrelevant then just say the word and I am gone for good. Regardless of our disagreements I have great respect for your work in managing this forum, and the last thing I want to be is a distraction. You decide.

Or we could perhaps make it more interesting. Maybe you could create a thread where you put it to a vote. We can follow the State of California and make it a 2/3 requirement for passage. If 2/3 of your contributors want me gone then I will agree to leave for, say, 6 months. Of course you will have to manage the official tally by IP address to avoid voter fraud. And votes can only be counted for IP addresses that have posted on your blog in the past so that people can't just hop on their neighbor's computer to send in another vote. You could even label it as "Bubba Recall 2009". Polls would be open on a Super Tuesday and would close after two weeks. There would also be a thread that would be open for two weeks prior to the election for campaigning for and against the recall.

What do you say?

Oh...please!

Bubba, you add "value" to the blog?? A bit self-aggrandizing 'eh? LOL! You crack me up!

Ok..whatever, my personal thought is that you do contribute to the discussion. It is also my thought that by posting with fake names many bloggers are freed from inhibitions they might otherwise feel. Its ok enough if you are shy or fearful of retribution..neither of which I could lay to your feet, but rather I feel that the use of an alias just lets "everyman" be a thoughtless loudmouth or labels far worse.

There are plenty of those here and there on these boards.

You should distinguish yourself from them. Just my opinion.

Stay or leave, use you name or don't. It doesn't really matter much anyway and somewhat fewer than those few who read these posts will care either way..they might not even notice that you are gone. Sorry bub, but that's how it is.

Meanwhile...my suggestion is be stand up! You'll have more respect that way anyways, mine at least if no one elses'.

Marie,

I can code the poll for you if you want. I don't like the idea but it is your blog.

Bubba,

What do you think of the pensions for firefighters? I want to know more. That's why I read this firefighter pension blog that Marie runs. I almost feel like writing an entry on it just to get a bunch of comments from you on the topic.

I would vote to jettison Bubba from the island.

Brian, I believe that public employee pensions are the next great bubble that is about to burst. Promised pension benefits for public employees have mushroomed across the nation to levels that are unsustainable, with public safety pensions being the most egregious example. This has be partly fueled by the now collapsed stock market and real estate bubbles that flooded government coffers with revenues. But that spectacular growth in revenues also led to spectacular growth in spending, based on phantom growth projections that have now evaporated. It also hid the true cost of these pension giveaways. The real impact is about to be felt and it won't be pretty. the truth is that we are about to go into the most serious fiscal crisis this nation has ever faced, and the hardships we have faced in the past year in balancing state and local budgets are just a warmup to something that will be much worse. I don't say these things because it is something I wish for, but because we can't address these problems until we acknowledge why we are in this situation.

I've had a really long day...

Bubba, if I wanted you gone I would not have carefully explained to you how to post with the back button if your comments get caught in my spam filter because of a long hyperlink.

We just moved the blogs to a new server and this is apparently a downside to this. They are picky about hyperlinks.

I just wish you would not be quite so contentious sometimes. And I wish you would blog about something else besides pensions.

I don't ask for much, really.

And I will continue to protect the bloggers here who post under their own names. That will be their perk for bravery.

Why wouldn't we then just use aliases with names in them? Would the star then have to validate every comments email address? Also, since they are financially in the tube right now, how would they pay to implement an anti alias using blog feature? And why do you fear anonymous? Post your email address on here.

I promote Marie's policy of standing up for those who post under their own name for bravery. If it weren't for Bubba's detailed oriented essay length rants, you guys wouldn't band together, so I would say he adds value to your joined efforts against the right.

Also, Simi Valley is either much safer than Ventura or has a Much higher rate of failing to report Crimes. So maybe their cops deserve pensions, and the underfunded, poor, laboring, bombarded police officers from Ventura should just move away.