Love to hear the Republican response to this one. The 2/3 budget requirement not only makes passing a budget impossible and makes the state ungovernable, but is fundamentally undemocratic. It gives legislators representing a minority of state voters the ability to hijack the state-- an ability which conservatives have used to their ongoing discredit. Representative democracy seems to work everywhere else, why not let it happen right here in California?

WOW!

That was an absolutely amazing video.

Even if I were not to agree with in in substance, though I do, it is presented in a very straight forward manner..rational at least. Rationality is something lacking in most of our states financial distress conversations.

Even if wrong...it is a cogent explanation for why we are where we are in California budget wise.

But...I don't think it is. I think it is spot-on point!

Thanks Marie!

..oh, and yes, I agree on the 2/3rd's budget rule!

Tom

You can't argue with facts.

I'm assuming the wingnuts who post here are just thrilled that the state is now cutting out aid to poor children and grants to college students.

Now the LA Times has a story today that says the dysfunction in government is scaring businesses from coming here and the loss of academic talent from all the education cuts is, too.

All thanks to the no-compromise Republican Party, a minority holding the state hostage.

It's frustrating to read contradictory "facts" on the problems and solutions associated with California's budget crisis.

For example, I read from an article in today's Ventura Star that Californian's are the 12th highest taxed in the country. I research this fact and the Tax Foundation of California tells me that California is the 6th highest in 2008. Perhaps it's because they include local taxes in their analysis. Then I hear if you include local sales taxes and the recent tax increases Californian's are by far the highest taxed in the country. Furthermore, I hear that California and Rhode Island are nearly equal in the rate for the top tax brackets. However, RI top tax bracket kicks in at well over $200k of annual income. While CA top tax bracket is at less than $50k a year.

Even the results from the election last week are being spun to whatever helps to make the case for one political party or another. It's quite clear to me that voters recognize they are beholden to their own personal budgets and this same thought is being directed to the state representatives that are responsible for the state budgets.

I guess what I am trying to say is very difficult to trust lawmaker's spinning of data. And if forced to choose, I for one find it difficult to trust anyone in Sacramento.

Marie,

I have never read your blog before but I happened by this morning. While I enjoyed reading it and looking at Ms. Evans’ video, if this is all it takes for you to claim her to be your “new hero,” your standards are far too low. And, btw, hero worship is never a good idea. As Bill Maher likes to say (and he’s right), “worship principles, not personalities.”

Anyone who reads my essays on Brian Dennert’s blog knows that I am neither a Republican nor Democrat and strongly believe that our two-party system is corroding our system of governance. I say this because I watched the video with a complete open mind, especially after reading some of the comments about how “point on” it is. I think you might be drinking the kool-aid a little bit. Ms. Evans numbers are not accurate and indeed the entire video reminded me of a Democratic production from start to finish.

I have one simple method for determining if the speaker of political opinion or viewpoint has something to say that is worthwhile: When I listen or read the text of a speech, can I make out the political party of the speaker based solely on the statements. If I can, then I know it is a partisan speech and not worth the paper it is written on. If, on the other hand, I cannot figure out if the speaker is a Democrat or Republican, I will listen. Here, I am afraid that in less than 1 minute, I felt the Democrat tilt, like a left-leaning oak tree. Frankly, this was not really a piece on why California is where it is; rather, it’s just Democratic propaganda on why the Democrats believe we are where we are.

Ms. Evans numbers on her assertion that California government has not really grown, are completely inaccurate. I will return later to provide you the real numbers. But it is fair to say that population growth and CPI alone do not account for the huge spike in spending in the last decade. In addition, while we can argue if the 2/3’s budget voting requirement is a good idea or not, Ms. Evans’ silly statement that “the budget is held up each year by a small minority” is just absurd on its face. 33% is hardly a small minority. Indeed, African Americans are approximately 10% of the population – would Ms., Evans call them a small minority? You cannot have it both ways. Again, worship principle, not personality.

I would suggest to your readers that they think for themselves and not rely on any information that is provided by career politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

Martin

The "hero" proclamation was just my way of expressing my gratitude for the video.

I don't think you watched the video very carefully. She is talking about the real spending increases over and above inflation and population growth and she goes into general detail about where that money has gone. Her figures line up completely with the figures I have here from multiple sources including the Los Angeles Times and which I have presented myself multiple times. I am not a career politician. Is the Los Angeles Times a good enough source for you? I assume you don't trust Lockyer either, but his figures are identical.

In the last 10 years, (1998-2008) general fund annual spending has increased by about $46 billion. Inflation and population growth accounts for $31 billion of that. That leaves $15 billion.

Of that we spent $6 billion a year reimbursing local governments for the loss of vehicle license fee revenues when our governor cut them as he first took office. Then we have increased prison spending by $3.5 billion annually. Some of that arguably could be attributed to increased pension benefits for prison guards. But most is due to our three strikes law which was approved by voters. More prisoners are in there for life and they are aging and requiring expensive care.

OK, so now we have $5.5 billion left. Of that, $2 million is payments on budget-related debt for the Economic Recovery Bonds approved by voters. Another $2 billion is debt service on the infrastructure bonds approved by voters. Then Californians approved Prop. 42, which sends $1.5 billion of gas tax revenue to local and state transportation projects. Spending on the things Democrats champion like education and social programs was FLAT.

Add to this skyrocketing medical costs and an aging baby boomer population, plus more diagnoses of autism and Type 1 diabetes in children. We are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars fighting fires.

We are INDEED being held hostage in the legislature by the minority Republicans and any other assertion is just plain silly.

Marie - I think you are wrong about the vehicle license fee (VLF). The Davis VLF increase was in place for only a short period of time before it was rescinded by Schwarzenegger. So in effect the $6 billion was spent by the state legislature without the funds to cover it.

Marie, let's not trust the "facts" provided by the people who spent the money and have a vested interested in clouding the issue. Clearly, the voting public is not buying what the legislature is selling.

An example of this is the little reported analysis is why the recent propositions failed by a big margin (except 1f) despite some substantial money and politicians supporting the yes vote. It turns out that any and all messages/campaigns that were tested in market research/focus groups failed to convince voters to vote yes. The politicians learned that the public is fed up with the spending and nothing could convince either democrat or republican voters to vote yes.

It is time to cut spending and cut it dramatically.

OK, I'm a Republican, lifelong and not ashamed of it. I'll give an answer for myself, but I won't presume to put words in anyone else's mouth.

I have long understood that foolish measures passed by the voters have tied the legislature's hands and prevent them from managing the State well, even in good times, much less bad. I've stated my willingness to see tax increases, provided meaningful cuts were also made, in a recent letter to the Star. This all said and having just watched the video, I have to ask why were we handed the insulting bunch of nonsense on the May 19th ballot instead of measures that would have undone the foolish locked in spending by the voters? You could have easily had my support. I'm not a fool. I voted no on all of those things. They were a bad idea from the start!

As for the 2/3 majority requirement, the complaint falls on deaf ears. California thought nothing of raising taxes for years and some restraint was an essential self defense measure by the tax payers in my view, as was prop 13 (also now under attack again). To get around it, elect a few more Democrats. These days that probably will not be hard to do.

As for Republicans in the legislature, I would not give you a dime for a dozen of them. They're part of the problem, as are the Democrats (see my question above).

May 19 was not an honest attempt to solve the problem and the voters told Sacramento where to go with it. It was a disingenuous attempt to dodge the real solution. Politicians make speeches at the drop of a hat. That takes little courage and almost no effort. Actually getting a problem solved involves a far greater risk, like the anger of Evans' voter base if she actually tries to mess with the initiatives that were all proposed and supported by Democrats/liberals (call them what you want). Actually getting something fixed requires taking the heat if it comes.

There is no more devout coward than a politician afraid of losing a vote, much less an election. And if I'm cynical it's because a lifetime of watching politics has taught me that I must be

Great post, Roy! I don't like ballot propositions, either, and I rarely vote for them or sign the petitions to put them on the ballot.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, one of the biggest sources of state spending increases in the last 10 years is Prop. 42, the transportation measure.

Spending on CalWORKS, which Schwarzenegger wants to cut drastically, has decreased.

Prop. 1E would've undone Prop. 63. It failed.

Alex, the VLF program was amended to give vehicle owners a break during boom times when plenty of money was coming in and the state could backfill. But Schwarzenegger cut the VLF in a bust time and agreed to backfill the losses to local governments from the VLF. So in these continuing bust times, vehicle owners get a break, local governments still get their money but it becomes a $6 billion a year spending program for the state.

That's the difference. Now that was fixed a bit in the last budget proposal and of course everybody howled.

Roy, I don't think overturning the 2/3 rule is politically viable here. My fellow Dems disagree with me. But it has given a narrow band of ideologues power that they don't have anyplace else and they are using it to sink our state.

We need people who are willing to compromise and can stand up to special interest demands.

Marie,

I don't remember that 1E would have "undone" anything. Like the others, 1B and 1D, it would have only temporary effect. If I misread it let me know. But as I see it, it was all just a dodge around the real fix.

And yes the ideologs are in it up to their ears, those who represent me among them and I'm not finding their performance satisfactory at all. Had I been able to believe Tony Strickland's opponent was not so anxious to spend (and by implication, tax) I would not have voted for him. Sad to say, I've been forced to accept the lesser of two evils far too many times in recent years.

As for the 2/3 rule, I would not bet on your position right now. The cry for a constitutional convention determines everything. And if it succeeds the initiative process, property tax protections of any kind, the 2/3rds requirement and all hope of the voters keeping any kind of restraint on Sacramento are all out the window because that convention will be dominated by the same factions that put all that ill advised spending on the ballot in the first place. I fear a constitutional convention like the plague it is.

You seem to have a good grip on reality. And though we may disagree on many points I'm encouraged by your answer to my post.

I don't like taxes for two reasons. First, every dollar that's taxed out of our economy ends up destroying a dollar's worth of wealth that someone worked hard to create. The government simply does not produce goods or services that create wealth. So QED, taxation destroys wealth. Second, taxes provably cause a change in people's behavior. We see it now in companies and individuals moving out of California if they can.

I do recognize the necessity of taxes and am therefore willing to pay them. But for the previous reasons I want those taxes to be as low as they can be made. It has been proven beyond any doubt by both Democrat and Republican presidents, not to mention governors, that lower taxes ultimately result in greater revenue to government. So I marvel that this lesson is lost on so many in your party. I'll venture to say that their motive is not to gain revenue for the state but is something else, jealousy or hatred of the financial success of others. Or maybe it's hatred of the Capitalist idea itself. The cry I've heard about corporate dishonesty and corruption is not germane. Such things happen anyway. They happen in government as well. The solution is to be watchful, not to throw out the baby with the bath water. All this is the more perplexing because so many prominent Democrats are wealthy themselves. They seem not to realize that if they achieve their ultimate intent they'll kill the goose that's been laying their golden egg.

I rest my case.

Prop. 1E would've redirected money earmarked in Prop. 63.

On consitutional convention: 2/3 could be overturned that way but it is my understanding it would need a 2/3 vote of the legislature to place it the ballot or a quick signature campaign. In the reading I've done on it, most people are calling for a fair way of selecting delegates that are representational and not appointed. Then what they decide on needs to be voted on again.

My goal: find more reasonable moderates to run for state office and support them.

Marie - You are really twisting the original purpose of the VLF and it makes no sense that the state spends money that they do not have. Your explanation is in line with what the voters hear from the legislature and is a great example of why the public does not believe in its state government.

It might be helpful for the public to learn what the State of California taxes and spends in comparison to the other states. Of course one of the largest and heavily populated states should spend the most but lets look at it on a per capita basis (legal and undocumented included). And let's dig a little deeper on how much is spent on the state legislature as a body and how much has it increased over the last ten years. Or how about how much we spend per state prisoner and why is it so high? And since the unemployment rate has increased to around 10%, the state government might have decreased in size over the last year, right?

Hey, blame Schwarzenegger for that one. I'm just the messenger.

------

Office of the Governor

1/17/2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Governor Schwarzenegger Repeals the Car Tax

SACRAMENTO -- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today repealed the increase of the car tax shortly after taking office.

“During the campaign I promised on day one to repeal the car tax increase,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “Today, I am making good on that promise.”

Schwarzenegger rescinded the car tax increase by signing his first
Executive Order as Governor. (Available upon request.)

“Hardworking Californians who want safe, reliable transportation for
their families were hit especially hard by this regressive tax,”
Schwarzenegger continued. “Now, they will have more money in their pockets to pay for needed goods and services.”

In addition to rescinding the car tax, Governor Schwarzenegger also
affirmed his commitment to backfill money to local governments that gain revenue from the car tax.

“Local governments provide essential services like police and fire
protection. To ensure that those services continue, I have called the
Legislature back into session to address this important need.”

Here is an inconvenient fact that democrats don't like to talk about. If the state of California had limited spending growth to the COMBINED rate of inflation PLUS population growth since 1990 we would have a budget surplus today. Amazingly, the partisan video from our liberal "hero", democrat Noreen Evans, labels "Out of Control Spending" as Myth #1, in complete contradiction with the facts. The video attempts to circumvent inconvenient truths by only discussing the last ten years of rampant, out-of-control spending. But even then the video admits that state government has increased spending by $15 billion per year above and beyond the combined rate of inflation plus population growth in just the past decade. That is a serious amount of excessive spending, which doesn't support the ridiculous argument that this is a "myth".

Then she goes on to pretty much blame all of the problems in the state on the minority republicans and the reduction in the VLF tax. But again she ignores the fact that it was Gray Davis who initially reduced the VLF (which at the time was by far the highest in the nation). She also ignores the fact that increasing taxes takes money out of the economy and hurts working people who are already struggling in a tough economy. Democrats like to wring their hands every time they lose an opportunity to increase taxes, as if it is free money that has no economic downside. Of course, it ignores the reality that taxes come out of the pockets of individuals and businesses, and reduces investment, destroys jobs, and stifles the economy. Gosh, if they could only get rid of all those pesky republicans and impose one party rule then everything would be better. Then they can jack up the VLF and get rid of Prop 13, bringing back the good old days when our state government could tax you out of your own home. I guess there is nothing wrong with taxing retirees living on a fixed income out of their homes in the name of increasing revenues to the state.

I think the most comical part of her video was when she labeled inefficient state bureaucracy and "waste, fraud, and abuse" as Myth #2. Anybody California resident with a pulse knows that that statement is ridiculous on its face. If she really believes that state government is providing efficient services without any significant amount of waste, fraud, and abuse, then she is completely out of touch with reality.

Of course there is no mention that from 1997 to 2007 the state added 176,000 public employees to its payroll, a 24.4% increase in staffing. It also fails to mention the massive increases in salaries and benefits, including generous pension increases, that are swamping both state and local budgets. No mention how Gray Davis and the democrats approved massive increases in public safely pension benefits that are now costing our state billions every year to fund. Instead, all of this additional spending is falsely portrayed as being tied up for vital services.

The entire video is nothing more than a repeat of the same tired DNC talking points that you can get from any partisan tax-and-spend liberal. Marie, I agree with Martin, if you think that Noreen Evans is a "hero" then your standards are way too low.

Hey Bubba, long time no post. Gosh how I missed you!

If the voters of California had not locked in spending through multiple unfunded propositions we would be much farther ahead, too. Sponsors of these propositions are as much to blame as anyone, a fact you are conveniently leaving out. But Noreen certainly mentions this. With locked in spending comes hiring. You get that.

The fact is you can't cut a lot of this spending without overturning initiatives. That was the point she was trying to make. As I pointed out earlier, we tried to do this with a couple of the May 19 propositions and the voters didn't go for it. So instead the governor proposes cutting off CalWORKS, which didn't see an increase. Of course we'd lose tons of federal money by doing this, but it's not locked in by voter mandate.

Noreen didn't mention the prison guard pensions but I did. She also didn't mention other things that have cost us more because of the times we live in.

The VLF reduction plan was approved by the entire legislature in 1998. It had a clear provision that when insufficient funds are available to be transferred from the General Fund to fully fund the offsets and backfill amount, that the VLF offset would be reduced and VLF payments increased.

Davis triggered that and it pretty much got him recalled. In came der Governator who reduced it and then backfilled anyway without the means to pay for it.

I was going to post this for Roy, but I guess I'll post this for you, too, Bubba. It's a study by Robert S. McIntyre recently presented to the California Commission on the 21st Century Economy. He's talking about capital gains taxes here, but he makes a pretty convincing argument that tax cuts stimulate the economy less than government spending does:

"... Mark Zandi, the Chief Economist of Moody’s economy.com, examined a set of proposals Congress could adopt to stimulate the economy in the wake of the credit crisis and the developing recession. He found that each dollar spent by the federal government in making President Bush’s dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent would boost Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by just 38 cents. To put that in perspective, Zandi determined that each dollar dedicated to bolstering the food stamp program, extending Unemployment Insurance, or improving public infrastructure would yield over $1.50 in additional GDP. ..."

Marc Zandi was commenting on the immediate stimulative effect of these proposals. Capital gains tax relief would likely used to pay back loans or simply saved in these times of tight credit. These activities have no GDP impact but allow businesses to retrench and grow again. It also pumps capital back into the banking system. This process takes time.

For immediate stimulative purposes you can’t beat extending UI benefits and temporary increases in food stamps because that money gets right into the economy and also improves the psyche of consumers. I believe these programs worked as evidenced in the recent surge in consumer confidence. However the Federal government can print money for these types of programs, the State cannot.

It is misleading to state that Zandi makes a “pretty convincing argument that tax cuts stimulate the economy less than government spending does” however. He estimates payroll tax relief puts $1.28 back in for every dollar spent and lump sum tax rebates put back $1.22. Aid to State governments rates a $1.38. Pretty close if you ask me.

We are not far off the trendline of maintaining spending increases of population growth and inflation. Prior to the recent downturn, the state budget comprised the same portion of California’s GDP as it did 20 years ago. Unfortunately now our GDP has shrunk leaving a huge budget hole to fill.

The way out of this is to make short term spending cuts and help businesses grow our economy. The State needs to revive the economic development agencies it axed after the tech bubble. Other states with such agencies are actively lobbying California companies everyday. For the first time ever the majority of Silicon Valley venture capital is leaving the state. This startup capital helped start many of the powerhouse tech companies that drive our economy. The next Google or Ebay will now likely be founded in Nevada or Texas.

.
Well maybe the governor will go borrow the $2.4 BILLION sitting in the First 5 coffers when he borrows the other local funds.

BTW Marie - I finished up the review of the Ventura County evaluation as you asked me to and as I promised to - it's posted on your Prop 1D is deceptive topic blog.

Why use money not being spent when we can borrow money or cut other vital programs?

Marie,

I will start by saying that I have a lot of respect for someone like you – a person who has taken the time to be politically active and concerned about government. And, who puts words into actions. Honestly, I cannot say the same thing so I understand if you feel territorial about your issues and your favorite politicians. But regardless, I, as well as millions of others, have awoken from our slumber and inactivity, and we will speak and be politically active from this moment forward. And, this is a very good development for America. The more voices the better.

I also will say that you are not alone in your delivery of the Democratic talking points on how it is the Republicans and voters fault. In fact, LA Times Columnist, Michael Hiltzik, delivered the same talking points this morning in his column. The only problem is that his numbers do not add up and reminds me of the same type of budgeting that George Bush used during the Iraq War. In my observations, the Democrats are quickly becoming the Bush Republicans and that is not a compliment.

Hiltzik even gives a shout out to Noreen Evans’ budget video -- which incidentally, is like wearing the same shirt to school as your best friend – it was no accident. Indeed, this Evans stunt is excessively transparent to fool those of us paying attention – it is all a big lie. Including, Hiltzik’s numbers that population growth and inflation account for all of the California’s spending, which grew from $56 billion in 1998 to $131 billion in 2008. Hiltzik has clearly never held a real job or worked for a company that actually provided jobs. For if he did, he would not discount the use of CPI as an appropriate index for cost increases. Inflation was not 50% (as he asserts) over this period – what nonsense.

Hiltzik, as per the Democratic talking points, also throws in the real increases were in “Healthcare, Heavy Equipment and educated workers.” Finally, a little kernel of truth. The educated workers reference is the admission that California has for the last 10 years gone on a spending spree to hire Unionized government workers. Indeed, what Hiltzik will not tell you is that some of his former colleagues at the LA Times now work for those same unions, like the SEIU. Talk about scratching each other’s backs.

In an earlier post, you asked me if I believed the LA Times – I think the answer is obvious – I do not. In fact, I know more trust the LA Times then I would Fox news. Unfortunately, both have an agenda that they are trying to get across instead of a frank honest statement of the news.

In close, I will say that I hate the fact that California may need to reduce Medical benefits to the poor but this action is the direct result of the incompetency of both Republicans and Democrats for the last 20 years. Perhaps, if the Democrats did not give all our tax dollars to the SEIU and its elk (so they can get votes), we might have enough money to keep Medical intact. I know you and Ms. Evans will never admit but when you give a state worker a great salary and pension, you really are taking the food out of the mouth of some disadvantaged kid. In the real world, every funding decision has a consequence that means some other program will go unfunded.

Martin

Marie,

Please read this article in the Wall Street Journal, if you doubt what I say about the danger of the SEIU and other government unions working with the Democratic Party on these issues. Why else would the SEIU want a new bankruptcy law making it harder for Cities to file and notice the Democrat who introduced the bill – it is truly an unholy alliance.

By BOBBY WHITE

As California seeks more funds from its cash-strapped cities and counties to close a $21 billion budget deficit, some state legislators are pushing a plan that could compound municipalities' pain by making it tougher for them to file for bankruptcy.
The bill would require a California municipality seeking Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection to first obtain approval from a state commission. That contrasts with the state's current bankruptcy process, which allows municipalities to speedily declare bankruptcy without any state oversight so that they can quickly restructure their finances. The bill, introduced in January, has passed one committee vote and could reach a final vote by mid-July.

The bill was sparked by the bankruptcy filing last year of Vallejo, Calif., just north of San Francisco. Vallejo's city leaders partly blamed work contracts with police and firefighters for pushing the city into bankruptcy, and won permission from a bankruptcy court in March to scrap its contract with the firefighters' union.
That spurred the California Professional Firefighters to push for statewide legislation to curtail bankruptcy, said Carroll Willis, the group's communications director. "What we don't want is for cities to use bankruptcy as a negotiating tactic rather than a legit response to fiscal issues," he said, adding that he worries cities may work in concert to rid themselves of union contracts by declaring bankruptcy.

If the bill passes, it could hurt cities and counties by lengthening the time before they can declare bankruptcy. That creates a legal limbo during which a municipality is more vulnerable to creditors.
The proposed state bankruptcy commission would be staffed by four state legislators, which some critics worry could politicize the bankruptcy process.

"This bill is impractical," said John Moorlach, a supervisor in Orange County, Calif., which filed for bankruptcy in 1994. "In many instances, haste is important. If you can't meet payroll but have to delay seeking protection, what do you do?"
California towns and counties face a catalog of troubles. Earlier this month, voters rejected five budget measures, sending the state deficit to $21 billion. To overcome the gap, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed borrowing $2 billion from municipalities, using a 2004 state law that lets California demand loans of 8% of property-tax revenue from cities, counties and special districts.
But that proposal lands as California municipalities are already facing steep declines in tax revenue because of the recession. Dozens are staring at huge deficits, including Pacific Grove and Stockton, which have publicly said they are exploring bankruptcy.

Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, a Democrat who introduced the bankruptcy bill, said the initiative is needed to protect the credit rating of California and its ability to borrow and sell bonds. Mr. Mendoza added that he wants to avoid bankruptcy's repercussions on surrounding communities by offering a system that examines all of a municipality's options before filing for bankruptcy.
"Municipalities should have a checks and balance system in place based on the fact that all economies are interconnected," he said.
Dwight Stenbakken, deputy executive director for the California League of Cities, a nonprofit representing more than 400 cities, said the group is lobbying against the bill because "there's nothing a state commission can bring to the process to make this better."

Write to Bobby White at bobby.white@wsj.com

I've been saying it for a long time. When push comes to shove the democratic party will slash programs for the sick, elderly, disabled and poor while preserving six figure pension benefits for some of the highest paid public employees in the nation. We already see it happening. Already there are proposals to completely dismantle statewide healthcare and welfare programs, yet the state still hasn't laid off a single union employee, even though the number of state employees increased by 176,000 from 1997 to 2007. There is no discussion about rolling back the massive increases in pension benefits that are costing this state billions of dollars per year to fund, at the same time that the state is prepared to release criminals from prisons and gut education programs for kids. They have no problem allowing firefighters to earn over $200,000 per year and enjoy early retirement at 90% pay while simultaneously closing libraries and homeless shelters. It is happening at the state level and will soon be happening at the local level too. California has the highest paid public school teachers in the nation who have also enjoyed a significant increases in pension benefits granted ten years ago (SB400 1999). But the teachers union will never agree to give back any portion of those increases, even if it means slashing programs for kids and laying off younger teachers to pay for it.

That is the uncomfortable truth that nobody wants to talk about.

This video is nothing more than twisting the facts. The plain and simple fact is "Spending on Social Issues the Democrats Champion is Flat" is a bogus statement. This kind of spending has inflated so fast, its not funny. California is the number 1 welfare state in this Country. Where are you now Marie that our Education system is being gutted because of your Democratic leadership? Republicans?? They are no better in CA, so why bother trying to lay the blame on them. The Democrats have the power. 2/3rds majority, what is wrong with that? So the majority cannot kill the minority? This country is not a Democracy, as you would like to think Marie. Or until it doesn't agree with your agenda. This Country is a Republic, for one simple reason....... So the majority cannot kill the minority. It empowers Equal Rights, Democracy empowers the will of the majority, which is WRONG!! The simple fact is your side has felt that majority can rule and now they have received a valid lesson in what that does to people! The only time your side has a problem with majority rule is when you lose, then its a republic and the Constitution is then in play only when it fits your needs.

Your Blog Marie is nothing more than a Bash on Republicans, you fail to see the main issues, truth, or that the problems with the Sate of California lay directly in the hands of the people you push more so than the Republicans of California, although they share an equal share in my view. When you wake up and realize that the Government is the problem in the first place, maybe, just maybe you could get away from your talking points or pushing a video that does nothing but distort the facts. If this woman is your Hero, you definitely have problems.

JMR, I'll provide a link to the Legislative Analyst's Office, which will prove to you that spending on CalWORKS -- what passes for welfare here -- has actually decreased.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2008/2008_pandi/pi_anl08004.aspx#zzee_link_1_1203039458

Spending on mental health services has increased due to Prop. 63 and developmental services because of the increased number of cases.

I hear a lot of refuting going on here, ("his numbers do not add up" -- "it's a big lie") but nobody puts up links or information to back their claims.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around.

But thanks for posting.

Bubba,

It isn't true that union members haven't lost their jobs or their positions haven't been eliminated. Call up your local school district and ask how many classified employee positions have already been eliminated.

Teaching positions have also been eliminated. This year some teachers might not get laid off but that is because they already gave notice that they were quitting when they saw the writing on the wall. I know of two young teachers leaving the state because of the lay offs.

As far as rolling back salaries that is on the table too and most of us expect it to happen. How much do you think the salary is for the average teacher at your local high school?

I acknowledge that you do bring up firefighters but most conservative bloggers, radio hosts, and editorial writers seem to want people to believe that police officers and firefighters aren't labor union members employed by the government.

JMR,

Some Republicans claim the 2/3rds requirement keeps taxes low but they also say that California is among the highest taxed states. Both cannot be true. If it works so well at keeping taxes from increasing we couldn't also have some of the highest taxes.

If a 2/3rds requirement is such a good idea why doesn't almost any other state or the US government use it for passing budgets? America is a constitutional republic but with the direct proposition, voting on judges, and the legislature being divided in both houses by population we are much different from the federal model.

Marie,

Your words, "I think there is plenty of blame to go around." If your hero, Ms. Evans, had acknowledged this fact in her video, I would have had far more respect for her. The fact that she blamed everyone but herself tells me that she is part of the problem. In fact, VC Star Editor, Joe Howry wrote a pretty good editorial on some of the causes of the California financial crisis, including the fault of the voters – which I agree with because ultimately it is our responsibility. I, however, disagree with him on the premise that “voting them out” is not the solution. While it may not be the solution, it is the start of the solution.

And, the reason, I do not link to facts and figures are solely an issue of time. I will point out that LA Times Hiltzik doesn’t link either only a general reference to the LAO. I have read these reports and they do not stand for the proposition that he asserted in his column. In other words, just more manipulation by the left’s fox news equivalent, the LA Times.

Martin

Howry: Sharing the responsibility
Politicians only followed the lead of the people
By Joe Howry
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The state’s lawmakers are going to get a report card from the voters May 19 and indications are it won’t be a good one. In fact, when the voters decide on the six propositions to deal with the state’s $40 billion-plus budget deficit, the result, in all likelihood, will be a resounding grade of F.

It’s the kind of grade that in my day would have led to a trip to the back bedroom where my dad would administer a hard lesson in the importance of good grades. It was painful but effective.

The problem with the propositions is a compound one. They are complicated and have not been well-explained, and their timing couldn’t be worse. They go before an electorate that is angry and frustrated and looking for any opportunity to vent its frustration and anger. The vote will not be based on the merits of the propositions, assuming they have any, but on the performance of the governor and the Legislature. In short, it will be a vote of no confidence.
Two weeks ago, I wrote that the state was suffering from a massive lack of leadership. I blasted legislators for putting party and self-interest ahead of what’s best for the state. It was an easy column to write, but it was pointed out to me that it didn’t go far enough.

I was asked to take it further and explain how we got into this leadership vacuum and, more importantly, what solutions do I think are necessary to get us out of it.
There are a number of reasons why I think we have a failure of leadership in California, but four factors are key. In no particular order, they are how the state legislative districts are gerrymandered, term limits, ballot propositions and extreme partisanship. Individually and collectively they have sapped the motivation and ability of the state’s leaders to lead.

The way the state is gerrymandered — the act of drawing district boundaries to favor one party over another or to create a disadvantage — is almost criminal. Its only purpose is to preserve the status quo of the two parties. The single most deciding factor to getting elected in the districts is party affiliation. Election has nothing to do with ideas or competency. Cooperation and compromise are shunned as disloyalty and worse. Hewing to the party line is the No. 1 priority.

Term limits have failed to serve the state as they were intended. It was perhaps naïve to believe that people interested in politics would be so noble-minded as to serve for a limited time, bring new ideas, act in the best interests of the state and then quietly return to the lives they led before entering office.
What term limits have achieved is the establishment of a huge cadre of state legislators continually scheming for the next office to jump to. As such, they legislate out of self-interest and ambition. They have no institutional memory or allegiances, and their only stake in what or what doesn’t get accomplished is how it will work to their benefit in the next election.

In Star state Bureau Chief Timm Herdt’s column last week, he described how the propositions have affected leadership in Sacramento. Californians have become enamored with ballot-box decision-making and have severely limited the ability of legislators to do the work they were elected to do. This kind of distrustful, direct democracy undermines government institutions and discourages men and women with good intentions from running for office.
Propositions have made it easy for elected officials to slough off on to the voters their responsibilities to govern the state. The propositions have allowed lawmakers to escape any political liability and provide them with a convenient excuse to do nothing, or, at least, anything constructive.

It’s difficult to say whether gerrymandering, term limits and propositions spawned extreme partisanship or whether it simply trickled down from what was happening at the national level. Whatever the cause, we now live in a political world where ideology trumps everything, including, and maybe especially, making good public policy.

The idea that people can honestly, respectfully disagree has been replaced with no-holds-barred, good versus evil and no gray area in between. Politically, we have become so polarized that any victory by the other side, regardless of merit, is characterized as the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it. It is all-out ideological warfare in which the ends justify the means.

We can blame the politicians for the state of things, but the truth is, we all share the responsibility. The politicians only did what we allowed them to do, and we allowed ourselves to be guided by the same self-serving, narrow-minded thinking that infected them. Throwing the bums out, as they say, is not a solution, nor is just fixing the problems that have caused the failure in leadership.

In next week’s column, I’ll explore some solutions and what they might mean.

Brian, your logic behind the 2/3 rationale is hard to ignore. If we are the highest taxed state as has been said so often on the blogs (which we aren't) then the 2/3's vote hasn't worked very well.

Joe's editorial is a good one, but he leaves out campaign finance reform which I think is really the key to ending some of the dysfunction. That's a nationwide issue.

But he also lists ballot-box budgeting as a major problem and so does Evans.

What they both left out was the pension arms race started by the prison guards union and the fact that since 1993, permanent tax cuts have cost the general fund more than $100 billion.

Martin, I'm willing to wait for your links to prove Evans and Hiltzik wrong. But, given your declaration of total non-partisanship, they better be from a neutral and non-partisan source.

George Runner:

While there are many groups clamoring for a piece of the state’s budget pie, one of the most persistent is the education bloc. Indeed, districts, unions, and faculty associations are constantly decrying cuts to education. For all their crowing, the budget cuts to education pale in comparison to the massive increases in education spending over the past decade—increases that took place despite a large decrease in student enrollment. In fact, education funding has increased by $15 billion over the last decade even though there were 74,000 fewer students over that same period.

What is most astonishing is that test scores remain abysmally low, dropout rates—especially among low-income minority groups—are unacceptably high, and schools suffer from disrepair. Surely this is not due to a lack of resources, not given the fact that roughly half of the state’s budget is allocated to education. Policymakers (and taxpayers) should not be asking how much more to spend, but rather how our money is being spent.

One area open for potential savings involves giving administrators more flexibility in firing teachers. The current process for firing incompetent and ineffective teachers is so burdensome and biased in favor of teachers that administrators keep them on staff to avoid the high cost of firing them. At a time when districts are laying off teachers, cutting back on programs, and increasing class sizes, administrators cannot even fire those teachers who deserve to be.

The lengthy process to fire teachers costs a district real money. For example, In the Los Angeles Unified School District, about 160 teachers are receiving salaries while their ability to do the job is under review. Rather than simply being fired, tenured teachers are being paid to do nothing as their case slowly winds its way through district bureaucracy. This advantageous arrangement has developed over the years through agreements between the district and teacher’s union, and doesn’t factor in the students or the taxpayers.

While teachers should be protected from unfair treatment at the hands of administrators, the current system is weighted too heavily in favor of teachers against administrators. For instance, the LAUSD has spent more than $2 million on salary and legal fees over seven years for Matthew Kim, a 41-year-old teacher who is accused of sexually harassing teenage students and co-workers. This is money that could have been used much more effectively in the classroom.

There is no reason to grant teachers this absurd level of protection because doing so benefits the bad teachers at the expense of students. Only in government can such a policy be practiced without risk of losing funds—a company with ineffective employees risks losing customers and profit. It is time we started questioning how our tax dollars are being spent on education, how we can better spend the dollars we do have, and whether the education system itself needs to be fundamentally restructured. It is ridiculous to continue throwing money into the education pot and assume that this alone will solve the state’s educational woes, especially when it is so easy to find examples, such as this, of wasted education dollars.

Brian,

It is important that we differentiate eliminating positions versus layoffs. Government often hides behind the argument that they are making serious cuts due to some number of positions were eliminated. But that can be very deceptive since these positions are usually vacant anyway and may not have even been budgeted. There may be no actual cost savings or reduction in headcount.

In this instance I think that there will be real job cuts simply because they are unavoidable due to the magnitude of our structural deficit. There are employees who have been given pink slips and are waiting to know whether they will soon be out of a job. Unless the union is willing to make some serious concessions I have no doubt that thousands of teachers and other government workers will soon be in the unemployment line. The union needs to decide whether it is willing to come to the table in order to save jobs, or if older workers are willing to throw their younger colleagues under the bus in order to preserve their own pay and benefits.

With regard to teacher pay, I think that the entire compensation system needs to be overhauled. We need to find a way to pay more money to high performing teachers. Teachers who have a background in subjects that are more difficult to recruit (i.e. chemistry & mathematics) should be paid more. I've got no problem paying more for teachers who are effective, but I am against arbitrarily raising the pay of all teachers, good and bad alike. We need to find a way to get rid of bad teachers, and, yes, they do exist. If we are laying off teachers it would be nice to use this as an opportunity to get rid of the ineffective teachers and keep the good ones, instead of some arbitrary seniority system. If kids really do matter then their right to a quality education should be more important than preserving a status quo that has been failing our children for decades.

Yo Marie!

See my newsflash on the Contra Costa County First 5 Commission (see, I'm really not picking on SoCal First 5s).

It's mandatory viewing if you ask me!

It looks like they have blown about $2 million of their pension value -

Are they planning to use funds intended for kids to pay for that? I would think that would bother you. I would hope that would bother you.

I posted it on your First 5 blog of 04/26 on Prop 1D being deceptive.

Bubba,

I don't know what other districts are doing but SVUSD has already eliminated positions, which does save money, and they are already eliminating more positions for next year no matter what. Some of those positions being cut are people retiring, but some of them are teachers that knew they were going to be laid off and made other plans.

I guarantee there will be less employees in SVUSD next year including less classroom teachers.

In addition, there is likely to be furlough days which already cuts the pay of all teachers.

How much do you think the average salary at your local high school for a teacher is currently? For a local firefighter? For the average SVPD officer?

The number for teachers is online. I think all of the numbers for the other positions should be too.

Brian,

Are you trying to imply that local teachers are somehow underpaid? You keep side-stepping the issues being discussed here by continually bringing up teacher compensation, as if it is the only issue that matters. I would argue that our public education system is so broken that we need fundamental reforms. We cannot solve the basic problems with our schools by blindly increasing employee pay, as argued by teachers unions. If there was a direct correlation between employee pay and education quality then California public schools would be the best in the nation, given that we have the highest paid teachers in the nation.

But since you bring it up, SVUSD currently has 993 FTE teaching positions. Entry level salaries are about $42,000 per year. The average teacher in the district earns just under $65,000 per year, but pay can be as high as $82,000 per year, depending on seniority. Do I think that teachers are underpaid? I guess that depends. The real answer is that good teachers are underpaid and bad teachers are overpaid. But, on the whole, teachers do pretty well when you consider their entire compensation package. They also enjoy excellent healthcare and pension benefits, with the ability to retire relatively young compared to people who work in the private sector. They also get a very generous amount of time off compared to private sector employees. And although we are in unusual times, teachers normally have stable jobs with great job security. So if you want to make a comparison between teacher compensation and private sector compensation you need to look at the total picture.

If teachers are going to demand the same salaries as other professions where there is less job security, longer hours, less time off, fewer benefits, and working careers that are ten to fifteen years longer, then what does the public get in return? I would argue that, at the very least, we should be getting accountability. I would support higher teacher pay if there was a compensation system that rewarded effective teachers and had a reasonable mechanism for getting rid of ineffective teachers. But that doesn't seem to be on the table.

Bubba,

What is the average pay of a local police officer and a local firefighter?

What is the average retirement age for a local teacher in SVUSD? You seem to think it is ten to fifteen years younger so I would imagine you have the data.

What's the average age for Simi Valley police officers and firefighters? Do you have access to that data?

I didn't make a statement on local teacher pay except to ask you what you thought it was at your local high school. I don't know what school is closet to you but your numbers are off for the high school I know the figures for.

The school district seems to be much more transparent in employee pay.

I support many reforms that bring more accountability.

Brian, I've already posted information on police and firefighter pay in other threads, but I'm trying to keep our conversation focused on the issue at hand rather than allowing you to take this conversation into multiple tangents. So in keeping the focus on teacher compensation I will say that I believe my information is accurate. My source is the Sacramento Bee database of teacher pay by district (click on the link). If you have a better source of information then please share.