ballot proposition to decrease state worker’s pay?

[DWCAP]

[quote=Aecetia]Brian-
Here is the impact of the non residents on the State budget: taken from an article in the Sunday’s San Diego Union “even a modest “10% false registration rate, … would be 4,200 students at a $10,800 average cost per student, or more than $45 million per year.”

They are not illegals. They live in Mexico and get driven up here to attend school for free. It all adds up and costs the California tax payers, causes increases in work load for teachers and increased class size, etc. It is a problem because the school officials refuse to enforce residence requirements. More waste, fraud and abuse.[/quote]

I am shocked this thread didnt become as explosive as earlier threads did. I read through last night and said to myself “read this one tomorrow, itll be crazy!”. Stangly enough, it wasnt. Pat on the back to the piggs.

Aecetia I totally get where you are coming from. I read an article about this in Imperial County and I was just flabbergasted. It is basically an eduaction subsidy to Mexico. Parents work, pay taxes, and vote in Mexico, but send their kids to school in California. They just walk across the border. I think the reason most people missed what you are saying is that this only happens in Southern San Diego and Imperial Counties. Everywhere else is just too far away to make it work. Illegal immigration is a totally different problem.

As for public employees pay, and cutting it. Eh, the vast majority of public employees dont get rich on their pay. The difference is the benifits and the job security. Id rather vote on a requirment that

1) All officers (ie Lt’s and Captns and district superviors etc) be considered management and not elegable for pensions and the “front line” benifits. They can keep what they have, but no more. These guys are paper pushers now, not front line personal. I have a feeling the increadable growth/demand in costs would slow when managment, ie those overseeing the money, dont also get to partake.

2) All pension/benifit/wage costs must be fully paid for each year and all contracts come up for negotiation every 2-4 years exactly 2 months before November elections. No deferring costs to the future. Lets see how many boards of supervisors wanna agree to increases when they gotta turn around and face the voters with tax increases.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[sdduuuude]

The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.

[sdduuuude]

The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.

[sdduuuude]

The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.

[sdduuuude]

The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.

[sdduuuude]

The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.[/quote]

Even I agree that the pensions are too generous, and need to be brought back to 2% @ 55: 2% of an employee’s highest base pay, which does NOT include overtime, multiplied by the number of years worked, and they can retire at 55.

Remember that these pensions were granted when the pension funds were fully funded (were “technically” over-funded), during the stock market bubble in the late 90s.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.[/quote]

Even I agree that the pensions are too generous, and need to be brought back to 2% @ 55: 2% of an employee’s highest base pay, which does NOT include overtime, multiplied by the number of years worked, and they can retire at 55.

Remember that these pensions were granted when the pension funds were fully funded (were “technically” over-funded), during the stock market bubble in the late 90s.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.[/quote]

Even I agree that the pensions are too generous, and need to be brought back to 2% @ 55: 2% of an employee’s highest base pay, which does NOT include overtime, multiplied by the number of years worked, and they can retire at 55.

Remember that these pensions were granted when the pension funds were fully funded (were “technically” over-funded), during the stock market bubble in the late 90s.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]The cost of pensions where much the pain lies. Pensions are too generous, too expensive, and too poorly managed.

CA promised too much, then sent all the pension money down the shitter with dumb-ass investments. Now, they have to dump more money into the pension system to keep the promise, which was too much to promise in the first place.

Bankrupcy is the only way out.[/quote]

Even I agree that the pensions are too generous, and need to be brought back to 2% @ 55: 2% of an employee’s highest base pay, which does NOT include overtime, multiplied by the number of years worked, and they can retire at 55.

Remember that these pensions were granted when the pension funds were fully funded (were “technically” over-funded), during the stock market bubble in the late 90s.

[Author]

Posts