Non-salary CA budget cuts

[peterb]

All services feed off productivity that creates profitability, in some way. No matter who performs them. We’re gonna start finding this out the hard way in the future. The free ride looks to be coming to an end. The people that create and make things that the rest of the world wants will have the money. Services will take what these people offer.

[davelj]

Some budget thoughts:

Generically, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CA budget something like 50% higher today than it was a decade ago, despite the population being up only half that amount? If that’s anywhere close to being correct, then… it would seem that cutting back the excess shouldn’t be that painful to the populace.

Regarding firemen, policemen, teachers, etc, here’s the hard reality. Even if you were to eliminate the “benefits” and even lower the pay… there would still be FAR more applicants for these jobs than there are available spots. That’s just reality. The unions have effectively hi-jacked the free market for these jobs and here we are – with overpriced labor.

Let all inmates in prison for non-violent drug convictions out of prison. Assuming they have no violent crimes on their record at all. Just a wild ass guess, but I bet that would shrink our prison roles by 25%.

This ain’t rocket surgery. But the politics surrounding all of this – and the unions’ death grip on the compensation issue – makes it all but impossible to solve, absent bankruptcy.

[davelj]

Some budget thoughts:

Generically, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CA budget something like 50% higher today than it was a decade ago, despite the population being up only half that amount? If that’s anywhere close to being correct, then… it would seem that cutting back the excess shouldn’t be that painful to the populace.

Regarding firemen, policemen, teachers, etc, here’s the hard reality. Even if you were to eliminate the “benefits” and even lower the pay… there would still be FAR more applicants for these jobs than there are available spots. That’s just reality. The unions have effectively hi-jacked the free market for these jobs and here we are – with overpriced labor.

Let all inmates in prison for non-violent drug convictions out of prison. Assuming they have no violent crimes on their record at all. Just a wild ass guess, but I bet that would shrink our prison roles by 25%.

This ain’t rocket surgery. But the politics surrounding all of this – and the unions’ death grip on the compensation issue – makes it all but impossible to solve, absent bankruptcy.

[davelj]

Some budget thoughts:

Generically, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CA budget something like 50% higher today than it was a decade ago, despite the population being up only half that amount? If that’s anywhere close to being correct, then… it would seem that cutting back the excess shouldn’t be that painful to the populace.

Regarding firemen, policemen, teachers, etc, here’s the hard reality. Even if you were to eliminate the “benefits” and even lower the pay… there would still be FAR more applicants for these jobs than there are available spots. That’s just reality. The unions have effectively hi-jacked the free market for these jobs and here we are – with overpriced labor.

Let all inmates in prison for non-violent drug convictions out of prison. Assuming they have no violent crimes on their record at all. Just a wild ass guess, but I bet that would shrink our prison roles by 25%.

This ain’t rocket surgery. But the politics surrounding all of this – and the unions’ death grip on the compensation issue – makes it all but impossible to solve, absent bankruptcy.

[davelj]

Some budget thoughts:

Generically, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CA budget something like 50% higher today than it was a decade ago, despite the population being up only half that amount? If that’s anywhere close to being correct, then… it would seem that cutting back the excess shouldn’t be that painful to the populace.

Regarding firemen, policemen, teachers, etc, here’s the hard reality. Even if you were to eliminate the “benefits” and even lower the pay… there would still be FAR more applicants for these jobs than there are available spots. That’s just reality. The unions have effectively hi-jacked the free market for these jobs and here we are – with overpriced labor.

Let all inmates in prison for non-violent drug convictions out of prison. Assuming they have no violent crimes on their record at all. Just a wild ass guess, but I bet that would shrink our prison roles by 25%.

This ain’t rocket surgery. But the politics surrounding all of this – and the unions’ death grip on the compensation issue – makes it all but impossible to solve, absent bankruptcy.

[davelj]

Some budget thoughts:

Generically, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CA budget something like 50% higher today than it was a decade ago, despite the population being up only half that amount? If that’s anywhere close to being correct, then… it would seem that cutting back the excess shouldn’t be that painful to the populace.

Regarding firemen, policemen, teachers, etc, here’s the hard reality. Even if you were to eliminate the “benefits” and even lower the pay… there would still be FAR more applicants for these jobs than there are available spots. That’s just reality. The unions have effectively hi-jacked the free market for these jobs and here we are – with overpriced labor.

Let all inmates in prison for non-violent drug convictions out of prison. Assuming they have no violent crimes on their record at all. Just a wild ass guess, but I bet that would shrink our prison roles by 25%.

This ain’t rocket surgery. But the politics surrounding all of this – and the unions’ death grip on the compensation issue – makes it all but impossible to solve, absent bankruptcy.

[davelj]

[quote=Eugene]They are considering raising the official retirement age to 75 or so, because there aren’t not enough working age people today and there will be even fewer in a few decades – current projections are that, by 2050, 50% of Japanese population will be over 55.
[/quote]

If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.

[davelj]

[quote=Eugene]They are considering raising the official retirement age to 75 or so, because there aren’t not enough working age people today and there will be even fewer in a few decades – current projections are that, by 2050, 50% of Japanese population will be over 55.
[/quote]

If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.

[davelj]

[quote=Eugene]They are considering raising the official retirement age to 75 or so, because there aren’t not enough working age people today and there will be even fewer in a few decades – current projections are that, by 2050, 50% of Japanese population will be over 55.
[/quote]

If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.

[davelj]

[quote=Eugene]They are considering raising the official retirement age to 75 or so, because there aren’t not enough working age people today and there will be even fewer in a few decades – current projections are that, by 2050, 50% of Japanese population will be over 55.
[/quote]

If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.

[davelj]

[quote=Eugene]They are considering raising the official retirement age to 75 or so, because there aren’t not enough working age people today and there will be even fewer in a few decades – current projections are that, by 2050, 50% of Japanese population will be over 55.
[/quote]

If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.

[Eugene]

[quote=davelj]
If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.[/quote]

Actually, we still don’t have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare. We have PROJECTIONS that we MIGHT have a funding problem around 2040, based on certain assumptions about birth rates, life expectancies, and healthcare costs over the next 30 years.

As for the raising of the retirement age, there is a saying that you can lead the horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. You can rise the retirement age to 70 or 75 but that will not make 69 year old workers as valuable for the economy as 25 year olds.

[Eugene]

[quote=davelj]
If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.[/quote]

Actually, we still don’t have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare. We have PROJECTIONS that we MIGHT have a funding problem around 2040, based on certain assumptions about birth rates, life expectancies, and healthcare costs over the next 30 years.

As for the raising of the retirement age, there is a saying that you can lead the horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. You can rise the retirement age to 70 or 75 but that will not make 69 year old workers as valuable for the economy as 25 year olds.

[Eugene]

[quote=davelj]
If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.[/quote]

Actually, we still don’t have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare. We have PROJECTIONS that we MIGHT have a funding problem around 2040, based on certain assumptions about birth rates, life expectancies, and healthcare costs over the next 30 years.

As for the raising of the retirement age, there is a saying that you can lead the horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. You can rise the retirement age to 70 or 75 but that will not make 69 year old workers as valuable for the economy as 25 year olds.

[Eugene]

[quote=davelj]
If we raised our “retirement” age to 70, we would no longer have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare, even given declining birth rates. That five year gap – 65 to 70 – puts a funding gap of tens of trillions of dollars in the numbers. When SS came into existence in 1935 the average US Citizen lived to be 65. That’s why they chose 65 as the age at which you’d start receiving benefits. This number has stayed the same since, despite the fact that the average US citizen now lives to 74. The root of our problem ain’t rocket surgery. It’s just that the AARP just won’t freakin’ budge on this issue, despite the impossibility of the math working out.[/quote]

Actually, we still don’t have a funding problem with either SS or Medicare. We have PROJECTIONS that we MIGHT have a funding problem around 2040, based on certain assumptions about birth rates, life expectancies, and healthcare costs over the next 30 years.

As for the raising of the retirement age, there is a saying that you can lead the horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. You can rise the retirement age to 70 or 75 but that will not make 69 year old workers as valuable for the economy as 25 year olds.

[Author]

Posts