Members of the public employees services workers union are starting to lose coverage for their children because of changes mandated by the new health care "reform." The new law makes coverage more expensive - Oooops, I thought it was going to make care more affordable.
The union was a big supporter of the reform, and now it is coming back to bite them in the ass. Of course, after supporting the law for others, they wanted a waiver.
I rarely wish oppenents harm, but in this case, they deserve it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/
The revolution always eats its own and hurts those who supported it. Within five years of taking over, the Bolsheviks were turning on "rich" peasants who had two cows. In China, when utopia was not reached it was blamed on people who sabbotaged the revolution, so farmers, teachers, and other were killed.
wages. Not a good time to be in the public sector. Those are mostly dead end jobs anyway but it seems a bit unfair to make this selected group suffer the consequences of the president's wild spending spree.
In 2080, all my lib friends in CA said that with the new majorities in the Congress, Obama would bail out CA, so there was nothing to worry about.
CA keeps spending like a drunken sailor, but ain't gonna be no one going for bail.
The pensions and costs of public unions cost so much, CA will be closing parks and libraries.
I can't wait until they have to close animal shelters in SF, and all them puppy dogs and kitties are gonna be dumped in the bay because ain't no where else to put them.
And now fed can't even afford itself.
by avoiding extradition courtesy of the Swiss and the incredible incompetence of the LA DA who failed to file the required documents.
And don't forget the prison bill will come due before you can blow those funds on parks and libraries (but don't mess with my BB park in Manhattan Beach- keep the lights on out there).
What gets me is despite the obvious need to raise taxes in California, Meg Whitman and her $140 million said raising taxes was not necessary and that the budget deficit could be surmounted by growing the state economy and managing expenses better. Yeah right. If only she had contributed that $140 million to improve your prisons and we at least could have crossed that one off.
considering it's one of the most affluent areas in the country. I think Manhattan Beach can afford it. Plus you want the lights on so you can see when one of the bros pulls a gun out of his gym bag (lol). You need to play east of the 405. If you did, you'd be carrying.
Obvious need to raise taxes in California? You've got to be kidding? You do know that California is one of the highest tax states in the U.S? Shit, we already have a millionaire tax. How's that working?
Do me a favor? Look at a California budget 30 years ago vs today. Within 30 seconds you will see the problem.
At least I got 2 months off from Roman Polanski.
You need look no farther than the California Constitution's limitation of property taxes to 1% of actual cash value of your property. And, if my memory is correct, there is some other ridiculous limitation on how much cash value can increase for tax purposes in a year.
Prior to 1912, California derived up to 70 percent of its revenue from property taxes. Now post- Prop 13 property tax revenues don't even fund schools properly.
California has some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Bob Hope, the Hearst Foundation, all the movie stars pay less than 1% on their mansions. That is the first place to start to deal with your problem, except for the good people of Manhattan Beach whom I think we can agree deserve an exemption.
-- Modified on 11/29/2010 6:22:44 PM
problem. Is that the standard liberal position? Would you ever consider that there might be a spending problem?
Re California education - read about Prop 98, and the sweet extortion deal the Teachers Union worked out.
You don't live in California do you? Do you want me to email my property tax bill to you? The 1% is the assessed value of the property when purchased, and it increases 2% a year. If you look at my tax bill, Prop 13 only covers 2/3 of the total bill. Magically the other 1/3 is a shit load of special assessments, bonds, and other crap that again magically goes to education. So if education was screwed by Prop 13, then why am I paying over 1500 extra in education bonds.
Even if we threw an additional $100B at the Teachers Union, you would not see any discernible improvement. We have a significant segment of the population that just doesn't give a shit about education. And I'm not even talking about that $600M school that was built and named after RFK. Talk about waste.
You do know that California is one of the highest tax states? We have a marginal tax rate of 11%. LA County has a sales tax of 9.75%. But according to you we have a revenue problem. California has this view that every year a Google will go public, stock will go up, shareholders will sell, and again magically all will be OK.
have a substantial revenue problem. Much of the harm is self- inflicted by virtue of your absurd ballot initiative procedure which gives voters nearly effective control over economic policy.
As a result, California voters have voted to tax themselves like libertarians and at the same time subsidize many costs like socialists.
But the property tax is low hanging fruit. Here's why - raise the corporate income tax and businesses and jobs flee the state. Raise the property tax and who's leaving? No one. They will grumble and pay. Of course, you have to change the constitution to do that.
In my state, fair market value determines my property tax assessment. In 2007 when the value of my home increased 20% in a year, I was taxed on the full 20% increase. If I lived in California, using your numbers, I'd only have to pay on 2% of the increase. Windfall profit to me but bad tax policy in a state that has huge legacy costs like California that it really cannot eliminate by simply cutting spending.
First, I agree that California subsidizes costs like socialists. You do know we are a very liberal state. The Democrats have had control over the legislature for as long as I can remember. As one of 5 fiscal conservatives in the state, having the 2/3 super majority requirement for new taxes is a necessity, or else the liberal Legislature would tax California out of existence.
Second, I'm not a fan of all the Propositions, but if it does one thing, it does keep the liberal Legislature somewhat under control. I'd like to do away with Propositions, but God help with our SFO/LA County liberal dominated Legislature.
Third, the assessed value changes when the home is sold. There is (well until 2007) significant home ownership turnover, which helped negate the 1% rule. But if you read my post, 1/3 of your tax bill is added assessments, bonds and the like. I doubt other states have the same problem. Now to add insult to injury, we have this little side benefit for seniors. It goes with your socialist theme. When a senior sells their home and moves, then can carryover their old residence's assessed value to their new home.
Frankly, I don't want more money going to education. I take that back. I have no problem reimbursing the CSU and UC college system with the funds that were raided by the Teachers Union. This was done the past 2 years during the budget crisis, and the Teachers Union wanted to minimize loss of revenue. See CSU and UC are not union controlled, which means they are no match for one of the strongest unions in the Country.
See, the Tea Party is persona non grata in California. But did you hear about the creation of the Tequila Party? Ah yes, the Latinos are getting organized. Fertile ground for California to continue to provide things like in-state tuition for illegals.
-- Modified on 11/29/2010 10:49:46 PM
means a budget can be passed with a simple majority. Yep! with Brown in command and State legislature under a democratic majority expect taxes to increase. Yea, right, we only have a revenue probLem. That pat answer always irritates me. good replies.
but I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg where it comes to California's fiscal problems. I am no "chicken little" poster, nor do I see black helicopters, but I think there is a very real possibility that at some point Ca could have to resort to something as draconian as actual property seizure to remain solvent.
I just can't bring myself to come back to California. It's a great state, with many wonderful things going for it, but the thought of moving to California, only to end up living in poverty is enough to make me think of going somewhere, anywhere else for my "golden years" lol
one must be homosexual, mexican or liberal to be able to get along with the average californian. I moved because i was damed sure i wasn't liberal or mexican! Many of my friends have to stop and think for a moment before they begin their dropping to the floor. Guess my womanizing ways led them to believe the possibility of being gay a total IMpossibility. lol
Did i step on any PC toes? LOL
to do an end run around the Prop 13 limitations and I agree they should be added to the mix when calculating the bottom line property related taxes you are paying.
As for spending money on education, didn't ARnold propose a state constitutional amendment that would require reductions in spending on state corrections, with corresponding increases in spending for public universities? I cannot comprehend that as anything but pandering to improve his popularity standing. No one likes prisoners and everyone loves families.
But it makes no sense when California is under court order to bring prisons up to minimum constitutional standards and is going to have to release prisoners bc it can't afford to incarcerate them properly.
$5.6 billion dollars annually, which is about how much we spend in Afghanistan in two weeks.
-- Modified on 11/29/2010 2:10:04 PM
...a few thousands dollars isn't enough incentive for me to put my life on the line for the profits of Exxon-Mobil.
we could get out of this fucking mess. Idiots always say "It will only save $4,000,000, it's nothing". Translated that means let's spend and spend. I want more money for doing nothing.
OK, I'm just kidding about Al, but a pay freeze for 2 years? If you say they are dead end jobs, then get rid of them. If Obama wants to get my attention, an immediate 10% pay reduction, and that is after an immediate across the board workforce reduction of 10%.
Just about every private company ranks its employees. You always have a bottom 10%. You and I can walk through the Dept of Labor, Commerce, Energy, Education, Agriculture, etc. etc. etc., and whack every 10th employee, and the American people would not see any reduction in services or value delivered. Oops value and government is an oxymoron.
Maybe Obama is positioning to offset this meager little reduction, but asking for unemployment extension benefits for the 99ers.
you can make. They pay well at the start but your raises get capped and the total amount you can make rarely reaches 6 figures.
Plus unless you work as a lawyer for DOJ or SEC, government agency work is rarely a boost to that resume.
-- Modified on 11/29/2010 5:48:44 PM
industrious to find work in the private sector, which could reduce the number of federal employees, and hence some federal debt. But, that may leave a lot of dead wood, like those who they can't fire, and are only there to hold on long enough to retire.
who find their gubberment job "cushy"
Yes there is a lot of dead wood, maybe TJ can do something to revive this "dead wood", there are many that say "there's nothing like fucking a crazy woman"
I almost forgot my manners. Welcome back TJ. lol
My home state of Virginia tried this very idea St. when they had a budget short fall. They decided the thing to do was cut the work week of the state's government employees.
The result was that they closed down the DMV so that it was only open 4 days a week. As a result, you got used to line stretching out the door. It essentially made the DMV useless. Virginia residents were encouraged to mail in their driver license renewal forms instead. They were so flooded with forms, they had to hire more staff to take care of it. As a result, they didn't save much money, and had the added benefit of pissing everyone off.
Cut federal workers by 10%, and the only ones who wouldn't see a reduction in services are people who take government for granted.
It's been over 20 years since I've been in a DMV office. The majority of transactions can be done over the internet. Granted, there may be a complex transaction that can only be done in person, but the majority are simple transactions, i.e. drivers license renewal, annual car registration, selling a car and removing your name from the title, etc.
Why are there more people in line? What type of transactions are they trying to complete? Do they have access to technology? Can you automate simple transactions? Can you put self serve kiosks in the DMV office similar to airline kiosks at airports, or ATMs at banks? Can you automate the back office functions to streamline the various mailed forms?
You would think that 99.9% of the people would rather have a root canal than visit a DMV office.
by now, there is no honor amongst politicians especially Democrats. If you want something you have to earn it. In Nevada, Latinos are meeting to discuss forming a new party instead of following blindly the Democratic party line. Yes, the masses are restless. To paraphrase Gil Scott Heron: " The revolution will not be televised", it will be preempted.