"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher
Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
121–130 of 191 posts
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#122i like how the 2nd graph is totally wrong: those numbers aren't in billions, but in millions. i guess no one understands how to read graphs anymore
To be fair, most readers aren't even listening to the arguments, so it doesn't matter if the graph is right or wrong.
They've settled on a conclusion before they even looked at the data, let alone read the article. Given how difficult it is to collect all the necessary data for actual objective analysis and how little that ultimately influences any party policy, I'm not even sure you can blame the readers.
You can rest assured that each party-line talking head is going to present skewed justifications that inevitably support their own preconceived conclusion. So what does anyone gain by reading through it? It's not like you can change the mind of a talking head by pointing out oversights, contradictions, or flat-out errors in their argument.
I mean, does anyone honestly expect a party politician might sit down to analyze some data and come away with a policy that goes against the party philosophy? Any Californian politician knows whether they should solve the budget crisis with cuts or taxes long before they even knew how big the problem was or where the money went.
Anymore, I'm fairly certain the only data involved in policy decisions are poll numbers.
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
...low level employees who had no part in the high level corruption,... The low level employees didn't vote for and join unions which helped that Dem treasurer to get elected? They didn't push for overly generous pensions and non-transparent accounting? They must have behaved very differently than contemporary unions.
Give me a break. Those low level employees do a job under a contract which was supposedly negotiated in good faith. Now because you don't like "unions" or "government" it's ok to stiff people who perform a public service for a previously agreed upon wage and benefits? What, because highway workers weren't doing financial due diligence on the multi-hundred-million dollar county's books? It was their responsibility to…
Union contracts are not negotiated in good faith. That's the problem. Our politicians do not get into negotiations with the union, driving as hard a bargain as possible and looking out for the taxpayers. Our politicians are in league with the unions hoping to get their support in the next election.
In any case, no one wants unions to supply labor for free - all anyone is advocating is that the government pay it's suppliers market rates or below. I.e., the politicians should look out for the taxpayers, not government suppliers.
As I've pointed out to you before, most liberals get strongly outraged when there is even a hint that a military contractor might have gotten a sweetheart deal. And yet, there is a strong defense of Big Labor when they get a similar sweetheart deal. Why is that?
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth observing that: 1) Orange County went bankrupt by cooking the books. After the scandal broke, their treasurer went to jail. 2) The Republican administration turned a blind eye to the Democratic treasurer's malfeasance because it was allowing them to keep taxes very low, which was making their government very popular. 3) The government refused to raise even a temporary tax to avoid bankruptcy, as that posit…
...low level employees who had no part in the high level corruption,... The low level employees didn't vote for and join unions which helped that Dem treasurer to get elected? They didn't push for overly generous pensions and non-transparent accounting? They must have behaved very differently than contemporary unions.
I fail to see a logical connection between "you joined a union" and "you lose the right to have contracts you signed upheld". Perhaps you could elaborate?
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, I never understood why on earth anyone would elect someone to public office that hates government so much they would try to destroy it... It would be like hiring a developer that hates code so much he would delete it from your repository to reduce kloc counts.
Your analogy is actually a pretty charitable reading. HN often discusses how the best coders are sometimes the ones who produce less code. Some principled fiscal conservatives don’t hate government , they have waste , and electing them to reduce the institution they’re part of is not absurd. For what it’s worth, I think starve-the-beast is empirically a bad strategy. But it’s not a logical fallacy, as people sometime…
Some principled fiscal conservatives don’t hate government, they have waste, and electing them to reduce the institution they’re part of is not absurd.
Unfortunately, principles do not win elections. The ones who actually win are the ones who want to deregulate business and regulate morals.
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
...low level employees who had no part in the high level corruption,... The low level employees didn't vote for and join unions which helped that Dem treasurer to get elected? They didn't push for overly generous pensions and non-transparent accounting? They must have behaved very differently than contemporary unions.
I fail to see a logical connection between "you joined a union" and "you lose the right to have contracts you signed upheld". Perhaps you could elaborate?
I fail to see why you think I implied there was a logical connection. I was simply disputing the idea which I quoted.
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#127If he forces through public pension reform, my opinion of Arnold as a politician would go way, way, up.
When I was a kid and he was elected, I thought he would be a bit of a joke. A movie star elected governor by Hollywood- California really is crazy!
My opinion has changed drastically since then, and I find myself proud to have him as our governor.
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#128Who's lending California this money now? It seems quiet a risky deal.
The Federal gov't won't ever let California outright default on its debt. Why? It is the largest economy inside the US, it serves critical national security purposes, and being the biggest state debtor it will take dozens of other broke states down with it. A default would trigger a copycat landslide in the dozen other states who are also crippled with massive debt. If half the states default, all the dike holes the Fed has been filling with fingers over the past 2 years will have been for nought. It just can't be allowed to happen, period. At least in plain sight.
It's exactly like how the banks are keeping their 1+ years worth of "shadow" housing inventory off the market, so as to keep a floor on prices and prevent everyone from panicking and running for the exits at once.
And just like how the Federal bailouts were passed through back channels(i.e. Maiden Lane I & II, reserve swaps with foreign central banks, etc), and arcane accounting tricks that no congress-critter can comprehend, and the biggest political smoke & mirrors America has ever seen, so too will it go for the bailing out involvent states. It won't be Obama handing Schwarzenegger an oversized $30 billion dollar check on TV like a grinning Ed McMahon. No, it'll be a thousand tiny accounting tricks to prop up California, and keep the markets in perpetual doubt about the overall fiscal status of California.
Our entire Federal fiscal and monetary policy is a waiting game. They don't know what will happen, but the thinking is if we can all just hang on long enough for everyone to adjust to the economic new normal, then we can at least avoid an outright national collapse. Nobody on the planet can even know if this will work, but there are zero alternatives.
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: roughly 80 cents of every government dollar in California goes to employee compensation and benefits So that's salaries as well as pensions (and salaries will be making up the lions share of the 80%). To quote Felix Dennis "Overhead walks on two legs".
Employees are the biggest expense for any business, not just governments.
This is true, but not 80%. This number is way, way out of whack.
Re: Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
#130I have a feeling these graphs do more to explain the problems that Berkeley professor wrote about ( http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students... ) than the explanations he proposed.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. In addition when you know an employee is going to cost you a lot of money in pension, the incentive to reduce the work force as much as possible is high. You end up in a situation where your budget is used to pay for the retired employees and you have nothing left for active employees. One of the reasons you are there is that it's pretty tempting for someone in command to offer…
"Under his command the budget remains clean and the employees are happy."
Don't any of these places have accountants? Surely, there should be some requirement to recognize the future costs being taken on, properly discounted for net present value?
Or am I just naive?