Scott Herhold, on San Jose's public safety unions and the financial strain they cause:
[What kind of city is San Jose?] Is it the one that gave police a series of nice little pay boosts after 9/11, bumps that take the average wage to more than $114,000 after five years on the job?
Is it the one that, thanks to an arbitration system it agreed to in the 1980s, is paying cops and firefighters 90 percent of their salary as a pension after 30 years?
In the past nine years, driven by public safety, the city's employee costs — wages and benefits — have increased by 64 percent. That's roughly 7 percent a year. I know I haven't done as well.
Wow. Interesting article.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Who's Running the Show?
From SJ Merc, Internal Affairs column, March 14, 2010:
A new report from the Fair Political Practices Commission — California's elections watchdog — mines years of campaign and lobbyist reports and turns up this nugget:
Over the past decade, 15 special-interest groups have spent more than $1 billion in an all-out bid to influence the state's affairs. They spent that money to sink ballot initiatives and boost candidates. They fed it directly to political parties' war chests. (Democrats came out slightly ahead of Republicans.) And they spent hundreds of millions wining and dining lawmakers and other state officials.
Almost a fifth of the cash came from one group: the politically powerful California Teachers Association ($211.8 million). The teachers union was followed by an affiliate of the Service Employees Union International ($107.5 million), a pharmaceutical industry group ($104.9 million) and two deep-pocketed Indian tribes ($83.6 million and $69.3 million). Rounding out the top 15 are some other big names, such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Chevron, AT&T and Philip Morris. (For the full report, go to www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report38104.pdf.)
So when we talk about special interests influencing state governments, remember: it's the teachers and other unions who have provided the most grease to Sacramento. Is it any wonder Sacramento provides teachers and unions with special benefits unavailable to most private sector workers? I'll end with this gem from the article:
"The conclusion is inescapable," reads the report's executive summary. "A handful of special interests have a disproportionate amount of influence on California elections and public policy."
A new report from the Fair Political Practices Commission — California's elections watchdog — mines years of campaign and lobbyist reports and turns up this nugget:
Over the past decade, 15 special-interest groups have spent more than $1 billion in an all-out bid to influence the state's affairs. They spent that money to sink ballot initiatives and boost candidates. They fed it directly to political parties' war chests. (Democrats came out slightly ahead of Republicans.) And they spent hundreds of millions wining and dining lawmakers and other state officials.
Almost a fifth of the cash came from one group: the politically powerful California Teachers Association ($211.8 million). The teachers union was followed by an affiliate of the Service Employees Union International ($107.5 million), a pharmaceutical industry group ($104.9 million) and two deep-pocketed Indian tribes ($83.6 million and $69.3 million). Rounding out the top 15 are some other big names, such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Chevron, AT&T and Philip Morris. (For the full report, go to www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report38104.pdf.)
So when we talk about special interests influencing state governments, remember: it's the teachers and other unions who have provided the most grease to Sacramento. Is it any wonder Sacramento provides teachers and unions with special benefits unavailable to most private sector workers? I'll end with this gem from the article:
"The conclusion is inescapable," reads the report's executive summary. "A handful of special interests have a disproportionate amount of influence on California elections and public policy."
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Youth Basketball Season Over
Today is the last day of the youth basketball season. I hope my team wins, but they're up against a good team. After today, I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my 2010 Saturdays.
Update: my team lost, but all of them had fun. As usual, I had one parent who expected me to be overly tough with his son, even though his son just didn't have the physical development necessary to do certain things. Boys tend to develop in quick spurts, whereas girls seem to have a more steady physical progression. On any given team, one boy could be miles ahead of the other boys in terms of athleticism, while another boy could have major difficulty learning to pivot or even to dribble. In any case, I'm not going to bother a kid on the last day of the season if he's doing something unconventional. He can always refresh his skills the next year, right? Sigh.
On the bright side, two parents left me nice messages thanking me for coaching.
Update: my team lost, but all of them had fun. As usual, I had one parent who expected me to be overly tough with his son, even though his son just didn't have the physical development necessary to do certain things. Boys tend to develop in quick spurts, whereas girls seem to have a more steady physical progression. On any given team, one boy could be miles ahead of the other boys in terms of athleticism, while another boy could have major difficulty learning to pivot or even to dribble. In any case, I'm not going to bother a kid on the last day of the season if he's doing something unconventional. He can always refresh his skills the next year, right? Sigh.
On the bright side, two parents left me nice messages thanking me for coaching.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
George Washington Quote on Religion
From THIS LINK, General Washington's statement 'To the General Committee, representing the United Baptist Churches in Virginia':
If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. For, you doubtless remember, I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may rely upon my best wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity,'
I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant, GEORGE WASHINGTON.'
"The horrors of spiritual tyranny"? I can't believe I haven't seen those words before. Beautiful language, isn't it?
If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. For, you doubtless remember, I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may rely upon my best wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity,'
I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant, GEORGE WASHINGTON.'
"The horrors of spiritual tyranny"? I can't believe I haven't seen those words before. Beautiful language, isn't it?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Roger Ebert on the Gathering Storm
Roger Ebert inspired by Thomas Friedman leads to an interesting post:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/02/the_gathering_storm.html
Here is the comment I tried to post on Ebert's blog:
I am agog at how many people have shared their stories and opinions. As for me, I don't have much to say except this: no system will work, including universal or for-profit healthcare, unless people are ethical.
Today, in almost every profession, incentives tend to push people, even good ones, into poor decisions. For example, if you're a doctor who gets reimbursed based on the number of tests you order, why not order an extra one? Does this attitude change under universal healthcare? Of course not. The only difference is who pays for it.
Conservatives understand human nature's tendency to game systems and are afraid that universal healthcare represents a massive opportunity for dishonest people to game the system and pass the buck (literally :-) Liberals, on the other hand, see the poor man in the street dying from a treatable chronic disease, or the cancer patient who can't get treatment, and are outraged. They want things to change. Neither side seems to understand that the incentives in healthcare need to change in order to promote ethics and a sustainable system.
When I see people argue in broad terms, I see no opportunity for real agreement. I am reminded of Yates: "Turning and turning in the widening gyre..."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/02/the_gathering_storm.html
Here is the comment I tried to post on Ebert's blog:
I am agog at how many people have shared their stories and opinions. As for me, I don't have much to say except this: no system will work, including universal or for-profit healthcare, unless people are ethical.
Today, in almost every profession, incentives tend to push people, even good ones, into poor decisions. For example, if you're a doctor who gets reimbursed based on the number of tests you order, why not order an extra one? Does this attitude change under universal healthcare? Of course not. The only difference is who pays for it.
Conservatives understand human nature's tendency to game systems and are afraid that universal healthcare represents a massive opportunity for dishonest people to game the system and pass the buck (literally :-) Liberals, on the other hand, see the poor man in the street dying from a treatable chronic disease, or the cancer patient who can't get treatment, and are outraged. They want things to change. Neither side seems to understand that the incentives in healthcare need to change in order to promote ethics and a sustainable system.
When I see people argue in broad terms, I see no opportunity for real agreement. I am reminded of Yates: "Turning and turning in the widening gyre..."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Random Note about the NBA
Matt Barnes = the new, improved Raja Bell. If you're an NBA fan who watched the Orlando/Lakers game yesterday, you know what I'm talking about. By the way, Mr. Barnes is a Santa Clara, CA native. So Steve Nash and Matt Barnes...representing Santa Clara, California. I guess Gary Payton and Jason Kidd would represent Oakland, CA. I'm not sure who would represent San Francisco, CA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)