I've been studying California's budget. From 1998 to 2009, California added over 80,000 full time government employees. That means future taxpayers must pay for an additional 80,000+ pensions, lifetime medical benefits, and annual salaries. However, adding 80,000 more government employees is not the major problem, as long as we reform their generous long-term benefits.
The biggest problem is that starting in 1999, California's legislators assumed revenue/tax numbers based on stock market gains/sales and spent accordingly. From 1998 to 2000, spending jumped dramatically, but from 1999 to 2008, expenditures declined only once--right after the tech bubble popped, in 2003/2004. (Note: the tech bubble's peak was in 2000; hit a low in September 2002; and continued in a tight range until 2007.) Basically, it seems our legislators banked on an ever-increasing stock market to finance spending. Oops.
Public sector unions aren't helping. Even though the stock market money isn't there anymore, public sector unions are still acting like it's 2004. Behind closed doors, various unions have negotiated generous benefit packages, such as lifetime medical benefits and pensions. Unfortunately, it is difficult to project the cost of such benefits because no one knows how long a state employee will survive after retiring. As a result, if taxpayers desire consistently balanced budgets, it makes more sense to pay public sector employees higher salaries while reforming their generous benefits. (CalPERS, the state's public pension/health care fund, already has over $200 billion in assets.) Fiscal reform is possible without threatening state workers' job security, because government workers will continue to be unionized--reform would affect only the hard-to-project costs inherent in pensions and lifetime medical benefits.
As far as education is concerned, I am concerned we are spending too much money on it without seeing results. The state's website indicates that approximately 50% of the General Fund is reserved for K-14 education. In addition, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:
"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."
Education spending is probably a sacred cow that needs to be slimmed down before we see any real change in California's fiscal health.
See here for a detailed webpage outlining the major issues, with plenty of stat-porn for the political wonks.
Bonus: Meg Whitman promises to cut 40,000 government jobs--back to 2004 levels--if we elect her Governor; however, I am unclear how she will accomplish that goal without incurring massive litigation and settlement costs. Perhaps the 40,000 positions she wants to cut are non-union or part-time? If so, then it doesn't appear that cutting these positions will reform the problem of generous public sector benefits, which are typically reserved for full-time government workers.
Meg Whitman is probably the most successful female CEO in Silicon's Valley's history, but I wish she'd be more specific about how she plans on accomplishing her goals. If she does well in the Governor's race, expect to see her as the GOP's Vice Presidential candidate in 2012.
"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
Monday, October 26, 2009
Keith Bardwell: What Century is This Again?
Reason #33847 you don't want the government meddling in your private affairs: openly racist judicial officers who don't think they're racist.
More here on Louisiana's Keith Bardwell. Someone should tell him that accepting the repeal of Jim Crow laws doesn't automatically make him non-racist.
More here on Louisiana's Keith Bardwell. Someone should tell him that accepting the repeal of Jim Crow laws doesn't automatically make him non-racist.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
My Favorite Part of the Bible
My favorite Bible verse is Psalms 139:
O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me; Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off;
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me;
If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me"; even the night shall be light about me; For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb; When I awake, I am still with you.
When I was at UC Davis, a fellow English major shared the above verse with me. I can't remember her name, but I hope she's doing well.
O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me; Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off;
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me;
If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me"; even the night shall be light about me; For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb;
When I awake, I am still with you.
See also, the Koran. Islam requires all believers to accept Jesus Christ's and Moses' teachings:
Say, "We believe in God and what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and what Moses and Jesus were given, and what all the Prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. We are Muslims submitted to Him." (Sura al-Baqara: 136)
The messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord and so have the believers; each has believed in God, His angels, His scriptures and His messengers. We do not differentiate between any of His messengers. They say, "We heard and we obeyed; we seek your forgiveness, Our Lord, and unto You is our destiny" (Sura al-Baqara: 285)
By the way, if anyone has insight on Biblical passages mentioning prophets after Jesus, please post a comment. The Bible seems to accept the possibility of future prophets. See Revelation 11:10 (read entire chapter for proper context); Matthew 10:40-41 & especially Matthew 23:34; John 13:20 & 15:20; and Acts 11:25-30, 13:1, and 15:32 (mentioning prophets born after Jesus's birth).
More here.
Bonus: "Those who believe [in the Koran], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day [of Judgment], and who work righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." -- Koran, Al-Baqarah, 2:62
Bonus: "Those who believe [in the Koran], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day [of Judgment], and who work righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." -- Koran, Al-Baqarah, 2:62
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Simpsons on Unions
The Simpsons show always has the best lines:
You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
Oh, the tragedy.
You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
Oh, the tragedy.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bad Arguments: "But What about That?"
Awesome quote from Johann Hari on bad arguments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-a_b_185787.html
There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web. It is known as "what-aboutery."
When you have lost an argument -- when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it -- hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.
Or, as my friend Slawek says, "Just 'cause you punched someone in the face, it means you should kick him in the b*lls too?" In other words, mentioning something unrelated to the specific issue cannot make your proposal okay by default. In fact, that kind of discourse is a mere distraction, like, "Sure, California is going bankrupt, but those drug dealers down the street are really terrible." My immediate mental response to this kind of "argument" is, "Sigh...yet another person who needs a symbolic logic course."
Anyway, below is an example of "what-aboutery," from an ordinarily very smart and witty person. I make a comment that government workers, including teachers, should view furlough days as necessary to prevent state employee layoffs. A state employee (and very well-respected former law school classmate) responds:
Teachers are not the culprits during these tough times, nor are government employees – except on the same level that all citizens of this nation are culpable for our years of willful ignorance.
Reflect on how we got into this mess. While you may consider anyone working outside the private sector as suckling at the public teat, your ire is misdirected: the biggest galactophages are those considered 'too big to fail.' How ironic that their peculiar form of 'socialism' is meant not to help the poor, but those who make Croesus appear the pauper. One wonders, how many teachers could have been paid a living wage out of the thinnest slice of that $700 billion wheel of government cheese?
The function of this government is not to drop and gobble when Wall Street snaps its fat fingers; to pay the rich and hope they pass the gristle down in the form of job creation and loans. (And Wall Street has shown it will not share: it has stopped lending, raised interest rates or retracted credit, and rewarded the destroyers for continuing the destruction.)
Properly, the function of this government is to allow its citizens the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education is the singular cornerstone upon which these rights of self-determination are built.
To place this in your terms, think of how many self-propelled and self-augmented small business owners could arise from all that learnin' those teachers would provide – should they be given the proper resources. You should encourage those having an employment that serves the people to do just that: serve the people; as opposed to your stance that some are suffering, ergo, all* must suffer. (*read, excepting Wall Street).
Here's my response:
Listen, I don't like Wall Street's excesses any more than you do--but I am not going to excuse out-of-control gov spending (80% increase in the past 10 yrs!) and unusual public sector benefits just because someone says, "What about Wall Street?"
You say that education is the cornerstone of fundamental rights. But no one is trying to separate children from an adequate education. (This is called a "straw man" argument.) In fact, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:
"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."
Instead, we are questioning why certain workers have guaranteed benefits while others do not. We are questioning why state workers have access to $201.9 billion in pension assets while 12% of the state is unemployed. [And far more people lack any substantial retirement plan beyond Social Security.] We are questioning why state spending has increased 80% in the past ten years without a concomitant increase in liberty, life expectancy, and happiness. We are questioning why state workers--such as yourself--are complaining about furlough days when such days are necessary to prevent layoffs.
We want government workers to be on the same level as the people who pay their salaries and benefits. Is that too much to ask?
His rebuttal:
I question why you think a government worker has no right to express frustration at the present situation. It does not serve the state of California to furlough revenue collecting agency employees: save $60 million, but lose out on $600 million in uncollected revenue.
But this discussion is about a teacher furlough. Yet you shortchange a student by giving him or her only 92% of the days to learn 100% of the curriculum and then send them off to compete on standardized tests against students from other states without the furlough.
My response to his rebuttal:
Finally, someone pulls out the "Think of the children!" rhetoric. You are assuming that children who receive seventeen fewer days of instruction will end up worse off. Quality matters more than quantity. Think about it--17 extra days with a crappy teacher will harm a child, not help him.
Also, parents and their expectations matter far more in establishing academic success than any particular teacher or length of instruction. There are exceptions, of course. For example, see The Hobart Shakespeareans. Note, however, that one reason this program works is b/c it is non-traditional and isolates highly motivated students. Unfortunately, such programs are rare exceptions, in part due to pushback from unions and public school teachers, who fail to advocate innovation and who refuse to accept competition from charter schools.
Bottom line: any gov worker who complains about furlough days either fails to understand basic finance (i.e., if an employer doesn't have money, it can't pay its workers) or prefers state employee layoffs.
I don't question gov workers' right to complain, but I wish gov employees could see the frustration in the private sector now that unemployment benefits are expiring. When 12% of Californians--almost all of them non-gov employees--are in danger of losing their homes and don't know whether they can feed their kids, complaining about an 8% to 14% pay cut seems obscene.
Quite frankly, gov unions should have volunteered for higher pay cuts instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Unfortunately, the Republicans/rich and the Democrats/gov unions put their own interests above the poor, the weak, and the disabled when they passed the budget. So much for public service.
His response:
What do you want? Everybody is frustrated. Should our employment go away, we are all in danger of losing our homes. Government unions did offer concessions, the contract did not pass the governor's desk. So rather than putting all on equal footing, the State has balanced the budget by targeting some state workers, as well as social service programs for the poor and underserved.
You speak of equal footing. How does working for the government place one on unequal footing? Should government workers to be allowed to accept gifts? Should they be allowed to invest, without disclosure, in any company they see fit? Should their salaries be made private and not published in the newspaper? Should they be allowed profit sharing and bonuses in good times? Make partner? Matching fund 401K plans? Should they go away on weekend 'team-building' retreats to Napa?
What do you want?
After ending the discussion by citing a Simpsons quote on unions, I sent him a message addressing his questions. Basically, I want a middle class (and a third viable political party).
Bonus: if you scroll down this post, you will find a discussion on the tragic Fort Hood shootings, where one person compares the shootings to 9/11, and I promptly expose her lack of reasoning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-a_b_185787.html
There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web. It is known as "what-aboutery."
When you have lost an argument -- when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it -- hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.
Or, as my friend Slawek says, "Just 'cause you punched someone in the face, it means you should kick him in the b*lls too?" In other words, mentioning something unrelated to the specific issue cannot make your proposal okay by default. In fact, that kind of discourse is a mere distraction, like, "Sure, California is going bankrupt, but those drug dealers down the street are really terrible." My immediate mental response to this kind of "argument" is, "Sigh...yet another person who needs a symbolic logic course."
Anyway, below is an example of "what-aboutery," from an ordinarily very smart and witty person. I make a comment that government workers, including teachers, should view furlough days as necessary to prevent state employee layoffs. A state employee (and very well-respected former law school classmate) responds:
Teachers are not the culprits during these tough times, nor are government employees – except on the same level that all citizens of this nation are culpable for our years of willful ignorance.
Reflect on how we got into this mess. While you may consider anyone working outside the private sector as suckling at the public teat, your ire is misdirected: the biggest galactophages are those considered 'too big to fail.' How ironic that their peculiar form of 'socialism' is meant not to help the poor, but those who make Croesus appear the pauper. One wonders, how many teachers could have been paid a living wage out of the thinnest slice of that $700 billion wheel of government cheese?
The function of this government is not to drop and gobble when Wall Street snaps its fat fingers; to pay the rich and hope they pass the gristle down in the form of job creation and loans. (And Wall Street has shown it will not share: it has stopped lending, raised interest rates or retracted credit, and rewarded the destroyers for continuing the destruction.)
Properly, the function of this government is to allow its citizens the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education is the singular cornerstone upon which these rights of self-determination are built.
To place this in your terms, think of how many self-propelled and self-augmented small business owners could arise from all that learnin' those teachers would provide – should they be given the proper resources. You should encourage those having an employment that serves the people to do just that: serve the people; as opposed to your stance that some are suffering, ergo, all* must suffer. (*read, excepting Wall Street).
Here's my response:
Listen, I don't like Wall Street's excesses any more than you do--but I am not going to excuse out-of-control gov spending (80% increase in the past 10 yrs!) and unusual public sector benefits just because someone says, "What about Wall Street?"
You say that education is the cornerstone of fundamental rights. But no one is trying to separate children from an adequate education. (This is called a "straw man" argument.) In fact, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:
"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."
Instead, we are questioning why certain workers have guaranteed benefits while others do not. We are questioning why state workers have access to $201.9 billion in pension assets while 12% of the state is unemployed. [And far more people lack any substantial retirement plan beyond Social Security.] We are questioning why state spending has increased 80% in the past ten years without a concomitant increase in liberty, life expectancy, and happiness. We are questioning why state workers--such as yourself--are complaining about furlough days when such days are necessary to prevent layoffs.
We want government workers to be on the same level as the people who pay their salaries and benefits. Is that too much to ask?
His rebuttal:
I question why you think a government worker has no right to express frustration at the present situation. It does not serve the state of California to furlough revenue collecting agency employees: save $60 million, but lose out on $600 million in uncollected revenue.
But this discussion is about a teacher furlough. Yet you shortchange a student by giving him or her only 92% of the days to learn 100% of the curriculum and then send them off to compete on standardized tests against students from other states without the furlough.
My response to his rebuttal:
Finally, someone pulls out the "Think of the children!" rhetoric. You are assuming that children who receive seventeen fewer days of instruction will end up worse off. Quality matters more than quantity. Think about it--17 extra days with a crappy teacher will harm a child, not help him.
Also, parents and their expectations matter far more in establishing academic success than any particular teacher or length of instruction. There are exceptions, of course. For example, see The Hobart Shakespeareans. Note, however, that one reason this program works is b/c it is non-traditional and isolates highly motivated students. Unfortunately, such programs are rare exceptions, in part due to pushback from unions and public school teachers, who fail to advocate innovation and who refuse to accept competition from charter schools.
Bottom line: any gov worker who complains about furlough days either fails to understand basic finance (i.e., if an employer doesn't have money, it can't pay its workers) or prefers state employee layoffs.
I don't question gov workers' right to complain, but I wish gov employees could see the frustration in the private sector now that unemployment benefits are expiring. When 12% of Californians--almost all of them non-gov employees--are in danger of losing their homes and don't know whether they can feed their kids, complaining about an 8% to 14% pay cut seems obscene.
Quite frankly, gov unions should have volunteered for higher pay cuts instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Unfortunately, the Republicans/rich and the Democrats/gov unions put their own interests above the poor, the weak, and the disabled when they passed the budget. So much for public service.
His response:
What do you want? Everybody is frustrated. Should our employment go away, we are all in danger of losing our homes. Government unions did offer concessions, the contract did not pass the governor's desk. So rather than putting all on equal footing, the State has balanced the budget by targeting some state workers, as well as social service programs for the poor and underserved.
You speak of equal footing. How does working for the government place one on unequal footing? Should government workers to be allowed to accept gifts? Should they be allowed to invest, without disclosure, in any company they see fit? Should their salaries be made private and not published in the newspaper? Should they be allowed profit sharing and bonuses in good times? Make partner? Matching fund 401K plans? Should they go away on weekend 'team-building' retreats to Napa?
What do you want?
After ending the discussion by citing a Simpsons quote on unions, I sent him a message addressing his questions. Basically, I want a middle class (and a third viable political party).
Bonus: if you scroll down this post, you will find a discussion on the tragic Fort Hood shootings, where one person compares the shootings to 9/11, and I promptly expose her lack of reasoning.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Furlough Days = No Mass Layoff Days
"Furlough" days would be a lot more popular if we called them by their proper name, i.e. "Thank God We Didn't Lay Off Thousands of Government Employee" Days. The state doesn't have the money to pay all of its bills, including employee salaries. When a business runs into this problem, they lay off workers. California, on the other hand, gives its workers three day weekends and avoids mass layoffs. Somehow, government workers find reasons to complain.
When California discovers a money tree that pays 100% of everyone's salaries regardless of the state's fiscal condition, let me know. Until then, hooray for furlough--I mean, no mass layoff days!
In the meantime, let's keep looking for the special government-salary-and-benefits-tree, where money drops out of out thin air, unrelated to the state's economy and actual tax revenue.
When California discovers a money tree that pays 100% of everyone's salaries regardless of the state's fiscal condition, let me know. Until then, hooray for furlough--I mean, no mass layoff days!
In the meantime, let's keep looking for the special government-salary-and-benefits-tree, where money drops out of out thin air, unrelated to the state's economy and actual tax revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)