Is There Life After Dog?
WHEN SMOKE GETS IN YER EYES:
Thursday, September 2, 2010
WHEN SMOKE GETS IN YER EYES: Like many a sentient soul, I find myself disturbed by the emerging politics of rage and bitterness sparked by recent reports of overpaid government employees who get to retire at the age of 50 and get paid nearly their full salary — and medical benefits — to do nothing but golf — or move to Idaho and fish — ’til their last dying gasp. Bitterness, I discovered, causes premature wrinkles. I much prefer envy and jealousy instead. There’s less wear and tear on the soul. When I hear about top managers at the City of Bell, for example, taking down $1.5-million-a-year salaries and bennies, it never occurs to me to demand — voice quavering with righteous indignation — “How dare they?” Rather, I want to know what line I need to stand in to get some of the same. Likewise for the head honcho at the City of Vernon, who makes $1.6 million a year to run a city of just 91 people. Vernon, of course, is a special case. It’s where the bodies of dead skunks and raccoons — not to mention all the millions of euthanized dogs and cats — are sent to be transformed into the emulsified fats used to make lipstick and other necessary beauty products at one of Vernon’s many rendering plants. It’s where dead car batteries will continue to go until the Chinese figure out how to fashion them into children’s toys. And it’s where they make Dodger Dogs, certainly on everybody’s Top 10 list of quintessential California inventions. Special responsibilities like these demand special compensation.
Angry Poodle
There are times, I admit, when grumpiness manages to creep in anyway. Last Thursday, I spent an hour and 45 minutes listening to Peter Donahue, an economist hired by the Police Officers Association (POA), explain how Jim Armstrong, Jefe del Mundo for the City of Santa Barbara, managed to hide $116 million of tax payer money that could otherwise be spent paying cops’ salaries, benefits, overtime, and retirement. Like every other bargaining unit, the cops — most of whom make more than $100,000 a year — are being asked to take a pay cut to help out with city hall’s ongoing budget crisis. Very understandably, they don’t want to. But unlike every other union representing city employees — which have either accepted 6-percent pay cuts or are about to — the cops are insisting the budget crisis is a total fabrication, a figment of Armstrong’s Machiavellian imagination. There were a couple of key asterisks to this astonishing revelation. Donahue admitted he didn’t have city hall’s most recent financial data yet, so any final conclusions, he conceded, were still premature. In other words, Donahue spent 105 minutes telling me and a handful of other reporters assembled at the DoubleTree exactly the same speculative mumbo-jumbo he’d told us at another edifying event held three months earlier. If you’re going to blow smoke up my rectum, make sure tutti-frutti colored smoke rings come out my mouth. I know how to waste time on my own; unsolicited help, I don’t need.
I left the POA dog ’n’ pony show sufficiently bugged that I shined on a dueling canine-equine celebration hosted by Armstrong later that day for the edification of city councilmembers and insomniacs who could endure a scintillating disquisition on the salaries and retirement paid to city hall employees. Turns out maybe I should have gone. The punch line is that city hall will have to spend up to $4 million more next year on its employee retirement funds as part of a delayed aftershock caused by the stock market meltdown of 2009. That means more than 20 percent of the city’s general fund — which pays for cops, firefighters, parks, and libraries, among other things — will be spent on retirement. That’s up from about 17 percent now. It turns out that most city workers pay something into their own retirement funds. Cops and firefighters don’t pay a dime. That’s in deference to the jobs they do. And it’s a function of the political muscle of the respective unions. As a result, a paper-pusher making $100,000 a year costs city hall — and the taxpayers — $20,000 a year in retirement. Retirement for a cop or firefighter making the same amount costs city hall $40,000 a year. No wonder the perfidious Armstrong is pushing the POA — and the firefighters — to shoulder a portion of their retirement cost. No wonder the POA is pushing back.
In years past, nobody but cranky Cassandras and crusty old Republicans talked about public pensions. For good reason. The subject is too boring for words. Given that $200 billion — and the economic future of a whole lot of people — is directly tied up in California’s biggest pension program, a k a CalPERS — maybe it’s time we weathered the boredom. To get the conversation started, we can thank Alfred Villalobos, the former CalPERS boardmember, now being sued by Attorney General Jerry Brown — isn’t he running for governor? — for bribing CalPERS investment advisors with around-the-world luxury junkets to direct funds into the accounts of Villalobos’s clients. It turns out such junkets are so common place that CalPERS employees no longer feel the need to report them, even though state law mandates any gift larger than $50 be itemized in public documents. Brown is demanding that Villalobos — who earned $50- million commissions from investment houses seeking CalPERS business — pay $95 million in restitution. Villalobos responded by filing for bankruptcy, noting in his forms that he lost $5 million betting in Las Vegas casinos. The Los Angeles Times reported that an associate of Villalobos and a former CalPERS boardmember, Charles Valdes, refused to answer questions under oath 126 times — citing his fifth-amendment privilege not to incriminate himself — when questioned by state attorneys working for Brown. Now, that’s not boring.
In the meantime, I’m hoping — for all our sakes — that Peter Donahue is right and that the sneaky Jim Armstrong has squirreled away enough money that all city employees can transition into their Golden Years assisted by platinum retirement benefits. Unlike most city employees, who can retire at 55 — or cops and fire fighters, who can retire at 50 — I will be working ’til I’m 66. That’s when I can start dipping into what’s left of my Social Security account. Failing that, maybe I’ll join the ranks of geriatric desperados who sign up for the 357 retirement plan, named after the caliber of handgun needed to persuade 7-11 counter clerks to part with their proceeds. The good news, of course, is that will make plenty of work for cops.
Related Links
Comments
A question that makes government squirm is what does the "Comprehensive Audited Financial Statement" say about City and County "Investments" held over time, invested surpluses from bountiful years. We only get the "Budget with current taxes and fees" revenue sources. The investments are left out! Anybody out there know the answer?
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think the wage, retirement and benefit package for the SBPD is out of line considering what they do and that they're dealing with us in bad situations. I do resent the political influence inflicted by the SBPD at election time and their lobbying slants the council toward an increasingly trite and ordinary council and hence and ordinary community.
But the PR Store owner's produce a public relations show On Patrol that unwittingly reveals character flaws with the SBPD. It also reveals conflicts of interests. And they just can't keep up with all the crime in this tiny little peace-less town that the conflicted SBPD seemingly lobbies for. I am beginning to think that we may need to, like other labor look toward technology for efficiencies that reduce the numbers of SBPD required and thus reducing costs. Reducing the number of bars and nightclubs in the blighted area of downtown would also be of the greatest importance in reducing all sorts of law enforcement costs including detective, court and jail costs.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm the crusty, old Republican and yes, I lost the election, but I've raised and studied the pension and budget issues for years and know whereof I bark. Glad that the populace is awakening. Next will be a tax increase so they can build a jail, keeping their benefits of course.
drdan93109 (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
drdan93109 as well as the conservative taxpayer associations, our local c.o.l.a.b. and industrial type associations have been crying wolf for decades.
So now, after divisive and conservative ideologues (especially crusty old republicans) pop the world's financial bubble; after just 8 years of unnecessary idiotic wars, financial mismanagement and lack of oversight of the financial markets; the bubble has burst.
And now you want everyone at the lower end of the social strata to take a hit. You want further contraction? That will surely ensure even further financial turmoil. So the question is why do you want this disaster capitalism? Why do you like having everyone at each other's throats? Why are you so crusty? Why are you so mean?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So does this mean I no longer have to hear about how public employees are paid below market rates, thus necessitating an extremely generous retirement package?
And could someone please explain why these employees are allowed to retire with full benefits at age 50? Do they become useless after that and this is simply the equivalent of putting them out to pasture? We're always hearing how hard it is to fill these positions (and, thus, the need to pay them so much). I'm guessing that if you raise the retirement age to 60, you'll find there are a whole lot more police officers than available positions.
WilliamMunny (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well if we're going to have means test for pay and benefits or a litmus testing scheme let us start with CEOs, Wall Street and the Top 2%. Really it is just a 10 hour day for everyone isn't it?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as each of use lives there will be those who do better than we do by either luck or effort or talent. Then there are those who do not do as well as we do, but seem to glean a measure more than their share of happiness from life. Where did I go wrong? Was it a failure of effort, of judgment, or just that fickle luck abandoned me? In the end, it is common to feel the bitterness of envy. Envy is such a bitter emotion because it is leavened with self loathing.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Cheap Labor Conservatives"
• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".
• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".
• Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.
• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".
• Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".
• Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
chuckUfarley (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice post "chuckU": those words were smart when they were written in 2004, and remains so today. Maybe it will catch on after six years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
binky (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee Binkers, those words even if they were written 50 or 100 years ago are still very relevant and accurate today. Do they bother you somehow? Do you not agree with them? I hope the answer is yes to both, and you probably thought I didn't care what you think did ya?
chuckUfarley (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In case my writing wasn't clear, I was sincere when I said your post was "nice" and the words you quoted were "smart."
Joe Lyles's trope was as spot on in 2004 as today; the primary reason for my previous post was to give credit to the guy who coined 'cheap-labor conservative,' and an shout out to your good taste in cutting and pasting.
binky (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eckerdude,
Nice fortune cooky philosophy. It brought tears of self loathing to my grinch like heart.
Some of us however aren't so emotionally judgemental and see clearly that the hyper inflated compensation of gov't workers is causing a devasting effect on the the social contract between the taxpaying public and local/state gov't.
So many people decry the lack of police yet ignore the fact that we could have a lot more police on the street if we cut the cost of each by 30%.
Why can't the gov't force a tier system like the airlines did to counter the fat union pilot paychecks. Make these cops work for 50K for five years than 75K for five years and then maybe they will have earned a fat retirement...
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yeah, nice post chuck...
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sa1; if you did what you suggest private sector wages would also be devalued. Are you also ready to take a pay cut? Tier systems create internal problems between the tiered ranks. So be careful if that is what you wish for.
Also, I do agree that the public is being stirred up. But we should not be stirred up at negotiated union wage earners whether public or private. It would be better to direct your devastation towards those that are responsible for the bubble and those with the pin that popped the bubble. For those in control in the upper 2% the goal is cheap labor whether public or private.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sa1, the social contract is not broken. Every increase in public sector wages and pension benefits was done by duly elected officials in open meetings. Did you you go to the meetings and complain? Probably not. I agree that elected officials got so excited during the stock market bubble that they wet themselves giving public safety members (and to a lesser extent general members) enhanced retirement benefits without providing any solid mechanism to pay for them. The stock market was going to take us all, public and private workers alike, to the big rock candy mountain. Now the contract is with the folks who have based their employment decisions on the promise of a decent retirement. Changing that mid-stream would be really breaking a social contract. Finally, all this hullaballoo about public sector pensions is based on exposure to the extreme cases. If you look at the average (or even median) public sector pension being paid out today, it is quite modest. In the end there will be two retirement systems in the public sector: the old one for existing employees and a new one for new employees in which they pay at least half of their pension program contributions. That is inevitable. Be happy.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Speaking of social contracts like Social Security; it is important to point out that in many states government employees like teachers and administrators only qualify for private insurance plans such as CalPERS. They do not qualify for social security unless they contributed from other work or under other specific spousal benefits (usually involving disability or death.)
Without any substantiation; it could be that these Roosevelt "New Deal "social contracts" as well as managed private contracts are assisting in keeping our economy at above depression level. Unless we allow petty regressive actions requiring more contraction then these social contracts could substantiate even further the effectiveness or the intent of their implementation. And conservatives don't want to hear this and again are stirring up all this hate, envy, dragging people down, rather than participating in means to lift everyone up. It is as if they won't be happy until we see mile long soup kitchen lines.
Grandpa and grandma with these social and private contracts are assisting the economy and family.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ChuckUFarley has officially been "binked".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
E, you of all posters remember I brought this wage disparity subject years ago at Blogabarbara. It is only now that people are finaling waking up to the fact that their taxes are being drained away for unproductive inefficeint handling by the gov't labor force. Wage and salary negotiations are not held in public meetings E, They are presented as fait accompli as a budget line item mostly hidden from scrutiny.
I think the historicaly low rating for Congress and all the benefit, education and infrastructure cuts are indicative of the failure of local and state gov't oaths to serve and protect the interests of the public.
They don't qualify for SS because they don't pay into the system Don. They also get an incomprehensibly large payou magnitudes above the SS payments starting at ridiculously young ages. What justification could there possibly be for this largesse? The only answer is the ability to buy large voting blocks from the public employee unions at the expenses of a properly run gov't.
I consider the actions treasoness and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Have to give you your due sa1, I recall our little debates over in Blogabarbara. Looks like neither one of us has changed her or his mind. Still, posting one's gripes on a blog does not substitute for making public comment at city council or board of supervisors meetings. Treason is pretty serious lable to place on bad administration. Treason implies some kind of intentional conspiracy. In this case, we just had a bunch of stupid (no experience necessary!) elected officials believe an actuary who told them that the stock market was going to defy gravity and continue to rise at 8% per year forever. I believe that it was Napolean who offered the advice to "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't sell short the power of exchange of ideas--even if it is just on a blog Eckermann. I say this because intelligent posts make people think.
Lots of people read these comments. The blogesphere is a potentially powerful tool and while it may not equal being in front of the various councils, it still is a threat to the status quo who would rather see the unwashed masses remain ignorant.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2010 at 2:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Far be it for me to disrespect the blogs. I post on them enough. And billclausen, I agree with you that blogs are a decent forum for the exchange of ideas. That stipulated however, the status quo is more appropriately challenged at the public meetings where the public's business is carried out. Some folks may think that everything in the public sector is accomplished in secret meetings between sinister bureaucrats behind closed doors. But actually it all happens in a very public and very boring meetings that often require one to dedicate 8 to 10 hours of waiting just to comment on the issue of interest. The ignorance of the unwashed masses is more often than not an ignorance of choice produced by laziness, languor, and ennui.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
E, you're killin me
Unwashed masses...ennui? Really?
What neighborhood do you live in? Banlieue?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2010 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sa1, it's unclear which reference you are implying by your use of the term "Banlieue." Are you refering to the traditional French use of the term, meaning "suburbs?" Or are you applying the more modern use of the term, meaning "low income project housing?" It's hard to tell what counts as suburbs in Santa Barbara County since the whole place could be considered a suburb of LA. And, by the grace of good fortune, a little hard work, and a couple of random but well-timed decisions in the past, I don't live in the projects. Sorry about the my use of the term "unwashed masses, " I was quoting billclausen. Quoting a disparaging term is still bad and I should have been more polite. I'll stick by ennui though. Apparently TV has done its job in creating a widespread lassitude and civic ambivalence.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2010 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo, Angry Poodle: Nice expose on public pensions. Let's hope something is done about this and other government extravagances before your SS retirement goal post is moved far beyond age 66. Meanwhile..be self sufficient..don't depend on anything the government promises.
skcyclist (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2010 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo skcyclist; The best way to keep pensions, 401ks, IRAs and SS solvent is to keep these phony conservatives out of the majority in congress. Remember the Bush dog and pony show, wanting to privatize S.S. and have all your retirement in the market. S.S. is an insurance policy and can pay all of it's obligations through to the year 2039. It may need some fudging then but it's really part of a diversified retirement plan.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2010 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo, I'm smackin' it down with my homies Don McD and cycle boy keepin' in real. Don't want no on wee to take over the hood.
Peace out peeps, later dude.
sixdolphins (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2010 at 5:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)