Shires writes: “Most public employees automatically receive a three to five percent “step” increase each year. The raises we hear discussed in the limited public releases about these negotiations are increases on top of these basic increases — the so called COLA or cost of living adjustment.

“For example, in Vallejo, a city which recently filed for bankruptcy protection, some unions were scheduled for 21 percent COLA increases over three years — on top of their regular step increases of 3-5 percent.

“These kinds of increases are unheard of in the private sector (try asking your boss for a 12 percent guaranteed raise for each of the next three years), but have become ubiquitous in California?s state and local governments.

“And this is just the salary portion of the conversation. Add on top of it full medical benefits for the rest of their lives, extensive overtime and an amazingly generous retirement system and you have a public finance system that is destined for bankruptcy — a destination rapidly approaching for the state and many local communities.

“While the result is shocking, the real failure is the secretive process that lead to it. The total lack of public information about these negotiation processes prevents the public from holding their elected officials accountable. Add in the fact that many of these very officials are elected due to major investments by these very employee unions (a topic for a later day), and you have a recipe for fiscal disaster. And taxpayers across the state are about to taste the fruits of that recipe.”

KICKER

SFGATE: Californians pessimistic about budget fix

Some excerpts:

- The state’s financial statements describe where the money went — the big gainers were education ($13 billion), transportation ($10 billion) and health ($10 billion) — but not why these billions don’t create even a blip on our day-to-day radar.

- How many Californians know that public school teachers in the state earn an average of $59,000 a year, essentially tied with Connecticut for the highest average pay in the country?

- The highly progressive nature of the state’s income tax schedule — the top 10% of earners supply more than 70% of income tax revenue, according to one estimate — already results in excessive revenue volatility. It also raises questions about how much redistribution of wealth is fair: Should the top 10% foot the bill for basic services enjoyed by all Californians?

- Voters are criticized for wanting more services yet being unwilling to pay higher taxes. That is unfair; Californians have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to fund valuable programs. But if spending can go up 40% and most of us can’t discern any difference, can we blame voters for being hesitant to put even more tax money in the hands of the state?

Next Ten offers an online simulation of the supposed choices current legislators have to solve the California budget stalemate in Sacramento. It’s an interesting process and worth ten minutes of your time. But don’t expect too sophisticated a model. Many of the questions are over simplistic and paint you into some corner or another. Like when you are faced with reducing education by 10 percent, it gives you only the insane choices available today and no outside the box thinking like fund every child the same and let parents choose education for their children…something simple like that to reduce the state education bureaucracy over five years. Oh no. Just forget it.

And the choices about whether to reduce spending by devolving prison guard duties for low-level prisoners to County Sheriff departments was absurd for it never addressed whether such a mandate would include funding for counties…most likely not if recent history is any indication. The spending choices about the gas tax and global warming spending in California beyond AB32 (no, you don’t get to repeal AB-32) were bizarre to say the least.

Still, like the real thing, it is what it is. That said, CBC offers a fairly clear process; you get a running tally of your choices compared the actual budget. But what is actual anymore when we learned last week that California paid almost $4B more than it thought it had? Good grief.

The problem with promotions like CBC is, that in the end, it all really is a cynical exercise.

The State Assembly will never listen to you when they can listen to special interests that pay their campaign expenses.

Is this going to be the year when true leadership prevails and our representative’s get down to the business of solving our financial problems?

Not a chance.

The Governor has again failed to propose a balanced budget and instead is relying on more borrowing.

Democrats just unveiled their budget and proposal for nearly 10 billion dollars in tax increases.

Republicans haven’t revealed their budget vision other than saying they want to cut but as usual, and fail to specify exactly what and how much they would cut.

All sides have and continue to miss a key element in the budget debate which is before discussing tax increases or cuts, shouldn’t we first be looking at our current spending and decide if it’s delivering tangible benefits?

While in the legislature, I proposed that the first year of each two year session be devoted to budget and budget oversight. It would have set aside time and resources to allow a comprehensive evaluation of programs, most of which have never faced legislative or even departmental scrutiny.

Unfortunately taking the time to accomplish this kind of evaluation is hard, tedious work requiring real effort, study and not a lot of press hype. As you can imagine, my proposal lasted just long enough for the ink on the bill to dry before landing in the legislative round file.

As it stands, only a small handful of leadership and staff spend any time on the budget and an even smaller number make the real decisions. When a deal is struck members are summoned into caucus and told how to vote without having a clue as to what the budget bills contain. The budget, rather than reflecting the values of the Governor or Legislature, is more representative of the power of special interest groups to carve out parts reflecting their narrow agendas.

It is easy to fall back on the old refrains of tax more or spend less. It’s much much harder to decide if it’s worth spending billions on one program vs. another, each one carrying its own constituency and potential supporters or opponents.

It is past time to take a comprehensive look at how our State runs its finances. But our very first step, just as you would with your own household, is to figure out where the money you’re already bringing in is going and whether it’s worth the expense.

With an eye toward similar potential disaster in Contra Costa County, some wonder if it’s even possible to void such contracts. One observer opined that pro-union Democrat legislators have helped install safeguards against such
action, while another informed source quoted the California League of Cities, saying it was possible.

Meanwhile, an Open Letter that appeared in a recent edition
of Police Pay Journal, defends firefighters and police against poor municipal management and bad PR.

According to far flung reports around the world, “Fearful of contagion, municipal officials across the US are looking with nervousness at the precedent-setting experience of Vallejo, a city of about 120,000 people, 30 miles north of San Francisco. in a region that was once synonymous with economic prosperity”.

Indeed, Vallejo’s motto was and may yet be,”City of Opportunity.”

The “No More Taxes - We Are Taxed To The Max” action was sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. Thanks to Phyllis Stout, president of the Lamorinda Women, who used her one phone call from the Sacramento Police Department’s general booking station for the report and picture, and cell mate, Kris Hunt, for helping to organize the breakout back to Contra Costa County. What resourceful ladies!

In her letter to the Sheriff dated January 28, 2008, Supervisor Piepho requested increased Sheriff patrols in the Knightsen/Discovery area of the county due to a recent spate of burglaries. In a February 14 Valentine’s Day reply, Sheriff Rupf explains that while the department wants nothing more than to insure safety in those communities, the department, for the past two years, has been unable to convince the BOS to maintain public safety funding levels, and that the BOS has cut law enforcement by $2-million.