The Kahli-fornia GREAT DEPRESSION of the Early 21st Century

44, no I wasn't aware of that. Dumb of me, particularly since I have a retired parent enjoying one of those lush state teacher pensions exactly as you've just described. Try to imagine an Illinois fiscal crisis deep enough to provoke a Constitutional Convention. Not out of the question at this point.

 

The problem with constitutional conventions is that they open whole documents up to change, not just one specific area.

So if they called a convention it might be a situation of "get in line".

 

This may be a first, but a bunch of us seem to agree.

Our (Cali) pension obligations are a serious problem, and frankly it is preposterous for taxpayers to continue to subsidize these excessive benefits that are unrealistic and unsustainable in the 21st century.

 

As a deputy sheriff in a large northern california county, I suggest the following:
First, this summer, layoff A LARGE portion of 3@50 staff. Run short for a year. Counties in particular are not responsible BYE LAW to provide patrol services. Let the painful surgery and recovery sink in. Second, change the law right after that THIS fall, to make ALL government pensions more employee contribution and less crazy retirement benefit heavy. Third, hire new classes of employees if you can. For our county, we need to go from full peace officer deputy sheriff to plain old sheriff's correctional officer. 1/2 to 1/3 the peace officer pay (it is now an employer's market- take the job, or NOT), less pension, and A LOT less money. Yes, I could be shooting myself in the proverbial foot, but this spending reduction has to start somewhere. For the old guys who are left over before they retire (me, or not me, depending on how far back layoffs go), cap the retirements at 80 or 90% MAX. I say 80%, because that is still waaaaaay better than private sector.

Here is my final point, and then I will go to bed: sure, I took the cop job because it was exciting, and the pay and benefits were great. Yes, I been bit, punched, kicked, spit-on, been called names, had to see some horrific stuff, and had to work with some craaaazy coworkers. But folks, I look at this now just like military service in the old days: I am doing my 20 years, and then I am OUT. I will have 60% of a FAT salary, and I will GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. I WILL NOT RETURN FOR A SECOND ROUND AT THE TROUGH. If everybody looked at government service like military service, we would NOT have so many people sticking around to MILK the system.

 

I agree with a lot of your post, except for the massive layoffs. Unemployment is high, the job market is weak, IMO it is not a great time to do this.

However, I do agree with everything else, particularly moving from defined benefits to defined contributions, and caping the defined benefits. One suggestion was 67%. I do think that benefits that have been promised should be followed through, but going forward things have to be changed, and changed asap.

 

While the layoffs are not going to help that, having the state hit bankruptcy is also going to be very problematic, and I would say would be more problematic than a rise in unemployment.

 

Well, it's definitely happening at the municipal level in San Francisco. This article here is from SF Weekly, a left-leaning free alternative paper that doesn't hold back from throwing punches at SF's city government. The article exposes SF's transit agency, MUNI, as having their pay compensation directly written into the SF City Charter (the city constitution):

Is there a way to fix these problems? Possibly ? but it won't be easy, and you'll have to withstand a lot of entrenched, well-funded antagonism. That's because Muni operators ? unlike every other union in the city ? have unaccountably had their pay rates locked into the City Charter, San Francisco's constitution. They're guaranteed the second-highest wages among comparable transit agencies in the nation, with a current base pay of just over $29 an hour. It also means drivers don't participate in collective bargaining ? again, unlike every other union in the city.

Granted, SF's usually unique even for California gridlock standards, but built-in pitfalls like this situation will only make it difficult, because the city & the mayor like to pride themselves on being good Progressives/Lefties, so they don't want to appear the least bit anti-union, even if the union contracts are crippling the city along with the usual financial morass.

And since many of these same city officials from SF, LA, SJ & elsewhere often go on to state-wide elective offices, getting them to change their tactics on these issues becomes really difficult, given their prior voting histories. And so on & so on...

 

An 80% salary cap would be sufficient. Once you hit 80% of yer top earning, that is it. And no more double dipping- let new young folks work. retired people go do other work than what you spend yer 20-25 years in. Go be a teacher, or start another career.