More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Joseph A. Palermo

Joseph A. Palermo

Posted: July 13, 2010 03:35 AM

Class Warfare Heats Up in California

What's Your Reaction:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently submitted a "budget" to the Legislature that eliminates CalWORKS, the state's highly successful welfare-to-work program that is needed now more than ever. This move would make California the only state in the nation to dismantle its safety net. He's even willing to throw away the federal matching funds CalWORKS receives and to toss 1 million children (who make up about 76 percent of the program) into desperate poverty.

Destroying the state's only work-training program in a period of 12.5 percent unemployment and record home foreclosures might sound pretty extreme but Schwarzenegger still enjoys press coverage that paints him as a "moderate," most recently in the form of a 1,200-word love letter by Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times. If any journalist bothers to look at his record it should be clear that Schwarzenegger doesn't really believe in the public sector. He has repeatedly said that government cannot do anything worthwhile for society. He was a cheerleader for the Bush-Cheney policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. He has recklessly held the state's budget hostage to ram through policies that won't take effect until long after he exits the stage, policies which have virtually no support outside his coterie of sycophants.

No California governor, not Ronald Reagan, not George Deukmejian, not Pete Wilson, has so bludgeoned the state's employees. After "furloughing" public workers, which was the equivalent of a 14 percent pay cut, Schwarzenegger's latest gambit is to cut their pay down to the level of the federal minimum wage, which is lower than California's. Schwarzenegger is so committed to this abuse that he is literally going to court to force the State Controller John Chiang to comply. Chiang has been trying to reason with the extremists who run the governor's office that it's technically impossible to implement the plan given the state's decrepit computerized payroll system and that the action would also violate federal labor law. Undeterred, Schwarzenegger pushes on without any rational purpose (since it will end up costing the state more in the long run), and without any concern for the lives of 200,000 hard-working Californians who, through no fault of there own, find themselves once again in Schwarzenegger's cross-hairs. It's nothing more than holding state workers hostage to extort Democratic legislators into doing his bidding.

The Democratic "leaders" in Sacramento during Schwarzenegger's reign continue to capitulate to him. From Don Perata to Darrell Steinberg to Fabian Nunez to Karen Bass to John Perez - all of them have failed the voters who elected them; they've failed to be advocates for their core supporters; and they've failed to stand up and show some guts when the time called for it.

Because the Legislature must produce a "supermajority" of 67 percent to pass a budget, a tiny and irresponsible Republican minority has just enough seats to block any budget it doesn't like - which is any budget that is protective of public institutions. Schwarzenegger then uses his executive control over the Legislature to make insane demands like eliminating welfare and impoverishing the state's public sector workforce. A phony "standoff" ensues until Democratic "leaders" come crawling on their hands and knees, which they always do, only to seal themselves off behind closed doors to "negotiate" a budget. When they emerge from the governor's office the result is always the same: the public sector gets fleeced again. Each year at budget time, Schwarzenegger divides and conquers the Democrats' political base by pitting public employee unions and other liberal advocacy groups against each other. He is currently once again terrorizing state workers and their families to get changes in the way their pension plan is managed that would not take effect until years from now, long after he is back home in his Jacuzzi smoking his pricey cigars.

All of this pain and suffering inflicted on the people who work for the Great State of California is so that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, about 150,000 individuals, who have nearly doubled their share of the state's total income since 1993, don't have to pay any additional taxes. It's class warfare. Twenty years of privatizing and deregulating have resulted not only in the putrefaction of California's public institutions, but also the hardening of class lines and the cementing of an oligarchy.

In a real democratic republic - res-publica - the Democrats who hold solid majorities in both chambers of the Legislature would produce their own budget, even an ersatz one, and then send it to the governor for his signature or veto. They could send him virtually the same budget over and over again for a period of days, weeks, or months. Headlines would read: "Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes Another Budget," followed by op-eds asking: "Why Doesn't Schwarzenegger Compromise?" Let the Governor veto the budget a thousand times. Each time the Democratic leaders could tell the press how "disappointed" they are with his intransigence. The Democrats could also highlight the pain and suffering - even in the private sector - that Schwarzenegger's budget extremism has caused. Instead, the Democratic "leaders" choose to go behind closed doors in the governor's office where they always get taken for a ride. That's a hell of a way to run the world's eighth largest economy with a population larger than Canada's. It's ironic that President Obama has gone to great lengths to cultivate mutually beneficial economic ties with the G-20 nations while this nation passively sits by and watches as California drops into the Pacific Ocean.

If we're going to have a form of corporate feudalism in California then we might as well turn over the reins of power to a real monarch. The billionaire CEO princess, Meg Whitman, who wants to be governor as a steppingstone toward becoming the first woman president, is perfect for that regal distinction. She has already spent over $90 million of her own money to buy the governorship. And it looks like she bribed one of the nation's top Republican strategists, Michael Murphy, to join her campaign with a million dollar "investment" in his production company. Her Majesty is currently running a slick TV commercial attacking her opponent, Attorney General Jerry Brown, which has the production qualities of a Pepsi Cola campaign. Whitman wants to fire 40,000 state workers, hack off another $15 billion from the budget, privatize government services including the pension plan, and lavish more tax cuts on big corporations and her rich Republican friends. In addition to her hit pieces on Brown, Whitman is also running what the advertising executives on the "Tuesday Team" of Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign used to call "feel-good ads." We see wind turbines and redwood forests, beaches and exciting cityscapes, with Meg in soft-focus sharing with her subjects (in an intimate setting) a string of saccharine Reaganisms. She very well could be the next governor of California.

 
 
 

Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A

 
 
  • Comments
  • 150
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
WASanford
I think, therefore I am mad as hell!
10:41 AM on 07/17/2010
"Whitman is also running what the advertising executives on the "Tuesday Team" of Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign used to call "feel-good ads." We see wind turbines and redwood forests, beaches and exciting cityscapes, with Meg in soft-focus sharing with her subjects (in an intimate setting) a string of saccharine Reaganisms. She very well could be the next governor of California."

And I may, for the first time in my life have to move from California. Much of the damage that's already been done to our society may well prove to be unrepairable. As our millionaires and billionaires decimate our state for their own advantage, they've sapped the life from our economy. They've left us with the third highest unemployment rate in the nation, and Whitman only promises to add to it even while she promises us "jobs." I've taken that to mean the job she intends to do on the rest of us.

There is a proposition on this November's ballot that will do away with the super-majority requirement to pass this state's budget. If you live in California, please vote! And vote for that proposition. That will effect at least a partial solution to one of California's worst problems.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
07:24 PM on 07/15/2010
Yes, and supposedly Darrell Steinberg is "negotiating" with the Republicans right now! I wonder what permanent changes he's going to give away to get a temporary budget passed this time around?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
12:51 AM on 07/15/2010
The fact that all that is needed is control of one-third plus one seat in either chamber of the Legislature to block any new revenues puts a straight jacket on the state's ability to deal with its pressing needs -- the result has been and will continue to be (until people wake up) the long-term deterioration of the public sector, a lowering of our expectations and standards and the possibilities for improving anything, there is no such thing as Arnold's "day of reckoning" -- the deficits are structural and it's largely because of a system of minority control -- Arnold blew a $6 billion hole in the budget when he blocked the car tax in 2003 -- and that's when the economy was relatively okay. The gridlock of the state government is what has given this wealthy state a low bond rating.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
06:57 AM on 07/15/2010
The fact is also that "minority control" is contained in Prop 13. The legislature can put a repeal of 13 on the ballot and the voters can repeal it, both by simple majorities. It's always been available, but people keep repeating the same thing over and over.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
09:40 PM on 07/14/2010
This shouldn't be a surprise in a state where being in a union is seen as the equivalent as being a communist. What's sad is that it's many democrats that are starting to take-on the politically popular anti-union movement.
08:52 PM on 07/14/2010
If the governor's purpose was to trim expenses, he should have told the agencies last year to trim their budgets by 20% and let them do it. On top of that, the unions were ready to negotiate a furlough program, but he was unwilling to work with them. Instead, we took a 15% hit, while the state continued to hire, as well as write contracts to complete the work furloughed employees couldn't keep up with. NO money was saved. Pensions are NOT responsible for the current deficit and slicing them won't fix it; that is long-term issue that needs to be negotiated as part of total compensation for state employees.

I, for one, would love to be brought up to the pay standards for Federal employees doing similar work, much less the private sector norms. Instead, I'm looking to leave. Talented people are leaving state service in droves, and technical positions are going begging for lack of qualified applicants. You get what you pay for.

Joseph is right, Arnold is conducting class warfare -- with a calculator. And it's not just public sector employees who will lose in the long run; it is all middle and working class Californians.
09:25 PM on 07/14/2010
Grace,
I hate to confuse you with logic and factual information.But,a couple of points should help you be a little more accurate.
1) The governor doesn't make the budget. he ccan't proclaim a 20 % or any other % cut.
2)Calpers is promised an *% increase on pension funds /year. If the investments don't produce this , taxpayers must make up the difference.
Does this change your views?
01:04 AM on 07/15/2010
Actually, the governor has authority to issue executive orders to enact budget cutting measures such as hiring freezes, layoffs, and spending cuts. This is above and beyond the yearly budget cycle for which he submits draft budgets to the legislature. Here's an example:
http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/executive-order/10333/

Projections for Calpers vary widely depending on who is making the projection. IOW, no one knows how market forces will shake out in the years to come. The point is that for many years employees were given retirement benefits in lieu of salary increases, as the state thought the boom would go on forever and such benefits were essentially free. Now, for many job categories, salaries are a third or more below what federal and local government pays, never mind the private sector. It pension promises are rolled back too, without adjusting salaries, qualified employees will leave and not be replaceable. This is already happening, and promises to get worse. Good luck finding attorneys, scientists, engineers, etc..

Facts and logic are good things. You should try them.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:12 PM on 07/14/2010
Problem solved: move to Louisiana
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:11 PM on 07/14/2010
Can the people who hate taxes and the state government so much just move to another state? Arthur Laffer moved to Tennessee because he said the taxes in CA were too high -- please, just move to Tennessee or Louisiana -- Bobby Jindahl doesn't tax much!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:10 PM on 07/14/2010
The trolls don't want to admit that it was their vaunted PRIVATE SECTOR that produced the crisis in the first place -- My friends, CA doesn't have a 12.5 percent unemployment rate because of something that Sacramento did, get it?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
12:59 PM on 07/14/2010
Over taxed? Does that apply to Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, PepsiCo, and other giant corporations the GOP is so dedicated to protecting? Does anyone think these corporations are paying their fair share? And does anybody think they would dump a market of 40 million consumers if they got taxed a little more? Give me a break. Calculating taxes while leaving out corporations is pretty incomplete, no?
01:06 PM on 07/14/2010
No, they would not "dump" this market, but they have to earn a certain return on capital so they would fire a few employees and raise prices on products.
04:44 PM on 07/14/2010
Joseph,
The highly talented people are already leaving California. You don't have to urge them.In Larry Niven's "Warlock' stories he postulates a small fall in IQ as smart people leave an area.
But, ignore this.Find a conspiracy.Those 'smart people" should at least be heavily fined for trying to leave.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
05:18 PM on 07/14/2010
I think it's great because we need fewer people here anyway -- good riddance, "smart" or otherwise --
08:03 PM on 07/13/2010
California remains in the top ten states in taxation. It is the spending that has gotten out of control:

1983-84 - Budget $26.8 billion (Population 26 million) $1000/person

2006-07 - Budget $131.4 billion (Population 36 million) $3,600/person

So the budget & spending has increased 5 fold, the people paying in hasn't even doubled. Inflation has an effect but it is swamped by the increased per capita spending

Put on top of that the 12,000 state and local employees who have over $100,000 in pension payments (increasing at a rapid rate) and we are Greece.

Maybe we need a proposition to tax state pension payments.
photo
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
08:48 AM on 07/14/2010
It's always a good time to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class huh?
01:31 PM on 07/27/2010
It is not good to balance the budget on the poor and CA would continue to have among the best benefits in the country. The fact remains that government spending (from whatever source) in CA has gone up much faster than income and population...and few people feel that things are better. The state ranks in the top ten in taxes. So how the state spends its money is a problem.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
12:57 PM on 07/14/2010
Do your "per person" include PepsiCo, ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, PG & E, and all the other giant corporations you tax hating Republicans love so much?
06:11 PM on 07/13/2010
He seems to be the Republican stalking horse for testing union busting. Suddenly, CALPERS, the largest retirement plan in the country (except possibly for the feds) is somehow "unfunded." This absurd accusation is based on continually lowering projected rates of return, thereby requiring larger and larger amounts of capital. Arnold's been quoting "studies" saying PERS should be based on a 3.3% return - when T bills pay more than that. It's ridiculous. Now he's trying to crush state workers. Most of the more educated/professional staff are way behind private salaries. Nurse practiioners top out at the state at what private industry starts for salaries. Engineers, accountants, attorneys, and other professionals are similarly way below private sector and below a lot of counties as well.

The problem with the state is the minority Republicans. You think they're obstructionist in Congress? You ain't seen nothing until you've seen Cal Reps annual "block the budget" debacle. They are why CA is almost ungovernable. The majority of citizens want a state government that actually provides services, the minority Republicans want to dismantle state governtment, and the minority has the power when it comes to the budget.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
06:28 PM on 07/13/2010
Same old same old. All you have to do to get rid of that two thirds vote on the budget is repeal Prop 13. The legislature puts it on the ballot, and the voters repeal it, both by simple majorities. I see this same thing repeated so many times. If you want to get rid of it, you can. It's very simple. But the thing is the voters don't want to. Your comment?
11:42 PM on 07/24/2010
What is the requirement in both legislative houses to change tax laws, such as repealing Prop 13? I suspect the 2/3 vote for any tax increase provisions of prop 13 would apply. Do you have any authority either way?
08:01 PM on 07/13/2010
The 10 year treasury closed today at 3.13%. In addition, if you wanted a risk free (the pension liabilities are codified into the state constitution) investment, you would invest in US treasuries, so the concept of discounting the pension obligations along the treasury curve makes total sense. In fact, if we had done that 10 years ago when the Democrats that controlled the state assembly and governor Davis gave the public employee unions their huge pension increases (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_12047973?nclick_check=1 ), we would not be here today.

We under funded the pensions for years and the moment the stock market (it is all Wall street’s fault) did not provide the 8% each year required to make the numbers work, it all goes down the drain, just like economists have been predicting for years. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to earn 8% a year risk free?! The assumptions were ludicrous but were used because the politicians could get campaign donations (bribes) without showing the taxpayer the true cost. Both the Republicans and the Democrats in the state have been living off the donations for years.

It is crazy that the union is allowed to bribe the politician who pockets the cash. They politician then spends taxpayer money to pay off the bribe. And you know the union would only do it if the bribe is less than the pay off. Taxpayer loses.
05:29 PM on 07/13/2010
The pesky little problem is california has a 19 BILLION dollar deficit but of course that's no reason to slash spending.
06:14 PM on 07/13/2010
It has been slashed. Three years ago general fund spending was 110 billion. Last year it was 80 billion. But no one wants to cut education, health services, or public safety - but that's 80% of the budget. Add in bond interest and you're at almost 90% of the budget. So what do you want to "slash"?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wendy Johnson
08:38 PM on 07/13/2010
Your argument works just as well for raising taxes as well. A well-directed tax increase would do a lot for that deficit.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
08:46 PM on 07/13/2010
Directed at?
01:21 PM on 07/14/2010
Other states have tried a "well directed" tax increase too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

"Or consider the fiasco of New Jersey. In the early 1960s, the state had no state income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses. Today its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation yet it suffers from perpetual deficits and its schools rank among the worst in the nation ..."
05:27 PM on 07/13/2010
California simply needs to live within its budget. It's employees make too much in a suddenly very competitive marketplace for labor, and the CALPers pension system for government employees is absurd. Retirement at age 50 with 90 percent pay? Come on.

Unfortunately the state gives every appearance of being ungovernable, which is why Arizona, Montana and Colorado have so many former Californians.

Watch Greece and follow that example. Or don't and go broke.
05:34 AM on 07/14/2010
It's a race to the bottom . . . and California's behind, no, there's Honduras, Haiti just ahead (no pensions there!) wow, California is making strides! Catching China and Honduras, but Haiti still has a good lead. Maybe California can win the next one. Just dump this bogus minimum wage and let the Governator have his way and we're there.

Of course, if we just had a fair tax and decent regulations with leaders that would follow them we wouldn't even be in this situation. Canada, with all her expensive social programs -but solid bank regulations - did just fine in our bank-fail fiasco.
05:15 PM on 07/14/2010
DesertDawgAlpha must be cherry-picking the statistics on pensions in some way. Perhaps some police and fire personnel could get 90 per cent of pay at 50 as DesertDawgAlpha states, but the general government employee pension could only pay 90 per cent of pay at 50 if the employee had worked for 81 years at age 50. Now that's a hard-working employee! In the real world, a government employee with 30 years of service at age 50 could get 33 percent of pay in a pension. That may still be wrong, but why not argue against that real figure for government employees rather than picking a number based on what may be available in a police officer pension (I'm not actually certain that the rate for police officers is 90 per cent at age 50, but I'll assume that DesertDawgAlpha is begin honest about that portion of the argument despite the deception of citing it as a pension rate for all government employees).
07:05 PM on 07/14/2010
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_12047973?nclick_check=1

Take a look at the section in the middle where it describes public pensions for state employees. Basically police and fire are 3% at 50 (3% of your highest salary per year, starting at 50) capped at 90%, so after 20 years your pension stops growing, a huge incentive to quit and get a second job. For most regular employees it is 2.7% at 55, but with no cap, so after 37 years you could retire at 100% of your highest salary earned.

On top of this, the retirement pools mostly use a 7.8% expected annual return. So if the investments don't earn 7.8% then the taxpayer has to top up the fund as if it did (all be it at a 5 to 10 year moving average) which is why costs have skyrocketed up in the last years, because the market has not performed as anticipated.
07:06 PM on 07/14/2010
sorry, 30 years for firefighters and police caps pension growth.
liry
Runnin' on empty
05:19 PM on 07/13/2010
Sad----no longer the Golden State. I have lived in California twice and always looked forward to retiring there someday. No longer. I currently live in Michigan which is in poor shape economically also, but even we have not cut services to our residents to the extent Ca. has. Just sad.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
texastrixie
I invented the internet.
04:33 PM on 07/13/2010
This is the new wave of coming cuts - drive people away from public service jobs by paying them the minimum wage. Lets see how well that works out when you are paying teachers less than $20k a year! Who is going to go to college and put up with angry parents and students all the time for a measley $20k? It won't be "those who can do, those who can't teach;" it will be those who can't do ANYTHING will teach.
05:31 PM on 07/13/2010
The market clearing rate for teacher wages will be the one where you cannot get an adequate number of adequate teachers (and since teachers don't want pay for performance on the basis that you can't tell from afar who is good and who is bad at teaching I don't know how we define adequate, especially since it is tough to fire even obviously awful teachers). If we currently have more people seeking teaching jobs than we have jobs they can take, the wage is too high.

It is essentially a part time job, with teachers generally working from 160-180 days per year as compared the 220 or more worked by almost all other employees (except university professors).

No one has ever been forced, against their will, to be a teacher, at least not that I'm aware of.
moldndecay
Only that day dawns to which you are awake
06:28 PM on 07/14/2010
Youre funny. There pay is based on 10 months of work, not 12. Teachers routinely put in 500-1000 dollars of their own money for teaching supplies a year. Never mind they are paid for 8 hours a day, but routinely put in more than that what with grading of papers, etc.

And afterall, who gives a crap about the education of our country?
01:47 AM on 07/14/2010
What good does the teaching of reading and writing above an 8th grade level really do for corporations now, anyway? Teaching higher forms of writing, mathematics, and critical thinking only makes people dissatisfied with the status quo and is therefore bad for the economy. A society of well-informed citizens is just progressive waste at its worst. Workers with limited range of thought are all the market needs.