Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘California Governor’ Category

Election Alert: Oppose your city’s money-grab

Sunday, March 3, 2024, 5:25 pm | Randy Thomasson

In California, liars and thieves are trying to make you poorer, which is why SaveCalifornia.com is urging you to vote against all money-grabs.

Today, I want to explain why Democrat- and RINO-run cities are so tempted to make you poorer. I’m going to try to say it simply, with lots of evidence, and with a couple of cartoons to illustrate.

But first, please know I strongly support moral/ethical police officers and firefighters, and the necessary services they provide. Yet I adamantly oppose thieving union bosses and their prostituting city officials for the government waste, fraud, and abuse they promulgate.

Now for my explanation:

In California’s March 5 primary election, more than 100 local governments are trying to trick you out of your hard-earned money. These money-grabs are on your ballot in the form of tax increases, tax extensions, bonds, fees, or assessments. Yet all are deceptive and wasteful. Unless you vote no on all money-grabs, you’ll be taken advantage of and become poorer, while “public servants” become all the richer.

FACT:

The Pension Rights Center reported last October, based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, that only 19 percent of American workers are in a pension plan.

So, despite the lie that government employees are underpaid “victims,” the following cartoon represents how most Californians — and Americans — in the workforce don’t have guaranteed pensions, and many younger employees aren’t even familiar with the idea.

MORE FACTS:

  • In 2016, intrepid conservative researcher Steve Frank reported how lucrative pensions are making some California “public employees” very rich off the backs of financially-hurting taxpayers: “Updated numbers displayed at OpenTheBooks.com show there is a $2.8 billion annual cost to payout 21,862 six-figure public-sector retirees via CalPERS. It’s a massive payout equivalent to the combined income tax payments of nearly 1.6 million individual California taxpayers.”
  • City employees in the police and fire departments can receive abnormally high salaries. For example, the Transparent California database reports that, in 2022, in Anaheim, seven fire chiefs and captains made from $477,762 to $671, 238 in total pay and benefits. Even in Fresno with lower housing costs, the “top brass” of city and fire departments in 2022 were paid $350,000 a year in total pay and benefits. Another example is in San Diego, where, in 2022, both a police sergeant” and a “police sergeant” were both paid more than a half million dollars a year in total pay and benefits.
  • California state law (thank the corrupt, ruling Democrats) places the burden upon local governments, not police and fire deparments, to fund pensions. As one wealth management firm explains, in a defined-benefit plan: “The funds are guaranteed to the individual regardless of the performance of the investments in the larger pool, and the organization/business that you previously worked for is liable to cover the cost of all payments, even when the investment funds are unable to cover the cost.”
  • This continually growing pension burden has resulted in overly-generous police and fire retirement pensions significantly pressuring city and county budgets, even threatening them with insolvency. In 2016, the California Policy Center wrote“Five California counties reported that their pension contributions now exceed 10 percent of total revenues: Santa Barbara County (13.1 percent), Kern County (11 percent), Fresno County (10.7 percent), San Diego County (10.4 percent) and San Mateo County (10 percent) … A sixth county, Merced, is also expected to report that its required contributions topped 10 percent of 2015 revenue when it files its audit. We estimate Merced’s payments at slightly over 11 percent of revenue.”

Listen to fiscally-conservative professor of finance Joshua Rauh of Stanford University, who’s also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Like me and others, he’s blowing the whistle on the unjust and evil union-boss-and-Democrat-Party-politicians pension scheme, including reporting updated numbers in 2019: “In California, more than 62,000 retired public employees are receiving pensions of over $100,000 per year.” Wow — these retired employees — your “public servants” — receive more not working than most working Californians receive.

EVEN MORE FACTS:

Because cities and counties are legally liable (a bad state law of prostituting Democrat state legislators, who are loyal to their union-boss pimps) to fund increasingly more “catch-up” payments into pensions, the real story is California cities are being crushed by fire and police department pensions.

As California Policy Center co-founder Edward Ring sagely reported in 2018, in a case study of the San Mateo County city of Millbrae: “Currently, as can be seen on the table, for every dollar it pays active employees in base wages, Millbrae must contribute 59 cents to CalPERS. This does not include payments to CalPERS that Millbrae collects from its employees via withholding. The same data show that, by 2024, for every dollar Millbrae pays active employees in base wages, they will have to contribute 89 cents to CalPERS. Put another way, while Millbrae may expect its payroll costs to increase by $1.4 million, from $6.3 million today to $7.7 million in six years, their payment to CalPERS will increase by $3.1 million, from $3.7 million today to $6.8 million in 2024.

But here’s the rub. Nearly all of this increase to Millbrae’s pension costs are the “catch-up” payments on the city’s unfunded liability. In just six years Millbrae’s payment on its unfunded liability will increase by 99%, from $2.9 million today to $5.8 million in 2024.

Why?

What are the implications?

It is difficult to overstate how outrageous this is. Here’s a list:

1 – Virtually every pension “reform” over the past decade or so has exempted active public employees from helping to pay down the unfunded liability via withholding. Instead, their increased withholding – in some cases supposedly rising to “fifty percent of pension costs” (the PEPRA reforms) – only apply to the normal contribution.

2 – In order to appease the unions who, quite understandably, lobby for the lowest possible employee contributions to pension funds, the “normal cost” is calculated based on financially optimistic projections. The less time an actuary predicts a retiree will live, and the more an actuary predicts investments will earn, the lower the normal contribution.

3 – In order to cajole local elected officials to agree to pension benefit enhancements, the same overly optimistic, misleading projections were provided, duping decision makers into thinking pension contributions would never become a significant burden on cities and counties, and by extension, taxpayers.

4 – Because cities and counties couldn’t afford to pay down the growing unfunded liabilities attached to their pension plans, tricky accounting gimmicks were employed, where minimal catch-up payments were made in the present in exchange for bigger catch-up payments in the future. The closest financial analogy to what they did would be the “negative amortization” mortgages that were popular prior to the housing crash of 2008.

5 – The consequence of this chicanery is that today, as can be seen, catch-up payments on the unfunded liability are typically two to three times greater than the normal contribution. And it’s getting worse. In 2024, Millbrae, for example, will have a catch-up contribution that is nearly six times as much as their normal contribution.

6 – When a normal contribution isn’t enough, and the plan becomes underfunded, the level of underfunding is compounded every year because there isn’t enough money in the fund earning interest. The longer catch-up payments are deferred, the worse the situation gets.”

What an unholy mess! Similarly, in September 2018, City Journal’s investigative journalism, “Policing Pensions, informed us (as well as gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom, but he didn’t listen) that “The League of California Cities recently reported that their members expect pension costs to rise by at least 50 percent over just the next half-decade. Cities employing police officers and firefighters will face the highest burdens: for every $100 spent in salary on current employees, they will soon have to shell out at least $54 to the state’s pension fund, CalPERS.”

Only four years ago, the threat of out-of-control police and fire pensions was threatening city and county budgets, and the threat is exponentially worse today (yet the Democrat Party rulers of California, loyal prostitutes to their union-boss pimps, have done nothing to solve this). As the June 2020 CalMatters article, “Surging pension costs push more California cities toward bankruptcy,” reported:

Three California cities have declared bankruptcy in recent years, and fast-rising pension costs have been major factors in all. One was Vallejo, whose recently retired city manager, Daniel Keen, joined his colleagues in seeking relief, saying he expected pension costs for police to reach 98 percent of payroll in a decade and hinting that Vallejo could slip into insolvency again.

A new study for the League of California Cities, conducted by a consulting firm, Bartel Associates, projects that over the next seven years overall city pension costs, excluding health care, will nearly double, reaching an average of 15.8 percent of their general fund budgets by 2024-25. Costs for police and fire personnel will climb to well over 60 percent of payroll.

“The results of this study provide additional evidence that pension costs for cities are approaching unsustainable levels,” Bartel’s report warns. As those burdens outstrip revenue growth, it says, “many cities face difficult choices that will be compounded in the next recession.”

The chart below illustrates how California cities’ and counties’ pension debt for government employees (including police and fire department employees) dramatically increased with the pro-union bill signings of RINO governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in his second term (2007-2010) and after that, even higher during the first six years of Democrat governor Jerry Brown (2011-2019).

The harsh consequences upon local governments and taxpayers were explained in a 2018 paper by the Pacific Research Institute, which concluded: “In the end, political mandates cannot change economic realities. California can proceed as if the current promises of the public pension systems can be met, but there are costs of doing so. These costs, which will be imposed on future generations, will include higher tax burdens, bleaker economic prospects, and fewer core public goods and services.”

The creative, scary, and fuzzily-rendered cartoon below illustrates union bosses’ and their Democrat Party politicians’ monstrous cannibalization of city budgets, which your city councilmembers and county supervisors won’t tell you about.

Bottom line, when local candidates are endorsed by police and fire unions and win, they are “bought politicians” who will never go against their union-boss masters. So, because these anti-people Democrat or RINO politicians think your money is theirs, they come after you for it. 

Nearly every election season, they lie that they need to improve roads, sewers, water facilities, roofs, infrastructure, “save the library,” or whatever they feel they have to say to deceive and coax more taxes, bonds, fees, assessments — more money — from the uninformed citizenry. And because these Democrat and RINO politicians are “bought” by the police and fire department unions, they hardly ever admit that government waste exists — when it surely does.

Yet there is a just and sure way to escape this lying, thieving stranglehold — but it’s probably going to take a well-drafted (without “holes”) state constitutional amendment in California that the people approve for the sake of fairness and protection from thieves.

As the Winter 2013 City Journal article, “The Pension Fund That Ate California,” explains: “CalPERS and its legislative allies keep resisting the one reform that would truly free California taxpayers from this ruinous pension system: moving it toward a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan, as other states and municipalities, including Utah and Rhode Island, have done. In a defined-contribution plan, the government’s commitment ends after it makes its annual required contribution into a worker’s retirement account; the taxpayer’s liability also ends there. Under the CalPERS regime, by contrast, employees are guaranteed benefits even if the government hasn’t put aside money to pay for them, placing all the future liability on the taxpayer.”

PLEASE TAKE ACTION:

STEP 1: This March 5, 2024 California primary election, please oppose all money-grabs (any and all tax increases, tax extensions, bonds, fees, and assessments). Tell the thieves and liars “no more!” Instead, demand real fire and police department pension reform and tough, waste-finding conservative audits from outside of California. Please share my email with others and also share our special site, SaveCaliforniaElection.com.

STEP 2: Because of how unions and their “owned politicians” put deceptive tax hikes on the ballot, and since union bosses regularly spend union dues to elect and re-elect corrupt Democrat Party politicians, if you’re a union member, please resign from your union. You have the legal right to do so, while keeping your job, benefits, and more of your own money. Here’s how government employees can get out and here’s how private sector employees can stop funding the beast.

In the Bible, God commands respect for ownership rights and contractual rights
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’ “So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’”
Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Matthew 20:1-15

“Prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the Public Treasury.”
Herbert Hoover, 31st U.S. president (1929 to 1933) in his December 9, 1930 speech

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
Attributed to Scottish advocate/judge/writer/historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)

Oppose Prop. 1: Big waste, no change, a magnet for transients

Wednesday, January 31, 2024, 8:57 am | Randy Thomasson

Proposition 1 on California’s March 5, 2024 ballot is another deceptive Democrat Party scheme of imagery over substance that rejects tried-and-true solutions.

And “homeless housing” has already been an abject failure in California’s Democrat-controlled big cities because it’s “free housing without any requirements.” So no “change” required — no wonder transients flock to California. If the transient magnet of Prop. 1 passes, you can bet California will have more “homeless,” not less.

“Despite Spending $1.1 Billion, San Francisco Sees Its Homelessness Problems Spiral Out Of Control,” Hoover Institution, May 10, 2022
It is hard to imagine a more inhumane outcome than watching the train wreck of homelessness evolve in San Francisco, as the city spends billions on flawed policies that facilitate drug abuse and on badly designed systems to carry out those policies. But this is what happens when there is no accountability within government, and with voters who would prefer feeling good about electing progressive politicians to facing the reality of the awful mess that has been created by those they have elected.

California’s ruling Democrats don’t require transients to enter treatment-and-recovery programs as a condition of housing, so these costly programs fail:

“California homelessness: Where are the state’s billions going?,” CalMatters, May 22, 2023
The state keeps spending more to address the crisis, and the crisis keeps getting worse. So where, they ask, is all the money going? The state’s Interagency Council on Homelessness, a state body tasked with overseeing the state’s homelessness strategy and divvying up funding to local governments, issued a report detailing just how much the state has spent on the crisis between 2018 and 2021 — and what it’s gotten in return.

The answer to those questions, according to the report: The state has spent nearly $10 billion and provided services to more than 571,000 people, each year helping more people than the last. And despite all that, at the end of year three, the majority of those more than half a million Californians still didn’t end up with a roof over their heads. The number of unsheltered Californians continues to swell. 

Presented at a three-hour joint committee hearing in the Assembly, the report has sent housing policy experts across the state into a twitter. Services for the homeless are so disjointed — split among nine state agencies, hundreds of county and municipal governments, nonprofits and charitable organizations — the 253-page document may be the first statistical birds-eye view of the state’s many-tentacled efforts.

But it also shows just how intractable the problem is. “One of the largest challenges facing the state is the inflow of new people into homelessness, even as efforts to help people experiencing homelessness expand,” the report reads. What the report did not address is how the state can spend its money more effectively. Nor was it asked to. The report comes at the request of the Legislature, which included an ask in its 2021 budget for a “comprehensive view of the homelessness response system,” not an audit nor a list of recommendations. 

UNDERSTAND: “Housing First is a Failure,” Cicero Institute, Jan. 13, 2022

Why doesn’t permanent housing help people exit from homelessness? A simple reason is that it appears to attract more people from outside the homeless system, or keeps them in the homelessness system, because they are drawn to the promise of a permanent and usually rent-free room.

A recent economic analysis shows that cities have to build 10 PSH beds to remove a single homeless person from the street, since the vast majority of such units go to people who would not have been permanently homeless. Even the removal of that sole homeless individual from the streets seem to fade over time as more people enter the homelessness system.[4]

Another reason Housing First doesn’t work is that it ignores that the major problems for the chronically homeless aren’t just lack of a home. A recent UCLA study found that more than 75% of this population have a serious mental illness, and 75% have a substance abuse problem, and the majority have both. These individuals are reluctant to accept assistance without mandates and requirements, and a house without such mandates will not encourage use of these services.[9]

There was once some hope that housing alone could help reduce drug use and mental health problems. Yet studies have now shown that simply providing people subsidized housing does not reduce drug use, and often encourages it, which makes sense because there is no mandated treatment in PSH and the free unit provides people with more money to pursue their habits.

More fact-based perspective:

“The ‘Housing First’ Approach Has Failed,” The Heritage Foundation, Aug. 4, 2020
Homelessness has gained national attention with the growth of public encampments and street disorder, particularly in West Coast cities. Over the past decade, the federal government has spent billions on “Housing First” programs, which provide permanent housing for the homeless without requiring sobriety or participation in treatment. Although Housing First programs demonstrate strong rates of short-term housing retention, they do not improve symptoms related to drug addiction, mental illness, and general well-being—and have not reduced overall rates of homelessness.

“To Fix Homelessness, Stop Fixating On Housing,” The Federalist, May 30, 2023
Cities and states, for their part, should stop releasing without bail or jail time drug addicts and mentally ill people who commit crimes, and they need to use the threat of punishment as a way to induce street criminals to accept treatment.

At its core, Prop. 1 is throwing more money away, will make California’s homeless population grow, and will make generations of Californians poorer with the multi-billions in bonds to pay back — all so presidential wannabe Gavin Newsom can say he’s “solved” the homeless problem. Defeat this thieving scam — vote NO on Prop. 1.

See more at the SaveCalifornia.com Pro-Family Election Center

If any would not work, neither should he eat. — This is a just maxim, and universal nature inculcates it to man. If man will work, he may eat; if he do not work, he neither can eat, nor should he eat. The maxim is founded on these words of the Lord: In the sweat of thy brow thou shall eat bread. Industry is crowned with God’s blessing; idleness is loaded with his curse. This maxim was a proverb among the Jews. Men who can work, and will rather support themselves by begging, should not get one morsel of bread. It is a sin to minister to necessities that are merely artificial.
Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:10

ANOTHER WIN: Bill against police dogs stopped

Friday, January 19, 2024, 9:15 am | Randy Thomasson

JANUARY 30 UPDATE: If you called, you and others helped stop this radical, pro-crime bill! AB 742 did not come up for an Assembly floor vote before adjournment of a brief floor session. And tomorrow (January 31), is the legislative deadline for two-year bills to pass their house of origin, and the Assembly isn’t meeting that day. So AB 742 is dead!

From policemag.com (1/25/24):
Former police officer and K-9 unit member, Ronald Davis, says he’s puzzled by the push for this legislation. “Our dogs are there … because they help protect and defend,” he said. “Yes, they do bite people. But what the people trying to get this bill passed don’t tell you is how often they stop suspects with weapons who would have otherwise harmed an officer.”

He told the California Globe, “I don’t see how this can be passed. So many people came out against it last year, and unless they make big changes, it will entice no one else. People know how important police dogs are.”

Here’s our January 19 post with our anti-crime, pro-police-dog alert (again, thank you for following SaveCalifornia.com’s lead and calling — we knew this was a moral opportunity for reasonable Californians!):

Some Democrat Party politicians want to prohibit police dogs taking down criminal suspects. But you can help stop them — right now!

But first, to convince you that most two-year bills (bills that couldn’t pass last year) can be defeated this year, recognize and rejoice in the defeat of the invasive, pansy ban on pre-teen tackle football leagues:

In response to Newsom’s veto threatAB 734‘s author – Democrat Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, who wants to be mayor of Sacramento – pulled his anti-parent, anti-liberty bill, which means it’s dead both last year and this year.

Newsom – who knows he’s getting beat up nationally as being “too liberal” to be the Democrat Party nominee for president – is highly motivated to try to “improve” his image, in this case, to families nationwide who like youth tackle football.

What these radical Democrat bills show you – including the ones passed by California’s Democrat-Party-controlled State Legislature and signed by Democrat Party Gov. Gavin Newsom over the past several years – is that Democrat politicians have an insatiable lust to invade every space in order to control everyone and everything.

They are the anti-liberty party, otherwise known as New Communist Democrats and unconstitutional tyrants.

TAKE ACTION: And now, please oppose a pro-crime bill prohibiting the use of police dogs from helping police to apprehend criminal suspects.

AB 742 has until Jan. 31 to pass the Democrat-controlled State Assembly. This bad bill would prohibit unleashing police dogs to find or take down a suspect.

AB 742 is pro-crime because it stops the apprehending of criminal suspects. Because if a suspect is hiding from or running away from police, a police dog can find him and hold him.

Yet the “defund the police” Democrat Party politicians want to straitjacket police dogs and let criminal suspects get away. Police across America are shaking their heads over this.

The present danger is AB 742 is already on the Assembly floor, on the “inactive file,” where it’s been for more than 8 months. And it can be brought up for a vote any time the Democrat-controlled Assembly meets the remainder of this month.

PLEASE ACT NOW: Call and email your own state assemblymember. Tell him or her, “Oppose AB 742 — stop siding with criminals!” And yes, if your assemblymember’s voicemail is “on,” you can leave a weekend message.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.The Bible, Romans 13:3