|
||||
Public Employee Pensions: Unfunded Liabilities by John Greet | Our Liberty | 04.29.10 |
+ (Full disclosure: John B. Greet is an employee of the City of Long Beach and a Law Enforcement professional. He is not compensated for his contributions to LBPOST.com. His views are entirely his own and do not represent the official positions of the City of Long Beach or any of its Departments, nor are they intended to) On Wednesday April 28, 2010, The Press-Telegram published a lead editorial entitled “Unfunded Liabilities”. Readers can view the editorial by clicking here. The thesis of the editorial was clear: Unfunded public employee pensions are creating a financial crisis for our State and local governments. A crisis that, if not addressed in a constructive manner, and soon, could result in a cost to taxpayers of anywhere between $182 and $325 billion, depending upon whose figures we use. This may come as a surprise to some but as both a taxpayer and a public employee I take no issue, whatsoever, with the Press-Telegram’s thesis, other than its being, perhaps, too restrictive. The public employee pension outlook in California is, indeed, dire and needs to be addressed yesterday. But we are not going to be able to find a constructive solution to this challenge by lodging ad hominem attacks against public employees. Read, listen to or watch almost any story from almost any source on this topic and you will find public employees routinely accused of being “greedy”, “self-serving” or “uncaring.” Those Long Beach public employees I have the honor and privilege of knowing and working with are none of those things. To a person they are hard working, reliable and dedicated professionals who do the best job they can, using the tools and resources they are given to work with. They are moms and dads, husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, just like most everyone in the private sector. They have mortgages and rents, home, medical and car insurance premiums and food and utility bills, just like most everyone in the private sector. The only thing that truly differentiates our public employees from their private sector counterparts is the source of the funding for their pay and benefits. Public employees are compensated using public funds, as is appropriate. The products and services our public employees produce and provide are of direct benefit to, and provided at the request of, the public that they serve. In this analysis, the public is both customer…the consumer of that which is produced and provided for them…as well as employer…providing the funds with which the products and services are produced and (ideally) setting the standards by which the performance of public employees is to be measured. As workers and if they so choose, public employees have no less a right to collectively bargain for wages and benefits than do any group of employees in the private sector. Public employees have no less a right to obtain the best pay and benefits they can negotiate from their employer than do private sector employees. As mentioned, public employees have families to feed, clothe and house and other bills to pay just like everyone else. Because our public employees are consumers of products and services in their own right, the compensation they receive is, in turn, invested in the communities in which they live and/or do business. Not all of our employees live in Long Beach but a good number of them certainly do and they all spend a significant percentage of their incomes in State sales and income taxes and local property, sales and other taxes that directly benefit and support our community. Because this is true, those who take exception to the level of pay and benefits City public employees are receiving should not take issue with those employees but, rather, with those on the other side of the bargaining table… those who are bargaining on behalf of City Government… on behalf of the taxpayers. In the collective bargaining environment, City public employees can only receive the pay and benefits that City negotiators agree to offer them. It is City negotiators who are charged with controlling the costs of City labor, not employee collective bargaining representatives. It took the Press-Telegram till the last sentence of its editorial to mention: “We need to… choose leaders who won't make promises no one can keep.” True enough. Elections have consequences and this phrase is just as factual here in Long Beach as it is at the county, state and federal levels. The Mayor and Councilmembers we elect to represent us in turn appoint others to represent them. Some of those appointees end up at the bargaining table across from our employee union representatives, engaged in the extremely difficult and painstaking process of striking a balance between the interests of the taxpayers (who are paying the bills) and those of the employees (who produce the products and provide the services the taxpayers request or require). The Press-Telegram opines: “…the fiscal collapse of governments small and large won't help California's public workers in their retirement,” and I would agree. But crafting reasonable and equitable pension reform alone will not solve these fiscal challenges either. Pension reform must be accompanied by a renewed sense of fiscal responsibility in government across the board. Governments throughout our state must, once and for all, stop trying to be all things to all people. Taxpayers are funding far more government provided social programs and services than government was ever intended to provide or support. These, too, represent unfunded liabilities and unless and until we adopt and follow a more comprehensive policy of fiscal responsibility throughout all aspects of local, state and federal government, all of the pension reform in the world isn’t going to save us. I very much welcome your questions and your comments.
Comments
Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story
31 Comments so far.
Two Cents Well said John. About time someone stood up for us. We have right to have a job, pay our bills and feed our families. I'm sick of the hate sentiment. Contrary to popular belief, we really don't have a say in what the union negotiates on our behalf. By the way John, please correct your article and spell "ad hominem" correctly. It's bothering me. Thanks LB taxpayer I appreciate Mr. Greet's mostly reasonable position here, but it smacks of being disingenuous when he asks us to take issue with the City's own pension negotiators--when our elected officials' campaign funds come largely from City employee unions, it is naive to think they will not bow to negotiating pressures by the unions. That's the nut of the problem, in my opinion. Mr. Greet, please hold your negotiators to a FISCALLY REASONABLE pension agreement and let's get unions out of campaign finance! City Hall Paul Part of my union dues pays for salary surveys of comparable jobs in comparable, surrounding communities. In my 20-years of experience, salaries at the City of Long Beach are generally BELOW the median level. Yet I need to hire qualified, technical staff who bring experience from the private sector. Our salaries don't bring anyone in; only the security of our pensions do. Alternative? Contracting out all these services. Is it ever cheaper to do this? Never. Why are the pension funds upside down? Well, perhaps we should ask some of the folks who gave Triple-A ratings to the toxic assets that CalPERS invested in. Or the "Fabulous Fabs" who manipulated the stocks and bonds markets for personal gain and power. Now I get to go to sleep at night, having lost all the equity in my house in Long Beach, wondering if the final rewards for two decades of public service are going to be yanked out from under me. Or squeezed like blood from a stone. Yes, at least I have a job. Councilmember Gary DeLong Mr. Greet is correct. It is the elected officials and City management who should be held accountable. It is our responsiblity to represent the residents of Long Beach, and clearly we have not done a very good job on labor negotiations over the last 10 years. Hopefully we will do better this year, but it will take the necessary political will, which is driven by public opinion. STOP SPENDING Unions are guilty of asking for unreasonable compensation and benefits. Government is guilty of agreeing to such. It's pretty simple, don't spend what isn't there. To City Hall Paul; we've all lost out. And yes, you're lucky you still have a job. And great benefits that those of us in the private sector don't have. Govt Worker One thing that is often left out of the mix in the "pension reform" columns is the demise of private sector pensions. That seems to fuel the fire. While I agree pension reform is urgently needed, taxpayers working in the private sector are justifiably angry over what's happened to them. When I took a government job 12 years ago, for stability and work-life balance, I took a paycut and a lot of teasing from my private sector friends and family. Twelve years later, their pensions have evaporated or have been severely cut and the value of their 401's...well, you know. I'd be angry too! If there's going to be any pension reform in the govt sector, I'd sure like to some restoration of pensions in the private sector for the workers who turn their executive managers into gazillionaires. Two Cents Govt Worker is right. Private sector jobs have traditionally made more money and have now lost their jobs and their 401's. Even if the economy ever gets better, your jobs have still been outsourced anyway. You need to take your cause up with our current administration you know they don't want to address the elephant in the room, China. There are a lot of fat cats running around with your private sector job money like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, but you somehow feel public employees are sucking your money away. Your anger is misguided. As for DeLong, he must be talking about the police union and Foster's first term promise of 100 more police officers because the other unions always get kicked around at negotiation time anyway. Really, what's at issue here are there are a whole of sleezy financial firms that made a lot of money in this current financial downturn, our public employee pensioners made bad investments and they're sticking it to all of us. I think THEY should present us with a plan of how they are going to make up the money and not how they expect us to make the payment to them. I pay taxes too, private sector people, I pay the pensions of others just like you do. I'm not going down without a fight because you are jealous of my job. My mother receives a CalSTRS pension for a job she held for 36 years and only enjoyed 1 year of retirement before being diagnosed with Alzheimers. I'll be damned if I let you take her pension away. Don't Hate One of the most over looked freedoms we have is the freedom to chose. Each one of us has made the concious decision to chose the life path that we are currently on. So it baffles me when I look around and all I see is people complaing about public employee pensions. If the private sector isn't all that you hoped it to be, then by all means feel free to climb aboard the public servant train. You know how the saying goes, "If you can't beat em, join em" CHARLIE Well John Greet, I'm not familiar with the LB Employees Union, except I hear thier out there all the time knocking on doors and campaigning for somebody, or issue, or thing that is going to cost us taxpayers in some fashion or form one way or the other; Now the AFL, CIO & UAW I do know, and is the root cause, for eriving major businesses right out of our Country to Mexico, China, Phillipenes, India and God knows etc. I remember when I bought my first brand new car, a 4 door Chevy, right off the show room floor for $1700 cash and gasoline was 17 cents per gallon, cigarettes 25 cents per pack or a great cigar for ten cents. The quality of life really has not emproved much, but the cost there of by an arm and a leg. We prepared for retirement with a savings account & bought life insuranse, and by the way, paid our own doctor bills, until somebody way back thought that the government should pay for it, and of course now, Obama is expanding on those socialistic ideas that we're losing our individualitys and self control; And now he and the unions wants to tell us how much money we can earn which absolutely distroys ones incentives... Who's in Charge I've worked in both the private and public sectors. I am now a public employee. After suffering from cyclical downsizings (as most have) over the decades I went looking for career stability and a way to survive in retirement. I am not apologetic for being a public employee nor am I hypersensitive to the PT article. We are all individuals. We are free to chose how we support ourselves and our families. It is not unusual for a public employee to have a spouse that is struggling in a small, low-paying job (usually run by a very wealthy owner who pays the employees hardly anything, with no benefits) or a spouse who is self employed trying to keep a business going. Families need the stability of a paycheck, and health care. Further, it is not unusual to see people coming to the public sector after working in the private sector for the same reasons including a shot (finally) at some kind of a retirement, some kind of stability, some kind of benefits, some kind of health care after working for none. I've seen people take $10 or 20K reductions in pay to come work in the public sector just to be close to home. Most public pension plans require 30 plus years of continous work to viably support someone in retirement. Medical care upon retirement is a huge, practical draw. I miss having a 401K with a 75% match by my employer. I miss making charitable contributions to my favorite and important charities without the employer match. I miss significant increases in pay as the economy boomed. After almost 2 decades in the public sector I've averaged an increase of about 1 to 2% per year. I'm not even keeping up with inflation, but I do have a job. I appreciate serving the public. I am sensitive to any supplies I use. I reuse paperclips, folders, the back of paper, etc. I absorb business costs rather than charge the business. There are no guarantees that all of the money paid out to fund our pensions will ever come to fruition. The avalange of the baby boomer retirements loom and will stress and strain social security, pension systems, and health care systems, to name a few. I, like many, are just trying to survive, pay the bills, keep food on the table. Most live simple lives. Many are thankful to have a job. After working for over 35 years of working I don't see how I can ever retire completely. Myself, like a good percentage of baby boomers, will be working into our 70's and possibly 80's. We'll continue to pay our taxes that support the public agencies and may not even have the opportunity to enjoy a real retirement. I do well, I pay more than my fair share of taxes. In fact, I would guess most public employees are picking up the slack for those that can not work and for those with very deep pockets that do not pay much because of tax loop holes, shelters, business write offs, etc.. J/Dub City Hall Paul: Well said! John B. Greet @ Two Cents: Thanks for the comments and for catching the spelling error on ad hominem. I'll ask the editor to correct that! @ LB taxpayer and CHARLIE: All union members, including those in the public sector, have a legal right to opt out of contributing to their union's Political Action Committee (PAC) funds (through which, among other things, campaign contributions are funded). I've availed myself of that right for more than a decade. As is my right, it is I -and not my union- who decides which political campaigns, if any, I choose to support and to what extent. Like all other employees in the public and private sector, Long Beach employees have no less a right than anyone else to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can get to provide for themselves and their families. It is and must remain the responsibility of *management*, and not labor, to hold labor costs down, just as it is the responsibility of labor to provide the product and/or service they gave agreed to provide in the manner they have agreed to provide it. With exceedingly few exceptions, City employees uphold their end of the bargain throughout the entirety of every single contract they negotiate. And every time the City finds itself in dire financial straits, City employees, and most especially Public Safety employees, more than do their part to assist. Recall that the POA's most recent contract alone has saved the City $15 million over the next 5 years. @ Councilmember DeLong: Thanks for affirming an aspect of that which I have been saying since this column began in January 2009; Our City government belongs to the people of Long Beach, as represented by a majority of the electorate. The ultimate responsibility for the manner in which our government is run must therefore reside with the people and with no one else. If our government needs to become more fiscally responsible, it is only the people who can make it so, by electing representatives who will accomplish that on our behalf. Poor fiscal performance on the part of the City is but one symptom of an illness far broader in scope than most seem willing to acknowledge. I know this to be true because a significant number of those who could register to vote in Long Beach have not done so and a persistent majority of us do not vote even though we *have* registered. Poor registration ratios and low voter turnouts correlate directly, and axiomatically, to a government that is less representative of the will of a true majority in the City. Thus it remains my thesis that to change government, we, as a community, must first change ourselves. CHARLIE to JOHN GREET I hear you, John, and agree with you that the majority of registerd voters shamefully don't vote, but then again, the last national turnout was great and look where we're heading - right down the socialistic tube & deficit that the majority of voters were BS'd into and continue to be ever since the new administration took over; Now come NOV 2nd, they're going to have a chance for a correction vote! Simpleton Hi John, I'll add two points to the discussion. First, the right to collective bargaining for public employees was granted in California in the late 70s. Unionization, union influence on elections, and the impact on government service costs have evolved over the last 30 years. We now pay and promise to pay way more than we can afford to public employees. The second point is that pensions were never intended to replace salaries mid-career. Consider two men that are retiring this year. Both graduated from college in 1980, were patriotic and took public service jobs. One went into the Army, the other into a CA police department. Initially, their pay was about the same. The police officer took home a little more, but the Army officer got more benefits (mainly housing). Over time, the Army officer took on more and more responsibility, eventually commanding a tank corp (about 10,000 soldiers). The police officer also moved up the ranks, and became an assistant chief. In 2010, the Army colonel will earn around $120K, with benefits that add another $80K or so. The assistant chief will earn $200K, with benefits of another $50K or so. As both look at their retirement, the colonel will enjoy a pension of around $80K per year. The assistant chief, with the benefit of overtime, accrued sick time/vacation, and other pension spiking techniques will look forward to a pension of $200K per year. Both are comfortable, but the reason CA is in such a hole should be pretty obvious. Bixby Knolls Resident Mr. Greet & the many others on this discussion, Greetings. As I read your Opinion and the Comments of others I am amazed to find a majority of agreement on a very sensitive subject. John, it was near the end of your opinion section where I think you nailed the issue; it's not that the pensions (and current pay for that matter according to the comments from the public employees) are out of line, but instead it's the "fiscal responsiblity" of government. You, Mr Greet, are walking a fine line but one I whole heartedly agree with when you state, "Governments throughout our state must...stop trying to be all things to all people" and "Taxpayers are funding far more government provided social programs and services than was ever intended.." Sir, I commend you for speaking boldly. In a sense you are condeming the mass quantities of unnecessary government funded jobs...of which, there is a pension behind every one. There are obviously some government jobs that I am happy to send in my tax dollars to pay both salary and pensions - police, firefighters..etc. And then there are some "nice to have" positions where, quite frankly, the job needs to be eliminated even if it means eliminating a benefit for some small sliver of society - I can already hear people screaming about the "elderly, women and children" that will be harmed. But, isn't that where most of us want to help? Isn't that where people would want to contribute there money instead of to the government? Isn't that where philanthropic ideas and business spring forth? Isn't that where a person wants to devote his/her time and energy knowing that they are having an impact on another persons life? Why should we pay tax dollars for something deep down we want to do ourselves? Why should we hand those jobs over to the government? If we eliminate those "fringe benefit" positions in government, there should be a groundswell of support to fill in the holes left behind. And, those not filled, well, they were unnecessary to begin with. I thank you Mr. Greet. Two Cents @ Who's in Charge: Well Said grammer and usage I mean this to be helpful: 1.There's no apostrophe in the possessive "its". "It's" *always* means "it is". 2. Ad hominem - meaning directed at the "man" (person) - is what you mean. Ad homonym is not a standard latin phrase, but a homonym is a word that sounds like another word. solution man I know how we can get the jobs back from China etc - the jobs the unions chased away by demanding high wages! let's all work for the same wages they get in China! Let's all work for five bucks a day, 12 hours a shift, one bathroom break, 6 days a week, no health benefits! Then the jobs will come back! yes! d kathy ryan Mr. Greet: Thank you for your insightful post. Although I disagree somewhat on your views; I do like the way in which you present your case. Hopefully, you have time to read the article on Laura Doud in the LB Business Journal. Ms. Doud frankly states that 88% of the budget goes to pay for employee compensation. You can't keep this number from increasing, because of past commitments made by our City Council. With every increase in salary, it compounds the pension problem. Thank you Gary DeLong for admitting that it is City management and government officials who are to blame. The problem is, we are always trying to be politically correct, so placing blame is out of the question. If we cannot face up to what went wrong and by who, we will never know if raises and pension spikes were cloathed in fraulent behavior. Four years ago, after coming to office, the Mayor re-opened the police officers contract and gave them raises; then a couple of weeks later declares, "the City is living paycheck to paycheck". These raises not only put a burden on the budget, they compounded the existing pension problem. The following are statements I posted on our website, responding to the same PT editorial: "In Long Beach, everyone wants to move on; no need to really find out what happened when the City Council implemented the pension spikes for Miscellaneous Employees in 2002 and Public Safety in 1999. No need for investigative reporting, because that would mean looking into the dealings of Mayor O'Neill, City Manager Toboada, the Unions and the Long Beach City Council. Would it have involved too much time and resources, or is it a fact that, in Long Beach, it would have been socially or politically incorrect to call out the people who are responsible for causing our current and past financial crisis. The big players in the game are all gone, except for one City Council member, who is in a runoff race in June for the 7th District City Council seat. Mayor O'Neill is retired comfortably, with her good name in tact; former City Manager Toboada is retired on a $170,000 pension, and the Unions are still fighting to keep what they feel they earned. Their time spent cajoling the Legislature and our City Council paid off big time. When you have weak people, weak issues get passed. Think back, the City had taken out around $100Million in pension obligation bonds in 1995, another $90Million in 2002 and now the City is using a new method, 'smoothing' to finance the pension debt. Even before the pension spike in 2002, it was becoming apparent that we never could afford the pensions our City Council approved. In 2002, during Mayor O'Neills reign, while the economy was in a downturn (even after 911) and while the City was $100Million in debt, the Mayor told the public at her State of the City Address that Long Beach was in good shape. After the pension spike was completed, we learn of the $100Million debt and that City Manaqer, Mr. Toboada was being fired or he quit, whichever story you want to believe. The City Council claimed ignorance on the pension spike, even though they passed it in a late night session during the changeover from the old and new City Council. God forbid they use their brains and question the sustainability of such a huge increase (30%), or was there outside pressure?. Why didn't the PT investigate these happenings. Did they think they were all coincidences and not tied together in one big package of fraudulent behavior against the taxpayers of Long Beach? The PT did a disservice to the people of Long Beach by laying low, because of social or political implications it would have caused. To ease their conscience, we get a rant now and then on pensions. Where was our Long Beach Press Telegram in 2002?" I know public employees want to defend what they have, even though it was given to them by ethically challenged politicians. No one has to look any further than the MOU's to find out how well our City Manager has negotiated our tax dollars. The unions have negotiated pay or extra pay for every minute of the day they spend at work and lots of extras. When a City Manager is the labor negotiator, he benefits from every concession he gives, that alone is problamatic. One example is former City Manager, Mr. Taboada. This past year, Mr. West, after months of labor negotiations, did not negotiate to have any pension reform included in the labor contracts. In 2011, the contracts can be re-opened to discuss pension reform. The City is drowning in debt, and Mr. West feels it is fiscally okay to wait until 2011 to maybe get some concessions. It is obvious that he is fighting for the employees, because if they benefit, he benefits. What a system! For those of you who don't know, Long Beach also has an unfunded liability for banked sick leave and subsidized health care. When combining banked/unused sick leave ($67Million) and subsidized health care costs ($87Million), the total unfunded liability for these two benefits amounts to $154 Million Dollars. Because of the new federal accounting rules, this information had to be divulged by the City, and they did during the 1st Pension Reform Study Session. The unfunded liability is a problem, because we are not paying it down; it is not like the most recent pension debt that we will be smoothing starting in 2012 for years to come, or the previous pension obligation bonds. They are an obligation that have to be paid down. Just an example of how City management thinks: If a police officer is killed in the line of duty, his wife and dependents can use up his banked sick leave to pay for health insurance. Once that runs out; the City throws in an 2,000 hours of banked sick leave, which the dependents can use to pay for ongoing health insurance costs. Not that paying for health insurance for the fallen officer's family is questionable, but what is questionable is that the City pulling 2,000 hours (about a years worth of salary) out of thin air and gives it as a benefit. Well that 2,000/hrs. is actual money when it comes to an unfunded liability. There is no source of revenue for this 2,000/hrs., the City just creates a benefit with no way to pay for it. This goes on all of the time in Long Beach. It is time the City Council pick apart those MOU's. They have become the Health Care Plan that Congress doesn't want to read. City Council and City Management should be taking their jobs seriously or don't run for City Council or work for the City in such a high capacity position. CalPERS is another problem. They are trying to invest their way out of their huge losses by investing in riskier funds. If the City is putting the taxpayers at risk by using CalPERS; then they need to make sure their voice is heard and that they will not tolerate unsound investments to recoup their losses. Those of you who work for government, like to deamonize large companies who make profits. Please remember it takes the profits of these large companies to get others to invest. The profits on these investments is what has been paying your pensions. Yes, only 25% of investments are used towards the cost of the pension outlay; the other comes from contributions. That is what is so wrongfully scewed. In Long Beach, the employee picks up 2% of the total 26% contribution for public safety and 2% of the total 20% for miscellaneous employees. These percentages will continue to rise starting in 2012. If an employee is making $70K a year, the total contribution towards that individuals pension would be $14,000/yr.; the employee picks up $1,400 and you, the taxpayer, picks up $12,600. For a public safety employee, the total contribution towards the pension is $18,200/hr. The employee picks up $1,400/yr. and you, the taxpayer, picks up $16,000/yr. Remember these contributions are for employees making $70K a year. Think about our $100Club in Long Beach and the dangers ahead. John, I don't think you should dismiss pension reform as a minor problem. It is huge, because it is all about compounding, early retirement and too large of a commitment. STOP SPENDING All this talk about who deserves what really doesn't matter. If businesses don't have money, they cut back employees, benefits, expenses, etc. to survive or go bankrupt. The government needs to do the same. If there isn't any money then there isn't any money. Perpetual retirement systems put an unreasonable burden on an entity which is why private industry has done away with them. public citizen Lots of complaining but not much in the way of positive suggestions. What does the City Govt do if the unions wont accept their proposals? Fire everyone? And as to comparisons to the private sector - you mean the place where CEOS regularly get multi-million dollar comp packages even as their companies go bankrupt? That private sector? The one laying people off while profits are still high? The one where workers always and executives never shoulder the burden in tough times? The private sector that bamboozled the world into a housing bubble and the ensuing crisis? No thanks - I like my democratically elected public sector and the benefits it provides working people. We don't need our government to start acting like goldman sachs and walmart. Bixby Knolls Resident Kathy, It sounds like we need someone like you in office to help straighten this mess out. John Greet I'm so pleased to see that this column has generated considerable discussion! LBPOST readers are the best! @ CHARLIE: You touch on a very great concern of mine...the potential that the majority of voters truly do desire to see this amazing constitutional republic of ours move ever so incrementally toward socialism. This possibility concerns me very greatly indeed. @ Simpleton: Your point is well taken although I'm not certain if you're constructing a hypothetical or referring to two people you actually know. I will say that, at least where Long Beach is concerned, overtime is not factored into a public safety employee's retirement formula, nor is accrued sick leave, which is not paid out but, rather, transferred into a health savings account from which the retiree can pay for health care expenses for him/herself and their dependants until those funds are depleted. Accrued vacation and holiday time is paid out upon retirement and, so, does not impact the employee's retirement formula. LBPD has no Asst. Chiefs. We have three Deputy Chiefs who are salaried and so, earn no overtime and, according to the latest published City Budget, earn about $174k per year, not $200k. Meanwhile the retired Colonel enjoys free lifetime health care covereage, deeply discounted life insurance and lifetime base priveleges through which he or she has access to discounted groceries and many other discounted goods and services. Retired municipal public safety personnel enjoy no such benefits. @ Bixby Knolls: You address a topic near and dear to my heart. Many argue that we must incessantly raise taxes to continue to fund the many social programs and services government provides. I believe that this approach to providing assistance is the most expensive and the least efficient. Because of this, such an approach does far less public good than is intended. Government only does a very few things well and precious few of them very efficiently. Where social services support is concerned, private sector non- and not-for-profit charitable organizations do a far better job and deliver far more services dollar-for-dollar than government can over hope to. Thus, if the true goal is to assist those in our community who are in need to the greatest degree possible, the best and truly most compassionate approach is to allow us all to keep more of the money we earn so that we can, in turn, donate more to organizations that best provide those services. Unfortunately, the converse is the predominant approach and this is unfortunate. Because, typically, as taxes go up, charitable donations decline. This model is not allowing us to put our social service dollars to the best use. I think we should reverse that! @ grammer (sic) and usage: Did you really intend to misspell grammar? : ) @ Kathy Ryan: I is always so good to hear from you. As usual, you demonstrate a considerable awareness and knowledge of the history of this challenge. As mentioned, elections have consequences. If we want our government to change to any appreciable degree in any area of public policy, then more of us must register and, having registered, more of us must vote and vote intelligently, based upon the facts readily available from knoweldgable people like yourself and many other sources, rather than upon bumper sticker-length campaign rhetoric and overly simplistic and vague and misleading mailer language. We, as a people, must learn to be more discerning, to ask the right questions and to think more critically about the answers. Two More Cents John. You did not address the Social Security issue as it relates to city employee's. I know for at least law enforcement the city does not pay into Social Security. I think it is around %15 combined for boh employee and employer. I rarely see this mentioned in anyones discussion on this topic. kathy ryan Two More Cents: I hope you don't mind me answering your question. Long Beach pays around $10Million Dollars into the the social security system for the employer contribution towards miscellaneous employees. This money comes out of the General Fund, which has been on the decline for a number of years. This 7.5% contributi8on towards social security is in addition to the 18% the City contributes towards miscellaneous employees' pension. Jon I think the biggest problem with public employees is that too many (not all of course) go into that field for the great benefits, wages, and job security instead of doing it for the right reasons. What happened to "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."? We need more public employees who are working for the public, the greater good, and not just for themselves. If you want to work to profit and make money that's all good but please stick to the private sector and leave the public services to the most unselfish people who always have the greater good in mind. Also, I don't think anyone is really disputing the whether public employees have the right to ask for good wages and pensions, of course they do. But the fact is, in an aging society, defined benefit plans (opposed to contribution plans) are simply unsustainable. An increase in payouts without an increase in inputs is not sustainable. If you keep taking from the well without replenishing it runs dry. So where is the extra money going to come from? I don't see any public employees providing an answer for this question, they just keep yelling about their "right" to receive abnormally generous retirement benefits. And most of the posts here are just that. John Greet @ Two More Cents: Sorry for the oversight. It's impractical to respond to exery point made and when responses are so heavy, as they have been with this particular topic (did I mention that LBPOST readers are the best?) it's easy to miss some of the questions and offerings. I hope Kathy Ryan was able to answer the social security question to your satisfaction. @ Jon: Perhaps you can help to the City to determine a means by which they can accurately test for altruism but until that time, there's only a very few things that can be accurately quantified where any given applicant is concerned. Neither is it any less appropriate for a public employee to seek good wages and benefits than it is for a private sector employee? I don't think it is. We all have to provide for our families under the same economic realities. And just as in the private sector, there will always exist a tension between labor and management as labor seeks the best wages and working conditions it can bargain for while management seeks to minimize the costs of those as much as possible. As mentioned, the only true difference in this case is where the funds are coming from. Since the funds to pay for public employees come predominantly from tax revenues, the public is concerned about these costs, and rightly so. But I maintain that it is management, and not labor, that is responsible for keeping labor costs down. In Long Beach, managagement is represented by our elected Mayor and Council and the appointees they hire to represent them. Councilmember DeLong, at least, seems readily willing to concede this. Please recall that our public employees are taxpayers also. And those of us who live in Long Beach have no less a vested interest in keeping *all* of the costs of government down than do any other taxpayer group in the city. The difference, of coure, is that we actually do the work and provide the product or service in question, so we are in a unique position to know, implicitly, not only what our services cost but also what they are *worth*. I know what quality professional law enforcement, firefighting and paramedic services are worth to me and my family. What are they worth to you and yours? Simpleton John, thanks for facilitating a rational discussion on a topic that usually deteriorates into a vitriolic screaming match. Both the Colonel and the Assistant Chief in my previous post were fictional, but I know several of both that will be retiring in the next 5-10 years. I'm old school from the midwest, and my values are completely out of touch with CA politicians. Live below your means, save for rainy days, don't make promises you can't keep, pay your bills on time and in full, etc. I appreciate that Long Beach is not among the worst offenders in CA, but I don't see how we'll be able to keep our promises to public employees without dramatic cuts in services (like 1/3 less police and firemen). The math is stark. The baby boomers are starting to retire, and CA and its cities can't print money. Jon "What are they worth to you and yours?" Questions like exemplify the problem that I am bringing up. So police officers, educators, and firefighters are only willing to help us for the right price? I don't have any issue with someone demanding certain wages and benefits. My problem is when people do it under the guise of good will. Why not just come out and say it "sure I'll help you out, but its going to cost you". Two Cents @John: Thanks for pointing out that we, too, are tax payers. In Kathy's statistics, she seems to forget to break down that portion of taxpayer cost to also include the public employee's cost as well because I sure as heck paid a lot of taxes to state and federal last year and will again next year. So, I too, pay my fair share of everyone's pension costs including my own. @Kathy: You got it wrong when you said "Those of you who work for government, like to deamonize large companies who make profits. Please remember it takes the profits of these large companies to get others to invest." Most people on these blogs are people who have lost their jobs from the private sector and are complaining about those who have public sector jobs! Private sector companies keep their profits and pay their higher level execs and never filter the extra earnings down to the workers. Former private sector workers are angry with public sector employees who are still working Kathy!! That is the segment being demonized. John Greet @ Simpleton: You're speaking my language! @ Jon: You imply that a desire to earn a decent living and to serve one's community are somehow mutually exclusive. If public safety personnel didn't have bills to pay like everyone else they could simply donate their time as volunteers for our Police and Fire Departments just as I did four 4 years in the mid- 80's and just as many others are doing now. Like those others, I did so because I wanted to serve my community and that desire didn't change simply because I was finally offered a full time, paid position in the academy. But at some point we, as a community, have to assign a value to the services we receive from our government. It seems clear to me that some services have more value for a community than some others. This isn't conceit, it's simple fact...why else would some Department budgets be greater than some others? Who do some Departments have more employees than some others? Because we -thankfully- live in a capitalistic and market-based economy, the value we assign to such services must somewhow be converted into a dollar value. I can tell you that the dollar value. I personally assign to the services I receive from our various public safety and public education employees a far greater dollar value than that which we actually pay them. Thats's what I meant when I asked the question of you that I did. Hope that helps!
Our Liberty
John invites you to join him in discussing and debating national, state and local public policy issues that impact Long Beach. John
strongly believes that it is our liberties, our freedoms and our
responsibilities as free people in a Constitutional Republic that frame the
debate on all public policy deliberations and that open, honest and
respectful dialog is the key to better understanding these sometimes complex
but always entertaining issues.
John B. Greet is a native resident and employee of the City of Long Beach. His views and opinions are his own and in no way reflect the official positions or policies of the City of Long Beach or any of its Departments, nor are they intended to. John is married with 4 children and 2 pets; is a military veteran; a community volunteer; and an avid reader, researcher and freshwater fisherman.
John's Community
 
John's Archives
Show All Archives |
||||
| About Us | Contact Us | Policies | ||||
