<i>>Teachers, who don’t receive outlandish wages or pensions, didn’t cause this problem, and the good news for them is that they will get their pensions because the state is legally required to back up school districts if they can’t meet their commitments.</i><p>How can teachers be completely absolved of responsibility for the current situation, considering that teacher's unions were at least partly responsible for negotiating the pension contents? Obviously the individual teachers or administrators never wanted a bankrupt system, but when you hand off representation to your union without taking responsibility for long term sustainability, stuff like this happens. Look at the Automobile Unions; basically the same sort of setup.
> To the extent that school districts pick up the cost, kids in school today will be hurt because more dollars will go to pension costs and fewer dollars will go to classrooms. To the extent that the state picks up the cost, residents will receive fewer services. Either way, voters will get little for the tax increase they approved in November.<p>The only real problem here is how this was presented. As worded, it sounds like Crane is arguing that the tax shouldn't have gone through. But the pensions were guaranteed, and taxes are how the voters pay for things. What the voters will get for their tax increase is fulfillment of obligations they've already promised. What they're "getting" is teachers in classrooms rather than rioting in the streets. The article comes across as whining about having to pay for things already bought.
Why do state employees enjoy the privilege of pensions and free healthcare? Why can't we force them into the real world of shitty insurance plans, financial responsibility for their own retirement supplemented by social security checks, you know, the life style that private sector employees are "enjoying"?<p>By "private sector" I don't mean the tiny group of high-tech workers and other 6-figure professionals, but regular people who represent the median $61K/household income, just to be clear.<p>Isn't this just utterly fucked up: to pay for state employees entitlements while not being eligible to receive any ourselves?<p>I was hoping that California will simply go bankrupt and we'll be given a chance to start from scratch, but apparently a State cannot be bankrupted, so how are we supposed to get rid of Sacramento without resorting to violence? "Voting them out" is clearly not working because they're simply lying on the ballots now.
Actually during the advertising blitz this was pointed out that all of this wasn't funding education but instead the teacher pension system. Not that most voters listened.
Typical 1% rant designed to flumox the 99%.<p>Overlooks that teacher pensions is a legitimate expense if you just happen to be running schools, like CA is.<p>Just goes to show, when you want to lie, lie big.<p>Take away teachers' pensions, and you might as well say goodbye to attracting any new teachers or retaining the good ones.<p>As Dr. Martin Luther King worked so hard for, everyone, which includes teachers, has a right to a decent living which includes a decent retirement.
I'm a CA Dem, but wish that the CA GOP would get its act together so there would be a credible threat to this voodoo economics.<p>Right now, the CA GOP is in such a sorry state that many people seeking office switch to Dem to even have a shot. My party is crawling with GOP defectors.<p>The Republican Party has become the Tea Party, Anti Immigrant, Anti Abortion, Anti Tax, Anti Gay party. There's no room for compromise.
A big part of the pension problem in California comes from Firefighters and Police. They don't contribute to the pension system, yet used to be able to cash out at age 50 with a full pension. Also, since their pension was based on their highest attained salary, they would work one year with a bunch of overtime, often spiking their salaries to six figures.