Friday, March 29, 2013

No Prop 30 Money For Schools?

Ha, ha! The California Political Review reports that most or all of the revenue from Prop 30- that recent sales tax increase- will likely go to paying for teacher's retirement fund debt. Bloomberg has the whole story.

Told ya so! Actually, I didn't, but plenty of opponents to Prop 30 did.


At 7:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I'm not pleased to know my kids' school will remain dramatically under-funded (8 years of state and federal cuts), I'm glad to see the state is living up to its duty to fund retirement plans.

The fact that I don't work in a union, or have a retirement plan from my employer, doesn't mean I don't want other people have them. Everyone should have them. This is good news.

At 7:57 AM, Blogger Rose said...

Yeah, who didn't see THAT coming?

At 8:02 AM, Blogger Travis said...

When will the people figure out the government doesn't need more money they just need to figure out how to spend the money they already have correctly. did you know that we spend 1.4 billion dollars on the Obama's expenditures Throughout 1 year

At 8:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Until "State laws" having to do with sales tax appropriations are reconciled by amendments to the State Constitution to ensure that sales taxes go to the intended source(s), then any increases prior to "all-out tax reform" is insane illogic by the majority voters who pass "mumbo jumbo" legislation and who elect "liars, thieves, cheats, deceivers, manipulators, etc...". Not just the "State", but also the "Feds" AND "Locals".

It should be said though that current employees of the public sector DO NOT DESERVE to have what was promised to them "reneged". In other words, for new and future public employees, the benfits will never be as good as what taxpayers currently owe those already promised. Changes need to affect newbies from here on out.

No one likes to be backstabbed. Most publiuc employees deserve what was promised to them. Obviously, elected officials stand-upon a different ground than lower public employees. Elected officials are over-paid for the most part (less some tiny town in the middle of nowhere where "volunteerism" is practiced by elected officials) - HOJ

At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No the exact opposite needs to happen, current contracts need to be canceled or revised at this point in time. Yes "honor" (cough-cough) the crimes in the past, but going forward every government employee needs to be on defined benefit. (period)

At 3:30 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

...but going forward every government employee needs to be on defined benefit.

Don't you mean defined contributions?

At 11:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

past public employees "generally" did not concoct a scheme to defraud taxpayers when they accepted their employment position. These public employees were "promised" incentives. While HOJ agrees that the incentives were too much to begin with for many, that alone does not constitute renegging on the obligation and duty to those employees in fulfilling the terms and conditions of employment. Yes, the terms and conditions of employment needs change for the better, starting yesteryear, but again, that is not a reason to backstab those already given promises. Future public employees just need to understand that they won't get as much as past public employees.

Also, it is the "higher-ups" who have greater "conflicts of interest" when allowed to vote on their own pay raises, partly using comparisons to lower level employees and high class private sector wealth earners. Further, at the State and Federal levels, higher-ups get even more perks and extras paid with taxdollars, having nothing to do with annual salaries or personal month to month expense liabilities. These higher-ups are culpible too. - HOJ

At 6:59 AM, Blogger Travis said...

That's just it the higher ups get more in perks then they do salary and that needs to stop but if they spent the money they appropriated properly it should be able to pay all the obligations they should have a surplus budget plus full funding for the schools the waste in government spending is just disgusting some of these politicians spend more on lunch then I would make in a year

At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Exactly Travis. A good example would be the $300K Biden stole from taxpayers to fund is latest international vacation melee (err outreach) - HOJ

At 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Defined benefit v. Undefined benefit, as in it goes on and on based on the life of the recipient relying on actuarial estimates with all shortfalls picked up by the tax payer. Royal pensions as they called them in the old world, for the "divine right" of government workers.


Post a Comment

<< Home