Jim

Not the issue here: -----Since 2000, revenues grew 22 percent while employee costs rose 77 percent and staffing fell 17 percent.------------ So let's see, staffing down by almost 20% revenue grows, but costs go up by over triple? Inflation ain't the issue.

-----Since 2000, revenues grew 22 percent while employee costs rose 77 percent and staffing fell 17 percent.------------ A bit unsustainable I'd say and due mostly to pensions. Can only raise property taxes so much on deflated real estate, which is their primary tax revenue.

That ain't going to solve San Jose's - and other municipalities woes.

In the example I quoted I don't beleive that is what has been proposed.

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question. What is a municipality to do, seriously? Practical solutions please - less on the lectures about the corporate elite. I don't see there is much room to move - taxes ain't going up. -----Since 2000, revenues grew 22 percent while employee costs rose 77 percent and staffing fell 17 percent.------------

Puts things in perspective. Whatever day-to-day headaches you have they are trivial. Grim.

True, with the caveat that if you own your own business and are smart enough to incorporate and pay yourself in dividends then the rate is maximum 15%. I know a couple single-shingle owners who do this.

What's your point again? Change the channel already. Or at least get more witty. It's getting old.

I'm saying that the poor can't afford to build to 9.0 standards. Is that contentious? What to do about it? I don't know. I guess eliminating poverty from the world would be a big step in that direction. How do you propose we do that? Are these questions even worth asking anymore? Are we so resigned to global apartheid that we're only tasked with figuring out how either lower our standards to accommodate it or protect ourselves from being touched by it? I don't know. I think hyjacking another innocuous discussion in Spray into the inevitable arm-waving exercise will solve the world-cum- corporate-vassal problem. Really.

It only took four posts to go down the usual rabbit hole on this one. Jeesh.

It's pretty clear that wages have gone down over the past 30 years or so and haven't kept pace with inflation, housing, education costs, etc. While the stressors have increased on the middle and lower classes, the upper (I mean top 5%) class has enjoyed more and more tax breaks. I think most folks are ok with the rich getting richer - as long as there is some equity in investment in items important to the mass of people - general infrastructure, transit, schools, public safety, and a social safety net. Unfortuantely the past 15 yrs or so, including the past two, have seen more and more benefits shoveled to the ubber-rich. So while I see the need to make some structual changes on the state and local levels (auto pay raises, pensions) opponents of these changes do have a valid point when they point to upper level and coporate tax breaks. It's very short-sighted policy.

Ha! While I have to get up into trees or on cliffs occasionally for work - doing that with a chainsaw would be a disaster quickly!! Yikes!!

But did it find the planet of origin for Newt's wife? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/newt-gingrich-opens-up-ab_n_833418.html

The native way: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2722

Trip: Mt. Rainer - Mazama Ridge Date: 3/6/2011 Trip Report: Had a good tour up, and then down the length of the ridge to Reflection lakes. Best snow was in the trees were it was shaded, otherwise a thin sun crust over styrofoam, not so bad really. We chose this route rather than the ant march up to Muir. Nice moderate tour. Gear Notes: Phat skis Approach Notes: The usual down Paradise

I was at a conference near D.C. last week on conservation planning and one of the speakers was Dr. John Holdren - the presidental advisor on climate change. While I've done some reading on the subject in relation to estuarine restoration efforts and floodplain work - I was, well, stunned by the some of the data and projections. The issue will, by far, be the one that the coming generation will need to deal with. I was not aware of the extent of current sea level rise due to thermal expansion - it is quite depressing. For a primer I'd suggest the book Eaarth by Bill McKibben, who has been writing on the subject for 20 yrs.

What would be a good choice for an irony emoticon?

I don't think anyone would call it arguing after the first page or so -- as usual it quickly moves into arm-waving hysterical - characterized by or arising from psychoneurotic hysteria

Your poor rationalizations (corporatists are preventing the fed gov from bailing out the states) for your not wanting to cut the war budget, effectively tax the wealthy and corporations, cut all unnecessary corporate welfare are really irrelevant. Demagogues like you made it toxic for politicians to discus raising progressive taxation, yet you now blame politicians for their demagoguery and their passing the buck onto the future. Your argument is transparent and worthy of an anti-government zealot. Nice try, but I'm in front of the line for slashing the pentagon budget. Do we really need armed forces in 78 countries around the world or be out spending other countries in military budgets - combined - by 2x? No, of course not. But similarly you don't seem to grasp the need to be serious about fiscal responsible on the state level. Malfeasance on one level is not justification to apply it on another.

What hogwash! Let's seriously cut the war budget, take back the various corporate welfare that isn't doing anything worthwhile for the greater whole, effectively tax (because tax rates tell us nothing of actual taxation) corporations and the wealthy (in particular make war on tax heavens and close loopholes), and invest in the economy. Then, we'll see what we can afford to do or not, but not before we do all of it. I guess that pretty much sums up the difference between Jim and me. No. In general, I think what separates us is that I tend to stay on topic. The argument that because there are inequities on the federal level - military inflated budgets, federal tax breaks for the rich, etc. that that somehow absolves the states from taking responsibility for their actions - where the federal white knight is not going to come to the rescue - and that conservative - meaning reasonable - budget approaches should be implemented. In general I think the middle class is getting the big stick up the butt lately but mostly because of their laziness and and choice in leaders. But the left is winging itself by defending unsustainable policies veiled in class warfare. Seriously - grow up already, call a spade a spade, and I'm on board. I'm really tired of programs, such as government pensions, sucking funds from essential, and more worthy, progressive programs.

Public pensions are funded by employee contributions, employer contributions, earnings, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls. Employer contributions, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls = taxpayer money. Employee contributions and earnings = not taxpayer money. If public employee unions could be paid out with the contribution of employee contributions + earnings, there'd be no issue. They can't. Not by a long shot - which is why they'd go berzerk if someone proposed that their pension benefits be limited to those that could be financed by their contributions plus their earnings. Bear in mind that it takes $20-30,000 to cover every thousand dollars in inflation indexed pension benefits. Significantly more if you have a retiree significantly below the age of 65. That means it takes between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 to fund a $50,000 pension. That doesn't even consider health benefits, which are typically funded out of general revenues, with no money set aside to pay for them. Assuming that the pension is for 60% of the final year's pay, that means someone with a final three year's salary of ~$83K would get $50,000 per year. Play with the calculator I've linked below and see what kind of annual contributions and return rates it takes to get that kind of cash. Then ask yourself how likely it is that someone who retired at 83K could have ever made anything like the kind of annual contributions required to accrue that kind of balance. They haven't been. They won't be. It is going to take massive amounts of tax money to cover the difference. http://www.dinkytown.net/java/InvestmentReturn.html Math. It's a wonderful thing.

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless. My next post will be about organic vegetables. ...

Yea, not joke! Who wouldn't want a deal where you have to put in little or nothing towards your retirement and get a substantial payoff!! This is rich!! Oh yea - it's a great deal - for those receiving the benefits - not the taxpayers on the hook for paying the benefits. And because these pension funds are, well, so underfunded - the taxpayers are going to be asked again soon to fill up the trough. Hmmmm, where is that 3 billion WA owes going to come from? Newsflash - ever hear of no load mutual funds? Please educate yourself.

Unfortunately such flawed logic and absolution from the facts is one of the reasons why the dems are losing the public trust. Just friggin come clean, figure out a solution that the public will go along with, and implement it. But no. Just keep the train going as if there is no problem. While I'm in favor of unions and collective bargaining - I'm not in favor of debt obligations. So, as I've stated before, I'd favor moving to all 401ks for public employees.

Nobody claimed anything you said and you know it. You are starting to look like a sore loser on this. Doesn't the graph show a 4% return? the report never claimed that states based pension returns on 4%, Hmmm- Liar! So this is just a navel gazing existential exercise then?