As I often do, I was scanning through articles this morning trying to get a sense of what is going on not only here in Davis and Yolo County, but across the region. One thing that caught my eye was the Sacramento County District Attorney’s memo to their county administrator. It reminded me a bit of the Yolo County Sheriff’s reaction to our proposed budget cuts.
While Yolo County has to close a twenty-four million dollar deficit, one third of its operating dollars, Sacramento County is looking to close about a 187 million dollar deficit for the next fiscal year. There has been persistent talk that Sacramento County will have to declare bankruptcy.
“I recognize the dramatic impact these cuts will have on public safety for every citizen of this county if I am forced to reduce my operations by 35 percent. But the county has left me no other options.”
As the Sacramento Bee reports:
Her memo has shocked law enforcement officials.
“The draconian cuts are just unacceptable,” said Folsom Police Chief Sam Spiegel. “You can’t expect law enforcement to function in a region with a debilitated District Attorney’s Office.”
My response here is hello, where have you been for the last six months? You think these cuts are not going to devastate social services, health care, mental health care, you think these cutbacks are not going to impact every sector of society that government is involved in? Do you think education is not going to be absolutely devastated at the state and local level from K-12 to community colleges to higher education?
I just do not understand the overriding mentality here that somehow the service in your sector is more important than other services in other sectors.
Sacramento County is merely one example here. This memo really could have been written for Yolo County by a Yolo County law enforcement official (or even a public health official talking about their own budget cuts in their department). Indeed, it really could have been written for the school districts, it really could be written at every walk of life.
“Scully said the memo is not a scare tactic but a legitimate worst-case scenario if her department’s allocation ends up as low as proposed.”
The article continues:
“The DA’s office might not need quite so many cuts. Cindy Besemer, chief deputy district attorney, speculated that the shortfall could drop from $20 million to about $12 million if unions agree to concessions and other funding changes.”
Sound familiar? Yolo County is going through the same process. So is DJUSD. So too will the city of Davis. So too has the state of California.
There are a number of very important lessons that perhaps we can learn from observing the same process playing itself out in another location.
First, every entity believes that the service it provides is the most important. I can certainly make the argument that law enforcement is vital. But I think we can make the same argument about many County Services. Providing health care is vital. Providing assistance for the poor is vital. Providing assistance for the aged is vital. Providing a variety of programs for children is vital. Taking away vital county services would harm those most at risk and magnify the problems of crime and poverty already amplified by the economic downturn.
In the long run cuts to education are going to be devastating on a statewide basis.
In the city of Davis we have already heard and will hear that public safety services are vital to the continuation of a high quality of life in Davis.
With regard to our schools, we will hear that having good teachers and retaining our high quality programs are vital to our continued strong schools.
I agree with all of the arguments and yet the reality is that we are going to cut all of these services dramatically and it is going to be difficult to argue that one sector is that much more important than another. People stop for a second, I know some of you will have a knee-jerk response here, just because we have to do something does not mean that impact will be any less damaging to society.
Second, I am a strong supporter of organized labor and also workers in general. But we have to face some facts here. Government money for the most part in bulk goes to labor. So any time you have to cut your budget you are cutting people’s jobs. And yes, government jobs are the way some people make a living and cutting those jobs will harm the economy every bit as much as private sector job losses. Across the board whether it is the state, county, city, or schools we see the exact same scenario playing out. The workers are the ones who bear the brunt of this economic downturn. They have the unenviable choice between job cuts and salary cuts.
The Vanguard has consistently asked for workers to take salary cuts in order to avoid their colleagues losing their jobs. Many have argued that this is insensitive, that we have not placed ourselves in the shoes of those asked to live with less. But the spirit of sacrifice asks that all take less so that others can retain their jobs. We recognize that many of these salaries, wages, benefits, and pensions, are hard fought over years of disputes and sometimes even when we talk about government jobs, stained in blood. We believe that teachers for instance remain underpaid with substandard health care. Most workers are not getting huge lucrative contracts. Many work for fairly modest wages in exchange for the security they will get once they retire.
The Vanguard has always drawn the distinction between those making $30,000 to $40,000, those teachers generally making in the $60,000 range, and then those city employees making over $100,000 with huge pensions and health benefits. There is just no comparison between the food service workers making minimum wage with no health care and firefighters making an average of $140,000 in total compensation. No comparison.
Unfortunately in these times, everyone is going to have to sacrifice so that their colleagues do not lose their jobs.
At the county level jobs will be saved by the workers taking and agreeing to concessions. That is true in Yolo as well as Sacramento County.
As it is increasingly becoming apparent, DJUSD is going to likely face a $3 million additional deficit. There is no way to describe that possibility other than devastating. Frankly DJUSD will likely remain a great school district despite these cuts. We worry about the schools and children across the state struggling even before the cuts. We have already laid off a good deal of teachers and staff. If we have to cut an additional $3 million, we will have to lay off many more staff. We will have to cut vital programs that educate our youth, make their educational experience more enjoyable, or in many cases provide the incentives to stay in school and not drop out.
I reiterate these points again not to pressure the workers and unions to take paycuts, they will do what they believe is in their best interest and hopefully the right thing. I think they should take the cuts to save jobs, but ultimately that’s their decision.
I reiterate it to bring the topic back to our original discussion regarding law enforcement. I have no doubt there is a great value to what Sacramento County law enforcement does, but why are they unique? These budget cuts are devastating everyone. You think education is not a vital means by which to prevent crime?
Last night, we had Senator Mark Leno on our radio show on KDRT talking about health care. He pointed out how everything is interrelated. Children who do not get health care coverage end up getting things like tooth decay that leads to infection and frequent illness and absence from school. Poor education leads to lower performance and makes it more likely they engage in crime. We spend in this state as much on incarceration as we do on colleges. Isn’t one of the best ways to prevent crime to get kids to succeed in school and go to college? Do I have to pull out the statistics here or will people take that on face value?
What I suggest here is not really that novel, but there seems to be a tunnel vision that people in public safety have, and I do not say this to put them down, I think it’s true of all industries. The only way that we have public safety for those in the field is to pump money into fire and police.
I have made this point repeatedly with regards to city budget. Is not road repair and infrastructure maintenance a form of public safety? Does it not put people in peril just as much to have dangerous roads as it does to cut money from police or fire? Perhaps even more so? Is not education a kind of public safety in the sense that better educated people are less likely to commit crimes?
Is not even health care as the Senator last night so eloquently put, a form of public safety too? One of the leading causes for bankruptcy is lack of health care and medical debt. Some of the leading causes for lack of performance in school are health related issues. Some of the leading causes for lack of productivity in the work force, is lack of preventative medicine.
It is all interrelated. So yes, I agree with the Sacramento District Attorney, but the bottom line is that we either have to find the money for everything or services are going to suffer–all services because so many are vital.
This is a wake up call for California. We have to decide what kind of place we want this to be and what our values are. I have repeatedly called for a more sensible city compensation structure not because I think fire is less important, but because I think other areas of spending are just as important and we only have one pot of money.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree that this is a wake-up call. I would like to live in a state that is not simply seen as a big pinata by the public employee unions. Every year they blow money on their lobbyists and take another whack at it to see what goodies fall out.
Our budget is so profoundly out of whack because of escalating labor costs. These costs are entirely driven by out of control public labor union successes against politicians who don’t really care about financial impacts. Its easier to say that you support “education” “safety” “health” etc. and just give the workers what they want.
We now are faced with a situation that will force the politicians to actually make choices and try to restructure our budget to match our income. Public employee unions will be seen for what they are, and perhaps we can move away from this whole cycle of kickbacks.
I suggest that Davis residents have an opportunity to learn about “Participatory Budgeting.” It is a process for collaborative and collective
decisions about finance and budget that the community makes together following very clear principles and guidelines. You may just google and read about the origins in Spain and implementation in several Brazilian cities. There have been several workshops in Boston and VT recently on PB, and the city of Chicago is going to follow this process for parts of the city budget now. It allows for collective decisions based on a clear understanding of all aspects of the city income and budget with the community collectively setting priorities.
1) Scare tactics are being used to force the hand of employees, so they will agree to take paycuts, unpaid furloughs, etc.
2) There is no gov’t money, so either paycuts for gov’t employees has to happen, or layoffs.
3) Layoffs lead to more layoffs and less tax revenue coming in to gov’t.
4) Too often preventative programs are not seen as essential as crisis programs.
5) There is a lot of waste in gov’t. The fat needs to be trimmed. Gov’t has created programs like an ice cream store creates new flavors. We cannot fund the whole store of new and improved flavors.
As you can see, the above factors are often at odds w each other. And there lies the problem. How do you juggle the above, and come out w a sensible budget?
My suggestion is as follows. Workers need to take paycuts temporarily, so that this nation does not continue to spiral into a deeper depression. Upper management needs to take the larger percentage hits dollarwise. It is important to keep as many people working as possible. Meanwhile, federal/state/local gov’ts need to wrestle with basic underlying structural deficits, rather than continuing to punt. Cuts need to be made, but not immediately. Wasteful or unrealistic programs need to be slowly phased out.
Just as an example of how clueless gov’ts and taxpayers are, the county health dept. was whining that it will have to cut its health services to illegal immigrants. Excuse me, but if we cannot afford to give our own teachers decent health care coverage, are we really expected to cover health care of those who illegally sneak across the border? This is absolutely ridiculous. Obama’s stimulus money is being turned down in many states, bc it is nothing but pure pork, e.g. resodding lawns. For DJUSD to have given Bruce Colby a raise in the middle of an economic downturn was outrageous. So was UCD building a new stadium. I could go on and on… You get the point.
I agree with most of what you say. But here’s mine and the Swine Flu perfectly illustrates the problem. It makes sense to say if we cannot give our teachers decent health care can we expect to give health care (less decent than teacher’s I’ll add) to people who illegally sneak across the border? The problem is that getting them off Communicare or Y-chip isn’t going to remove them from the country. So now you have people not getting any health coverage and potentially spreading disease to others. I just don’t think we can do that, no matter how much sense it seems to make.
“I agree with most of what you say. But here’s mine and the Swine Flu perfectly illustrates the problem. It makes sense to say if we cannot give our teachers decent health care can we expect to give health care (less decent than teacher’s I’ll add) to people who illegally sneak across the border? The problem is that getting them off Communicare or Y-chip isn’t going to remove them from the country. So now you have people not getting any health coverage and potentially spreading disease to others. I just don’t think we can do that, no matter how much sense it seems to make.”
I get your point. However, if there is only so much money to go around, would you rather keep your teachers healthy, or illegal immigrants? You have to make choices, bc the money is NOT there. As soon as a program is created, there is always some justification for keeping it in place. But at some point, the ice cream store cannot hold all the flavors you have created. Step back and look at the bigger picture. For instance, if you kept health care for illegal immigrants, what will you cut instead? Because the funding is just not there. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could drive a Cadillac, but a Ford will get you from destination A to destination B.
I think the point is that we have do something as a whole to keep society healthy because we are not living on islands.
You are comparing basic level health coverage to what teachers get, which while far from ideal, is better than what you get at Communicare and with Y-chip. At least from what I’ve witnessed.
I understand we would have to cut something else instead in the short term. In the long term, I think we spend more by not giving everyone access to some sort of health care.
Wow, first comment today…attack labor. Connect the dots, people.
Bush and his cronies put in writing exactly what their intentions were in 1989, on file in the archives of Rice U. in Houston, if they haven’t been destroyed by his supporters. It was to promote the new world order through various mechanisms, destroy working class safety nets, and in general promote fascism. The massive transfer of wealth going on as we comment here, on wall street, is one of the last, if not the last, step in their plan. Taking over the resources of other countries is just one tactic, ie, Iraq. The ‘no child left behind” was for the benefit of companies wanting their share of education dollars through privitizing schools. Since the first election of Bush jr., NO tax dollars were returned to states as had been the practice of Washington, so states, including ours, are strapped.
Now we have to make the hard decisions…on the other hand, I read yesterday that our top state administrators were anticipating raises.
Resident – you are so correct!
I agree whole heartedly with “resident’s” comments. The attack on labor both union and non-union by the Reagan and both Bush administrations with help from the Republican Congresses (1995 to 2007) has been devastating. Hopefully with help from the Obama administration and the new Democratic Congress some of that damage can be reversed.
Unfortunately, due to the horrific state of the economy brought on by the GW Bush, his allies, the greed & corruption on Wall Street & major financial institutiions we all must bite the bullet and sacrifice collectively to help our nation and fellow citizens.
But some should bite much harder, for their salaries, benefits and retirements are not affordable even in good economic times. Specifically some public service labor groups (public safety & senior management in particular) have in fact done exceeding well during the past decade at the expense of other public service employees and the taxpayer. Therefore:
•All top administrators at school districts, cities, counties and the state of California should not be given raises, should take pay cuts and take a reduction in their retirement packages.
•Employees at the City of Davis who make over 100K in salaries and benefits should be given no raises, take a cut in pay and a reduction in their retirement packages too. That is 199 out of nearly 450 city employees.
•The excessive pay/benefit/retirement packages awarded specifically to the fire fighters and senior city management in Davis must be the first to be adjusted significantly downwards.
•The 3% @ 50 early retirement formulas with health benefits for life for public safety employees must be done away with. Talk about legacy costs, these public safety retirements make private sector retirements for the rank & file look like a joke. These retirements are not affordable for any community to sustain causing “unmet & unfunded needs” in our communities to grow and grow.
•The 2% or 2.5% @ 55 retirement formulas for other public employees must be adjusted for the same reasons.
We cannot sustain these unaffordable labor costs today, let alone tomorrow.
The gravy train needs to stop.
[quote]•The 3% @ 50 early retirement formulas with health benefits for life for public safety employees must be done away with. Talk about legacy costs, these public safety retirements make private sector retirements for the rank & file look like a joke. These retirements are not affordable for any community to sustain causing “unmet & unfunded needs” in our communities to grow and grow.
•The 2% or 2.5% @ 55 retirement formulas for other public employees must be adjusted for the same reasons. [/quote] We cannot legally change the retirement formulas for any existing employees. However, we can (in the new labor contracts) offer a more modest plan for new employees. We can also modify the non-pension retirement benefits. For example, we could require all retirees under 65 (the normal retirement age) to pay for their own medical-dental-vision plans until they qualify for MediCare. That would save the City of Davis a lot of money.
At a state level, I think a lot wasted money is to be found in our criminal justice system. I suppose we will never do it, but if we ended the drug war and regulated street narcotics, we would have a great source of state tax revenues and we would save billions of dollars on incarceration, probation, police, property crimes, assaults and so on.
I also think it would be wise if we revisited our sentencing guidelines for most crimes. I’m perhaps in a small minority, but I don’t see what good it does to send people away to prison ($40,000 a year or more plus the court costs and lawyer fees) for more than 3 years in most cases*. It seems to me, 3 years in prison is a very serious punishment. Except for people who are violent and cannot control their violent tendencies, I think we should look at some less expensive alternatives for longer-term punishments.
I doubt it would save any money, but I also think we should remove all people from prisons who are certiably mentally ill ([url]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/mhtip.pr[/url]). They often need to be locked up, but not in a prison. They need psychiatric help.
*While I would prefer a swift execution for all murderers, we are realistically never going to do that. And because our appeals system is, by design, terribly expensive, the only folks who I think should get very long prison sentences are those convicted of murder or rape (presuming the offender is not certifiably mentally ill). Given the costs and the appeals and the huge delay in execution, the death penalty doesn’t serve its intended purpose.
Mike Hart says he “would like to live in a state that is not simply seen as a big pinata by the public employee unions. Every year they blow money on their lobbyists and take another whack at it to see what goodies fall out.” I’m not related to Mike so thank the gods I don’t have to spend Thanksgiving with him. What a nice two-dimensional cartoon view he has of the world. It certainly makes it easy to come up with a solution when it’s all so black and white.
The facts are that state employees and many other city and county workers are already working under furloughs (cuts in pay). Public employees have agreed in many instances to the concessions demanded by Mike and others and I guarantee you it won’t matter much. Next week, they’ll be back for more. What if we suggest that Mike or Rich sacrifice part of their salary and dip into their own pension plans to help the rest of us out? Most public workers sacrifice higher outside wages for the decent retirement plans. Guys like Hart and Rifkin will never be happy until everyone is making less than they are (no matter how much or how little that is) and I guess we’ll never hear about how a few folks continue to enrich themselves off of the mass of us who earn a living making a wage or salary.
One reason many public employees are not so keen on giving up compensation every time Hart or Rifkin demand it is that they look around and note that the people demanding sacrifice don’t feel it applies to them. In the same deal that imposes furloughs on state workers, the legislature grants increased tax breaks for corporations! Talk about whacking the pinata! Public employees have as much or more right to be cynical than right wing whiners.
[b]”One reason many public employees are not so keen on giving up compensation every time Hart or Rifkin demand it is that they look around and note that the people demanding sacrifice don’t feel it applies to them.”[/b]
I’m not sure why you feel compelled to make a personal attack against me — out of the blue — when I don’t even know who you are or what I’ve ever said which you found to be untrue. My focus has consistantly been to have public agencies spend their monies judiciously, so that we don’t face situations where whole programs must be axed, where people who are low on the tenure totem pole (but need their jobs) are fired, where people (usually poor and frail, very young and very old) are denied the services they need, and where taxpayers (many of whom are struggling to get by) are continually pinched. I am very critical, for example, of the 3% at 50 pension plan for public safety officials, because having such a program results in layoffs, denial of services and unduly high taxes and fees. I have pointed out a number of reforms which I think will make our long-term future better. My focus has never been, despite your rhetoric and the rhetoric of those who would pay off elected officials in campaign finance, to attack public employees. In point of fact, I know a lot of City workers, have great relations with all of them, and without exception think they do good and honorable work and perform their jobs well. I don’t begrudge any public employees. I also don’t blame anyone in any position for accepting the money he has been offered. If my employer wanted to give me a $250,000 lump sum payment for not getting sick, I would take the money. I don’t blame James Carter for doing just that. He should take whatever his department wants to pay him. I also do not blame unions for fighting for better pay and benefits for their workers. That’s their job. I have consistantly put the onus for unsustainable policies on the people we elect and, by extension, on those of us in the general public who have not held our elected official accountable. You must feel good about yourself, Whacker, claiming falsely that I have ever demanded anything of anyone else that I would not do myself. If you can live with that, that’s your problem.
“You are comparing basic level health coverage to what teachers get, which while far from ideal, is better than what you get at Communicare and with Y-chip. At least from what I’ve witnessed.
I understand we would have to cut something else instead in the short term. In the long term, I think we spend more by not giving everyone access to some sort of health care.”
OK, so what do you propose we cut, just so we can give basic health care to illegal aliens? I’m listening…
“Since the first election of Bush jr., NO tax dollars were returned to states as had been the practice of Washington, so states, including ours, are strapped.
Now we have to make the hard decisions…on the other hand, I read yesterday that our top state administrators were anticipating raises.”
Oh, and I suppose the mortgage meltdown had nothing to do with Alan Greenspan who encourage ARMs, and Barney Frank, who encouraged banks to loan to folks who could not afford to pay the loans back? Greenspan is a closet Democrat (is out of the closet now), and Barney Frank is a full fledged Democrat. This country is in the mess it is in bc Congress and politicians in general have taken thier collective eye off the ball, and have refused to regulate banks and Wall Street.
“I agree whole heartedly with “resident’s” comments. The attack on labor both union and non-union by the Reagan and both Bush administrations with help from the Republican Congresses (1995 to 2007) has been devastating. Hopefully with help from the Obama administration and the new Democratic Congress some of that damage can be reversed.”
How, by giving out gobs of federal bailout money to banks, as the banks turn around and give bonuses to upper management? Obama is going to bankrupt this country, bc he will not address the issue of lack of regulation head on. Many of your solutions at the local city level, while laudable, are not legal, as Rifkin points out.
“At a state level, I think a lot wasted money is to be found in our criminal justice system. I suppose we will never do it, but if we ended the drug war and regulated street narcotics, we would have a great source of state tax revenues and we would save billions of dollars on incarceration, probation, police, property crimes, assaults and so on.”
And have a lot of stoned parents “raising” their children and driving on the roads. Think this through before you speak!
“I doubt it would save any money, but I also think we should remove all people from prisons who are certiably mentally ill.”
And put them where? In mental institutions, which will be even more costly?
“*While I would prefer a swift execution for all murderers, we are realistically never going to do that. And because our appeals system is, by design, terribly expensive, the only folks who I think should get very long prison sentences are those convicted of murder or rape (presuming the offender is not certifiably mentally ill). Given the costs and the appeals and the huge delay in execution, the death penalty doesn’t serve its intended purpose.”
This makes sense to me, altho I am against the death penalty for other reasons (our justice system makes too many mistakes). I’m all for doing away w the death penalty, and replacing it w life w/o parole – including chain gangs, where prisoners actually have to work for their keep growing vegetables and the like.
“One reason many public employees are not so keen on giving up compensation every time Hart or Rifkin demand it is that they look around and note that the people demanding sacrifice don’t feel it applies to them. In the same deal that imposes furloughs on state workers, the legislature grants increased tax breaks for corporations!”
Agreed, it is high time business paid its fair share of taxes (altho ultimately the consumer will pay for any tax increase), and corporate executives were kept from being so greedy and feeding at the shareholders’/public trough. But if gov’t employees are not willing to take paycuts, furloughs, etc. right now, then many will be laid off. Those laid off folks cannot make mortgage payments on their homes, which will go into foreclosure. A glut of foreclosed homes on the market lowers property values. Lower property values means less tax revenue coming in to gov’t coffers – which will mean another round of layoffs. The goal right now must be to KEEP PEOPLE EMPLOYED. Slowly cut gov’t waste over time, but not all at once. The economy cannot afford to take such a huge hit as is coming right around the corner. The Obama people and news media are in complete denial about this. They refuse to make the necessary structural changes that must be dealt w, just as our City Council is…
“OK, so what do you propose we cut, just so we can give basic health care to illegal aliens? I’m listening… “
To clarify again, when you say “just so we can give,” my motivation is protection of public health of which Y-ship programs that give health care to immigrants is one component.
In terms of what I would recommend we cut, how about two deputy DA positions, the district attorney’s office prosecutes too many minor crimes to begin with. This would force them to prioritize.
“In terms of what I would recommend we cut, how about two deputy DA positions, the district attorney’s office prosecutes too many minor crimes to begin with. This would force them to prioritize.”
Do two deputy DA positions equate to the cost of cutting health care to illegal immigrants? Also, be prepared for a backlog of cases, even more than there already is, for those arrested if we do away w two deputy DA positions. I would also remind you that often petty criminals go on to perpetrate bigger felony crimes when not deterred. For instance, it is not uncommon for a peeping tom to become a serial rapist. Serial killers often start out torturing small animals. Think about this a while, before you advocate cutting two deputy DA positions…