More budget cuts coming

[iacrenter]

Just as I predicted and feared--California will continue to gut public education to balance the budget. Looks like the state is running $1B below revenue predictions and will need to trigger automatic cuts to balance the budget.

The part of the OC Register article that looks real bad is this section: 
"If the LAO?s forecast proves accurate, both the University of California and the California State University systems will lose $100 million in funding, while public schools will eliminate a week of the school year."
http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2011/11/16/lao-state-must-cut-budget-now/77453/

I might need to continue renting and pour the money into private schooling instead.

 

[ch]

The state has money just cutting it so the masses feel the pain. Education out of money - does this make sense to you?

CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed loaned state $700 million from the university's large reserve fund

Despite slashing $650 million each from the California State University and University of California, lawmakers also hit two systems up this summer to loan the state some cash.

Senate Bill 79 established a new investment fund for UC, CSU, California Community Colleges and the Judicial Council. Under the bill, the UC loaned the state $1 billion while the CSU fronted the state $700 million?a total of $1.7 billion in public university funds. They expect to earn a return from the state, apparently more than they get elsewhere but less than the state would have to pay Wall Street.

http://www.calfac.org/headline/csu-...te-700-million-universitys-large-reserve-fund

Original Source -http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/07/california-looks-to-uc-csu-for-lend.html

 

[ch]

The CSU Chancellor Office turned around shortly after and voted on raising tuition 9%.
You can see the results from this from this article on OC Register.

"Student demonstrators duck to avoid being pepper sprayed by Long Beach Police officers during a protest Wednesday Nov. 16 at the California State University Board of Trustees meeting in Long Beach. A struggle erupted between demonstrators and police Wednesday as trustees of the huge California State University system met to consider another tuition hike, this time a 9 percent increase."
http://www.ocregister.com/news/students-327287-tuition-state.html

A Local CSU on the news which turn this protest into Occupy CSUFhttp://www.ocregister.com/news/students-327708-trustees-inga.html

 

[iacrenter]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

 

[usctrojancpa]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

Maybe Jerry should cut where there is plenty fat on the bone...the gov't workers and gov't pensions.  Oh wait, he can't do that because those are his strongest supporters. 

 

[jvna]

I'm sure i've asked this before, but what are you parents doing in antipication of your kids' future higher educational costs?  separate investment account?  529?  CD?  counting on financial aid?  grants?  hopeful for scholarships?

 

[irvinehomeshopper]

Fake a divorce and let the unemployed spouse have full custody of the children. Apply for financial aids, scholarships and grants. There should be more than enough to cover school tuition and living expenses for free plus some left for buying a car using the low interest rate from student loans. If needs be default on the student loans because it does not affect fico score or find some excuses to defer it.

Oops! I forgot. Don't use "Irvine" as the address.

I'm sure i've asked this before, but what are you parents doing in antipication of your kids' future higher educational costs?  separate investment account?  529?  CD?  counting on financial aid?  grants?  hopeful for scholarships?

 

[qwerty]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

Maybe Jerry should cut where there is plenty fat on the bone...the gov't workers and gov't pensions.  Oh wait, he can't do that because those are his strongest supporters. 

dont you know it is unamerican to ask govt employees, cops and firefighters in general to not pay their fair share? you and i have to pay our fair share but to even ask them is very unamerican.  this state will never be able to compete with other states as long as you have the albatross of govt pensions and benefits that that public employees receive.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

Maybe Jerry should cut where there is plenty fat on the bone...the gov't workers and gov't pensions.  Oh wait, he can't do that because those are his strongest supporters.

He is. 
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4163837/state-worker-pension-reform-debate.html

 

[usctrojancpa]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

Maybe Jerry should cut where there is plenty fat on the bone...the gov't workers and gov't pensions.  Oh wait, he can't do that because those are his strongest supporters. 

dont you know it is unamerican to ask govt employees, cops and firefighters in general to not pay their fair share? you and i have to pay our fair share but to even ask them is very unamerican.  this state will never be able to compete with other states as long as you have the albatross of govt pensions and benefits that that public employees receive.

Of course it isn't american to ask that the 50-80% of your highest income annual pensions be cut, god forbid we do that or we might have riots breaking out in front of all the police and fire stations throughout California.  Let's squeeze everyone else in the middle class to keep footing the bill (via higher taxes) for Jerry's supporters...errr lobbying groups.  The scary part is that those pension obligations keep growing and growing.  Hell, you'd be lucky to find a private company that offers any kind of pension and there are numerous companies out there that don't even offer their employees a 401k. 

 

[usctrojancpa]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

Maybe Jerry should cut where there is plenty fat on the bone...the gov't workers and gov't pensions.  Oh wait, he can't do that because those are his strongest supporters.

He is. 
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4163837/state-worker-pension-reform-debate.html

That's all fine for the "new" gov't workers.  The issue are all those grandfathered gov't workers who get 50-80% of their highest pay till the day they die.  I've heard of stories where people double dip on these kind of pensions by working as a state employee and as a federal employee.  If we fixed the pension issue, we'd have a balanced budget and wouldn't have to keep raising taxes on everyone in this state.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Here it is--Gov Brown's budget proposes $4.8B in school cuts if voters do not approve a 0.5% hike in sales tax and other revenue generating ideas. The resulting budget cuts will gut almost 3 weeks out of public school.

Given how poor the economy is and how little Californian's incomes have grown, how likely are voters going to approve a tax hike on themselves?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120106,0,680610.story

Maybe Jerry should cut where there is plenty fat on the bone...the gov't workers and gov't pensions.  Oh wait, he can't do that because those are his strongest supporters.

He is. 
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4163837/state-worker-pension-reform-debate.html

That's all fine for the "new" gov't workers.  The issue are all those grandfathered gov't workers who get 50-80% of their highest pay till the day they die.  I've heard of stories where people double dip on these kind of pensions by working as a state employee and as a federal employee.  If we fixed the pension issue, we'd have a balanced budget and wouldn't have to keep raising taxes on everyone in this state.

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

 

[qwerty]

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

Contractual obligatations get changed all the time through bankruptcy. if the state has no money, should taxes be raised in perpetuity to pay for pensions? that is probably not the smartest thing to do. something has to give at some point and it probably makes sense to modify the pensions some how. 

im not sure if i buy the private sector pays more argument.  the problem with the govt is that pensions are gifts that keep on giving regardless of the the economy is doing. private companies can scale back or not give out bonuses. if govt wages are in fact lower, then i would prefer that they increase wages to match the private sector, and then make all employees responsible for their own retirement, the same way i am.  this will give governments much more financial flexibility, if revenue gets low, they can just lay people off and it will make it easier to balance budgets and not raise taxes. the economy has been in the shitters and yet govt are on the hook for these outrageous pensions. 

 

[morekaos]

As a native Californian (there really aren't that many of us) I have seen our state do some loony things but voting for higher taxes on ourselves at this point in the cycle may just be a bridge too far.  I hope that Brown is using this referendum as political cover to finally cut this budget to the bone.  He ran on a pledge of "no new taxes unless the people vote it in".  I think this referendum will lose and Moonbeam probably does too.  At his age he knows he is a one termer and maybe...just maybe, he'll do the right thing.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

Contractual obligatations get changed all the time through bankruptcy. if the state has no money, should taxes be raised in perpetuity to pay for pensions? that is probably not the smartest thing to do. something has to give at some point and it probably makes sense to modify the pensions some how. 

im not sure if i buy the private sector pays more argument.  the problem with the govt is that pensions are gifts that keep on giving regardless of the the economy is doing. private companies can scale back or not give out bonuses. if govt wages are in fact lower, then i would prefer that they increase wages to match the private sector, and then make all employees responsible for their own retirement, the same way i am.  this will give governments much more financial flexibility, if revenue gets low, they can just lay people off and it will make it easier to balance budgets and not raise taxes. the economy has been in the shitters and yet govt are on the hook for these outrageous pensions.

States cannot declare bankruptcy (only local governments).  You also won't want to do that cause it would destroy the state's credit rating.  It has be a negotiation.

But that's the point of pensions, it's there in the good times and the bad times.  The real issues with pensions is that it was severely underfunded during the good times.  Instead of putting money in the pension funds during the good times, the state spent that money.  It's not the state workers' fault that happened.  Private companies did this a lot in the 1990s and simply declared BK and screwed a bunch of their former workers out of pensions they both agreed to and funded.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

As a native Californian (there really aren't that many of us) I have seen our state do some loony things but voting for higher taxes on ourselves at this point in the cycle may just be a bridge too far.  I hope that Brown is using this referendum as political cover to finally cut this budget to the bone.  He ran on a pledge of "no new taxes unless the people vote it in".  I think this referendum will lose and Moonbeam probably does too.  At his age he knows he is a one termer and maybe...just maybe, he'll do the right thing.

Polls show that there is support for the propositions.  I don't mind paying some more taxes.

 

[qwerty]

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

Contractual obligatations get changed all the time through bankruptcy. if the state has no money, should taxes be raised in perpetuity to pay for pensions? that is probably not the smartest thing to do. something has to give at some point and it probably makes sense to modify the pensions some how. 

im not sure if i buy the private sector pays more argument.  the problem with the govt is that pensions are gifts that keep on giving regardless of the the economy is doing. private companies can scale back or not give out bonuses. if govt wages are in fact lower, then i would prefer that they increase wages to match the private sector, and then make all employees responsible for their own retirement, the same way i am.  this will give governments much more financial flexibility, if revenue gets low, they can just lay people off and it will make it easier to balance budgets and not raise taxes. the economy has been in the shitters and yet govt are on the hook for these outrageous pensions.

States cannot declare bankruptcy (only local governments).  You also won't want to do that cause it would destroy the state's credit rating.  It has be a negotiation.

But that's the point of pensions, it's there in the good times and the bad times.  The real issues with pensions is that it was severely underfunded during the good times.  Instead of putting money in the pension funds during the good times, the state spent that money.  It's not the state workers' fault that happened.  Private companies did this a lot in the 1990s and simply declared BK and screwed a bunch of their former workers out of pensions they both agreed to and funded.

the pensions are there in the good time and bad times because the good old taxpayer is always on the hook.  the market tanks and now the pensions are underfunded? not a problem, the taxpayers are on the hook.  and you are dreaming if you think any entity, private or public will contribute to a pension if it is not underfunded (outside of minimum requirements, if applicable).

 

[Irvinecommuter]

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

Contractual obligatations get changed all the time through bankruptcy. if the state has no money, should taxes be raised in perpetuity to pay for pensions? that is probably not the smartest thing to do. something has to give at some point and it probably makes sense to modify the pensions some how. 

im not sure if i buy the private sector pays more argument.  the problem with the govt is that pensions are gifts that keep on giving regardless of the the economy is doing. private companies can scale back or not give out bonuses. if govt wages are in fact lower, then i would prefer that they increase wages to match the private sector, and then make all employees responsible for their own retirement, the same way i am.  this will give governments much more financial flexibility, if revenue gets low, they can just lay people off and it will make it easier to balance budgets and not raise taxes. the economy has been in the shitters and yet govt are on the hook for these outrageous pensions.

States cannot declare bankruptcy (only local governments).  You also won't want to do that cause it would destroy the state's credit rating.  It has be a negotiation.

But that's the point of pensions, it's there in the good times and the bad times.  The real issues with pensions is that it was severely underfunded during the good times.  Instead of putting money in the pension funds during the good times, the state spent that money.  It's not the state workers' fault that happened.  Private companies did this a lot in the 1990s and simply declared BK and screwed a bunch of their former workers out of pensions they both agreed to and funded.

the pensions are there in the good time and bad times because the good old taxpayer is always on the hook.  the market tanks and now the pensions are underfunded? not a problem, the taxpayers are on the hook.  and you are dreaming if you think any entity, private or public will contribute to a pension if it is not underfunded (outside of minimum requirements, if applicable).

So it's okay for management to be irresponsible and the employees are bad for asking what they bargained for?

 

[usctrojancpa]

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

Contractual obligatations get changed all the time through bankruptcy. if the state has no money, should taxes be raised in perpetuity to pay for pensions? that is probably not the smartest thing to do. something has to give at some point and it probably makes sense to modify the pensions some how. 

im not sure if i buy the private sector pays more argument.  the problem with the govt is that pensions are gifts that keep on giving regardless of the the economy is doing. private companies can scale back or not give out bonuses. if govt wages are in fact lower, then i would prefer that they increase wages to match the private sector, and then make all employees responsible for their own retirement, the same way i am.  this will give governments much more financial flexibility, if revenue gets low, they can just lay people off and it will make it easier to balance budgets and not raise taxes. the economy has been in the shitters and yet govt are on the hook for these outrageous pensions.

States cannot declare bankruptcy (only local governments).  You also won't want to do that cause it would destroy the state's credit rating.  It has be a negotiation.

But that's the point of pensions, it's there in the good times and the bad times.  The real issues with pensions is that it was severely underfunded during the good times.  Instead of putting money in the pension funds during the good times, the state spent that money.  It's not the state workers' fault that happened.  Private companies did this a lot in the 1990s and simply declared BK and screwed a bunch of their former workers out of pensions they both agreed to and funded.

BINGO, underfunded pensions are the issue.  Here's an idea...how about having the workers kick in more of their money into the pensions.  Yeah, it's not the state workers' fault....it's the idiot policitians who wanted to cater to their supporters...errrr gravytrain.  If the state and loca govt were as effecient as private companies, we wouldn't be in this state budget mess that we are in now.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

1)  those are contractual obligations.  You just can't change them because you like to cut the budget.

2)  Not that I think it's morally good or bad, but why should an individual who is entitled to both state and federal pension not receive both. 

3)  The pension is a way to attract talent from the private sector where the pay is generally higher or there is really no equivalent in the private sector.  It does need to be reformed but it's not the evil people make it out to be.  It's no different than bonuses that companies give out to high-demand employees.  Also, the reason why private companies stopped pensions is because there is social security.  State employees don't get social security.

Contractual obligatations get changed all the time through bankruptcy. if the state has no money, should taxes be raised in perpetuity to pay for pensions? that is probably not the smartest thing to do. something has to give at some point and it probably makes sense to modify the pensions some how. 

im not sure if i buy the private sector pays more argument.  the problem with the govt is that pensions are gifts that keep on giving regardless of the the economy is doing. private companies can scale back or not give out bonuses. if govt wages are in fact lower, then i would prefer that they increase wages to match the private sector, and then make all employees responsible for their own retirement, the same way i am.  this will give governments much more financial flexibility, if revenue gets low, they can just lay people off and it will make it easier to balance budgets and not raise taxes. the economy has been in the shitters and yet govt are on the hook for these outrageous pensions.

States cannot declare bankruptcy (only local governments).  You also won't want to do that cause it would destroy the state's credit rating.  It has be a negotiation.

But that's the point of pensions, it's there in the good times and the bad times.  The real issues with pensions is that it was severely underfunded during the good times.  Instead of putting money in the pension funds during the good times, the state spent that money.  It's not the state workers' fault that happened.  Private companies did this a lot in the 1990s and simply declared BK and screwed a bunch of their former workers out of pensions they both agreed to and funded.

BINGO, underfunded pensions are the issue.  Here's an idea...how about having the workers kick in more of their money into the pensions.  Yeah, it's not the state workers' fault....it's the idiot policitians who wanted to cater to their supporters...errrr gravytrain.  If the state and loca govt were as effecient as private companies, we wouldn't be in this state budget mess that we are in now.

Private companies are often very inefficient.  That's why so many business fail or go BK.  State governments don't have that option.

Also, governments are generally involved in businesses/professions that are not profitable.  It's like the postal service v. UPS/FedEx.