« Is Chico's Budget Balanced? | Main | Logogate »
October 27, 2008
Pants On Fire
 |
|
| Image: The election hyperbole coming
from lefty and righty PACs is pretty funny. I finally received a copy of the Accountability for Chico's Tomorrow (ACT) two page mailer on Saturday. Last week I also received an email from Randy Stone's Developer Action Club of Chico. And I got a look at a copy of a recent Esplanade League mailer from Chico's Planning Commission. They all have one thing in common. You'd have to be a third grader to fall for their messaging. Update: Based on a conversation I had with a reader I went back and checked the voting record of Ann Schwab for the deficit reduction strategy proposed by the City Manager on May 20th, 2008. Both Schwab and Wahl voted against the 7.5% across the board departmental cuts and the COLA reductions to 1%. Both of them suggested a 12.5% cut in non-public safety departments, and a 5% cut in police and fire. However, at the July 1st Council meeting the budget was approved 6-1; only Wahl dissented. The ACT mailer, funded primarily by real estate/builder interests, is technically correct in many of its statements. But the pictures are so over the top it's hard to take anything in it seriously. There's even an ominous looking burglar lurking around the pages. At least one statement is false. The mailer states that the liberal majority took the city from a surplus to a deficit in 6 years. City budget documents show the deficits began in 2001, a year before the liberal majority took over. As far as I know all city budgets since 2001, except the last one, were supported unanimously. The mailer also blames Schwab and Holcombe for downsizing police and fire services. This is technically correct as none of the candidates supported by ACT voted for the recent budget (of all candidates only Schwab and Holcombe voted for that budget), and it did reduce emergency services. I believe those services were impacted by the elimination of planned positions that were not filled and the elimination of specific services. I don't believe any sworn officers or fire fighters were laid off due to that budget. It's also my opinion that the only way to get the budget in balance would be to make cuts similar to, and probably larger, than those already made to emergency services. Stone's DACC email diatribe is a little more flagrant in the falsehoods department, in my opinion. It claims that Wahl hired 14 police officers at a cost of $7 million in 2001. That's $500,000 each. I don't think they cost that much, it seems a little steep even for Chico's pay scale. It also suggests that the liberal majority council is fighting to slow Wahl's aggressive spending. In the email Wahl comes across as an unstoppable hurricane of budget busting excess. Since all of the budgets except the last one were unanimously approved this can hardly be the case. A liberal majority has run the City Council for 7 of 8 years of budgets with deficits. They could have stopped/slowed spending at any time. The Esplanade League mailer continues the diatribe against Wahl. It even includes a little graph that shows how the budget deficit occurred when Wahl was elected, and how it gets smaller when a liberal council takes over. This is clearly false. The structural budget deficit showed up in 2001 and gets larger and larger until the 2008-9 budget. Claims that somehow Wahl created the problem and how the liberal majority did all they could to stop it are false. |
|
| What really caused the budget deficit? There were a number of decisions and assumptions made by city staff and approved by elected officials that caused the budget deficit to expand since 2001. None of it is all the fault of liberals or conservatives. One reason for the budget problem was the shift in PERS at the same time the dot com bust occurred in the stock market. This increased the cost to the city to maintain its retirement benefits for employees. In addition emergency service personnel had PERS benefits increased from 2%@50 to 3%@50. The deficit was also caused by increases in health insurance and worker compensation rates, slowing growth in sales tax income, state money grabs from local government, and employee wages rising because of union negotiations. All of this occurred from 2001-2008. All of it contributed to the expanding budget deficit. The deficit was hidden by inter-fund transfers that kept services and raises flowing at the cost of street improvements. These are the budgets that city staff produced and the City Council approved. The emergency services (police and fire) required 59% of the General Fund in 1990, and 74% of the General Fund in 2007. How you cut $7.3 million from the 2008-9 budget, which is our current deficit, without cutting emergency services (or their compensation) is beyond me. But certainly one could select larger cuts in one area versus another. As I look at the budget problems there is one thing that stands out in relation to this election. During the 2006 election the liberal majority, and their supporters, downplayed the budget as a problem. Here in 2008 it is important that doesn't happen again. The budget has not been fixed. Some great headway was made in balancing the General Fund structural deficit, but I think we'll still be short. Long term staffing needs and the problems associated with spending all of the RDA money remain untouched. |
|
 |
CI Challenge: |
Posted by Lon at October 27, 2008 08:50 AM
Comments
Lyre lyre! Pants on Fyre!
Posted by: Gregg Payne at October 27, 2008 09:09 AM
After further research it turns out that Mary Flynn was a perfect reverse barometer for my city council choices.
While some (Lon included) may find Walker acceptable, I can not bring myself to vote for anyone who is endorsed by folks who associate with the Esplanade League or the even more ridiculous and execrable Chicoans Against Larry Wahl Running For Any Office.
While I doubt that this election will sweep away power from the left wing cabal that runs this town, it may change the political arena enough to rein in some of their spendthrift agendas, anti-business attitudes, endless funding for "studies" and kowtowing to goofy radicals.
Wahl, Sorensen, Valente, Van Auken, if elected, are the most likely to support fiscal responsibility and political sensibility, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: David Walton at October 27, 2008 11:15 AM
David,
I'm glad you did the research. Chico is a small enough town that voters can quickly find out who the candidates are and how they stack up against a voter's priorities.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at October 27, 2008 11:21 AM
Good point on CalPERS being an important component of our current “difficulties”.
In the past decade CalPERS retirement fund premiums went through the roof.
And despite the efforts to “stabilize” CalPERS premium increases:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_16/ai_n13249725
It seems likely that the City will see more significant rate increases:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689.html
If contributions do go up by the low end of the range suggested in that article, currently that would increase the costs to the city by more than $700,000.00 per year.
Posted by: Mark Sorensen at October 27, 2008 12:15 PM
And as the stock market dives, so will the calPERS holdings.
From the article Mark posted...
Lon
Unless returns improve, Calpers is poised to impose an estimated increase in employer contributions of 2% to 4% of payroll starting in July 2010 for about two-thirds of its state-employer members, and in July 2011 for the remaining third. Any decision will be made after Calpers knows its returns for the fiscal year.
The average employer contribution rate for public agencies including cities and counties is 13% of payroll in the current fiscal year, Calpers said.
A Calpers rate increase would add to a fiscal mess in California, where falling sales-tax and income-tax revenue and a tanking real-estate market have affected government agencies across the state. With budget cuts for state and local governments projected in coming years, an increase from Calpers would be one more burden.
Posted by: Lon at October 27, 2008 12:25 PM
Randy Stone's ORANGE COUNTY Developer's Action Club of Chico. It's strange but true, the Stone Building Corporation that was voted $2.8 million March 2008 to build low-income apartments in Chico is an Orange County company that uses a Orange County general contractor. The agreement doesn't even require the Stone brothers to use local workers. They sure are mean spirited to local folks, what with them being guest builders in our community, using our money.
Posted by: Bob at October 27, 2008 06:14 PM
Gregg,
Of course it's a lyre. I think you are the only challenge player these days. I think I'll have to change it to Payne's Pick or Gregg's Guess.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at October 28, 2008 07:07 AM
Bob,
It's all pretty silly. It does seem odd that the City Council who is trying to support local business would spend money on an out of town builder. But that's politics for you.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at October 28, 2008 07:09 AM
Oh Lon! Please apologize to third graders, I know you didn't mean that. You should start taking your kid to meetings now - within a year, he will be pointing things out to you that went by while you were noticing something else. Kids are remarkably astute, especially when they know mom and dad value their input.
After encoutering some girls from Chico High at the taco wagon yesterday, I am convinced public school just dumbs kids down.
And that's why you won't get most Chicoans to listen to an explanation of what the hell happened with PERS. Given our education system, most of them are desperately trying to figure out their own checking statements, no brain juice left to worry about what their public employees are up to.
In an interview with Lehrer news hour, the head of AP news services made an interesting remark. It was back when Cronkite announced the average American was too stupid to elect the president. Lehrer asked the AP chief, "how do you get the average American to pay attention to these complex news issues?" AP Dude said, "Keep it simple, sweetheart!" He called it the "3 Bears Mentality". You have to stick to the basic facts, and use regular layman's English. And sometimes you have to spell things out very literally. But, he says, it's worth it when you see that gleam of righteous indignation in their eyes, you know you got through to them.
Like that old guy in Network:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok&feature=related
Instead the media is all over the place with rumors and wild stories and a new catch phrase every week about issues that don't matter. You realize, this budget thing is playing out on every level, across the US. My kid and I are studying the states online. We've made it across Nevada, Utah, and Colorado so far. One thing we look at are the newspapers in their capitol cities. You have to go to the second or third section of the paper, past all the election and movie star hype, but you find the same thing everytime. Budget crisis, housing market bust, etc. They all gave too many raises and permitted too many houses too.
I think it's the governor of Nevada who has a good plan to help their budget - performance reviews of employees instead of automatic raises. Oh mercy, what rocket science, give that man a cigar!
And Sarsour was the only council candidate to mention we need to reconsider our policy on employee benefits. I think the whole notion of benefits needs to be re-examined. Insurance has ruined our health care system. Insurance companies have become so powerful because of public employee benefits packages that they run/ruin our hospitals. I'll complain about that more some other time.
I thank you all for doing the research, I think this blog is great Lon. But now, I suggest, we all go outside and play before life passes us by. This round of Kool Aid is on me!
Posted by: juanita at October 28, 2008 07:12 AM
Juanita,
I was on my way out to play with my daughter and walk my son to school. Then I stopped to read your comment. Now truant officers are after my son and my daughter and I have grown apart. How can I go out and play if you make me read 1000 word comments. Just kidding, thanks for the compliment.
That's not true of Sarsour being the only one to mention benefits. Wahl has proposed a two tier benefit system.
What I heard Sarsour say at the forum was that health benefits are too expensive. I agree with that. But I don't think he was saying city employees should have fewer benefits, just that the overarching health care system needs change. The problem I see with that is that it's not something a City Council member can address.
Wahl's suggestion that a two tier benefit system be put in place is more workable. And it is something a City Councilor can propose. The existing employees get what they've been promised, and new employees get less benefits.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at October 28, 2008 10:00 AM
Re: "It was back when Cronkite announced the average American was too stupid to elect the president."
I missed that. That one statement explains a great deal about the profession of journalism and the mindset of journalists. Whatever would the common, stupid, citizen without the press? No wonder nose rings are such high fashion.
Posted by: David Walton at October 28, 2008 12:22 PM
yeah, I guess I'll read Larry's two-tier thing again, you're probably right. Correct, that is, right is not the right word.
yes David, I would not have believed Cronkite's remark if I had not heard it - one of those bytes and snatches that passes for news but tends instead to distract us from connected thought. Like the bells and buzzers in Harrison Bergeron.
But he's right. Can't blame a guy for making an observation. When I was in the teaching program at Chico State, I was shocked how they just moved students through without any standards - everybody got a C, if you got an A, you were considered an intellectual giant. My fellow students had trouble stringing together sentences, using words over two syllables, understanding math beyond long division, and often times cried that they couldn't keep up. I'll never forget the girl from Orange County who told my social science teacher off one day. She cried, "you use too big of words! Some of the words you use are three and four syllables long!"
These people are teachers in our area schools now.
Be afraid, be very very afraid.
Posted by: juanita at October 29, 2008 09:27 AM