What do you propose should be done about it? The retired policemen were assured of their pensions as a condition of employment. You can't just renege after they've fulfilled their end of the bargain.

The problem here is a basic conflict of interest. Who decides how much to pay public sector employees? Why - public sector employees do!

Civil servants are supposed to receive less pay than private sector employees, for two reasons: First, these jobs should not be too attractive. You want your best talent in private industry, generating (not consuming) tax revenues. Second, less pay as compensation for the huge, intangible benefit of having very secure jobs.

A solution? In most local governments, voters can force an issue to a vote with a referendum. Put together a reasonable civil service pay-and-benefits package, and force a vote on it with a referendum.

Doing this right will require some very good legal help. The pay and benefits must be reasonable. The local government must be able to force revision of existing employment contracts. There must be no obligation to get union approval. You must be able - indeed eager - to fire any employees who strike. (What a great opportunity to thin down the bureaucracy!). Finally, one must include the provision that any future changes to pay-and-benefits also require voter approval.

I have a problem with this whole issue, as I have seen alot of these ridiculous arguments lately. I'm tired of all the whiners saying that government employees make too much...every American has the opportunity to work for the government. If all the complainers would get off their asses, get a real education, and then go through the year that it takes to get a clearance, they could get a job with the government too.

Just more attempts at income redistribution.

@patrick - What happens if CA goes bankrupt? That's right, all those contracts are void. It's in the union's interest to renegotiate before that happens.

@mike - government workers exist because people like me don't work for the government. Government produces nothing, and consumes everything. Which is why it's supposed to be limited, not employing one in three people.

Mike, there are two problems with your argument:

First: one must keep the costs of government down. Government produces nothing - it only consumes. Government services are necessary, but the costs must be kept down. Everyone cannot work for the government, nor do you want them to. For that matter, you do not want your best working there either - you want your best people attracted to private industry, where they will have productive jobs.

Second, and the reason pay and benefits are so high: as a group, public sector employees are negotiating with themselves. There is currently no external control - this is the reason that voters must force a control onto the system.

There's a big difference between government workers who put their lives on the line--Marines, firemen, etc. and those who don't. Dam inspectors, garbagemen, teachers. I'm willing to pay well someone who is willing to go into a burning building for me. Or who gets shot at. The others, not so much.

"The retired policemen were assured of their pensions as a condition of employment. You can't just renege after they've fulfilled their end of the bargain."

Sure I can. I just won't pay taxes and I will instead hide income. Because paying for this is bullshit, and I don't feel bad avoiding it.

What, you think people just take it? Go look at other countries like Greece and Italy, where people simply stopped paying taxes and took things off the books. That is where things go.

Government employees should have reasonably known when they CHOSE to work for the government, that WE THE PEOPLE can do pretty much what we want.

Any government employee who assumes he/she has a divine contract and WE THE PEOPLE have no choice in the matter, no matter how bad it gets, deserves pretty much whatever happens to him/her.

As one poster pointed out, bankruptcy voids all contracts. They might be stuck in the Federal retirement program for collapsed retirement programs. Assuming the Federal Government does not also go bankrupt.

By the way, my daughter who is a teacher in Southern Texas doesn't have such a hot retirement package. The last time she figured it out, if she is widowed, and retires very old, she will not be able to pay the property taxes on her home. They paid $95,000 to build it in 1998 or so. It is probably worth around $160,000 now. She will have to sell it and live in an old mobile home.

And, the law is she cannot receive, ever, Social Security.

So, do not assume California benefits are universal, because they are not.

She has figured out her private retirement savings plan is what is going to save her, and is putting considerable amount of money into that. Assuming it does not also go broke.

While we are on that topic, let me tell you something that truly offends me. Some retired guy with a 40 foot motor home, pulls up to a restaurant and gets an elder discount, while the employees, barely above minimum wage, have to pay full price. This makes no sense.

I have tried to avoid elder discount, and have learned the employee might get fired if I don't accept it. But, it really burns me. I do not ever ask for it.

I think that Mike's being sarcastic.

As for modifying pensions, this could be done in several ways, ranging from court ordered restructuring to outright dissolution of pension obligations. There's nothing magical about a government pension obligation that makes it immune to the legal process.

One likely outcome is that the federal government absorbs them and adjusts them down in the process.

Public pensions result from a collusion between insider interests. Public Unions effectively elect their own management, who reward them with outsized salaries, pensions and benefits. If this same process were to occur within a private corporation, criminal charges would result.

So I have no compunction about reducing these obligations.

Frankly the unions would be smart to get ahead of this issue, because when it becomes evident to the broader public what has been occurring, the reaction could be severe.

Not entirely sure how the other public pensions are worked out, but the one for teachers is based on final salary earned. If they are similar, then this would explain the high pension amount for the police chief. I bet the hundreds of thousands of regular city workers, teachers, firemen, and policemen don't see anywhere near this kind of compensation. Large cuts only hurt the regular folks, those at the top of the union pyramid scheme will always figure out how to cash in.

Used to be, you got a governmnet job because of the security, benefits, and retirement. Not because of the pay. The pay was ok, but not great, but this was compensated for by the great benefits. Now the government folks have better pay than an equivalent private sector job AND the great other benefits like health care and retirement.

If we are gonna up the pay, then we need to bring those bennies down to a "normal" level.

Either is ok with me, but you can't have both great pay (better than an equivalent private secotr position) AND great benefits and retirement.

Pick either A or B.

You can't have both.

"Some retired guy with a 40 foot motor home, pulls up to a restaurant and gets an elder discount, while the employees, barely above minimum wage, have to pay full price. This makes no sense."

That is because older folks are more price sensitive shoppers, for a variety of reasons (more free time, for example). If private parties wish to attract more business of price sensitive customers by discriminating on almost any basis(ladies night, early bird specials, etc.), I am okay with that.

But what should hack you off is that guy with the $750,000 mobile home, two houses, pension and personal savings is also getting his gas paid for by social security checks...taken from the wages of the young mother working in that restaurant. Unconscionable.

If you'd like some background on this A.J. Duffy character & United Teachers Los Angeles, get a load of this:

http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/854792

As a former 20+ years public employee for both a City and a State (an now in the private sector) I can tell you that every paycheck there was a little line showing the amount deducted from my paycheck and put into my PERS account. Sure, it was matched by my employer, but half of it came out of my check. I also paid half of my benefits--again deducted from every paycheck (btw--I'm single with no kids and I paid the same amount as folks with spouses and kids--go figure) Most PERS accounts are vested if you remain employed for 5 years(it varies from agency to agency)--if you leave before the 5 year mark you only get what you paid (what was deducted from your check) and the rest stays in the PERS fund. Lots of folks leave before the 5 year mark. When I was laid off, I chose to cash out my PERS and put it into an IRA--just before the stock market crashed. And I paid income tax on that but it was worth it.

I also paid federal, state and local taxes on my government income--so hey, I paid part of my own salary!

I could write volumes about the waste in government (having to buy new chairs every 4 years because we have a health and safety budget line that by law we have to spend!) but I worked in the jobs for 2 reasons. First, I really liked the jobs and I absolutely felt like I helped the people I came into contact with every day. Second, both jobs were within walking distance or a short bus ride from my house. I got both jobs by jumping through the civil service application hoops--over 1,000 applications for each. Neither one paid a great deal but the paid benefits and personal benefits were fabulous. Oh, and I did get laid off due to budget cuts in a very bad economy and had a job in the private sector within two months.

The stories of the double dippers are the ones that make the headlines because that's what sells the papers (or the google ads). Most retirees, like my Mother, are comfortable because they're careful and conservative with their spending.

I think the whole idea of pension plans need to go, but there's a big difference between how firemen and police officers have their pension set and how other public sector employees like teachers (disclaimer - my lovely mom is a teacher, and I know a lot of asshole cops so I am biased) have their pensions set. Firemen and police officers have their pensions determined based on the highest amount they earned annually ever in their career - including overtime. So their annual salary may be quite reasonable given the risk they incur day-to-day but they can make huge huge huge amounts of money in overtime. I don't think overtime should factor into pensions. We also pay for premium health care for their entire families from the time they retire, which is quite early given the physical requirements of the job. Teachers work until 60 or 70 and after they retire their family coverage no longer applies. No one wants to say that we shouldn't take care of those people who risk their lives for us, and I agree that we owe them some security but this is beyond what's reasonable.

Public sector employees salary is paid by taxpayers, and the company matches that augment what they put into PERS, STERS(?), and the like we also pay for. I work in the private sector and I get company match on my 401k, makes sense that they would be eligible for the same perk.

That said, if my company was in the same financial straights as CA I'm sure that would be off the table pretty quickly. I think the better question is why, when their employer (CA) is doing so poorly, do they think their benefits and job security should be set in stone. No one in the corporate sector would be so myopic.

Working for the government does not bring a huge paycheck. Seriously, with a Master's Degree I could be making alot more out in the private sector. As a matter of fact, alot of govies quit the government to work for government contractors and make twice the money I make. It is not uncommon to be training a contractor to do your job and you making half what he/she makes...

I do not have a pension from the government. Any retirement I will have is solely based on my TSP (401k) and social security. So, right now I'm screwed both ways. Employees that have been here longer than 16 years will get a pension...but the Fed did away with them in 1994. I do have good health insurance though, but pay alot for it.

And believe me, it is not a cakewalk working for the government. Pay is for performance, so if you don't do your job you get no raise. It is not like alot of state cushy jobs where you get a "step" every year. Also, my insurance and tax rate are higher because of all the BS things that get taken out of check as a federal worker. And no, everyone can't work for the government--duh!

just another thought: Wondering why there is not more attention being given to our duly elected officials and their bennies. Why does the american public pay benefits for congressional members who do not even vote the way they want them to?????

"Seriously, with a Master's Degree I could be making alot more out in the private sector."

I hear that a lot. I rarely see it, so I doubt it in your case: the numbers are against you. You may be an exception to the rule, but most people believe they are the exception in life, while everyone else makes up the rule.

Government employees I know well enough for them to share that sort of sentiment often believe it. I hear it most in professions where someone, such as a lawyer, has former classmates holding a private sector equity slot somewhere. That person makes scads doing, say, tax law or securities transactions for large clients.

The government lawyer says to herself, "Heck, twenty years ago, when we went to law school, I did better than him. When we first got out of school, I even got a better job than he did, before I went into the public sector. If he became such a private sector success, surely I could be one too."

Nope. Over those twenty years, that former classmate learned things about obtaining, serving, keeping and managing clients that are simply not developed in a goverment setting. There is a skill set of very important skills that comes from those 20 years, skills that government workers not only rarely have, but usually don't even recognize as either vital or in play out there in the competition. (They may even have odd notions that rich clients wander in the door frequently looking for your help, pay without fail, will wait for you to respond when you are busy on something else, etc.)

So when I hear a government person scoff they could make more in private practice, my default thought is "bullshit", but I don't argue. Why bother? The governmetn person will note cases where someone leaves a very high profile position at some government office and transitions to a more lucrative private slot. But those are the exceptions, and everyone knows such players--they are often headline makers or heavy hitters in a field. But your G-something salary puller, working as the assistant regional director of something?

Don't make me laugh. After about 35, employers want to know what revenue you will generate. If you don't do that, well, there are plenty of people just like you, looking for work. And the fact that you are coming from government will be a heavy weight against hiring you.

I cringe every time I run into recently retired IRS agents who expect law firms and accounting firms to call them, panting to hire them for all their deep inside knowledge of the IRS and its workings. Failing that, they decide to strike out on their own, and find some clients.

Fairly soon, though, they are spending a lot of time refurbishing that wood boat they found on Craigslist and annoying their spouse by puttering around the house all the time.

I haven't read everything, but Spartee's onto something here. There was a Doonesbury cartoon many years ago where a college professor was complaining about his wages to a friend, and threatening to go to the private sector. And the friend said "Melvin, you're a Latin teacher...."

Government employees are good at being government employees. They know how to work THAT system... How many comp days, how many this days, how many that days... In California, state employees took yesterday off (Cesar Chavez birthday). This won't wash in settings where a paying customer demands results. Even in the most technocratic clusters of the private sector, there are always a few people who really, truly deliver the goods, or the enterprise folds. In government, people just open a new department.

Here.... List the government agencies, at any level, that have gone away in your lifetime. NOT been folded into larger departments, but simply been eliminated due to poor performance or taxpayer disinterest:

1. _____________
2. _____________
3. _____________
4. _____________
5. _____________

I worked in public sector and private sector.

In my experience, there is simply no comparison in terms of the demands and structures. Even large bureaucracies in the quasi-public/private sector (insurance companies, public utilities) insulate people from the harder realities of life. For a time, anyway.

This is not really the fault of the employees. It is just the system at work.

Think about having two guys, both in about the same place professionally at the outset. Put one in a private sector setting, where there is a demanding job. If he doesn't beat out about 50% of his competition every year seeking to do the same work, he doesn't keep the job. each year, another round of winnowing against a new crop of entrants. If he does really well year after year, though, he may rise to a tiny few slots at the top where monetary rewards are actually quite grand. Most people get pushed out over time, though, going on to fairly mundane work in their own business or some small enterprise of middling compensation. The top slots, though, make people in the public sector think such positions are commonly obtained in the private sector.

The other hypothetical guy goes into government. He is asked to do similar things as the private sector dude, but individual effort is less important over his career. No one gets fired for poor performance. Moreover, because of affirmative action policies, even if he does work hard, promotion is uncertain and not necessarily based on skill or effort. In any event, firing due to individual incompetence is so rare it is not considered a threat.

Go twenty years forward. Absent corrupt decisionmakers, where you need to hire people for their contacts, rather than their skills, who would you hire if you had a bet-the-company problem? A proven professional solving the issues you face, or a guy who says he is buddies with bureaucrats? What you know actually is pretty important, not just who you know.

I note that Washington DC is one place where contacts seem more important than knowledge.

"First: one must keep the costs of government down. Government produces nothing - it only consumes. "

So Bradley, by your reasoning a police department produces nothing but a private security firm does?

The prison guards union is breaking California. Why not do the obvious thing and start giving them less work? Close some of those prisons.

"Any government employee who assumes he/she has a divine contract and WE THE PEOPLE have no choice in the matter, no matter how bad it gets, deserves pretty much whatever happens to him/her."

Shorter irlandes: Anyone who trusts the American public to honor its contractual obligations is a fool. Any veteran can tell you that, so it shouldn't be news. Enjoy it while it lasts; you anti-government types will find out just how long your fake uniforms and rifles will stand up to an infantry battalion someday.

""First: one must keep the costs of government down. Government produces nothing - it only consumes. "

So Bradley, by your reasoning a police department produces nothing but a private security firm does?"

Neither produces. They simply provide services to those who do. The latter are paid much less, though, because they must bargain directly with their employer.

I like cops, but don't go too far in saying they are vital. They are a pretty recent innovation, in fact, and as I see them equip themselves like Delta Force, I find their schtick less convincing by the year.

"Anyone who trusts the American public to honor its contractual obligations is a fool. Any veteran can tell you that, so it shouldn't be news."

I wasn't aware they had a bitch. Specifics, please. My guess is the paychecks we sent them were cashed and the money spent. How have we otherwise failed, as I see benefits spending keeps going up, not down. Frankly, I doubt your sense that we screw our vets. That does not mean some slice of veterans are not perpetually upset about how much they get, though--no amount would likely make them happy. That is true for any group; some portion always wants more.

"Enjoy it while it lasts; you anti-government types will find out just how long your fake uniforms and rifles will stand up to an infantry battalion someday."

Well.

Two words: Legalized Theft

Anyone who trusts the American public to honor its contractual obligations is a fool. Any veteran can tell you that, so it shouldn't be news. Posted by: Jim

I wasn't aware they had a bitch. - Spartee

We do

Specifics, please. - Spartee

Walter Reed, lack of funding for TBI resech and treatment, tendency to deny treatment for TBI's in an atempt to discharge soldiers for bad conduct rather then medical. Agent Orange. Want some more?

Ooooh - Is that a threat, Jim? You honestly think that the United States Army is going to shoot at civilians?

Let me tell you what's going to happen to all of the government workers when the system goes kaput.

You're going to get a letter telling you that your pension is worth precisely dick. You'll scream and whine and seethe: "But I have a CONTRACT!".

And the government will say "Fuck your contract. Sue me."

And you'll find out the true meaning of sovereign immunity.

You assholes really don't get it. There's no fucking money left.

@Jim:

Re police: That's right, they don't PRODUCE anything. They are a COST CENTER, not a PROFIT CENTER. They are a cost of having an organized society, and no more about producing value than a private security firm.

"There's no fucking money left." THIS.

"I think the whole idea of pension plans need to go ..." Yes, but you're not going far enough with this. So let me beat my tin drum again. Add up how much money you spend every month, then take that number times twelve to find out what you spend in a year. Note how long it would take you to burn through $100,000. Then consider how long it would take you to accumulate that much wealth.

The VAST, VAST majority of Americans will never earn enough money to retire for any length of time. It has become an expectation, and thanks to Social Security an entitlement. In fact it's even become the latest pissing contest among some people. But if 90% of people can't do it for themselves, where is the money supposed to come from, to provide it for everybody? Please note Brian's comment above. We have been living on credit for a long time now. Those of us who have always expected to take care of ourselves are going to have a much easier time adjusting to the country's sudden loss of credit than those who expect the money fairy to magically provide them with decades of retirement.

Walter Reed, lack of funding for TBI resech and treatment, tendency to deny treatment for TBI's in an atempt to discharge soldiers for bad conduct rather then medical. Agent Orange. Want some more?

Numbers are how informed minds engage budgetary issues.

(1) How much is currently spent on such things?

(2) How much should we spend on such things?

The biggest gripe I can generate about any government employee is the immunity they have from the consequences of shoddy or non-existent work.

And those people are going to be managing your health care. Sick? The clerk is not sick. Fill out this form. When the form is filed out, you are well.