Budget Ignores Public Employee Reform

JUNE 29, 2010

Commentary

By LANNY EBENSTEIN

The state budget approved on Tuesday is the wrong way forward for the state of California. Though this budget does not rely upon new or extended general taxes, it would cut many vital services. This is neither desirable nor sustainable.

The 2011-12 budget relies upon rosy projections of future income. If these do not materialize, further cuts would come into effect. Schools would be particularly hard hit.

There is an alternative to continually decreased public services together with continually higher general taxes. This is to pay public sector employees fair wages and compensation, particularly pensions. The reason for the California budget crisis, which extends from the state to virtually every county, city, school district and special district in the state, is excessive compensation of public sector employees. If public sector employees were compensated comparably to employees in the private sector, the state’s general taxes could be cut and its services increased. It’s a matter of political will.

A recent Reason-Rupe poll shows that the public’s mood is changing on the vital question of public sector collective bargaining. According to the poll, 37 percent of Americans now support the curtailment of public sector collective bargaining versus 43 percent who oppose. However, if public sector employees are not considered in polling, then 45 percent of all Americans favor curtailing collective bargaining for public sector employees compared to 38 percent who do not.

To curtail public sector collective bargaining has the support already of the plurality of Americans, not including public sector workers. What even a few months ago seemed a virtually utopian position — to end public sector collective bargaining — is now mainstream.

As the pension and general government compensation debacle grows even worse in the coming months and years, the possibility for fundamental reform will exist. The approach of simply presuming that tax revenue will grow as services are slashed is not viable. If the economy now does not do as well as expected — much less if it actually declines — the budget of almost every government agency in the state would be hammered.

This would be the case especially if the stock market declines and actuarial rates of return are recalculated. The 7.75 percent to 8 percent annual rates of return projected in California public sector pension funds are much too high. If calculated at 4 percent, then the state and local governments would owe an additional $40 billion per year or more to pension systems.

The right way forward is:

  • Abolish public sector collective bargaining;
  • Tax public sector pensions above $100,000 per year more;
  • Raise the retirement age of public sector employees.

There is a real alternative to continually higher taxes and devastated public services at the state and local levels. It is to reform public sector collective bargaining and pensions dramatically.

Public sector collective bargaining has been a disaster. It was opposed by Franklin Roosevelt and long-time AFL-CIO President George Meany. The entity being bargained with is not a private interest but the public itself. The best approach is to allow government agencies, subject to existing civil service laws, to set the wages, salaries, working conditions and benefits, including pensions, of their employees, as employers in the private sector do.

This would be the best approach to enable each of the thousands of government agencies in the state to take the appropriate individual actions that will solve their fiscal difficulties.

Public sector unions would continue to exist. They are a protected free association under the United States Constitution, and could continue to advocate on working conditions and other aspects of public policy. But public sector unions should no longer have the ability to bargain on behalf of their members with public agencies.

Excessive public sector union power has increased the size and scope of government greatly. Excessive public sector pensions, those of more than $100,000 per year, should be taxed more. These are often windfall pensions that individuals didn’t count on, as pension amounts were raised, much retroactively, in recent years. It doesn’t make sense to give, as the state of California will in a few years, pay 100,000 pensions of $100,000 per year or more as public services are decimated on an annual basis.

That would be more than $10 billion to 100,000 pensioners, compared to a state budget of less than $90 billion at this time. A progressive income tax on public sector pensions above $100,000 per year should be implemented.

According to Robert Feckner, the long-time president of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System: “I think where you’re looking at the $100,000 club, it’s something that needs to be looked at. I don’t think the fund was set up to look at someone retiring with that kind of benefit” (Sacramento Bee, 11/23/2009).

It also is essential to raise public sector retirement ages. There is no reason, just because someone works for government, that he or she should be able to retire a decade — or more — earlier than everyone else. Even in the case of public safety, the retirement age should be raised, if not as much as other government workers.

What government does is important and vital. It is for this reason vital that public sector collective bargaining and pensions are reformed fundamentally now.

Lanny Ebenstein, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Economics Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and is president of the California Center for Public Policy.

 

30 comments

Write a comment
  1. GSL
    GSL 29 June, 2011, 17:06

    You’re right, but unfortunately I think this is the last chance for state-level pension reform. With Dems likely to surpass a two-thirds majority after the next election, they’ll most likely try to ram through tax hikes to fix any budget holes.

    Reply this comment
  2. David
    David 30 June, 2011, 00:17

    Lanny – since you believe the terms of government employment contracts should be imposed rather than negotiated, I’m sure you also believe the same thing about government contracts with corporations. If it’s fair for the government to unilaterally dictate terms to employees, why wouldn’t it also be fair for the government to dictate terms to corporate contractors — such as the defense industry? Military contractors would, under your logic, be able to form little clubs and talk to each other, but when it came to selling their goods and services to the government, they would have to accept whatever the government chose to pay them, without further discussion or appeal. Fair is fair, right?

    Reply this comment
  3. Lanny
    Lanny 30 June, 2011, 09:33

    David, Yes, I basically agree with your logic. If contractors didn’t wish to accept government terms, they would not have to produce whatever it were that they were being contracted for–as to contractors forming associations, they can and do. These associations would not be able to negotiate on behalf of all contractors. It’s a good analogy. Thanks.

    Reply this comment
  4. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 30 June, 2011, 11:12

    The reason for the California budget crisis, which extends from the state to virtually every county, city, school district and special district in the state, is excessive compensation of public sector employees.
    ===============
    AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!

    You just hit the homerun with that comment.

    Reply this comment
  5. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 30 June, 2011, 11:17

    Public sector collective bargaining has been a disaster.
    =========
    Sure has been, but the reason it is a disaster b/c it is NOT “collective bargaining”.

    Collective, and all other, bargaining is done at an ARMS LENGTH transaction, with both sides competing for the best possible, and fair, terms, and that is simply not what is going in with public sector unions and elected officials.

    The public unions are PAYING the vast majority of expenses for their elected bosses-through contributiosn to them, so the public unions are in essence the boss of the elected officials. That is NOT an arms length negotiation.

    Reply this comment
  6. Tough Love
    Tough Love 30 June, 2011, 15:46

    A few comments:

    (1) Quoting …”However, if public sector employees are not considered in polling, then 45 percent of all Americans favor curtailing collective bargaining for public sector employees compared to 38 percent who do not.”

    I’m sure the 38% figure who do not support curtailing collective bargaining would be much lower if it also excluded relatives (parents, children, spouses) of Civil Servants.

    (2) Your suggestion to ….”Tax public sector pensions above $100,000 per year more”.

    Why not tax their pensions FROM FIRST DOLLAR …just like the pensions of Private Sector workers ?

    (3) Quoting …”The best approach is to allow government agencies, subject to existing civil service laws, to set the wages, salaries, working conditions and benefits, including pensions, of their employees, as employers in the private sector do.”

    Agreed, with the operative (very important) words being the last seven above.

    (4) Just disallowing collective bargaining is NOT enough, as their activities will just continue “under the table”. We must ALSO make campaign contributions from Public Sector Unions AND the acceptance thereof by elected officials (or those running for office) a criminal activity.

    (5) Lastly, the Courts seems VERY reluctant to allow changes other than for new employees. We MUST make very significant reductions for CURRENT employees, especially for future service. If the Courts remain unreceptive to these changes, we MUST invoke the nuclear option … OUTSOURCING 90+% of all Civil Servant positions. This ends the “employment relationship” and with it all future growth in pensions and benefits.

    Reply this comment
  7. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 30 June, 2011, 18:01

    Public pensions are taxed just like earned income. I think the commenter meant that he/she wanted to add a tax surcharge to the large pensions. You cannot prohibit public sector unions from making campaign contributions, to candidates for elective office, any more than you can prohibit the rich corporations from doing so.

    Reply this comment
  8. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 30 June, 2011, 18:36

    Most entities are already partly to heavily involved in outsourcing certain services. My former entity outsources tree trimming and median island landscaping. They tried outsourcing custodial work, at one time, and found out how much better and efficient it was to use in-house custodians. Some of you commenters act like you think the actuaries and managers, at the helm of all of these public entities and pension plans, are clueless. Perhaps you should stand back, and let them solve their problems, with their own knowhow.

    Reply this comment
  9. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 30 June, 2011, 19:07

    Once again, SeeSaw is the voice of sanity and reason.

    TL knows his proposals, other than reducing pension benefits for new employees, are all either illegal or unworkable in the real world. Outsourcing government employees is already widely practiced throughout California and many other states, so it’s unclear what additional savings TL thinks are available under such an approach.

    First amendment rights of association include unions and associations of all types, with such recent case law by our Republican heavy Supreme Court that it will be at least another generation before a case with any similarities to the Citizens United case ripens for review.

    Finally, what TL also forgets is that there is a long string of SCOTUS rulings supporting the conclusion that public employees are not some kind of second class citizen, so there won’t be any curtailing of their interests in future elections.

    All in all, both the facts and the law are barriers to TL’s suggestions and the hopes of his various minions like Rex. They’ll just have to keep rereading their tattered Ayn Rand books, dressing up in goofy Colonial Era costumes, and paying their taxes to support the government that protects them and their right to spew extreme libertarian nonsense.

    Reply this comment
  10. Tough Love
    Tough Love 30 June, 2011, 19:15

    Quoting SeeSaw …”Public pensions are taxed just like earned income. I think the commenter meant that he/she wanted to add a tax surcharge to the large pensions. You cannot prohibit public sector unions from making campaign contributions, to candidates for elective office, any more than you can prohibit the rich corporations from doing so.”

    SeeSaw, I some States Public Sector pensions are not taxed at all, amd in some others, only a portion of the pension is taxable. There is no rational basis for this, something those with Private Sector pensions do not get.

    Personally I would like to see campaign contributions from BOTH Public Sector Unions AND Corporations outlawed. The consequences of BOTH is great damage to the country.

    Reply this comment
  11. Tough Love
    Tough Love 30 June, 2011, 19:25

    Quoting …”Finally, what TL also forgets is that there is a long string of SCOTUS rulings supporting the conclusion that public employees are not some kind of second class citizen, so there won’t be any curtailing of their interests in future elections.”

    That’s a hoot. Those of us in the Private Sector would be enormously pleased if we could simply reign in the huge advantage you currently have above and beyond the vast majority of those in the private Sector.

    The laws may currently be a barrier to many of my suggestions, but as the impossibility of the math (underlying pension and retiree healthcare promises) becomes more obvious, I’ll bet my suggestions become mainstream.

    Reply this comment
  12. jeezy
    jeezy 1 July, 2011, 07:26

    To Lanny-
    I just think its pretty funny that the author of this piece agaist public employee pensions is working for one of the largest pension abusers in the state- the UC System. It would interesting to see if Lanny would vote on that “surcharge” tax on his pension as a retired professor. How many of his prof. buddies are living the 100k good life after 20 years “service” where they teach a few classes a week and prepare “research” for us to read and be educated? Does the system need to be improved? Absolutely. I’m not afraid to to say that I’m a public employee and I feel it needs to be changed to even have a chance of long-term sustainability. I’m fairly new in my career and I’d love to know at some date in the future I have a chance at retirement…

    Three things- first: Raise the retirement age for all employees. Second- Everyone contributes full boat. Period- no free rides. Third- take a hard look at the management and upper management salaries, benifits and compensation packages. They are overwhelmingly top loading the system. You think a clerical assist. is raking in 100k a year after 30+ years of service? Please…Its the Assistant Deputy Director of Employee Relations Council on Consummer Affairs for the Underprivledged types that are in the System and weighing it down. Bottom line: Start looking at it from the top down and not from the bottom up and it will truely suprise you.

    Reply this comment
  13. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 1 July, 2011, 09:09

    Once again, SeeSaw is the voice of sanity and reason.

    ========================
    LOL…yes Skippy, and you’re the beason of truth 🙂

    You two missed your calling, you should both be stand up comics!

    Reply this comment
  14. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 1 July, 2011, 09:09

    Opps “Beacon of Truth”!

    Reply this comment
  15. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 1 July, 2011, 09:11

    TL knows his proposals, other than reducing pension benefits for new employees, are all either illegal or unworkable in the real world
    =================
    Skippy, once again proving he is the White belt of legal issues.

    The law in CA could easily support LOWERING pensions for CURRENT employees.

    There is an interesting legal question about whether public-sector pension promises are truly binding. In private-sector work, you are entitled to retirement benefits that have already been accrued but not to future benefits that you may get if you stay in your job. A series of California court decisions as supported—without specifically protecting—future benefit gains for public employees. There actually is not a body of precedent for locking in future accrual rates for public employees. The 1978 California Supreme Court decision Betts v. Board of Administration suggests the opposite view for locking in future accrual rates for public employees, saying, “An employee’s vested contractual pension rights may be modified prior to retirement for the purpose of keeping a pension system flexible.”
    There has, however, been a long history of politically motivated presumption that government employee benefits can only be ratcheted up, never down. In 2006, for example, then-Attorney General Bill Lockyer drew on the language of Betts to rule that the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) could grant retroactive, unfunded benefits to state and local workers. It’s telling that nobody has tested the legal environment for rolling benefits in the other direction.

    Reply this comment
  16. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 1 July, 2011, 09:13

    You think a clerical assist. is raking in 100k a year after 30+ years of service?
    =============
    With FULL compensation, yes, I think nearly every employee in UC is at or above $100K in full compensation.

    The lowest paid F/T UC employee is paid MORE than the median private sector employee in CA.

    Now thta is saying soemthing.

    Reply this comment
  17. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 1 July, 2011, 11:21

    Quoting from the very case Rex refers to above:

    “To be sustained as reasonable, alterations of employees’ pension rights must bear some material relation to the theory of a pension system and its successful operation, and changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages.”

    That means cutting the future pension formula or accrual rate would have to be offset with something comparable to prevent a detrimental outcome to the retiree or employee.

    If you’ve read the Minnesota and Colorado trial court decisions today, you’ll know they have completely different systems and legal precedents to follow, so we California employees and retirees still have the law on our side.

    Reply this comment
  18. Tough Love
    Tough Love 1 July, 2011, 23:05

    Quoting Skippy …”“To be sustained as reasonable, alterations of employees’ pension rights must bear some material relation to the theory of a pension system and its successful operation, and changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages.””

    Literal enforcement of this statement may lead to be the WORST possible outcome for employees ….. as it may delay the undoubtedly needed reform until it’s to late to salvage these Plans … resulting in a very significant pension haircut when the funds clearly cannot support benefit levels.

    No Constitution, no laws, no case law, no yelling and kicking and screaming (nor big inflated rats) will change the math. The money is not there now, and will never materialize to pay all promised benefits.

    Reply this comment
  19. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 2 July, 2011, 01:39

    Quoting from the very case Rex refers to above:

    ================
    Here you go Skippy-read it 10 times;

    Betts v. Board of Administration “An employee’s vested contractual pension rights may be modified prior to retirement for the purpose of keeping a pension system flexible.”

    MAY BE MODIFIED!!!!!!

    Here is your passage;

    “To be sustained as reasonable, alterations of employees’ pension rights must bear some material relation to the theory of a pension system and its successful operation, and changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees SHOULD be accompanied by comparable new advantages.”

    The KEY WORD for you is “SHOULD”, not MUST, but SHOULD.

    Reply this comment
  20. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 2 July, 2011, 01:42

    That means cutting the future pension formula or accrual rate would have to be offset with something comparable to prevent a detrimental outcome to the retiree or employee.

    =================
    No, it does not mean that.

    The ruling said there SHOULD be offsets, not MUST have offsets.

    If the system is unsustainable then there is no requirement for an offset. You simply cut the pensions for year not yet worked.

    Pensions are part of the contract, once the contract ends so does the pension term, and as such can be cut once any contract expries.

    public employees have a right to a specific pension ONLY for the lentgh of the contract, not their entire career at the muni.

    Reply this comment
  21. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 2 July, 2011, 10:12

    Okay, Rex. Your legal analysis has been spot on so many times in the past that it’s impossible to think the courts would follow controlling precedent when this matter eventually comes before them.

    Once you actually find a city that’s willing to throw the dice again, we’ll all eagerly await your uninformed analysis of the merits and the intent of the court.

    To the others here hanging on such a slender thread of hope, read the case(s) concerning vesting and retirement benefits in California. Paying for the obligations will no more be stopped than will payment on bond debt.

    As much as you fringe libertarians want to scream about violating legal contracts and imposing ex post facto laws, it simply won’t happen. California won’t default on anything either, not because we’re special, but because we are the 8th largest economy in the world and the largest state economy in the U.S. A California default would undercut the economies of 49 other states, which means there will be a California bail-out if it comes to that.

    Hold your breath and stamp your little feet as much as you’d like, but you know it’s the truth.

    Reply this comment
  22. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 3 July, 2011, 10:45

    Okay, Rex. Your legal analysis has been spot on so many times in the past that it’s impossible to think the courts would follow controlling precedent when this matter eventually comes before them.

    ===================
    There is no “controlling precedent”, that was made clear in my original post, but contract law and all cases that relate to this issue point to the fact that the current pensions can be terminated at the end of the contract and a lower, MUCH LOWER pension can replace it. TRake it to court an dget a ruling, not hard to do.

    /

    To the others here hanging on such a slender thread of hope, read the case(s) concerning vesting and retirement benefits in California. Paying for the obligations will no more be stopped than will payment on bond debt.

    =======================
    LOL, yeah, right! That is exactly what Pritchard, AL and Fatty Rizzo said! I wonder how it has worked out for those two??????????????

    /
    Hold your breath and stamp your little feet as much as you’d like, but you know it’s the truth.

    =========================
    🙂

    Reply this comment
  23. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 3 July, 2011, 11:18

    Weren’t you the same Wonder Dog who repeatedly told us the courts would permit the [email protected] pension plan for Orange County law enforcement employees to be reversed? Seems your legal analysis and predictions were incorrect in that matter, so why would you think Betts, et al, would support you in this effort?

    Although there are no California cases (the only cases that count in this instance) directly on point in determining whether it might be legally permissible to reduce the future retirement benefit formula for current employees, even the Little Hoover Commission and the Roseville lawyer who first wrote an opinion piece suggesting such an approach have all recognized that it would instigate a long and expensive legal fight through the courts.

    The last time you suggested that local politicians attempt to reverse lawful pension obligations by just “throwing it against the wall to see what sticks,” your buddy Moorlach had his head handed to him legally, and now he’ll get to explain why it was a good idea to expose Orange County to an additional $5-$8 million in legal costs.

    BTW, even Prichard is making their pension payments again. It doesn’t help your argument to keep citing that small town, primarily because it’s been in bankruptcy since the 90’s, has a “pay as you go” pension system, and operates its own pension program with a very small pool of members.

    Even you can see the difference between that and CalPERs or the OCERS.

    Reply this comment
  24. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 3 July, 2011, 11:27

    For those readers who wonder what Rex is referring to, here’s the Wiki description of Prichard, AL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prichard,_Alabama

    It’s a poor suburb of Mobile with a declining population, declining business, and a shrinking tax base, with a population now of about 25,000.

    About the only place you could compare it to in the Wonder Dog’s world would be Stanton, CA – his hometown.

    Reply this comment
  25. Tough Love
    Tough Love 3 July, 2011, 15:24

    Skippy, Yes, Prichard, AL IS paying pensions again ….. at 1/4 to 1/3 of what was promised.

    That’s a likely future scenario for CA (and several other states) unless swift and significant pension reductions for CURRENT employees are put in place.

    Just pray the you (as a retiree) will escape payback.

    Reply this comment
  26. Tough Love
    Tough Love 3 July, 2011, 20:05

    Skippy, Here’s a quote with what Prichard retiree’s are getting:

    “In May, a Mobile County Circuit Court judge approved a deal between the city and many of the pensioners that will see them receive roughly a third of the benefits they were entitled to under the plan. The payout could increase in the future.”

    Now, your a sharp guy, so I’m guessing you knew the payments were nowhere near the “promised” benefit.

    So why did you decide to not mention that ? Is this the new you? It’s not becoming.

    Reply this comment
  27. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 4 July, 2011, 11:03

    Weren’t you the same Wonder Dog who repeatedly told us the courts would permit the [email protected] pension plan for Orange County law enforcement employees to be reversed?
    ==========================
    It was a good case and the issue needed to be litigated. Can’t win all the cases. We now have a rock solid answer, which was worth the small cost of litigation in relation to the amount fo money owed, hundreds of millions of dollars owed compared to a couple million to litigate the issue and get an answer.

    /
    Although there are no California cases (the only cases that count in this instance) directly on point in determining whether it might be legally permissible to reduce the future retirement benefit formula for current employees, even the Little Hoover Commission and the Roseville lawyer who first wrote an opinion piece suggesting such an approach have all recognized that it would instigate a long and expensive legal fight through the courts.
    =========================
    So lets spend the SMALL amount of moeny it will take to get the answer we need. As for the time frame, the sooner we start litigating the issue the faster will will have an answer. Start today and it will take 2, may 3 years. So let’s get it on and over with.

    My money is on the freezing of pensions for past years already worked and applying new formulas for future years not already worked.

    It needs a lawful and legal answer to put it to rest-which we do not have currently.

    Last-I think calTURDS faces significant amount of legal liability for claiming SB400 would not cost anything to implement. That was CLEARLY a fraudulent act and CalTRUDS needs to be sued for fraud for a coouple of reasons;

    1- To reimburse all the muni’s who went with SB400 formulas based on calTURDS fraud, and

    2- To serve as a deterent and to prevent CalTURDS from doing it AGAIN at a future date.

    Reply this comment
  28. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 4 July, 2011, 15:11

    Where do you think the money would come from if someone were to actually take your advice? If there were significant legal judgments against it, CalPERS would have to raise the required annual contributions from the same cities you are suggesting take legal action to keep the fund solvent.

    You and I both know it’s not going to happen.

    TL – On your thinly veiled claim that I’ve somehow committed a sin of omission, I would only ask you to turn your attention to Alabama state level efforts underway to shore up the Prichard system and pay the full obligations it has to its retirees. If Prichard were to disincorporate, it’s liabilities would shift completely to the state of Alabama under their unique set of laws, so that might actually get the retirees paid earlier and more than would otherwise be the case.

    In any event, Prichard was never anything more than a single glaring exception to a pension structure that has worked well for the vast majority of cities, counties, and states across our nation – in many cases for now over a century. It’s hardly the bellwether you repeatedly claim, and the circumstances of its demographics and previous financial insolvency begs the question of how it has survived so long as it is.

    Reply this comment
  29. Tough Love
    Tough Love 4 July, 2011, 17:39

    Skippy, the operative words in your comment were “has worked well” (past tense). Looks to me like it’s moved down quite a few notches from “has worked well”. I was unaware the State of AL will possibly make these retirees whole. Could CA make Los Angeles whole if it can’t pay it’s retirees (or can’t pay CalPERS which leads to the same thing)?

    I’m not looking for anyone to lose their pensions, just some fairness for the taxpayers that pay for most of it ….. and I realize yours and my definitions of “fairness” differ by quite a bit.

    Yours I’m sure says: “a contract is a contract” and “promises made promises kept”.

    Mine says: contracts yielding greater Public Sector “total compensation” (pay + pensions + benefits) reasonable traceable to a you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours-relationship between the Unions and the elected representatives who approved the contracts should be honored only UP TO the level which results in EQUAL Public and Private Sector total compensation.

    Reply this comment
  30. Rich
    Rich 8 September, 2011, 10:07

    Rex do you even work? You seem to spend all day on these boards crying. Get off of SSI and get a job.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Parcel tax change wouldn't help poor schools

  sms spy android Does government need to grab more money for schools? One way to get it is to

CA continues to inhale ‘Medical’ marijuana

Faced with a growing chorus of concern among municipalities, California legislators are about to consider an innovative approach to the

California sued over poor literacy rates among its students

California was sued earlier this month over poor reading skills among its students, a significant legal step in trying to combat lackluster