CA pension reform opponents squawking about election results

June 5, 2012

By Brian Calle

Voters in San Diego and San Jose, recognizing the budget havoc wreaked by public employee pensions, the undue influence of public employee unions and the dire need for reform, voted decisively on ballot measures to change lucrative public employee pension benefits. But taxpayers ought not celebrate yet as unions gear up to challenge the measures in court.

Steve Maviglio, a spokesperson for the status quo and a denier of pension woes in California sent out the following statement for another union apologist, Dave Low, the chairman of Californians for Retirement Security (a front group for protecting union-negotiated pensions):

“While we respect the decision of San Diego and San Jose voters, these measures will have perilous long-term consequences for workers, the economy and the public. These results will mean broken promises and less retirement security for working families and seniors, many of whom do not receive Social Security. Backers of these measures outspent workers by an 8-1 margin in San Diego alone, and we are confident the outcome would have been different had voters known the facts and risks associated with these complex and constitutionally questionable measures. The polarizing and costly campaigns in these two cities – and certain legal challenges to come – could have been avoided by going the route that more than 240 jurisdictions in California have, solving their challenges at the bargaining table instead of at the ballot box.”

Translation: The will of the voters doesn’t matter and expect a nasty legal battle. Union negotiators are better suited to solve the problems than voters.

Reality:  Public employee unions have played the system for too long and the pendulum, even in blue California, has begun to swing in the opposite direction—reform.

55 comments

Write a comment
  1. John Seiler
    John Seiler 5 June, 2012, 22:02

    Right. And as the old saying has it, the courts read the election results. Judges overturning these pension reforms could themselves face recalls.

    Reply this comment
  2. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 5 June, 2012, 22:07

    “These results will mean broken promises and less retirement security for working families and seniors, many of whom do not receive Social Security”

    Tough luck, big Stevo. You screw us we screw you back. That’s the way of the world. Even with pension cuts the average public trough feeder will still collect more than triple what the average SS recipient collects even though the SS recipients worked 10-15 years longer. We didn’t screw you, Steve. You screwed us. Now payback is a mofo. You folks drew first blood. We didn’t. Not fun to be on the receiving end, is it big Stevo??? How do you like some of your own medicine??? Not very tasty, is it???

    “The polarizing and costly campaigns in these two cities – and certain legal challenges to come – could have been avoided by going the route that more than 240 jurisdictions in California have, solving their challenges at the bargaining table instead of at the ballot box.”

    Bring it, big Stevo. Mr. Math has much more powerful than any judge in the State of California. Once the EU goes teats up – your pension funds are going to implode. Burnt toast. Mr. Math doesn’t give a whit what any judge rules. If one side of the equation doesn’t balance with the other side Mr. Math drops the big ball. And it ain’t going to be pretty either, big Stevo. You talk tough. Let’s see what happens when you go toe to toe with Mr. Math. heh. I have never seen such defiant greed before in my entire life. All of you gluttons should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves!!! 🙁

    Reply this comment
  3. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 5 June, 2012, 22:43

    California Labor sent out a Tweet apologizing tonight: “Proud of all the working women & men in #WIUnion who stood up for the middle class. You inspire us. We fight on….together #WIRecall”

    It’s apparent the “proud working men and women in the WI union” recognized they were getting screwed by their leaders. And it’s obvious voters all across the country have awakened to the union scheme.

    Katy

    Reply this comment
  4. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 05:44

    The people know what the RAGWUS feeders have been doing behind their backs with regards to pay, perks, benefits and pensions. The biggiest mistake the RAGWUS ever made was setting the recall of Gov. Walker in place. Whan the private sector citizens found out what the average compensation was for a RAGWUS feeder the vote was over. The same happeded here in Califoria in regards to San Diego and San Jose. Californians know that the RAGWUS is out of control and unsustainable. Our biggest problem is we don’t have a Scott Walker, but we do still have the right to vote and combined with the Math we will prevail in the end, bringing these obscene and narcissistic RAGWUS pensions to an end. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  5. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 06:22

    Do you folks notice how quiet Skippy, Queeq, Teddy and Seesaw are? heh. You could hear a pin drop!!!

    Man oh man!!! Talk about a knockout punch!!! Right out of the ring into the cheap seats!!! heh. 🙂

    Hopefully that chases them away from CWD.

    The will of the people has spoken. The pension money grabs are OVER!!! This will break the unions as we know them!!! The big anti-public union wave is about to roll over the nation.

    Hip Hip Hooray!!! Hip Hip Hooray!!! Hip Hip Hooray!!!

    Reply this comment
  6. Claude Slagenhop
    Claude Slagenhop 6 June, 2012, 06:24

    RIP Union Thugs- this is just the beginning. You are a bunch of lying, cheating bullies and you will be taken to the woodshed.

    Reply this comment
  7. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 06:27

    You have to love the results of last nights votes Beelz. There is a glimmer of hope for the can do traditional California to return-Reagan’s California. Maybe the lefty tourists who’ve jacked this place up (Arnold-Austria, Pelosi-Maryland, Boxer-New York, Jerry Brown-the Moon, etc.) can pack up and jack up somewhere else. 😉

    Reply this comment
  8. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 06:36

    The trough feeders screwed themselves, Mr. Donkey. They had a GREAT THING going and got greedy. They went too far – and engendered the wrath of the people. The townsfolks came out last night with their proverbial torches and pitchforks. San Jose and San Diego were LANDSLIDES!!! The people are outraged at the behavior of these master leeches. Now we are in the process of dismantling their empire. Those of us who are informed saw this coming for years. We warned them over and over. We told them to regain their senses and do the right thing VOLUNTARILY. They didn’t listen. Now we’ve clean house and knocked them out of the ring into the cheap seats. This morning all of them are whining “What happened?” as they sip their lattes!!! HAH! 😀

    Reply this comment
  9. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 07:21

    I bet Oblahblah is watching all this with eyes wide open. Much of his support comes from public unions and they are under attack. Doesn’t look good for Oblahblah’s reelection bid. Watching the moving vans pull up to the White House would be icing on the cake. Maybe there is hope for this country afterall! 😀

    Reply this comment
  10. queeg
    queeg 6 June, 2012, 07:29

    Only round 1….

    Not trading in the Escalade for a stinkee YUGO!!!

    Reply this comment
  11. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 08:19

    That pension check is going to shrink. Prepare. If I didn’t care I wouldn’t warn you. I am fair and balanced. I treat everyone equally. I despise both the white and black sides of Obama equally. I am an equal opportunity critic. Come to me for the truth.

    Reply this comment
  12. Tough Love
    Tough Love 6 June, 2012, 08:31

    Brian, let’s take a shot at making the first part of that quote more accurate. Here’s the original, followed by my version:

    ORIGINAL:

    While we respect the decision of San Diego and San Jose voters, these measures will have perilous long-term consequences for workers, the economy and the public. These results will mean broken promises and less retirement security for working families and seniors,

    MY VERSION:

    We respect the decision of San Diego and San Jose voters, and these measures will have wonderful long-term consequences for all taxpayers, the economy and the public. These results will jump-start the process of moving from grossly excessive Public Sector pensions to FAIRNESS (and an EQUAL opportunity for retirement security) for ALL of California’s workers.

    Reply this comment
  13. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 08:33

    Like the new version TL! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  14. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 09:07

    I’m not being quiet at all, Beelzebub. I’m just reading the morning posts and the morning paper to catch up on things before I set out on another beautiful retirement day.

    As to the election, you win some and you lose some. The “will of the voters” doesn’t mean much if it’s illegal or unconstitutional, but those arguments are still ahead of us. This is nothing more than the latest skirmish in our contest over pension property rights in California.

    Now the issue moves to a venue where the law and cooler heads are far more likely to prevail. Anybody remember the how the lawsuit against Moorlach for attempting to reverse the pension obligations in Orange County turned out?

    Reply this comment
  15. Tough Love
    Tough Love 6 June, 2012, 09:32

    Skippy, your comment (above) suggested I take a shot at making one of YOUR statement more accurate (just Like I did up above for this article). Here we go:

    YOUR STATEMENT:

    “The “will of the voters” doesn’t mean much if it’s illegal or unconstitutional, but those arguments are still ahead of us. This is nothing more than the latest skirmish in our contest over pension property rights in California.”

    MY VERSION:

    “The “promised pensions” doesn’t mean much if there isn’t and never will be sufficient money to pay for it. This is but the first of many steps to come in Taxpayers taking control of California away from the greedy Public Sector Unions (and beholden politicians) and rightfully giving it back to ALL of it’s Citizens so that ALL have an equal opportunity to prosper.”

    Reply this comment
  16. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 09:41

    SKdog, did you injest a large amount of lead paint as a child?

    You left-wing commies come off as so entitled it really digusts the raitonal mind. I look at what your great Obama did, the bailouts, the cars for clunkers, the closing of dealerships, the solidra type investments, the joblessness, the apologies to our enemies, the czars, the gaffs and then you have the EPA empowered to keep little kids from selling lemonade, Democrats telling us we eat too much, we drink too much but its OK to smoke a little dope, to sell guns to Mexico…it just goes on and on.

    Try to use what gray matter you have left SKdog. Use what little logic and reason you have left and look beyond your pension grab. If you do this you will see that void of nothing for you to steal. You my friend are just like the frog in the pot of water, wondering why it is getting so warm, yet unable to rationalize the proper conclusion. 😉

    Reply this comment
  17. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 09:53

    You left out the birth certificate, Donkey. Isn’t that part of the catechism for you people?

    Keep wishing, Tough Love. None of the pension battles being fought suggest that not paying the existing obligations will be an acceptable course of legal or moral action.

    Two city propositions, both of which will be highly modified or reversed entirely by the courts, hardly demonstrate that anyone is “taking control of California,” except perhaps the Democratic Party and the two-thirds majority it is likely to have in our state legislature after the upcoming November elections.

    Enjoy your day otherwise. It’s always nice to be on the winning side, even if the win is as temporary as this one is sure to be.

    Reply this comment
  18. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 10:03

    The only ground you can stand on is legal SKdog, because legally the RAGWUS “moral” standing is banckrupt!

    The legal system has your back as of now, but as soon as the money becomes more scarce, which is much sooer than you believe, you will find that the judges will vote to keep their pensions as high as possible while seeing that yours is sent to the cutting room for a choping. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  19. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 10:16

    “The “will of the voters” doesn’t mean much if it’s illegal or unconstitutional, but those arguments are still ahead of us”

    You sniveling little whiny brats. That’s what I expected. If the vote went against you – you’d run to a familiar judge with a wink and a nod and tell him to strike it down.

    This is what a typical whiny ex-cop or fireclown would tell the judge:

    “Your honor, I promised to buy wifey a new Lamborghini for Christmas. If they screw with my pension and I can’t raise the money wifey will divorce me (sniff, sniff, whine, whine). Please, your honor. We are all brothers here. We’re in the same business. Help us out, woncha?? Do it for a pal. We can raise the taxes to make the system solvent. Don’t let them take away my 3%@50. I’ll have to sell one of my beach homes and my kid’s Maserati. It would be a financial hardship. Please, your honor. Save us”

    heh. 😉

    Reply this comment
  20. queeg
    queeg 6 June, 2012, 11:21

    This RAGWUS is getting old. In the arena of ideas only Teddy is credible….but Skippy is coming on strong…

    Reply this comment
  21. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 11:40

    It’s always best to have the high legal ground, Donkey. That means we’ll win in the end.

    As to your little effort at overwrought dramatic writing, Beel, you seem to ignore the basic fact that the law does not support the position you so dearly wish to impose on it. These cases will be decided on the basis of constitutionality and settled law, just as every case is decided.

    If you were the least bit consistent in your “principles,” you’d also be opposing the effort to reverse the Affordable Care Act, since that law was passed through fully constitutional and democratic means.

    Why the difference?

    Reply this comment
  22. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 11:49

    SKdog, go ask a Greek public RAGWUS member about the law!! 😉

    Reply this comment
  23. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 11:57

    Funny when these public trough feeders get their butts kicked at the polls the very next thing out of their mouths are “We’re going to sue!!” HAH! Reminds me of some little sissy boy in grade school who runs to the teacher and cries after he picked a fight and got punched in the nose.

    You little spoiled snotty nosed brats. You make me sick! 🙁

    Reply this comment
  24. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 6 June, 2012, 12:12

    I haven’t had time to be vocal here Beez. I have been busy reading and participating on the Sac Bee blogs. The thing that the voters in SJ and SD did was to screw their own cities and those future workers. And they screwed their own grandchildren, who might be growing up in those cities, because they will not want to go into public sector work–which is very admirable work–I know, since I did it for 40 years. I am not going to lose anything–you can threaten me all you want, because that’s all you’ve got. I seriously doubt that the current employees in SD and SJ will have their future benefits frozen–that is unconstitutional and will be nullified by the Courts. Money from the Koch Bros. is now running Wisconsin–we should all be so proud.

    Reply this comment
  25. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 6 June, 2012, 12:15

    Donkey are you going to copyright that acronym? Either do that or bury it in your back yard and move on.

    Reply this comment
  26. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 6 June, 2012, 12:32

    “The thing that the voters in SJ and SD did was to screw their own cities and those future workers”

    Wrong Seesaw. The SD and SJ voters are desperately trying to save their cities from bankrupcy or federal receivership after the public unions have swindled them of hundreds of billions of taxdollars.

    “And they screwed their own grandchildren, who might be growing up in those cities, because they will not want to go into public sector work–which is very admirable work–I know, since I did it for 40 years”

    Maybe they will want to go into government work for the RIGHT reason: To be PUBLIC SERVANTS FIRST and get a lower salary and retirement benefit than a private sector worker and in return get better job security. That was the original agreement when civil service was created until the public unions hijacked the system and turned it into a scam.

    “I am not going to lose anything–you can threaten me all you want, because that’s all you’ve got”

    I never threatened anybody. Don’t make crap up. I only gave my opinion which is the pension system is unsustainable and will eventually collapse because of promises made by bought-off pols that cannot possibly get fulfilled. So I believe you WILL get impacted if you are still getting a pension in the next 3-5 years. That’s what I think. Like it or lump it, dear.

    “I seriously doubt that the current employees in SD and SJ will have their future benefits frozen–that is unconstitutional and will be nullified by the Courts”

    Out of courtesy, I will repeat the same truism that I posted for Teddy and Skippy:

    IT’S EASIER TO CHANGE THE LAWS OR TO EVEN THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAN IT IS TO PAY PEOPLE WITH MONEY THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

    Now put some of that in your pipe and smoke it! 😀

    Reply this comment
  27. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 12:59

    SeeSaw, I love you and have missed you girl. What you are failing to understand is we are not looking to leave the RAGWUS members destitute. We are seeking rational and reasonable levels of compensation, not the obscene packages that the police, FF’s, management, and others have rigged over the years.

    I say cap all current and future pensions at $50,000 a year with no COLA’s, cut all pay to current workers by 30%, with no job position paying over $90,000 a year, cut all benefits by 50%, and eliminate all perks, and spiking. Any money daved will be given back to the private sector taxpayers in lieu of prison time for the thieving RAGWUS members greedy past. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  28. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 6 June, 2012, 13:04

    You sniveling little whiny brats. That’s what I expected. If the vote went against you – you’d run to a familiar judge with a wink and a nod and tell him to strike it down.
    LOL…Beelz, lighten up, these low life trough feeders will go into cardiac arrest if you keep pointing out the truth to them….

    This is what a typical whiny ex-cop or fireclown would tell the judge:
    “Your honor, I promised to buy wifey a new Lamborghini for Christmas. If they screw with my pension and I can’t raise the money wifey will divorce me (sniff, sniff, whine, whine). Please, your honor. We are all brothers here. We’re in the same business. Help us out, woncha?? Do it for a pal. We can raise the taxes to make the system solvent. Don’t let them take away my 3%@50. I’ll have to sell one of my beach homes and my kid’s Maserati. It would be a financial hardship. Please, your honor. Save us”

    BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beelz, you are killing them today!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  29. Claire Voyance
    Claire Voyance 6 June, 2012, 13:08

    California must pass a special tax on government pensions.

    100% tax on any government pension payment greater than the maximum social security benefit.

    What goes around, comes around.

    Taxpayers must get their money back from the public employee union thugs.

    Reply this comment
  30. Claire Voyance
    Claire Voyance 6 June, 2012, 13:16

    I’m still waiting for a brilliant lawyer to file a Civil RICO action against a government official and a member of a public employee union.

    Reply this comment
  31. Donkey
    Donkey 6 June, 2012, 13:23

    REX! Where the heck have you been? 🙂

    Reply this comment
  32. Tough Love
    Tough Love 6 June, 2012, 13:23

    Quoting SeeSaw …”The thing that the voters in SJ and SD did was to screw their own cities and those future workers. And they screwed their own grandchildren, who might be growing up in those cities, because they will not want to go into public sector work–which is very admirable work–I know, since I did it for 40 years.”

    Screw their own grandchildren by bringing the Public Sector down from stratospheric generosity?

    You really need to get the cobwebs out from between your ears. What the voters did was FREE their grandchildren from the shackles of additional unjust Tax burdens to fund another generation of Public Sector greed.

    Reply this comment
  33. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 16:34

    “…the shackles of additional unjust Tax burdens to fund another generation of Public Sector greed.”

    I just love it when you guys get all grandiose in your pronouncements and think it makes you sound like the Sons of Liberty or something. It really tickles me….

    Reply this comment
  34. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 16:37

    “I’m still waiting for a brilliant lawyer to file a Civil RICO action against a government official and a member of a public employee union.”

    Why don’t you just consult with a competent lawyer and learn some basics about RICO and how it is applied. You will gain some knowledge and not appear to be one more of the street corner ranters here.

    Reply this comment
  35. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 17:35

    Claire – Here’s a list of the predicate acts necessary to support a RICO claim. You need to be able to prove up at least two of them to support the claim. Please look over the list and let us know what predicate acts you believe any public employee groups and/or government officials have committed that are germane to the matter of public employee pensions in California.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961

    Reply this comment
  36. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 6 June, 2012, 17:49

    “California must pass a special tax on government pensions.

    100% tax on any government pension payment greater than the maximum social security benefit.”

    Claire – Just a couple of problems with your proposal. The main one is that no Republican would ever support it because it violates the blanket Republican and Grover Norquist requirement for no support of any new taxes or fees, ever, on anything. Democrats would oppose it for different reasons, but the outcome would be the same.

    Second, it clearly violates the requirement for equal protection under the law unless you also apply it to military and federal pensions. Not much chance of that happening either.

    Third, if you were somehow able to overcome the first two towering hurdles, I’d just move my legal domicile over to Las Vegas, where I’d buy a nice condo at a depressed price and then turn my California home into a temporary, part-time vacation home. Since the U.S Supreme Court has long since ruled against a “source tax” collection by the state, unless that tax is for current income from a business operating at a profit, I’d be relieved of not only the California income tax you propose but also be living under the laws of Nevada where there is no state income tax at all.

    Other than those issues, you might have something to work with….

    Reply this comment
  37. queeg
    queeg 6 June, 2012, 18:30

    Skippy.. the NETHS believe a middle class worker has flat growth opportunities, goes to clinics for health care and never ever sees a chicken in any pot!

    Reply this comment
  38. eatingdogfood
    eatingdogfood 6 June, 2012, 18:34

    Time to Throw the Unions Under The Bus !!!

    Reply this comment
  39. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 6 June, 2012, 22:04

    eatingdogfood says:
    Time to Throw the Unions Under The Bus
    =============
    You or anyone relishing the demise of collective bargaining in this country is a fool. Too many voters have never known what it is like to work 80 or more hours a week for substandard wages in poor working conditions but they may soon find out. And don’t count on labor law to protect you from that. It was organized labor that got those laws enacted to begin with. Organized labor that made sure those laws were enforced. And it it will be the demise of organized labor that will see those laws repealed. Maybe that’s what it will take to wake people up and realize that corporate America doesn’t want to just be left alone to do business. They want to own everything, including you. Wisconsin just made that a little more likely to happen. Hope you really like eating dog food cause thats all you will have!!!!

    Reply this comment
  40. Tough Love
    Tough Love 6 June, 2012, 22:25

    Well NTHEOC, I’ll take my chances with Wisconsin and and END of Public Sector Collective Bargaining any day over a continuation of the insatiable greed of Public Sector Unions.

    Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on Society!

    Reply this comment
  41. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 6 June, 2012, 23:05

    How do you feel about corporate greed? the only way to keep unchecked corporate greed, manipulation, and exploitation at bay is through labor law and by extension, collective bargaining. To believe that corporate America will simply do what is in your best interest and maintain hard fought for working conditions obtained by organized labor because of some noble feeling is foolishness at best and dangerous at worst. Organized labor provides autonomy from corporate masters. Take away that autonomy and you become a corporate slave.Like John Seiler!!

    Reply this comment
  42. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 6 June, 2012, 23:09

    tough love says,
    Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on Society!
    ===============
    Why do you think that?

    Reply this comment
  43. Donkey
    Donkey 7 June, 2012, 05:27

    The truth about the RAGWUS is taking hold, and now the citizens are steering the ship in the right direction, less graft for the non-producers. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  44. Donkey
    Donkey 7 June, 2012, 06:53

    There is no calamity greater than lavish desires.
    There is no greater guilt than discontentment.
    And there is no greater disaster than greed.
    Lao-tzu

    Just a little enlightening Maxim for the RAGWUS feeders to ponder. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  45. Tough Love
    Tough Love 7 June, 2012, 10:00

    NTHEOC, Your last comment is nothing but an attempt to distract from the issue … the grossly excessive Public Sector pension, and the need to materially reduce the benefits for CURRENT (not just new) workers.

    Sure, while Corporate Sector greed is ALSO a big problem, does that justify the insatiable greed of Public Sector Unions and their members ?

    Reply this comment
  46. Tough Love
    Tough Love 7 June, 2012, 10:40

    NTHEOC, You wanted to know why I stated … “Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on Society”

    Let me count the ways ….

    – the motes-operandi of Public Sector Unions can be summarized as MORE MORE MORE, ME ME ME, and to hell with the Taxpayers

    – a large potion of Public Sector Union dues turn into campaign contributions BUYING favorable votes (from the recipients of those contributions) on pay, pension, and benefits FAR FAR FAR greater than what is necessary to attract and retain a qualified workforce.

    – the insatiable greed and the resultant diversion of tax revenue to fund these FAR greater pension and FAR better benefits sucks money from much more appropriate community services (road maintenance, parks, libraries, recreation programs for children, etc.).

    – Public Sector Unions pervert the proper roll of gov’t, to provide an acceptable level of services at the lowest possible cost) only those service that cannot reasonably be provided by the Private Sector (e.g., Police)

    – Unions protect the worst of the worst, the lazy, the incompetent, the work-rule, sick-leave, and disability abusers, and at times, even criminals in their ranks.

    I could go on and on ……… but I’m sure you get the picture.

    Reply this comment
  47. Donkey
    Donkey 7 June, 2012, 10:51

    NTHEOC wrote: “Too many voters have never known what it is like to work 80 or more hours a week for substandard wages in poor working conditions but they may soon find out.”

    You are so incorrect with your point above NTHEOC. The non-RAGWUS workers are having to work longer and harder to supply your lard-laden pay, benefits, perks, and pensions.

    The truth is spreading fast about the RAGWUS. Many citzens, when reading about your pay, benefits, perks, and pensions thought to themselves that it must be a misprint or misstatment, only to find out that it is the truth and the RAGWUS members were little more than thieving crooks, with no compassion for the folks footing the bill. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  48. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 7 June, 2012, 13:39

    You or I will never convince them, Mr. Donkey. They know the difference between right and wrong. They have simply chosen ‘wrong’ and have no intention of changing their ways or cleaning up their immoral lives.

    The only one with the power to change them is Mr. Math. And he’s lurking in the background here with a big crap-eatin’ grin on his face.

    We know the eventual outcome, Mr. Donkey. So do they. But in their warped and distorted minds they think Mr. Pol is going to come riding in on a big white horse in the end and save them.

    heh. Nothing is farther from the truth. NTHEOC has many years left until retirement. He is really going to take it in the shorts. No way does this economy hold up until he retires. He will see the house of cards fall. And he will pay the consequences.

    Public Service Announcement…….nothing follows………….

    Reply this comment
  49. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 7 June, 2012, 14:51

    “Public Sector Unions pervert the proper roll of gov’t, to provide an acceptable level of services at the lowest possible cost) only those service that cannot reasonably be provided by the Private Sector (e.g., Police)”

    Wouldn’t your complaint here apply to every rent seeker who lobbies our government for special attention or support?

    Reply this comment
  50. Tough Love
    Tough Love 7 June, 2012, 17:21

    Skippy, Responding to your last comment, sure, it would apply, but those CORPORATE “rent seekers” ultimately have customers who have a choice to (a) by that company’s product, (b) buy a competitor’s product, or (c) decide it’s too expensive and not buy the product at all.

    Consumers of Public Sector services have no choice to pay the bill (via their taxes) whether they want the service or not, or whether it’s efficient;y provided or not. No comparable control exist to keep public sector prices (and hence the taxes we must pay for them) in check.

    *******************
    What ? No comeback on my OTHER 4 bullets as to why Public Sector Unions are a CANCER on Society ? Than you agree with me ?

    Reply this comment
  51. Skippingdog
    Skippingdog 7 June, 2012, 23:11

    No, TL, your other “points” are nothing more than unsupported canards based on your hate of all government entities. There’s no reason to respond to them.

    Reply this comment
  52. Donkey
    Donkey 8 June, 2012, 06:40

    TL is right on with his words SKdog. And whether you respond to his comments or not, the end is near for the RAGWUS, and the citizens will be set free. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  53. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 8 June, 2012, 11:01

    What will the citizens be set free from, Donkey? The rules necessary for us to have a civilized society? The need to educate our kids? The obligations that come along with citizenship?

    I’m curious. What does your perfect, post-government world look like?

    Reply this comment
  54. Donkey
    Donkey 8 June, 2012, 13:19

    Set free from excessive pension costs, excessive pay, excessive benefits, and excessive perks that were all derived from dishonest tactics created by the RAGWUS. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  55. Claire Voyance
    Claire Voyance 16 June, 2012, 17:30

    Tough Love,

    Enjoy:

    [1]

    Whenever I raise the point that Greedy Pigs (a.k.a. police) and Greedy Hosers (a.k.a. firefighters) receive obscene salaries, benefits, and pensions, a Greedy Pig, Greedy Hoser, or some yahoo always says “well, who you gonna call to come save you?”

    I’m going to call the Greedy Pigs or Greedy Hosers to “save me” because I am forced, against my will, to pay taxes that pay for the Greedy Pigs’ and Greedy Hosers’ obscene salaries, benefits, and pensions.
    Because I am forced, against my will, to pay for the service, I’ll use the service.
    I do NOT have the right to choose not to pay taxes and, thus, not to pay for the Greedy Pigs’ and Greedy Hosers’ obscene salaries, benefits, and pensions.

    [2]

    Whenever I raise the point that Greedy Pigs (a.k.a. police) and Greedy Hosers (a.k.a. firefighters) receive obscene salaries, benefits, and pensions, a Greedy Pig, Greedy Hoser, or some yahoo always says “well, look how much professional athletes and other entertainers are paid!”

    I have the right to choose not to buy tickets, clothing, etc. sold by professional sports teams or other entertainment companies and, thus, not to pay for professional athletes’ and/or entertainers’ salaries, benefits, and pensions.
    Again, I do NOT have the right to choose not to pay taxes and, thus, not to pay for the Greedy Pigs’ and Greedy Hosers’ obscene salaries, benefits, and pensions.

    [3]

    Police and fire services are a monopoly that the Greedy Pigs and Greedy Hosers have ruthlessly exploited to the detriment of hardworking taxpayers. Greedy Pigs and Greedy Hosers do NOT need to compete in the marketplace to attract and retain customers (i.e. taxpayers). Worse, customers (i.e. taxpayers) are unable to “shop around” for a better price and/or better service.

    “Since monopolies are the only provider, they can set pretty much any price they choose, regardless of demand, because they know the consumer has no choice. They can also supply inferior products. They are also bad for an economy because the manufacturer has no incentive to innovate, and provide “new and improved” products.” (By Kimberly Amadeo; About.com; source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/monopoly.htm)

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
Brian CalleSan DiegoSan Joseunions

Related Articles

Correa Protests Budget Sham

Steven Greenhut: Sen. Lou Correa, D-Anaheim, just told CalWatchdog that he abstained from all budget votes for a simple reason:

Moorlach to seek O.C. state Senate seat

Termed-out Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach — who until recently seemed to be preparing for an exit from active politics

Why isn’t California a tax haven?

Aug. 22, 2012 By John Seiler The Obama campaign is running an ad attacking tax havens, including  Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman