Of course, some areas are more resistant to this kind of epiphany than others. But now California's most liberal region is the middle of being mugged by today's political realities, and the result could be a whole lot more people in the Bay Area figuring out that union power translates into legal looting — at least if you don't fight back.

This is from a sharp Contra Costa Times editorial saying enough is enough, bring on a BART strike if the greedmongers demand more:

“The BART board already offered more than it should have. It can't go further while meeting its responsibilities to keep sufficient numbers of trains running reliably. As it is, more tax increases are planned.

“For their part, BART workers, who already receive great compensation, haven't budged. They continue to perseverate about side issues while maintaining absurd salary and benefit demands. Union leaders have ratcheted up expectations to such unrealistic levels that workers don't appreciate the sweet offer already on the table.

“Train operators, for example, already place among the top-paid in the nation. Employees contribute nothing toward their generous pensions. And health insurance costs most of them just $92 a month, no matter how many dependents they have.

“BART is offering a 10 percent wage increase over four years, while asking that workers contribute only minimally to their pensions and allowing them to keep the $92 health care deal. Yet, that's not enough for the unions.”

When chaos hits, know whom to blame

And if a strike does happen, and chaos ensues, the Contra Costa Times says be prepared — and don't blame transit officials. Blame the union bullies.

“So, start making plans to carpool or, if possible, work from home. Plan to travel outside commute hours. Stock up on household supplies to avoid unnecessary trips. Schedule virtual conferences rather than meeting in person.

“Finally, resist the temptation to blame BART directors. For your sake, they can't give anymore. Caving to absurd labor demands will only buy short-term peace at the expense of long-term financial insolvency.

“It would be great if there were an easy way out. There isn't. …

“It's the BART directors' responsibility to balance labor costs against billions of dollars of unmet capital needs. For too long, they have let politics trump financial reality. That must end, even if it means enduring a strike.”

In other words, don't give in — and don't believe the claims that it's BART management that's greedy, not the rank-and-file.

A groaner of an editorial

The contrast between the Contra Costa Times' clear-eyed view of the labor strife and the San Francisco Chronicle's judgment-free editorial is striking. The Chronicle implies everyone's to blame — and cites “BART's notoriously bad relations with its unions.”

Groan. Oh, yeah, they're just so mean to union members. Let's go to the videotape:

So all you can do is groan when Dennis Cuff of the Contra-Costa Times reports on an insanely generous and pointless BART employee perk and calls it “little-known.” Why is it little-known? Because there is such consistently horrible coverage of how government bodies work.

“In a little-known perk at a transit system struggling to control the cost of benefits, BART gives its employees and their families free travel passes on its system — even after they retire.

“Although other Bay Area transit agencies offer their own free-ride programs, BART’s is among the most generous. It provides the same lifetime travel benefit to board members and their families, the only one of seven surveyed Bay Area transit operators to do so.

“The cost? All together, BART forgoes more than $2.1 million a year for the free rides — $741,000 of it for families.

“At a time when labor-management strife may lead to a second strike this summer, some critics say the extensive free travel policy is part of a tradition of overly generous benefits at BART.

“‘It sends a wrong signal that in a time when fares continue to go up there are people who have never worked for BART who ride for free,’ said Fred Wright Lopez, a Lafayette attorney and unsuccessful BART candidate last fall. ‘It’s an insult to BART’s riders.’“

Bosses benefit from lavish treatment of rank-and-file

This cavalier giveaway reflects another central truth about BART, many big transit agencies and scores of water districts around California — especially the gigantic Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The bosses don’t care if the rank-and-file get absurd salaries and benefits — because they’re getting even more absurd salaries and the same or better benefits. Who looks out for taxpayers inside BART? Nobody.

Which brings us back to how fundamentally horrible coverage of government is in California. I’ve lived here since 1990 and been a voracious consumer of newspapers the whole time. I have read thousands and thousands of stories about budget decisions at water agencies and other special districts, literally millions and millions of words.

Yet far less than 1 percent of these stories noted that the upper management has a substantial personal windfall to expect if it goes along with raises for rank-and-file workers. In most of these special districts, the board of directors is completely dependent on the staff for information and institutional history.

Instead of a sharp MBA type diagnosing this fundamental disincentive to control spending and district leaders adopting obvious reforms, we have a Senior Staff Analyst III testifying that automatic step raises on top of regular raises are the norm, and always have been, and the special district’s general manager nodding in agreement.

Fix is in from the top-down

There’s no need for a public employee union fix. The fix is in from the top-down.

Isn’t this important? Of course. But how often have you seen this explained? Just about never.

Thanks, state press corps. Thanks so very much.

An excellent article in today’s Contra Costa Times by columnist Daniel Borenstein reports that the state’s government pension crisis is even worse than we thought:

IF THERE’S any hope of resolving the California public-employee pension dilemma, it must start with honest discussion of the size of the problem.

Unfortunately, federal rules for private-sector pension accounting do not apply to government retirement systems. So public-employee plans are free to legally cook the books and hide the full size of the mounting debt.

The difference in the rules allows public-pension plans, when setting rates, to overstate how much money they have, understate how much they need and unconscionably spread out debt payments for generations. It’s politically driven accounting.

If public-pension systems were forced to operate under federal accounting rules that apply to private-sector plans, the required annual payments would often more than triple, devastating state and local government budgets. The public backlash would be unbearable for elected officials and the cost would force layoffs of many more workers.

Instead, public-pension systems paper over the problem.

It’s another case of government operating by its own rules, instead of those in the real world that the rest of us must follow. This in the end is the ultimate problem with government: They don’t play by the rules of reality. Then, when things go wrong, they blame the private sector and boost taxes and regulations.

Borenstein continues:

For example, consider the pension plan for the state’s non-safety workers. When the California Public Employees’ Retirement System required the state to contribute $2 billion for the current fiscal year, it was on a 2009 actuarial valuation that showed the pension plan was 81 percent funded.

If CalPERS had been required to follow private-sector accounting rules, the state would have been required to pay more than $7 billion and the accounting would have shown the plan to be roughly only 55 percent funded, according to estimates prepared for me by a private-sector pension consultant.

Hey, what’s a couple of billion here and there? If things get too far out of hand, the taxpayers will just pick up the tab for the error.

Borenstein concludes:

Keep in mind that this is debt for pension benefits that have already been earned. It’s compensation, just like salary, for work that employees have already performed. So, in essence, CalPERS is pushing off to our children and grandchildren the debt for services we already received.

If CalPERS were bound by private-sector pension rules, the shorter amortization period would drive up current pension costs. But CalPERS officials, like those at most public-pension systems, would rather let the next generation solve the problem.

That’s what government keeps doing: kicking the can down the road. At the federal level, they have run up $14 trillion in debt, with another $1.6 trillion piled up this year. Even though the only real excuse for federal debt, a major declared war, hasn’t happened since 66 years ago, when World War II ended in 1945.

At the state level, governor after governor keeps coming into office promising to “cut up the credit cards” of state spending — then spends too much and increases taxes.

Why do we even put up with these spendthrifts, bankrupts and liars? Why don’t we just privatize the whole kit and kaboodle?

May 31, 2011