In the corporate world, post-Enron, we see steady pressure on companies to put out honest numbers that play fair with shareholders and potential investors. But in government, we see cities lying about the health of their pension systems and statewide pension systems like CalPERS saying benefits can be sharply increased with no long-term financial consequences. If these things happened in the private sector, there would be criminal prosecutions and shareholder lawsuits.

Now we have a fresh example of how the public sector has far lower standards than the private sector. It has to do with lecherous San Diego Mayor Bob Filner

Would Filner last in corporate America? No way!

This is from a recent U-T San Diego story:

‘The public outrage isn’t subsiding. But neither is Mayor Bob Filner’s ironclad stance to keep his job.

“If he were the CEO of a private company, a board of directors probably would not give him a choice. The allegations released Monday by Irene McCormack Jackson of Filner’s requests not to wear underwear and ‘Filner Headlocks’ would likely be grounds to oust him in Corporate America. Since Monday, two more women have come forward with claims of improper behavior by Filner.

“But for the mayor, only a lengthy public recall can force him out of office, despite the jarring allegations.

“’That’s pretty much the definition of a hostile work environment,’ said Lonny Zilberman, an employment attorney with Wilson Turner Kosmo. ‘You could walk up to 100 people on the street and I bet 99 of them would find that conduct both offensive and inappropriate in the workplace.’

“McCormack Jackson received a ‘right to sue’ from the state, but outside of that, charged public statements with no recall signatures behind them might as well fall on deaf ears. The City Council can’t fire Filner, who is free to quit. In the private sector, even the person at the top isn’t immune to punishment for wrongdoing if the system works as intended.”

It’s not just groping — Filner’s other shenanigans

Meanwhile, the San Diego mayor is also demonstrating the lunacy that public sector executives get away with on the pension front.

San Diego was the first major city in the U.S. to face a huge pension crisis because of crazy decisions in 1996 and 2002 by the City Council to pay far less that actuarially required toward pension costs while preserving a very generous pension plan that allowed some employees to get more in retirement than they did while on the job. After years and years clawing back, the city’s pension system is now in better shape than many other large U.S. cities’.

So what does Filner want to do? You guessed it. He wants to underfund the pension! This is from my U-T San Diego editorial about Filner’s ouster of Herb Morgan, the president of the San Diego city pension board:

“Morgan was the key figure in the pension board’s decision not to reduce the amount it billed the city for 2013-14 for the cost of city pensions. The $275 million charge blew a $20 million hole in the city’s budget; city officials had expected a smaller bill because of new long-term labor deals. Now Morgan is getting the boot as a result. …

“Had the SDCERS board accepted the city’s numbers and reduced its charge, the system would still only be 70.5 percent funded — the percentage of assets versus liabilities — not the 80 percent minimum recommended by actuarial experts.

“But in Bob Filner’s San Diego, members of an independent city board are to be punished if they actually think they’re independent and not subject to the commands of the city’s imperial leader. And then the mayor has the gall to dissemble about why he would veto his own nominees.

“This hammers home a point that may have been lost in the uproar over Filner’s personal scandal. His governance has been scandalous as well.”

In the private sector, Filner would be out of his job and fearful of jail. But not in the public sector.

By Mark Cabaniss

Democracy, it has been said, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Yes, the sheep gets to vote.  And yes, in theory he could appeal to one of the wolves to break rank and vote with him instead of the other wolf.  But in reality, the sheep loses.  Every time.

The only way that the sheep could win, in a closed system, or zero-sum game, would be for him to convince one of the wolves that the other wolf would make a tastier meal than would the sheep himself.  Alternatively, he could try to convince one or both of the wolves that they are not, in fact, in a zero-sum game.  Historically, the sheep has had a difficult time doing this.

We can construct a simple model with only three voting blocs, each of which considers only its own economic interests when voting, each represented by one of the animals:

1. People who don’t pay taxes (Transfer Wolf);

2. Public employees (Public Wolf);

3. Private sector employees (Sheep).

At dinner time — oh, excuse me — voting time, there are two propositions on the ballot:

A. Shall we raise (or decrease) taxes and use the money to raise (or decrease) spending on Public Wolf?

B. Shall we raise (or decrease) taxes and use the money to raise (or decrease) spending on Transfer Wolf?

Voting

The voting goes like this:  On Proposition A, Public Wolf votes to raise taxes and raise his own pay.  Sheep votes to lower taxes and to lower Public Wolf’s pay.  Public Wolf and Sheep are at a stalemate.

Transfer Wolf sits this vote out.  Since he doesn’t pay taxes, he doesn’t care what tax rates are.  Nor does he care how much Public Wolf is paid, unless — unless he is paid to care.

On Proposition B, Transfer Wolf votes to raise his own benefits and to raise taxes to pay for them.  Both Public Wolf and Sheep vote against him.

Transfer Wolf has a problem. He has been outvoted.  But luckily for him, Public Wolf also has a problem: He is in a stalemate with Sheep.  The two wolves realize that they need each others’ votes, so they agree to work together, against Sheep.  Each will support the other’s position, and Sheep will be outvoted on both propositions.

In actual practice, the evidence suggests this is exactly what is happening — transfer payment recipients and government workers have formed a successful political coalition.  According to a recent article by demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, since 1960 total United States transfer payments have grown from $24 billion to just short of $2.2 trillion in 2010, nearly a 100-fold increase in the last half century.

Simultaneously, total government spending, federal and state and local, has gone from about 24 percent of GDP in 1960 to about 36 percent in 2010, growth of 50 percent.

Nash equilibrium

A Nash equilibrium, as popularized in the book and movie “A Beautiful Mind” about mathematician John Nash, posits a game stalemate dependent on two conditions: first, each player knows every other player’s strategy; second, despite knowing everything, each player is nonetheless unable to adjust his own strategy to make it more advantageous.

In politics, there are no secret strategies, since elections involve trying to gain adherents to your strategy over the other side’s.  But in our simple Fairy Tale, even though the first condition for Nash equilibrium is there — everyone knows everyone else’s position — there is nonetheless no equilibrium.

Public Wolf and Transfer Wolf will continue to vote in tandem, and thereby grow; Sheep will continue to be outvoted, and shrink.  If we graphed Sheep’s life expectancy, it would be a curve breaking straight down, inversely proportional to the growth of his two compatriots.

But when we consider the second condition necessary for a Nash Equilibrium, we see how Sheep can get out of his predicament: He simply has to change strategy and start competing with Public Wolf by directly bidding for Transfer Wolf’s vote.

Why hasn’t Sheep already thought of that?  He could, after all, promise to cut Public Wolf’s pay and then split the savings with Transfer Wolf, much as Public Wolf promises to raise taxes and split it with Transfer Wolf.

The reason for this is history, and the simple inability to think past it.

Sheep has always been opposed to raising taxes, whether it is to increase the size and pay of Public Wolf or whether it is to increase the size and pay of Transfer Wolf.

But, just because Sheep has always been opposed to these ideas in the past does not mean that he has to stay opposed to them in the future.  If Sheep could let go of his historical antipathy to Public Wolf and Transfer Wolf, he could seek to make a deal with one against the other.

Of course, there is yet one more way out for Sheep. He could potentially try to convince one or both of the wolves that their dinner choice is not a zero-sum game; that they could, in fact, join forces and go foraging in the woods together for something that all three animal friends could eat.

Historically, this approach has been a loser for Sheep.  At dinner time, both of the wolves are usually too hungry to listen to reasoned pleas about thinking outside the zero-sum model.

So the only bet for Sheep may be to undergo a paradigm shift, overcome his qualms, and make a deal with one of the wolves to dismember and eat the other.