But if you’re the governor of that state, and the media think you’re a whiz-bang because there aren’t any more budget stalemates every summer, you can just blithely say that 24 percent poverty is just the way it is, man. This was in the Sac Bee.

“Brown defended California’s business environment, citing venture capital and foreign investment in the state.

“There’s a fellow named Schumpeter who talked about the creative destruction of capitalism,” he said, referencing the economist Joseph Schumpeter. “And, I put the emphasis on creative, and, change is inevitable. We’re getting 60 percent of the venture capital, we’re the number one place for direct foreign investment in the United States. Do we have everything in all respects? No. But we have an abundance that constitutes a two trillion dollar economy.”

Brown celebrates dynamics that are roiling San Francisco

As my Cal Watchdog colleague John Seiler notes, it’s pretty cool to see California’s governor invoke an economist who is a free-market icon, not a Krugmanite — even if it’s Texas that reflects Schumpeter’s core insights far more than Cali. But it’s also very curious in that anyone who celebrates the California status quo certainly isn’t looking at the 24 percent of folks in poverty. Or the stagnant middle class. More than anyone, such a celebration is about the tech titans of Silicon Valley and San Francisco — the allegedly evil 1 percenters.

It’s no stretch to say Jerry Brown is celebrating the same economic dynamics that have San Franciscan lefties going goon on rich techies.

But then we live in a state in which outside of Christopher Cadelago and Dan Walters at the Sac Bee and Steve Greenhut at the U-T San Diego and the editorial board of the U-T (which includes me), practically no one ever mentions that California has the nation’s highest poverty rate if cost of living is included.

Do these journos think cost of living shouldn’t be included? Or are they just clueless? Or are they scared to break with the pack?

I don’t know which of these is true. But it is stunning that so few of the articles about how California is doing simply omit our nation’s worst poverty ranking.

This week, as reported by Cal Watchdog founding editor Steve Greenhut in his U-T San Diego column, CalSTRS came forward with a proposal to jump-start discussions on how to fix the funding problem. Officials floated …

“… a ‘hypotethetical’ plan that would allow them to increase the amount of money they collect from teachers to reduce the pension debt. In exchange for that give-back from teachers, CalSTRS would guarantee a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment every year. Currently, retirees receive that annual boost – but it is not a ‘vested’ right. The Legislature can take it away any time that it chooses.

“Because of state law, CalSTRS must gain legislative approval for any new dollars it seeks.  …

“CalSTRS explains in its legal analysis that public employees cannot have their vested benefits reduced unless they receive a ‘comparable new advantage.’ So these pension-fund officials are arguing that ‘vesting’ the annual boost — making it a guarantee rather than an option — is an advantage that more than offsets the contribution increases. They provided legislators with a complicated actuarial formula backing that point.

“It’s a clever effort by CalSTRS to find some way to gin up the struggling system’s funding levels given a legal and political situation that offers few cost-saving options. But it could cost more than it gets in return.”

Usual approach to pension reform involves concessions

Steve makes a strong case that this is a “fix” that could make current problems worse.

But I have an additional, more unconventional thesis: There is no way to reconcile deeply held beliefs among some of the various “stakeholders” here. It’s impossible to imagine a compromise that the 500,000-plus members of the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers would find remotely acceptable.

Under the funding formula written in state law, teachers’ employers pay a sum equal to 8.25 percent of their pay toward pension costs; teachers contribute 8 percent of their pay; and the state contributes in two ways to the cost. As of 2015, per Calpensions.com’s Ed Mendel, the state contribution will be equal to 6 percent of pay.

But 22.25 percent of pay isn’t nearly enough to cover CalSTRS’ liabilities. A 2012 analysis suggested between 36 percent and 37 percent of pay is needed to cover “normal” costs of retirement for veteran teachers.

So where do we go from here?

In California, in recent years, we’ve established a framework for stabilizing underfunded pensions: Both governments and employees contribute significantly more toward pensions, and new hires get less generous benefits.

Are some unions more equal than others?

Two of those three things could easily happen in Sacramento. Even Republican lawmakers have long since acknowledged the state needs to pay more to shore up CalSTRS. And veteran teachers would make a show of indignation about a change that the Maviglians of the world would depict as throwing young teachers under the bus, then go along with it.

But the third thing — the significant increase in teacher contributions — is about as likely to happen as Cruz Bustamante making a triumphant return to statewide office. This would mean a significant drop in take-home pay. The CTA and CFT won’t stand for that.

Remember, the easiest way to understand how Sacramento works is to begin with the presumption that the no. 1 priority of elected Democrats is protecting union teachers.

Example: The complicated change in education funding known as the “Local Control Funding Formula” was adopted last year by the Legislature in shockingly quick fashion. It sharply limited the state mandates on how local districts must spend their funds so officials could ensure more money went to help English-learners and the most academically challenged. But depending on the follow-through, the eliminating of those mandates could have as its primary effect freeing up money to compensate teachers — not helping struggling students. Why else would the bill have passed as quickly?

If the CTA and CFT are that ruthless and Machiavellian — and they are, they are — there is no way they’ll go along with a cut in teacher take-home pay.

Even if other public employee unions have accepted pension reforms that made the same concession.

But it you wanted to pick the one state agency that most consistently advocates a radical view of government power, you’ll never top the California Coastal Commission. It was founded and run for a quarter-century by a green zealot named Peter Douglas — a guy who really and truly didn’t believe in private property rights and who pushed the commission to ridiculous extremes. I wrote about one of his crusades in an editorial in 2006:

“Consider the case of San Luis Obispo engineer Dennis Schneider, who hoped to build his dream home on a cliff above the ocean in a remote area north of Cayucos. Incredibly by normal cognitive standards, typically by Coastal Commission standards, the agency blocked his plans on the grounds that the home would be such an aesthetic affront to passing kayakers, boaters and surfers that it would violate their rights. We are not making this up.”

But the courts backed Schneider up, thankfully. So there was a way to deal with Douglas’ assault on conventional notions about property, individuals and government control of property and individuals.

Not just power to assess fines, but limited checks and balances

Now, the San Diego Democrat chosen to be the next speaker of the Assembly wants the commission to be given more powers with fewer checks and balances. CalWatchdog alum Steve Greenhut talks about Toni Atkins’ scary legislation in his latest U-T San Diego column.

“Last year, the Atkins bill (AB 976) was controversial enough even among some environmentally minded Democrats that it was rejected in the Assembly. But as Atkins ascends to the Assembly speakership, it’s likely that this legislative priority will rise again.

“Is it needed? The vast majority of the commission’s complaints against homeowners already are resolved before going to court. If the commission still meets resistance, it petitions the state attorney general for legal action.

“If the Atkins bill passes, the commission can decide on its own to begin assessing daily fines. The property owners can attend a public hearing before commissioners, but it’s not a neutral proceeding with witnesses and due process. The burden of proof would shift from the agency to the individual property owner.

“Not many owners could risk the bank account by challenging the agency. Some critics say the bill would provide an incentive for the commission to target picayune issues because the more fines it imposes, the more money that fills up an environmental-restoration fund.”

Groan. This is not what California needs — further empowering the Peter Douglas disciples who still run the Coastal Commission two years after his death and who still think Douglas’ views about property rights are what matters — not that minor clause in federal law known as the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A lot of oddly gleeful folks treat the verdict as evidence that police did the right thing the night Thomas suffered fatal injuries while being remorselessly tortured by men with badges.

That’s absurd. The frail, mentally ill homeless man wouldn’t be dead if a cop didn’t openly declare he was going to “f—” Thomas up and then follow through on his threat. If the officers had a shred of humanity, Thomas would be alive.

I’m glad to see the L.A. Times report that at least one person in Fullerton understands this:

“Fullerton’s chief of police said he would fight an appeal from one of the officers acquitted in the death of Kelly Thomas to get his job back.

“Jay Cicinelli was fired after being charged by Orange County prosecutors with involuntary manslaughter and excessive force in the 2011 death of the mentally ill homeless man.

“His co-defendant Manuel Ramos, also a former Fullerton police officer, was charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

“On Monday a Santa Ana jury found both of them not guilty of all charges.

“Dan Hughes, Fullerton chief of police, said in a statement that his decision to fire Cicinelli is separate and unaffected by the acquittal.”

“’Former Police Officer Jay Cicinelli has alleged that he was wrongfully terminated and has demanded his job back,’ Hughes said. ‘I stand behind the employment decisions I have made.'”

2011 killing produced shameful reaction from many

Why do I express satisfaction that “at least one person in Fullerton” understands what happened to Thomas was horrible?

Because of Steve Greenhut’s U-T San Diego column, which points out that many in Fullerton didn’t get this at all.

“…in July 2011, the Fullerton political establishment rushed to the defense of officers who had beaten a 130-pound homeless schizophrenic named Kelly Thomas. The public saw the published photo of Thomas’ horribly swollen and bruised face, yet the mayor went on TV saying he had seen worse injuries in the Vietnam War and that it was unclear what killed Thomas, who died in a hospital days after the whomping.

“We also learned that police officers confiscated the video camera of a bystander and were allowed to watch the surveillance video of the incident and essentially get their stories straight before giving their statements.”

This is pathetic. As Steve points out, it is also not surprising.

“This one-time idealist wants to believe that in a free society the rulers are held to the same standards as the ruled, that the public wouldn’t stand for the kind of official brutality that takes place in unfree nations and that juries would punish killers even if they wear a uniform.

“Yet over years of writing about policing issues, it’s hard to remain hopeful. No matter how egregious the incident — police gunning down a troubled teen in an empty park, shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, or planting evidence in a car trunk — there’s rarely any punishment.”

Take it away, commenters. Explain to us once again how Kelly Thomas got what he had coming.

Sheesh.

“In 1978, Howard Jarvis launched the U.S. anti-tax movement in California with Proposition 13, which capped annual increases in property taxes and kept people from being forced from their homes during real-estate bubbles. A generation later, the Golden State could be on the brink of launching another populist movement, one driven by anger over government compensation practices. A key battleground is San Diego. In June, voters will decide on Proposition B, the Comprehensive Pension Reform Initiative. It would end defined-benefit pensions for all new city hires except for police officers, instead providing pensions similar to 401(k)s. It would prevent pay sweeteners from being added to base salary when calculating pensions, and it would require city workers to pay a bigger share of their pension costs. Finally, Prop. B would mandate a five-year salary freeze.”

Ventura County, Phoenix hoping for big changes in benefits

It took longer than I hoped, but it finally seems to be unfolding. Here's CalWatchdog founder Steve Greenhut in his U-T San Diego column:

“Voters approved [DeMaio's] measure with nearly 66 percent of the vote, but … the big vote numbers hid the difficulty of the battle.

“It has been challenged by a union-friendly state agency, the Public Employment Relations Board, which continues to claim that the measure — which instituted a 401(k)-style pension plan for new city hires, capped pensionable city pay for five years and ended pension-spiking abuses — improperly deprived unions of the right to negotiate. That nuisance continues, even if there’s little doubt the constitutional right to vote will ultimately trump the unions’ claims.

“But the courts have three times sided with the city as it continues to implement the measure. And while nothing has been easy here, either, officials in other places are starting to notice that the San Diego approach to reforming pensions might offer the most hope for significantly reining in pension costs without having to go through a legal meat grinder.

“Today, the county of Ventura, which operates an independent retirement system under the state’s County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937, filed an initiative that closely copies the San Diego blueprint. Earlier this week, Phoenix also filed a similar initiative for the 2014 ballot. Arizona has a different legal framework, but the basic ideas are the same. Officials from both cities met with DeMaio and other reformers in San Diego last November. DeMaio believes that other '37 Act' California counties could follow suit.”

Good luck. As Steve's piece notes, pension reform is incredibly popular — which is why pension status quoists fight so hard to make it incredibly difficult.

And good luck to Carl DeMaio, who is running for Congress against a first-term Democrat in a district that Mitt Romney won in 2012. A McClintock-DeMaio one-two punch in California's GOP congressional delegation sounds pretty amazing to me.

“Californians could be faced in November with a proposal to dramatically alter the pension and benefit system for public employees. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed has submitted a statewide ballot initiative that would allow government agencies to negotiate changes to current employees’ future retirement benefits, reversing the long-standing principle that once a public employee is hired, his or her retirement benefits cannot be reduced. 

“Public employee unions are already gearing up for a major fight over Reed’s initiative, which he could put on the ballot as soon as 2014 (or as late as 2016) if he gathers the requisite signatures. No matter the timing, voters will surely be inundated with intense propaganda from both sides. That’s why Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, charged with writing the title and 100-word summary for all ballot measures — including Reed’s pension initiative — should play it straight. Give voters clear, factual information, free of spin.

“Last year, Harris took heat for drafting a ballot measure summary — also on a pension reform proposal — that many considered skewed against the initiative’s fiscally conservative proponents. Her summation pushed the limits of interpretation and painted the proposal in the worst light, critics said. She even chose to define public employees as “teachers, nurses and peace officers” — who, according to polls, just happen to be among the most respected of all public employees. She neglected to mention the parking enforcement officers, tax collectors and DMV clerks who would also be affected by pension changes.”

A test for a possible future national candidate

This normally would be a no-brainer for Kamala Harris — write a slanted summary, keep sucking up to unions, keep moving up the CA Dem food chain. But if she wants to be president or vice president some day, and that is what a lot of people are hearing, she has to show she’s not a complete union tool.

Or, as CalWatchdog founder Steve Greenhut put it, that she’s not a “totalitarian.” Here’s what he wrote last year after Harris’ first pension reform monkey-wrenching:

“We expect all sides in politics to fight hard, given the stakes involved, but our system rests on the broad acceptance of a set of fairly applied rules. We know, for instance, that no matter how nasty the coming presidential election becomes, the loser ultimately will cede power after the final count is in. This isn’t a kleptocracy, where the only redress for the losing side is to take to the streets in a violent revolt.

“Unfortunately, California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ recent misuse of power to provide a dishonest ballot title and summary for proposed pension-reform initiatives, which she opposes, comes right out of the totalitarian playbook, where those wielding power recognize no rules of decency or fairness.”

We shall see if Harris has a shred of good faith in her. The odds at the Imaginary Politics Gambling House:

— 51 percent chance that she does a completely slanted, outrageous ballot description, as bad as last year’s.

–44 percent chance that she does one that is clearly slanted but that might survive a court challenge.

–5 percent chance that she writes a fair ballot summary.

That’s life in California — just a one in 20 shot that honest democracy will trump union hegemony.

By Chris Reed

For years, Cal Watchdog founder and now regular CWD contributor Steven Greenhut has depicted media favorite Nathan Fletcher, a one-time Republican assemblyman from San Diego, as a phony and a turncoat waiting to happen.

Boy, was Steve right. Over the weekend, the guy who was Karl Rove’s buddy 14 months ago and a fierce independent 13 months ago suddenly announced that, hey, he’d had an epiphany and figured out he was a strong Democrat. Here’s how Tuesday’s U-T San Diego editorial dealt with this ridiculously expedient posturing:

‘Who is Nathan Fletcher? Who knows?’