The budget blues aren’t over yet in San Jose. Mayor Chuck Reed announced that the Firefighters Union has come up $6 million short in its effort to meet the 10 percent cut on salaries and benefits, leaving the city no choice but to eliminate 81 positions. As a result, 51 firefighters will lose their jobs, one station will be closed, and other stations will have to contend with reduced staffing and equipment. It is the first time in the city’s history that firefighters have been laid off.
The firefighters are livid as a result of the decision, and argue that funds could be redirected from less vital programs to help them save their jobs. Union head Randy Sekany issued an ominous warning: “I guarantee you that [the layoffs] will ultimately result in some person being injured more gravely or possibly dying or that a house will burn more dramatically or completely. I guarantee it.”
A longtime critic of city spending, in April Sekany circulated a document around City Hall headlined “City Spending Gone Wild.” The document details more than $7 million worth of expenditures on a range of items and services, from hybrid Priuses to real estate assessments. “I mean, $150,000 on ergonomic chairs? When you’re firing people?” he asked?
Read More at ABC 7.
The city is misrepresenting the cuts they are asking for. The city’s proposal works out to be about a 17% pay cut. Fire offered the city the dollar amount cut they requested, more actually, and the city turned it down. A similar offer was accepted from the police. If you want to know the city council and mayor’s attitude toward the fire department all you have to do is read the title of this article!
What a tragic, unnecessary loss for San Jose, its residents and worse, public safety because of the new King Louis IX of San Jose, Chuck Reed, his overblown ego, and his spendthrift wasteful cohorts on the council. Nevertheless, I have learned not to expect much from Democrats anymore. They are drunk with power, immune from representing their constituents, powered by misguided SBLC $, developers, and other special interests whose objectives are damaging the City’s interests and future, Cortese, Reed, Nguyen—and worse they influence state legislators like the horrible Coto, and worse Beall (who used to be a good guy)for bad legislation that makes matters worse.
Sekany is correct. The City has lots of places to spend better, save, without throwing out public safety. Take Beall’s AB1670 which strives to turn over 40 lanes miles of SR82 and SR130 to the City to maintain—with all of its electronic traffic devices, pavement, liability, while forgoing state gas tax funds that are given to cities based on SR lane miles in each city. It also frees up land that is needed for the future direct SR highway to Patterson from San Jose (more elsewhere) so they can sell it to their developer friends, I suspect Beall’s costly AB1670 is in exchange for developer and builder campaign contributions…like what happened to SR87 between US101 and SR237. Stupid, Short-sighted, short-term gain. Other bad decisions by our drunk-with-power Democrat San Jose (and Bay Area) Monopoly, are listed well in the SJMN. Worst of all is Finally, the most horrible travesty of corruption and money-sucking fraud is the unnecessary $80B+ subsidized High Speed Rail Project. This is a terrible diversion of public funds, for 40 years into the future, for this subsidy for Democrat Rail fanatics who never outgrew their childhood enthusiasm. Without going into details here, the bottom line is that it is sucking $100Myr now, to grow to $800M/yr from the General Fund, will suck money from local governments & Redev agencis even more. All this horrible spending that suckers desperate Building Trades (SBLC, CAJ) to support high-density developers, and Mineta Institue fanaticism—but ALL OTHER UNIONS, TEACHERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, SEIU,AFSCME, MEF, AND UNION MEMBERS SUFFER terribly, like the Police and IOOF suffer—as do we residents. For god’s sake, stop this unnecessary ‘glamorous’ (“the Jones have it”) waste. Building Trades Unionist have other public projects, (I can list them elsewhere easily) that are less costly, less subsidized, that employ many more union and others, benefit more residents, keep the environment clean, and GENERATE REVENUE—unlike forever-subsidized HST. NOTE: Roosevelt was right to focus public works projects on the integrated road networks that serve all, and benefit the economy more—NOT HSRail. The dirty, deceitful, dishonest Democrat legislature don’t want to deal with this. They have too much to gain—especially after they are termed out with sweet Commission and other appointment spinoffs. The Democrats keep sneaking new legislation in to burden us/Ca/union members more with Toll Roads (SR152 Pacheco Pass coming), Taxing us for the miles we drive soon (VMT), and a lot more taxes, fees, fines, to fund this boondoggle. Throw Democrats out, Unions wake up, else more members will become like laid off IOOF, SEIU, SBLC members and NUMMI UAW members. Stop looking for new taxes and fees. They don’t solve a thing. Fix the wasteful tax gushing waste first with better priorities that support the economy and constituents, don’t burden it or us—as Reed is Hell-bent to do from his City Hall Taj Mahal that has permeated his self-aggrandizing thought process.
Typical. “give us more money, or the city will burn”.
Why not just repeal 3% at 50? 3% at 50 is what is bankrupting the city. Get rid of it.
We don’t need our firefighters to retire on six figure pensions when they turn 50. Pay them a good wage, but we don’t need to close libraries to do it.
Sekany’s “warning” sounds more like a threat!
Its very simple, eliminate the pensions.
I fully support Chuck Reed.
The firefighters are extremely OVERPAID.
Firefighters DO NOT face the same risks as police officers.
The firefighters should be thankful for their jobs and help the city by accepting pay cuts.
And VPs of marketing don’t face the same risks firefighters do. Your logic is essentially faulty.
How exactly are firefighters in San Jose “extremely OVERPAID”? What you are missing completely is the fact that the firefighters DID offer considerable concessions to the city. Those concessions were rejected and you know have the loss of four engine companies and one truck company. Engine 30, Engine 33, Engine 34, Engine 35, and Truck 3 disappear leaving gaping holes in public safety.
If you’re willing to accept an average 9-minute response about 80% of the the time, then you won’t be disappointed when the resources just aren’t there when you really need them.
Do a little research before you cast blanket aspersions and baseless accusations. Sadly, I would not be the least bit surprised if you are one of the first people to groan and whine when something does go up in smoke.
As I said. “Give us more money, or the city will burn.”
No need to lengthen response times. Just repeal 3% at 50. Without those six figure pensions, there’s enough money to keep all the stations open.
More FUD… fear, uncertainty and doubt.
More FACT…. factual, Accurate, Commonsensical, and True.
if the firefighters really cared about public safety they would take a small pay cut (from their generous compensation) to keep more firefighters employed. sadly they care more about themselves. they should stop their bs about really caring for public safety.
See this link for average cost per employee group and look at the number of employees as well. police and fire groups are very well compensated.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44384489/CitywideAvgCostByEmployeeUnit
The firefighters DID offer pay cuts. Big ones, along with other concessions the city was asking for. Like I said before, the actual cuts requested by the city equate to about a 17% paycheck reduction. The city is not negotiating in good faith with the unions, they just want total control.
Why isn’t anyone upset that our city manager is eligible for an 80% retirement after only 4 years of service. Our city council is all eligible for family medical for life after only one term of service… and I believe they also get retirement after only 1 term!
sorry D9 voter, I don’t believe the numbers you are throwing out there. Sounds like a lot of hot air without any proof. If the firefighters had really given the requested concessions I don’t believe there would be any layoffs.
And way to change the subject by bringing up another topic. I don’t know if what you say about the city manager and council is true (which I don’t believe is true but I don’t know what is the truth myself.)
Just remember too that there are hundreds of firefighters and police, while less than a dozen council members. And should I use the argument that if the mayor took a 10% pay cut does that mean everyone else should take the same pay cut too? It’s really symbolic and not that important to the total budget numbers.
I don’t really care if others think firefighters should be paid that well. I just think that anyone who says that the firefighers should not take a pay cut should know what is their total compensation level.
In my opinion, the compensation level for police and firefighters are very high and not sustainable for us as taxpayers if we want other services like libraries, parks, community centers, etc. Not to mention that fact that we can get qualified and dedicated people without paying the high compensation.
Months ago when this first came up I predicted the senior memembers of some of the unions would throw the new recruits under the bus. Thankfully, only one did so
The only one throwing the members under the bus is the city with their “all or nothing” attitude. The offer on the table is enough to save all the jobs in the FD. The city wants all the jobs and the cost of running the 5 companies that were cut.
So now the union members are responsible for paying for the services that their employer is supposed to provide…?? Get real….
Being a taxi driver is much more dangerous than being either a police officer or fire fighter.
In either case, its difficult work, and I don’t begrudge them being paid a living wage commensurate with the high costs of San Jose living, but no public employee should ever be permitted to retire on a six-figure pension. That’s just obscene.
“Being a taxi driver is much more dangerous than being either a police officer or fire fighter.”
This is an argument that is easy to support using a cold, isolated statistic but is otherwise absurd. Police officers perform a job where much of what they do every day is dangerous, yet because of their skill and training they reduce the incidence of the injuries and fatalities that make it onto the stat sheet. Most cops will, if they work the street even a few years, successfully dodge a number of otherwise deadly incidents.
Danger in a job should not be measured by one simple statistic but by the frequency and variety of ways in which danger presents itself on the job. For cops, the danger doesn’t come in one type of situation, or from one direction, one particular hazard, one piece of machinery. It comes from everywhere and at anytime. There is no other job that compares.
I have lived in San Jose many, many decades.
I have never contacted the San Jose Fire Department and the San Jose Fire Department has never contacted me.
I have never contacted the San Jose Police Department and the San Jose Police Department has never contacted me.
I like this relationship.
Both Departments think they’re overworked and underpaid, when in fact, it is the complete opposite.
George,
While it may be true that you personally have never needed the services of the police and fire departments just remember, all it takes is once!
That said, I agree pensions and benefits need to come back down to earth. I have no problem with these folks making a very good wage and decent retirement. But right now 100% of the city’s property tax revenue goes toward paying pensions. Clearly that is excessive.
For many years the job was done by community volunteers.
Firefighters and Police officers give up the opportunity for a rich and oppulant lifestyle when they take an oath to protect those who can’t or won’t protect themselves. When “silicon valley secretaries were making millions and paying 200k over the asking price for a Santa Clara County house, all your sworn public safety employee was asking for was an average wage and basic lifestyle. Compared to the private sector a public employee is always underpayed in their class, however that is offset with a stable retirement…..take away the retirement and all you will have is a cloud of dust in the city employment office……sorry about the economy but I chose a stable public service career instead of chasing gold.
I suspect that you can count on one hand the number of “silicon valley secretaries” who made millions. I don’t begrudge the public safety officials an “average wage.” But while they are working, not for life!
People are always saying “I truly (respect, admire, appreciate, etc) the police/fire department. Yet lately that wonderful statement is followed by a qualifier and complaint that wouldn’t have occurred to them if they weren’t negatively affected by the economy. The question shouldn’t be “why is their retirement so good?”, but rather “why is mine so poor?” We all deserve a stable retirement.
Ed:
If you believe that mythical “silicon valley secretaries . . . making millions and paying 200k over the asking price for a Santa Clara County house…” justifies your 100K+, retire-at-50, “stable public service career”, you are hallucinating on some illegal substance and FAR, FAR too detached from reality to qualify for ANY public service job.
You’re a nut.
A competently run local government should not employ nuts.
Barrick,
A “nut” I may be. But I have to ask you this…Where was all the public outrage over police and fire compensation before the economy turned south? The numbers havent changed. Just the perspective has…..If public employees must bare the burden of a mismanaged municipality during times of economic hardship then shouldn’t they also be given profit sharing when times are good? Oh, if the dot com startup boom wasnt responsible for the unsustainable and artificial real estate market in the bay area please tell me what was.
> If public employees must bare the burden of a mismanaged municipality during times of economic hardship then shouldn’t they also be given profit sharing when times are good?
Ed:
I would say that public employees were DEFINITELY slurping out of the the good times gravy train when they negotiated their fat, unrealistic salaries and their fantasy retirement packages.
Good times are gone.
Time to ride the Obama roller coaster down to the bottom with the rest of us.
Ed said, “Where was all the public outrage over police and fire compensation before the economy turned south? The numbers havent changed. Just the perspective has…”
I agree. Sour grapes.
“Where was all the public outrage over police and fire compensation before the economy turned south? “
Answer below.
“Even in a state capital dominated by public employee unions, passage of such a massive pension spike would have been impossible had CalPERS put an honest price tag on its cost. Instead, the agency’s evaluation of how much of the spike would be borne by taxpayers assumed that CalPERS would enjoy record stock market returns forever and ever. Lawmakers were told the annual tab would range from $379 million to $466 million over the next decade.
Not even close. The stock market came back to earth, and the taxpayer tab skyrocketed. This fiscal year, taxpayers had to fork over $2.67 billion to cover the pension shortfall. Next year, the tab will hit a new record: $2.75 billion. ”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070529/news_mz1ed29middl.html
Here’s another good one…
“An independent analysis of California’s three big pension funds has found a hidden shortfall of more than half a trillion dollars, several times the amount reported by the funds and more than six times the value of the state’s outstanding bonds. “
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/07pension.html?_r=2&src=me
Find your answer?
Deceit and corruption are the operative words.
The ruling class (aka our elected ‘representatives’) had some phony numbers cooked up that allowed them to make the union bosses happy.
Sound familiar? Getting a deja vu? You should. It’s exactly what just happened with Obamacare.
These ridiculous pensions are just the latest bubble about to pop.
Deal with it.
Well, I’d just like to add that since this is “SanJoseInside”, the San Jose’s police & fire retirement plan is independent of CalPers. Quite a bit of stats you got there regarding CalPers. I imagine there is quite a gripe about what CalPers individuals contribute from their paycheck to their pension (some none at all, some at the most maybe 9%?) The police & fire department in this city contribute 14%, soon, due to concessions 19.25%(?). Wow. What a beating they are taking, considering they contribute quite a bit to their own retirement.
> Those concessions were rejected and you know have the loss of four engine companies and one truck company. Engine 30, Engine 33, Engine 34, Engine 35, and Truck 3 disappear leaving gaping holes in public safety.
> If you’re willing to accept an average 9-minute response about 80% of the the time, then you won’t be disappointed when the resources just aren’t there when you really need them.
OK. So we take money out of the fire department’s supper dish, and San Jose becomes less safe.
Oh dear! We can’t have that.
So, lets add five fire trucks and reduce the response time to 8 minutes.
Oh, wait 8 minutes is less safe than 7 minutes, so lets add another five fire trucks.
But isn’t 7 minutes less safe than 6 minutes, or 5 minutes? TEN MORE TRUCKS!
But why should the citizenry be satisfied with 5 minutes? We need three minutes! TWENTY MORE TRUCKS!
NO! ONE MINUTE!! FIFTY MORE TRUCKS!!!
But one minute is NOT SAFE ENOUGH!
Every residence in San Jose needs to be NEXT to a fire station!!
We need to devote the entire budget of San Jose to fire trucks. After all, you can’t put a price on safety, and if San Jose does not have enough fire trucks, children of minorities, puppy dogs and kittens will be at constant risk of dying horrible, awful deaths at any instant because of insufficient fire protection.
Oh, and because of the stressfulness of constantly safeguarding kittens and puppies from incineration, union fire fighters need to be able to retire at age 50.
Read and learn: NFPA 1710 allows 60 seconds for turnout and calls for the first engine company to arrive at a fire-suppression incident in four minutes (240 seconds) and/or eight minutes (480 seconds) for the first full-alarm assignment, 90% of the time. In other words, a department can miss the four-minute mark on occasion, but it must make the eight-minute mark to comply. With turnout time included, fire departments effectively have five-minute and nine-minute response requirements. There’s no such “and/or” construction for EMS calls.
San Jose is already missing the mark BEFORE elimination of four engines and one truck. Try again.
NFPA 1710 is nothing more than a standard. It is neither a law nor a regulation. What is your point?
…and so are the 10 commandments but people tend to follow them.
The point is without standard there is no basis to provide a quality criteria in which to abide by. I know that if it took 8-9 minutes for the FD to get to my house when I needed them I would be extremely upset and pounding my fists at every council meeting. but my guess is it doesn’t bother you that much…??
good luck with that……
Some of the posters on this site are comical. Actually, they are a flat out joke. I just laugh when I read their posts. Other then giving me a chuckle, they cheapen the ability to communicate effectively amongst otherwise intelligent thoughts.
You’ve got that right. Although they are more tragically stupid than comical. In fact, it is scary to think that some of these folks might actually vote.
> You’ve got that right. Although they are more tragically stupid than comical. In fact, it is scary to think that some of these folks might actually vote.
I agree with Manny and Recess. Some of the posters on this site are both comical and tragically stupid. I agree that it’s scary that they’re allowed to vote.
The government ought to do something to make sure that these people CAN’T vote.
It’s the only way we’ll ever become a truly tolerant, democratic society.
> That’s the beauty of a democracy—any uninformed indivdual can vote—or post on this site.
Hmmmm.
You’ve convinced me. We need to re-institute literacy tests for voting.
Oh, wait. Maybe not.
It might suppress the Democrat vote.
Cute. That’s the beauty of a democracy—any uninformed indivdual can vote—or post on this site. Have a good weekend.
Except for one thing.. it’s NOT a “democracy”… its a Republic…
> Some of the posters on this site are comical. Actually, they are a flat out joke. I just laugh when I read their posts. Other then giving me a chuckle, . . . .
Manny:
Would that be a nervous chuckle, because you know they’re right?
“In iocus illic est verum” (“In jest, there is truth”).
Well what do you know. Here comes Sekaney with his next “final” offer. I’m shocked. Shocked.
As a private contractor who has always had to bid competetively, I can only watch in stunned amazement as SJPD Inc. “negotiates” a contract- starting preposterously high, then gradually coming down in their demands as they try to zero in on the absolute maximum dollar amount they can squeeze out of their customers, the taxpayers.
If I tried this I’d quickly gain a reputation as an unethical chiseler. Then I’d have to go get a government job.
Excuse me. I may have referred to Sekany’s gang as SJPD Inc. . I meant SJFD Inc.. SJPD Inc. is of course a different monopoly with whom we have to do business.
From SJFD’s website, latest statistics, FY 07-08, of the 52,380 service calls, only 3185 calls are classified as “fire” related, even less than “other,” with the vast majority, 43,777 calls, under “medical”
Fewer still of those 3185 calls involve structure fires. It would appear that the fire department is more an emergency medical response unit rather than a firefighting unit. With EMT’s and paramedics earning far less than SJ and other city’s firefighters, yet doing similar work the majority of the time, and with the duplication of firefighting units of each city, perhaps a regional firefighting service is more in line with todays’ economic environment, with separate medical and firefighting response teams.
We should be paying firefighters well to fight fires, and have a different and less expensive response team for medical calls, which are the vast majority of service requests at SJFD and other area fire departments. Also, as mentioned in today’s Mercury regarding the layoffs of a 31 and 33 year old fire recruits, they seem too old to be starting 30 year careers at fire departments. Do the majority of 50 or 60 year old firefighters, or even those in their mid 40’s have the strength, stamina, and cardio-vascular ability to do the extremely strenuous work required to actually fight a fire that a younger person has?…No. All one has to do is study the number of firefighter heart attacks, and the ages of those stricken during fire calls, to provide proof that this is a young, fit person’s, profession.
In reality, most college and many high school athletes, with training, would be physically more capable of fighting a structure or wild-fire than most middle-aged firefighters. Regardless of how much they work out, the aging process is relentless. The strength and endurance of the young are unmatched and for actually fighting a fire, what is needed.
We as taxpayers are paying for a very expensive, gold plated model, of a fire and emergency response team. It is time to restructure to lower the costs of this needed service, not only for the fire department but for many city services.
“of the 52,380 service calls, only 3185 calls are classified as “fire” related”
“Only?” That works out to 8.7 fires per day!
Well Reader, we wouldn’t want to let the FACTS get in the way of ignorance now would we?
From SJFD’s latest statistics for fires, FY 02-03
59,890 incidents dispatched
There were 1707 fires during that fiscal year:
462 structure fires = 1.26 per day
420 vehicle fires = 1.15 per day
319 vegetation fires = .87 per day
506 other fires = 1.39 per day
which equals 4.67 fires per day, in a service area of nearly one million inhabitants, and with 32 San Jose fire stations.
“fire related” and actual “fires” are two different statistics, the number of actual fires is less than fire related.
Cite these statistics not to lessen or demean the work of firefighters, but to bring attention that firefighting seems to be almost an ancillary service of SJFD.
These numbers are flawed and out dated. The latest numbers have been provided and are up to date. 2009 SJFD responded to 81,834 calls for service….
Yes it is true that the majority of the calls are EMS related, SJFD has a paramedic on every piece of apparatus which arrives on scene on an average between 8-9 minutes (an ambulance arrives on average in 12 minutes) additionally, do not forget that 1 room and contents fire in the city requires at least 20 firfighters for rescue, exposures, containment, extinguish, and overhaul which in itself takes at least a few hours. Add a fully involved structure or multiple alarm fire and your talking a lot more resources and hours involved.
There is no such thing as ancillary service of the SJFD. The mission statement of the SJFD is clear “To serve the community by protecting life, property, and the environment through prevention and response.” In other words, if you have an issue that you can’t deal with, call the fire dept. and they will help.
By the way, the actual numbers for 2009 are…
Total Fires = 4992
Structure fires = 2367
Vehicle Fires = 705
Wildland Fires = 527
Other Fires = 1393
Total requests for service per day = 223
As you can see you are clearly under estimating the fires and requests for service in San Jose and the fact that the SJFD is already spread way too thin as they currently are unable to meet the NFPA Response average of 6 minutes 90% of the time.
busrider22,
Okay then you can wait 11 minutes or more for an ambulence with a paramedic, or you can wait 2-5 minutes for SJFD with a medically trained person aboard when you are having a massive heart attack, or stroke. I think the choice is clear enough for me. I’d take SJFD any day.
More statistics, from San Jose Fire Fact’s website:
“Currently, SJFD seeks to achieve an average response time of 8 minutes, 80% of the time – this will be impacted with the proposed reduction of engine and truck companies.”
Could you cite the source of your comment: “…you can wait the 11 minutes or more for an ambulance with a paramedic…” The 2-5 minute wait for SJFD cited above doesn’t jibe with San Jose Fire Fact’s stats.
Less expensive, highly mobile, well trained & equipped, emergency medical response teams could be created; with overall response times equal to, or better than San Jose Fire’s. Other than tradition, why is the existing expensive model the best solution in an era of structural deficits, ballooning pensions, and scarce resources.
You are absolutely right. 30 is too old period. Too old to start any career, when you consider the expense of training new employees-an employer should get many, many years of service. I’m for putting everyone over 25 out to pasture and onto the public dole. This is why we elect Democrats, so that individuals such as yourself can feed, clothe, and house the rest of us. I’m sure the Fire Dept will function just fine with inexperienced 21 year-old physical specimens running things.
EMT salaries are extremely low. They staff the ambulances! So I can see that Busrider has an interesting point. You pay one group to fight fire, another group to be ambulance jockeys.
But I also do not see why everyone is picking on firefighters? What about the City Art? the new city hall? the monstrous and wasteful airport? the “hand” sculture on the airport that cost $800k??
And why not contract out the pothole business? I read that less road work than ever is getting done whilst salaries/pensions/costs of san jose city road staff are growing.
Contract a lot of this stuff out?
The lack of factual discussion and uninformed ranting opinions is why many no longer read San Jose Inside ( 974 visits per day ( includes duplicate visits by same person so maybe less 500 per day ) out of 1 million residents http://www.statbrain.com/www.sanjoseinside.com/ ) and many complain about low readership of declining Mercury News
1) Police and Fire obtained their excessive 90% ( 3 % at 30 years ) pension benefits for no other reason than union political lobbying of Dysfunctional California Legislature and local governments
2) Government dysfunctional can’t balance budget, spending taxes, borrowing or making legal obligations government does not have
Not because employees deserved excessive pensions based on risk, cost of living or others became rich or that California state or local governments could afford it without cutting many other desired or essential government services
Other government labor unions and non union Senior Management government employees ( major undiscused excessive pension beneficiaries ) also receive excessive 75% ( 2 1/2 % at 30 years ) pensions
( dysfunctional – failure to show the characteristics or fulfil the purposes accepted as normal or beneficial , any deviation from a healthy or normal condition )
3) Comparing a few Silicon Valley millionaires to many government employee millionaires misses 2 points
a) most public are not SV millionaires but have to pay taxes for government millionaires
b) many SV stock options were did not make people millionaires only small % cashed out like lottery many bet and few won
4) Current Pensions CAN NOT BE CHANGED by LAW only new employees so taxpayers are stuck with high costs and low services for years unless courts overrule existing pension law which is unlike since California Judges with conflict of interest also get excessive pensions
5) Pension Reform Voter Initiative will be declared unconstitutional by California Judges and no one politically will take to federal court as we have seen with questionably legal Proposition 13
6) California and local government have no method to prioritize spending between essential or required service and political non essential spending
7) Million / billions taxes wasted on political spending most voters / taxpayers would NEVER APPROVE but elected officials who represent special interests not voters APPROVE as political paybacks which could pay for essential government services
8) It isn’t that government doesn’t have taxes it is that taxes are poorly or politically spent or not collected from on special interests not for public good
> 5) Pension Reform Voter Initiative will be declared unconstitutional by California Judges and no one politically will take to federal court as we have seen with questionably legal Proposition 13
It’s not clear what you are saying.
Will Pension Reform be unconstitutional because there is some legal flaw, or because California Judges are politically or intellecutally compromised?
Also, what legal theory says that Proposition 13 is “questionably legal”?