The following article was submitted to the Pacifica Tribune as a Letter-to-the-Editor. It was submitted last week and the week prior. It was not publish, and there was no return explanation. We are posting the Letter here as an article. 3rd submission, Pacifica Tribune published this Letter 3/18/12.
 |
| The city is broke thanks to long term city council management |
In these hard times more and more cites are imposing 10% + wage cuts on union contracts. These are actual wage cuts, not juggling around money like we did last year. Stockton, Fresno and San Jose have imposed 9-10% wage cuts when union negotiations broke down. Bakersfield, Merced, Lincoln, Hercules and Half Moon Bay are considering bankruptcy. El Segundo, Costa Mesa, and Monterey Park are considering similar moves. And the list goes on and on.
The labor board has ruled it legal to impose wage and benefit cuts if the city reaches an impasse with the unions. But the unions are not going to volunteer to make cuts. We have to be tough and demand big cuts.
 |
| Union contracts, wages, benefits |
The time is now. We are in a position of power. No other cities are hiring and they're all cutting jobs, wages and benefits or planning to cut very soon. If the unions don't agree then we need to impose at least 10% in actual wage cuts this year and additional cuts in benefits. Better yet a 1% cut for every $10K in income would be more fair to our lower income employees while substantially cutting employees making 100K and more.
Submitted by Robert Hutchinson
72 comments:
so hutch, what did elaine larsen say when you asked why it didn't run?
No response from Elaine yet on this. I sent it in again for next week.
Don't give up, as difficult as it is, this is a discussion that needs to take place.
So Hutch and Hutchinson are the same person?
I thought Hutch was a committee of several bloggers/writers.
So much shouting, so few facts.
1. Exactly how much did wages and benefits rise per year during the boom years? And do those benefits exist in addition to -- or instead of -- social security benefits, which are frequently denied to public workers?
2. Where is the data to confirm that a balance of outsourcing, tax hikes, and program cuts should be rejected without discussion?
Yet for all the anti-union bluster in this post, the article's proposed answer seems lame. A 1-percent-per-$10K cut would merely pinch workers and would hardly begin to address local and state budgetary imbalances.
On one hand, it makes sense to me to demand additional payback from workers who are paid $100K+ per year, as well as people who thought they could "retire" with pensions at age 40.
But ultimately it is voters' fault that they elected and re-elected corrupt yes-men who buried pension costs instead of confronting them. It's only fair for voters to share in the costs of their misguided vote. Hopefully, going forward, voters will take their ballots more seriously.
Mike, you think we should pay more taxes? Sorry but we've had enough of that.
What I and others are suggesting is already happening in cities all across the State.
If you don't think the unions are causing most of our problem then please look at the 20M + and growing we owe Calpers for pensions http://royceprinting.com/jobs/FOSarchive/2010FOS/05_06_10_PacificaFOS.pdf
Hutch, the commentator your are addressing is either new to the conversation and hasn't seen the last 3 to 4 years of cuts, lay offs and tax increases coupled with a stead increase of compensation for the fire and police departments especially that has driven the conversation concerning reducing compensation or is merely trying to deflect the arguments because he/she is benefiting somehow from public funds so any attempt to educate him/her will most like be ignored if not out right ridiculed
If control from the central government continues, friends will turn on you to save their own hides.
Todd, thanks for the background which was missing from the original post.
I was merely looking for a comprehensive examination of available facts. Few problems have a single cause or a single solution; unions are not the only bogeyman in the world, though clearly they should make reasonable sacrifices when others have done so.
Thanks Todd.
I agree Mike, and I don't mean to blame it all on the public unions.
And yes, most of us have made big sacrifices over the past few years. My wages & Benefits are down at least 20% and so are most friends and family.
It doesn't seem fair that while most Pacificans are only making 50-60K a year we are being asked to pay more taxes to support union contracts paying twice what we get. That's not even counting the benefits.
You guys might like a "pay per use' formula? Get robbed, start the clock. House catches on fire, start the clock. Heart stops beating, quick, start the clock. Tipping optional.
I really think Hutch is on to something here. I think all the public safety people come up for negotiation this year. Lets just impose a flat $50k / year pay on all of them. After all, carrying firearms, being able to quickly and properly apply complex legal concepts dealing with our rights, freedoms, and safety and having the authority to take away our life and liberty at a moments notice without judicial review aren't exactly skilled abilities. We don't need the best and brightest we can get for those jobs, just anyone will do.
After all, isn't being a taxi driver a more dangerous profession that law enforcement and the fire service combined? Surely our taxi drivers will make great cops and firemen! Perhaps Pacifica Yellow Cab will loan us some of their drivers for a year or two, until we manage to capitalize financially on our snowy plover population.
Our firemen aren't really firemen either. Most of what they do is medical calls. I mean sure, most of our firemen are also certified paramedics, which results in every medical call getting 2-3 certified paramedics PLUS the AMR ambulance crew (a paramedic and EMT, usually) for fast, competent, highly trained and experienced emergency medical care. They're just the same as the brand-new EMTs on the transport ambulance services or rookie AMR EMTs who make about $30-50k/year, right? Let's just lay off all our experienced firefighter-paramedics and hire rookies. That'll result in some cost savings. Sure, you might die due to their lack of experience, but hey, at least you won't pay any more in taxes while you're alive!
Hutch, what's your background? Why don't you post a resume and reveal some possible bias? Have you ever made more than 50-60K a year? Do you work in a low-paid and/or unskilled job?
Were you refused a job as a firefighter/police officer? You seem to have it out for well-paid public safety employees on whom your safety depends. Why not tell us a little bit about yourself?
Yeah, it's humorous that I'm posting this as an anon, but I'm also not the one attacking an entire group of people and failing to present any data to back up my conclusions.
Okay about time they started coming out of the woodwork.
Sorry guys, but this is going on in every city in California. They are cutting wages and benefits. Not just for police and fire but all departments.
I deeply respect our police and fire people but Pacifica along with most cities is facing facing probable bankruptcy. If we don't make cuts is wages now we will be laying off more people very soon.
Here's some data for you anon 806
http://royceprinting.com/jobs/FOSarchive/2010FOS/05_06_10_PacificaFOS.pdf
$20,510,000 CITY OF PACIFICA 2010 TAXABLE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS
Gas is 7.00 Dollars in southern ca, catalina area.
If you are a teachers, firefighter, peace officer, government hack worker, please don't take it personal if you lose your; job, home, pension.
I didn't. When I lost my job and home I didn't blame anyone.
Have faith. Don't hate.
Learn another skill. Go back to school. You will find another job. I did.
So to all government workers-when the cities start filing bankruptcy....don't hate me. I am your neighbor just trying to survive on very little income.
Born free.
"Gas is 7.00 Dollars in southern ca, catalina area."
Seriously Anon 635. Catalina area is a small island with a couple of cars. Gas prices in Los Angeles are about the same as ours.
"Born free", what are you talking about? Did you really lose your job, your home, or is that just an old animal story. Now you're homeless, but talking to us from a borrowed internet next to a soup kitchen, sleeping in an ally, covered by a donated coat? But life is good.
http://thecount.com/2012/04/07/7-00-gas-hits-california/
Gas prices are $7.00 a gallon on the little island Catalina.
No, I am not homeless, but doing quite well.
Yes, lost a very good job and my home. But, I blamed no one. Not the bank. Not my employer.
Have faith. It is not the end of the world. You must have faith to get through these trying times. I do not see it getting any better.
Born Free
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNED1NSM6S.DTL
States with highest gas prices back Obama.
States with highest pension costs back obama.
States with the worst schools back obama.
States where class warfare is being waged against neighbor to neighbor back obama.
Pacifica Council were and are mostly democrats that back obama.
The people who run this blog back obama.
John Maybury and all other progressives back obama.
Progressive is the new word for Communist.
The list goes on but I have to drop my taxes off.
Heil Hitler
"States with highest gas prices back Obama." Anonymous (816)
Gas prices are an outside USA risk, and the SF Chronicle article does not support your anti-Democrat laundry list. This President inherited "the worst Recession since the Great Depression" and its the affects are world wide. Recovery? Its better than the 1930's (look back at history).
Remember the prior 8 year President, and congress for that majority of years was Republican. That Republican President began his administration with a budget and deficit surplus. But, with the 10 year of tax give-aways to the rich, look-the-other-way regulations, tax and regulation loopholes, inept government appointments, favored lobbyists, a couple of not funded overseas Middle East wars-- well here we are.
The City Council issue in Pacifica is non-partisan and separate. The city councilmember majority elected from 2003 are "no growth", which has been "no good" for this city. Let's work together. Democrats and Republicans might join in replacementing these city councl members and not replacing them with their "no growth" clones. What is needed is pro-economy city council candidates. The job is "non-partisan": Republican, Democrat or Independent-- it makes no difference). BTW the core definition of progressive is "progress", just what this city needs.
Nationally, I believe most people will continue to support President Obama and he will be re-elected, because the alternative (socially, economically, and governance for the benefit of "all the people") is unacceptable. Government compensation outpacing the private sector is an old issue from about 1983. Who should we blame? Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989, shall we blame Saint Ronald Reagan?
Thank you anon 8:25 but let's keep thin on the topic of reducing union obligations in Pacifica.
This data is from 2011 (from the Tribune) and does not count health care expenses. I believe the second number is pension contributions but not positive.
Police sergeant $153,998, $28,365
Police captain $144,748, $28,692
Police officer $122,185, $22,809
Police corporal $143,752, $24,690
Police sergeant $165,985, $28,620
Police sergeant $162,625, $28,903
Police officer $104,634, $22,064
Police sergeant $133,201, $27,125
Police corporal $145,555,
$23,747
Police systems specialist $110,674, $10,740
Police captain $168,402, $27,271
Police corporeal $128,424, $23,990
Police sergeant $132,626, $25,080
Police sergeant $157,592, $29,040
Police corporeal $129,950, $23,150
Public safety dispatcher $107,834, $7,525
Police corporeal $137,352, $24,895
Police officer $118,439, $22,107
Police officer $122,888, $22,446
Police officer $116,067, $20,486
Police officer $112,401, $20,389
Police corporeal $121,224, $21,266
Police officer $112,111, $19,886
Police officer $125,076, $21,212
Police officer $124,807, $20,112
Police officer $105,808, $18,843
Police officer $113,796, $18,988
Police officer $112,339, $19,330
Police officer $113,543, $20,229
Police officer $112, 437, $17,446
Police sergeant $168,616, $28,638
Police captain $157,513, $34,042
Police sergeant $147,821, $29,040
Police chief $160,384, $34,734
Paramedic coordinator $172,389, $30,022
Fire Captain $133878, $22,138
Deputy fire chief $193,383, $32,871
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $108,426, $19,223
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $112,885, $18,850
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $122,374, $18,734
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $107,815, $16,835
Fire battalion chief $204,744, $12,084
Fire battalion chief $178,921, $24,973
Paramedic, engineer/EMT $101,305, $17,632
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $101,714, $18,865
Fire captain $136,825, $20,899
Fire captain $136,059, $22,183
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $101,388, $17,499
Fire battalion chief $185,387, $16,217
Fire captain $114,889, $20,483
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $113,042, $18,360
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $102,617, $18,402
Fire captain $127,480, $20,361
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $115,404, $18,321
Wastewater assistant superintendent $133,337, $22,206
Public Works supervisor $109,376, $10,814
Associate civil engineer $109,441, $19,544
Wastewater source control inspector $113,729, $10,2114
Associate planner $101,590, $17,202
Associate civil engineer $110,627, $19,544
Public works supervisor $111,689, $10,775
Field services manager $151,691, $24,209
Associate civil engineer $103396, $17,498
Public Works superintendent $126,897, $20,685
Wastewater plant manager $166,635, $24,503
Director of Planning/city planner $144,602, $25,967
Director wastewater/plant operator $140,638, $25,480
Wastewater collections manager $135,022, $23,864
Public works superintendent $162,209, $21,448
Wastewater operator II $107,715, $10,337
Wastewater operator III $142,945, $11,908
Associate civil engineer $109,518, $19,348
Director of Public Works/city engineer $167,920, $30,245
Wastewater operator III $160,704, $10,978
Wastewater operator II $135,616, $10,760
Wastewater laboratory tech $100,033, $8,863
Wastewater laboratory supervisor $112,680, $10,763
Fire captain $151,571, $21,726
Wastewater operator II $136,296, $11,149
Wastewater operator III $134,973, $9,993
City clerk/executive assistant $117,102/$19,033
Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation $148,227, $27,119
2012 reductions in pay were 3% for Police and 0% for Fire as far as I can tell.
Here are the current contracts which expire this year:
http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/patch-provides-city-employee-wage-benefits-cut-summaries?ncid=following_comment#pdf-8986257
Same old rant. Probably from someone who's just a little resentful of anyone making a decent salary. Pacifica's basic city salaries are not out of line with the Bay Area. Now that we finally understand that this city is broke we want to change the deal overnight. These employees contribute to the city's economy, volunteer, pay property taxes, income taxes, etc. Why demonize them? That fixes nothing. Instead, why not address some of the obvious abuses? Poor control of OT is a longterm and ongoing problem with the cops and the cafeteria cash rip off can add $10,000 to $12,000 per year (city-wide $750,000 and more per year)to all employee salaries, but these are things that can be eliminated if Council wants to. Are they doing that? Where are the outsourcing numbers? Are they doing anything but just waiting for the election and letting others take the heat? Did it look like they did anything at that joke of a budget meeting?
@Anon 1233, I'm really not demonizing anyone. The argument that "this is what every other local city is paying" doesn't hold up anymore because they are all cutting now.
And I agree about the Overtime. Council could move to freeze or cut OT which makes up a big chunk of our expenses.
BTW, the average annual wage of a Pacifica resident is anywhere from 40,000 - 50,000 depending on what site you go on.
http://www.areavibes.com/pacifica-ca/employment/
http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/california/pacifica
Certain minimal staffing levels have to be met, so you either pay overtime or hire new employees.
My understanding is that most police and fire departments use overtime because it's cheaper than hiring new employees.
Many of those salaries and benefits could be cut, though.
You can't be serious. How about comparing apples to apples, not sour grapes?
Pension bomb coming 2013 when that CalPers adjustment to earnings hits
us. Even without that we can't cut labor deep enough fast enough to make it work. We have virtually no reserves now. A city with a 25 million dollar budget with no cushion is insane. With no increase in real revenue we'll just lurch from crisis to crisis til we can't pay the bills.
who believes in social darwinism?
nazis
Hutch. Todd.
Haha social Darwinism? Free market? Doesn't apply to government workers.
Sustainable San Mateo County released a report that stated the median household income in San Mateo County was $95,300. The median household income in Pacifica was $91,134.
So Hutch, where are YOU getting your numbers on how much the average Pacifican makes? Even San Mateo, a city that is far more financially stable than Pacifica, only had a median household income of $85,216. Half Moon Bay was at a median household income of $104,903.
By those numbers, a public employee's BASE salary of around $90,000/year isn't outrageous. It's basically middle class. Throw in the overtime (which another poster pointed out is usually cheaper than hiring more employees) and you've basically allowed the employee to EARN the equivalent of a private sector bonus/stock option/profit sharing.
Oh yeah, the link to the above report is here: http://sustainabilityhub.net/2011-indicators/economy-income-distribution-and-poverty/
What's wrong with looking at outsourcing the police? It worked well for San Carlos, Half Moon Bay, and looks promising for Millbrae. If we can save $2 million (or thereabouts) a year for basically the same level of daily service, what isn't to like?
Even if the cost of the contract rises by around $100,000/year (look at the SC and HMB contracts -- the increase is around $100k/yr) that gives us 15-20 YEARS before we again have to look at cutting service or raising taxes. Plenty of time to bring in some development and improve our revenues.
I'd like to see all the current employees keep their jobs, and that happened in all 3 other cities. Why not encourage the Council to release a real analysis of the Sheriff's proposal?
Careful what you wish for, particularly if you don't fully understand it.
Yes you could argue that while most people in the real world have suffered large reduction in pay and benefits over the past few years, government worker have not.
So it is understandable that the taxpayers are a little mad when they are asked to pay more taxes in order to prop up these over inflated wages.
I say Unions and Government do not mix.
"The median household income in Pacifica was $91,134."
Anonymous 920, median household is different than median or average PER INDIVIDUAL wage income. Hutch provided links 4/17, 1:08 PM, look there.
http://www.areavibes.com/pacifica-ca/employment/
http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/california/pacifica
If you want to compare apples to apples, per capita income in Pacifica is $40,567, rather than $91,134.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0654806.html
Median, mean (average), household, individual, and per capita income are all different measures. If you want to compare numbers, you have to use the same measures -- median individual, household, or per capita income are 3 different things, and mean individual, household and per capita income are also 3 different things and different from the 3 median income measures.
The areavibes link above says, "The income per capita in Pacifica is 26.8% greater than the California average and 43.5% greater than the national average. The median household income in Pacifica is 41.1% greater than the California average and 65.6% greater than the national average."
Median "Houshold" Income is much higher than Median Income per working person.
The average worker in Pacifica is making about $50K, much less than most Pacifica city workers, even the Van Pool driver makes $60K+.
Nowhere in any of the links posted are there numbers for median income per working person or the average income per working person. Can you cite where you get the data for "Median Household Income is much higher than Median Income per working person" and for "The average worker in Pacifica is making about $50K"?
Per capita income is neither a median nor mean (average). It's the total income of everybody in town divided by the total population, so it includes many non-income earning people such as children, seniors, and others out of the work force. If we could get numbers for the mean (average) or the median (middle) income of all working people in Pacifica, it will be much greater that the per capita income.
If the per capita income in Pacifica is $40,567, then the average worker's income in Pacifica is a lot more than $50K. It's probably more than the average Pacifica city worker's income.
And if the median household income in Pacifica is $91,134, it's also probably more than the median household income for Pacifica city workers.
So what? Since when do we tie public employee salaries to the average income of the people in the community they serve? What revolution took place? Those jobs weren't inherited. They applied for the jobs, qualified, tested, whatever. Gee, if we have some school teachers and admin making more than the "average" Pacifica salary (and believe me we do!) then do we knock their salaries down? I can understand the anger. Most Americans have taken a financial beating in this new economy and things are never going to be the same, but my anger is at the pensions these public employees will get for life --city, county, state, fed, schools, too. Once their salaries became so competitive the benefits and pensions should have been made more modest like those available to private industry. Negotiate smart, tough labor contracts but unless there is also real pension reform we will continue to bankrupt our future to pay for the past.
anon925, rumor has it that the fine tuning of the county's basic package is just about done. The original numbers received in mid-Feb were just a starting point. We should soon have real numbers reflecting the "options/extras" our elected officials think Pacifica just can't live without.
Money can be saved by outsourcing, more than under the other scenarios, but can a council majority make that decision? This year? I sure hope so because otherwise there are going to be a lot of things cut for which we have no alternative provider. And a piddly half-cent sales tax won't make up the shortfall. Election year prediction? They'll wait, watch the sales tax measure fail, and pass the buck to the next bunch. By then we'll be really desperate. Hope the county still takes our calls.
anon 123, You're no fun! It's a lot more entertaining to have all the amateur statisticians announce their findings. Statistically meaningless, but very entertaining.
If median "Houshold" income is $89K it only figures that individual income average is about half that.
Household income is how much everyone in the house makes added together. In pacifica there are 2.67 people per house. Subtract 30% for those under 18 and over 65 and you have about 2 people per house. $89K / 2 = $44,500 average income.
I know it's hard for overpaid city workers to hear that because it destroys their main argument that they are earning less than private sector jobs.
All the numbers are here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0654806.html
Anon 155, the city is broke. We must make deep cuts just like every other city is. We taxpayers who pay the salaries of city workers have had our pay cut 10, 20, 30%. Then you expect the we pay even more in taxes so you keep at the same high level?
Think about it.
Bottom line if Pacifica goes bankrupt you'll lose even more. Isn't it better to keep everyone working and take a pay cut like the rest of us?
Thank you Elaine for printing my letter today.
Lionel is correct. This conversation needs to take place.
301 FYI, I could never take the pay cut working for the city/county/state/feds would involve. My only pension will be social security and what I manage to save/invest. Lost big time in the crash but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. And, more skeptical of easy, fast fixes. Public employee salaries are just the tip of the iceberg. By all means bring them down to a tolerable level at the negotiating table or through AB506 or a full-on Chapter 9 filing. And, try to keep them there. But unless real public employee pension reform is undertaken, this city stays in a sinking boat. Pacifica has at least taken the first pre-emptive step by creating a two-tier retirement system for some employees. Why not all? Jerry Brown's pension reforms may have stalled somewhat but there's no reason a city can't go ahead with some of them. And it's time to look at teachers and admin pensions, too. Big part of the total cost for education we taxpayers are asked to pay for too often.
Salaries get the attention and the press but the problem is much bigger.
"If median "Houshold" income is $89K it only figures that individual income average is about half that."
No, it does not figure.
If the per capita income in Pacifica is $40,567 and that includes thousands of children who are not earning an income and thousands more who are disabled, unemployed, or elderly and whose income consists of unemployment, social security, or disability checks or no income at all, then the average income for working people bears no relation to half the median household income. It could easily be a lot higher figure. There are a lot of 1-person households. And once again, you can't compare median, average, and per capita incomes. They're 3 different measures.
Good luck with that.
SEIU Union Gov Employees protesting in San Francisco yesterday and today.
They are asking for higher wages and no cuts to their health care.
They are asking Business in San Francisco to kick in more money for their pay and benefit packages.
Reported at least one thousand protestors.
Expect these Union thugs to lie cheat and steal, use violence to get their way.
Expect this to get worse this summer.
Business has been leaving SF for severl decades.
SF 49ers are leaving. State Comp left last year which was very telling. They couldn't even afford the over bearing over reaching communist style government San Francisco imposes on it's business and property owners.
The time of the government union is reaching an end. If they were smart they would take the cuts now and at least stave off ultimate bankruptcy by cities and a snowball effect until their entire pension system collapses.
Careful what you wish for. Such a collapse would plunge this country into economic chaos unlike anything we've seen so far. Would that make you feel better?
"They are asking for higher wages and no cuts to their health care." (Anonymous 744, regarding San Francisco, not Pacifica).
Of course collective bargaining asks for better conditions. But, collective bargaining described in your commentary includes no history of yesterday's SEIU Union protest, and nothing unreasonable. Hope you're not targeting lower paid Service Employees International Union, CTW, CLC. (SEIU) employees, such as child care workers. More power to them, they are among underpaid workers. Don't think you've proven your point Anonymous 744.
Another unrelated issue on your "anti-organized worker" list includes: the 49ers moving out of San Francisco to the new $1 billion Santa Clara"professional football stadium". One telling comment from Business Times, Biz Talk says: "So what!" And, "Business has been leaving SF for several decades," Really? I'm not finding it. However, there still may be an affordable housing shortage in San Francisco, even with rent control benefiting some people.
Working class people, probably blue-collar, criticizing labor.
What the hell is that about? Boot-licking?
Anonymous said...
"Careful what you wish for. Such a collapse would plunge this country into economic chaos unlike anything we've seen so far. Would that make you feel better?"
Really? How can getting out of the huge debt of unfunded pensions possibly be a bad thing for our cities? Sure the retirees will have to be on a $2000 a month pension, but that's what we normal people have had to deal with.
Only good can come out of these government pension schemes being destroyed.
It's about hard working tax payers being fed up paying inflated wages and benefits. No boot licking involved.
"Only good can come out of these government pension schemes being destroyed." If employers can stop paying on contracts they entered into, then so can all of us. Let's all stop paying our mortgages and our credit card bills. Only good can come of that, right?
^Ridiculous^
We taxpayers who have private pension plans through our unions can have them reduced to nothing. I'm sick of these lame antiquated arguments from public union supporters. If your pension plan fails it should be treated as they are in the private sector, you get pennies on the dollar.
You don't want that to happen? Then start paying more your own pension like we do.
We need Rob Lowe to come and take over the city.
Hutchism!
Anon 1227/435 Only ignorant fools would want government pension schemes destroyed. Or anarchists. CalPers has huge influence on US and Global financial markets. Ever heard of the CalPers Effect? Did we learn anything at all about interconnectivity from the housing market collapse and ensuing market meltdown? Apparently, you didn't.
Bacon!
No, Rob Lowe was one of your best.
Yeah, there's a real interconnectivity between government pensions and the economy alright. It's causing city after city to file bankruptcy. It's sucking the life from education, programs for the poor and services for voters. Only good will come from eliminating Calpers all together.
Who's up for a trip back to the stone age with anon@832?
anon@832 sorry, still laughing too hard over Hutch's suggestion that we need Rob Lowe to take over Pacifica. Hang in there. There are breakthroughs made every day.
Post a Comment