Don’t Be Fooled by Contrived Hobson’s Choices on Taxes vs. Public Services

(Editor’s note:  This letter is in response to Paul Schnaubelt’s blog post of Jan. 23, 2012, titled Taxes Are a Civic Responsibility.)

To the editor:

Yes, taxes are a civic responsibility. I am confident that most Californians are willing to pay them in order to support the weak and the poor, to educate our children, to repair streets and to provide for public safety, among other things.

Most of us likely also agree that our elected representatives should spend the taxes we pay in an efficient and frugal manner—as if it were their own money. That is not happening in California—the 600-pound gorilla of irresponsible spending being public sector pensions.
     
A couple of years ago, the California Foundation For Fiscal Responsibility estimated that a savings of $500 billion would be realized over a 30-year period were statewide pensions reduced to reasonable levels. That is big money, even in California.

The Little Hoover Commission’s recent report on public pensions in California pointed out that a pension system originally established to provide retirement security has morphed into a wealth generator: “Initially, state workers retiring at age 65 could expect retirement income at roughly half of their final compensation, based on an average salary earned during their last five years of employment. The retirement formulas and benefits began ratcheting up in the 1940s and never stopped.”

The fact that California public sector pensions are both unaffordable and fundamentally unfair to taxpayers from the private sector (who will enjoy much, much less generous pensions) has been well established.

Even the well-regarded California politician Willie Brown recognized the danger public pensions pose: “The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians—pushed by our friends in labor—gradually expanded pay and benefits … while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages.”

Yet very little has been done to reform those obscene pensions.

Instead, public sector unions whose members are the beneficiaries of the public largess spend copious amounts of money to prevent reform. Public employees virtually control the state Legislature and the situation is not much better for municipalities.

Pensions aren’t even on the table when school boards negotiate contracts. Laws are in place to stop any changes in pensions for current employees—unless they are increases. When pensions are increased, changes are not only granted to current employees going forward, they are made retroactively!

Pensions, although a huge contributor to our budget problem, are by no means the only way in which California government spends hard earned tax dollars irresponsibly. A few other examples that I am aware of are:

• The cost of high-speed rail, that few besides the radical environmental fringe want, has more than doubled from $43 billion to $98.5 billion. And the promised 220 mph trains would not roll until 2033, more than a decade later than voters were promised in 2008.
• Environmental restrictions and costs mandated by Proposition 32 are enormous while the benefits in terms of air quality will be too small to measure—even if one buys into the increasingly questionable scientific support for the danger posed by CO2. There is late breaking news that the California Secretary of State is now suing SANDAG over its transportation plan for our region! She wants more money spent on public transportation. Ever notice how empty most buses, trolley cars and carpool lanes are?
• The education bureaucracy is bloated as are the number of state boards and commissions.
• California spends three times as much to house each prisoner as does the state with the next largest prison population—Texas.
• I just heard the former state director of veterans benefits say that he was let go because he wanted to reduce the bloated bureaucracy that runs those programs.
• Those who favor more taxes consistently try to frame the issue as “higher taxes or poorly maintained roads,” or in the case of La Mesa’s campaign for Proposition L two elections ago, “higher taxes or being plagued by potholes and gangs.” Or in the case of our governor in his recent speech here in San Diego: “Higher taxes or Draconian cuts in our school budgets.”

Increasingly fewer Californians are fooled by those contrived Hobson’s choices. Am I the only one who is tired of being treated like a fool by public sector workers’ spokesmen and manipulated by our governments?

As far as not being sufficiently taxed, I defer to the fact sheet—Breaking Bad—by Richard Rider (go to open.salon.com/blog/Richard_Rider, then scroll down to Breaking Bad).

Among the many interesting facts included therein is that Californians pay the sixth-highest overall taxes of any of the 50 states. The entire fact sheet is an informative rebuttal to complaints that Californians don’t pay enough in taxes.
   
In summary, I expect most Californians want to pay enough taxes to repair our streets, educate our children, provide for safety and care for the truly needy. But before paying more to provide these services, we want to know that the taxes we already pay—sixth-highest in the nation—are spent in a responsible and frugal manner.

We know, from having watched our state and our districts and our cities at work, that is not now the case. We also know that once we acquiesce to pay higher taxes, any hopes of responsible and frugal spending are gone.

Russell Buckley
La Mesa