$6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Rob Anderson	$6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land	Lead	[-]
Member Posts: 135 (06/28/09 08:51:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Salaries drive S.F.'s budget skyward Heather Knight,Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writers Sunday, June 28, 2009 San Francisco will spend $6.6 billion in the fiscal year starting Wednesday - the largest budget in its history - making the 47-square-mile city a bigger spender than seven states including Idaho and New Hampshire. That's equal to spending more than $8,000 per city resident - and could build the Golden Gate Bridge five times over in today's dollars. And yet, it's not enough. Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors are engaged in a heated battle over the coming year's budget and whether to make big cuts to public safety or social services, which both sides describe as a life-or-death decision. They agree on one thing: asking voters to support a $368 million bond measure in November to repair streets, one of the most basic roles of city government. And the problem isn't just created by the economic recession. Every year for the past 10 years, the city has had a budget deficit - despite a robust tax base including very strong property values. The city has asked voters to approve tax increases in eight of those years, according to the controller's office... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/28/BANN18DT58.DTL A link for the Controller's report cited in the article: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/controller/BIP_Report_3-16-09_FINAL.pdf Last Edited By: Rob Anderson 06/28/09 09:00:38. Edited 1 time.
Marcel Deste	Took the post right out of my mouth	#1	[-]
Member Posts: 57 (06/28/09 09:52:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	End of story. The problem is not prop 13. Its out of control employee benefits. Anyone think a reasonable and objective person with the help of a few accountants and an audit team couldnt find about a billion of waste? I posted before that there isnta single program that needs to be cut. Its the salaries and benefits of the employees running the programs that is the problem' The idea that someopne for five years after termination still is getting health care costs subsidized is so preposterous that someone who invented this should be prosecuted. How many tens of millions $$s in last minute before the gravy train benefit stops health care treatments do you think occur? [picture of bowl of mush] This is the brain on progressive politics.
Marcel Deste	Took the post right out of my mouth	#2	[-]
Member Posts: 57 (06/28/09 09:52:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sorry for the accidental repeat. Last Edited By: Marcel Deste 06/28/09 09:56:43. Edited 1 times.
Rob Anderson		#3	[-]
Member Posts: 136 (06/28/09 10:21:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yes, our city government is mostly a jobs program for progressives. Note, for example, that MTA's website tells us that their Bicycle Program has eleven (11) employees, and that global warming guy in the mayor's office is making more than $162,000 a year.
Uncle Miltie		#4	[-]
Member Posts: 445 (06/30/09 08:47:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	They still have a hole to close that represents about 10% of the city budget and the nickle and diming of us peasants will not close that gap alone. They need to cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat and no amount of positioning and politicking will change that. Furthermore, the chances of passing taxes in November is somewhere between slim and none. The good news is that there's more fat here than muscle, giving us plenty of options: Here's an interesting option: In any given department, layoffs begin with the non SF residents as there's no good reason to lay off our own and then pay unemployment, too, when we can lay off those who don't live here, vote here, pay taxes here and then commute here, poluting the air when doing so. How about switching all public employees' health insurance to Healthy San Francisco (since it's so great and revolutionary, it should be good enough for our PUBLIC SERVANTS) instead of big monopoly Kaiser? That way the city can show it can balance its budget by insourcing and the mayor can brag about how he turned a deficit into a surplus and get elected gov... How about a say on pay at the nonprofits? I like the idea I heard for Fogu to limit city worker pay and benefits to no more than the equivalent in the private sector - it's only fair. I don't think the typical unemployed worker is going to be too happy to find out that a city gardener or janitor is making 50k++ when you could hire someone off the street for half of that.
Rob Anderson		#5	[-]
Member Posts: 137 (06/30/09 09:56:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I like the idea I heard for Fogu to limit city worker pay and benefits to no more than the equivalent in the private sector - it's only fair. I don't think the typical unemployed worker is going to be too happy to find out that a city gardener or janitor is making 50k++ when you could hire someone off the street for half of that. That's where the union issue comes in. Is city government designed to deliver services to city residents, or is it a jobs/benefits program for city employees? I think we already know the answer to that.
Marcel Deste	Rob, once again	#6	[-]
Member Posts: 60 (06/30/09 12:18:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	as you did in regards to the transportation issue, you assume that what liberals want is something that will work. Something that is real. They prove time and time again that they dont. They literally dont care whether something works or not. All they care about is that they get what they think they want. What they want is all they need to know. And to cement themselves in power they know that all they need to do is bribe a bigger block of votes than those who choose not to do so. I think in the beginning, the Founders realized that to allow those who are nothing but recievers of handouts the right to vote insured that the amounts they voted for would do nothing but grow. That was the original basis on property ownership being the right to vote. If you allowed the recievers to vote the ability of those taken from would eventually be insufficient in terms of providing more money for the takers to hand out. It would all collapse and then you start that process all over again. We are reaching that point in San Francisco and California. Fast. . [[The Oregon Travail Driving business away with billions in tax hikes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545298617532789.html The Labor Department reported yesterday that Oregon's unemployment rate soared to 12.4% in May, the nation's second highest after Michigan's 14.1%. What to do? If you're the geniuses in the state legislature in Salem, you naturally raise taxes. Last week the legislature approved a $2 billion tax hike on personal income and small businesses that haven't already left the state. The highest tax rate on income above $500,000 would climb to 11% -- up from an already high 9%. Oregon will soon boast the second highest income tax rate in the nation, moving ahead of California (10.55%), and only slightly behind New York City (12.6%). Corporations will pay a 7.9% tax on gross receipts, up from 6.6%. But that isn't the worst of it. Another revenue raiser will tax hospitals and private health insurance premiums. That's a good way to encourage private employers to drop their health coverage for workers. In Oregon, as in so many states this year, lawmakers had to choose between reducing the growth of spending and raising taxes. No contest. So government spending will climb by about $2 billion, or almost 4%, which is on top of a 21% increase in the 2007-08 biennium budget. The sliver of good news is that taxpayer groups like Americans for Prosperity of Oregon are promising to put these taxes before the voters in a referendum this year or next. Since Salem's politicians seem intent on following California's, maybe Oregon's voters will do the same and just say no.]] But forget appealing to sensibilities.
PHLemingo		#7	[-]
Member Posts: 1534 (07/01/09 21:19:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yes, our city government is mostly a jobs program for progressives. Note, for example, that MTA's website tells us that their Bicycle Program has eleven (11) employees I understand this was due to a certain legal injunction that required a bunch of analysis, some would say was superfluous. While most of city govmint wished to bypass the expense, the judicially mandated requirement stuck none-the-less. EIRs cost money, not cuz 'the Environment' is costly, but because analysing the effects upon it take a certain skill and effort. -P
WishYouWereDead	$8,000 per person?	#8	[-]
Member Posts: 3118 (07/02/09 08:51:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	actually, $8,000 per person doesn't sound like a lot to me... i pay half that in property taxes and what with personal taxes to the state (which SHOULD come back to the city) and all kinds of sales taxes, i'm probably paying out more than is spent on me... of course, i have to carry gadflies like arthur evans and rob, who probably don't contribute as much as is spent on them (in rob's case, i would venture that his frivolous lawsuit probably cost us ALL money - why not take up a collection by forming an "angry automobile drivers association" and charge dues?)...
kingisgone		#9	[-]
Member Posts: 56 (07/02/09 20:35:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The $6.6 Billion figure has been covered over-and-over again...the city and county's total budget number includes a lot of revenue and expenses that aren't from taxes. For instance, SFO is a $650 million operation that gets monies from airlines, concessions, parking, etc. and spends it on the upkeep and running of the airport. That money is part of the $6.6 Billion figure. The two hospitals that San Francisco runs also get a lot of money from outside sources like insurance companies. There is also the PUC that delivers services and receives money from other cities and counties, not to mention the Port. Property tax only accounts for about 20% of the total revenues of the city.
Rob Anderson		#10	[-]
Member Posts: 138 (07/03/09 09:11:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	...in rob's case, i would venture that his frivolous lawsuit probably cost us ALL money - why not take up a collection by forming an "angry automobile drivers association" and charge dues?... You persist in calling our successful litigation "frivolous," even though the injunction was upheld by two judges and the decision was rendered by one of the least frivolous people I've ever seen in action, Judge Peter Busch. We had both the facts and the law in our favor about a major city project that's about to change city streets and make traffic worse all over the city. And---surprise!---the EIR on the Bicycle Plan confirmed what we suspected all along, that the Plan will in fact have "significant unavoidable impacts" on traffic, loading, and Muni. The city would have saved a lot of money if it had simply followed the law in the first place and done an environmental review of the 500-page Bicycle Plan way back in 2005, which is what we urged the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to do. They rejected our advice, which ended up costing city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2006/11/judge-buschs-decision.html Last Edited By: Rob Anderson 07/03/09 09:14:47. Edited 1 times.
Marcel Deste	Comment to Rob and question for Kingisgone	#11	[-]
Member Posts: 61 (07/04/09 08:19:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rob- dont you understand that there is a distinct example of what you are referring to that demonstrates your opponents duplicitous attitude. When a rich guy wants to DONATE a museum to the City the left mobilizes and sues to force any uncrossed t or undotted i to be litigated endlessly. And even if every single issue gets litigated at decades delay, they fabricate MORE things that absolutely must be llitigated. And all under the claim that every law must be meticulously argued until they get their way. And its all done for notihng but hostility towards the donors politics (I guess) or success. But these same people who now want to steal tens of millions of OTHER peoples money to get something they want see absolutely no reason to recognize any restrictions the law MANDATES towards the process of approving the project legally. Kingisgone - If property taxes are "only" 20% of the City budget then please explain how every day we are being told by newspapers, and Dem,ocrat politcicians, that the entire problem of the current State County and City budget deficits is solely due to Prop 13. That unless Prop 13 is eliminated the entire Planet is going to blow up. Seems like property taxes, according to the left, are responsible for the entire budget deficits everywhere.
kingisgone		#12	[-]
Member Posts: 57 (07/10/09 23:43:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Marcel..My point is that a big part of the San Francisco "budget" is fee for service that doesn't affect the things that one normally associates with a government service. For instance, a large chunk of the SF budget is the airport. The airport collects money from airlines, concessions, parking, etc. and uses that money to run the airport. None of that money is used to provide things like road repair, park maintenance, social services, etc. San Francisco also operates two hospitals and again these hospitals care for a lot of people with insurance..again a fee for service that doesn't pay for general government services. Now the hospitals do get money from the general fund to pay for care for people who are poor or don't have insurance. It is the monies that come from property and sales taxes (along with some grant monies from the feds and the state) which is probably around $1.5 billion that pay for general government services like fire, police, rec and park, social services, etc. Much of the other $5 billion is earmarked as fees for service.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

$6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

$6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

[[The Oregon Travail

Driving business away with billions in tax hikes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545298617532789.html

Quick Reply