
At Reason, Tim Cavanaugh writes, “California is that rarest of land masses for the 2011 Democratic Party: conquered territory. State Democrats have freedom to rule virtually unchallenged by the scattered, rusticated Republicans:”
As 72-year-old Jerry Brown enters his second governorship, he has an agenda to match that power, with visions even greater than those that haunted his two-term administration of the 1970s and ’80s: building 20,000 megawatts of renewable power, laying a new high-speed rail network that will connect the state’s major cities, forging a statewide infrastructure for alternative energy, hiring thousands of green employees. The new governor’s environmental agenda is ambitious, untenably expensive, and indelibly popular with voters and lawmakers.
AdvertisementYet when Brown looks out on Democrat-controlled California, he seems less like Caesar at the Rubicon than Wojciech Jaruzelski at the Gdansk Shipyard. Brown is champion of a workers’ party with monopoly control, yet all his plans are being derailed by a labor movement nobody can harness.
At press time, California was being governed under a state of economic “emergency” declared by Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in light of a staggering $28 billion budget shortfall expected in the next 18 months.
It gets worse. Medium-term unfunded liabilities for government employee pensions are pegged by the Legislative Analyst’s Office at $136 billion—and that’s a lowball figure. Legislative analyst Mac Taylor acknowledges in his current fiscal outlook report that the estimate leaves out billions in funding shortfalls at the pension funds for public school teachers and University of California employees. In the next 10 years, taxpayers will most likely be on the hook for somewhere between $325 billion and $500 billion. (Over the past five years, state revenues averaged $94.5 billion per year.)
How did this happen?
California’s state and local governments employ somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million workers, representing 4 percent to 5 percent of the state’s total population. When they retire, all of those employees are contractually entitled to generous pension benefits—so generous that, collectively, they can’t be paid even by a pension system that ladles out more than $20 billion a year and is one of the largest investment pools on Wall Street.
California is not the only state infected by pension liabilities, but the size of its economy (generally described as the eighth largest in the world) and its union-dominated politics make it a gravely stricken, and potentially contagious, patient. Organized labor contributed tens of millions of dollars to Brown’s campaign last year, and public-sector unions have long been the largest donors to the Democratic politicians who control the state.
“The unions have a stranglehold on this state,” says Marcia Fritz, a Citrus Heights accountant who serves as vice president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a pension reform lobbying group. “To engage them you need your biggest strategy. It’s like trying to topple a communist government.” But like communism, which eventually ran out of other people’s money, California is teetering on fiscal implosion.
As James Taranto writes, “Here is the contradiction of progressivism:”
Progressives tell us they want the government to do more. But they can’t win elections without public-sector unions. Because they are beholden to those unions, their main priority when in power is to increase the cost, not the scope, of government. Because resources are finite, the result is the worst of both worlds: a government that taxes more without doing more. This is unsustainable economically. Fortunately, as Wisconsin voters showed last November, it’s unsustainable politically as well.
But California voters chose a very different route this past November. Not coincidentally, Doug Ross lists the “Top 10 Reasons Businesses Flee California.”
(Meanwhile, despite all of the fiscal turmoil in the state, its citizens remain focused on the key issues of the day.)












California — politicians and voters — appear to have adopted the same attitude people and politicians in New York City had 40 years ago:
1.) We’re so great nobody who really matters would actually move away from here just because their taxes are too high;
2.) We’re too big to fail — Somebody in Washington will bail us out so we don’t have to make any hard sacrifices;
3.) Tax rates still haven’t reached the 75-95 percent rate on upper income earners that FDR had them at during World War II, or even 60-70 percent rates in effect before Reagan. So there’s still plenty of money out there to tax before we ever have to start cutting back on spending.
That’s why the current kerfuffle in Wisconsin is so important. If the unions win the battle there to have their far-higher-than-the-private-sector wages, benefits and retirement plans protected, it’s going to be a sign to the unions and their political allies in the bigger states that they should hold out, too, because the Republicans in the end won’t have the stomach to say ‘no’ to bailing out the states. That’s already the security blanket California seems to be counting on, since Brown’s actions and statements are far more tepid than even what fellow Democrat Andrew Cuomo is doing in New York.
Its not Unions, it is Illegal Aliens. California had big unions and lots of capital spending under Brown. Pat Brown, Jerry’s father. No problem. Because a middle class could pay for it. Add in about 10 million (minimum) illegal aliens, dirt poor, heavy users of taxes, and there is no money to pay for anything.
Simple as that. Diversity means no money. Therefore no money to pay for anything but the bottom drawer of government.
From the looks of things, Denial ain’t a river in Egypt, it’s a governor of California.
US national finances are as bad as in California. The unfunded liability of Social Security is the smallest of the major, unfunded promises of the US Government.
In $billions: National Debt $14,500, Social Security $10,400, Medicare $40,000, Prescription Drug $16,600. This adds up to $81,500 billion ($81.5 trillion) of promises. That is 37 times the $2,200 billion in taxes estimated to be collected in FY 2010 (the year ending Nov 30, 2011). There is nothing saved or set aside to satisfy those promises; that is the meaning of “unfunded”.
If a family operated like the US government and had $50,000 of disposable income to spend, those debts and promises would be in proportion $1,852,273, 37 times disposable income.
See for more: Family Budget