Hell Freezes Over: Mayors Beg Blue State for Freedom from Public Sector Unionism

You will never guess what is happening in another blue state.

In this state, a rude, destructive governor has governed for two terms, driving the state's already precarious fiscal sustainability further into the ground. Cities cannot make payroll. The Democrats have done so much damage, that Republicans now hold a 50-50 split in the state senate and are five seats shy of winning majority in the state assembly.

CT Gov. Dannel Malloy, Driving His State into Bankruptcy

Two municipalities have elected young black Millenial Republicans to local office, an unheard-of upset. There are new generation conservatives serving in the state legislature, too.

I am talking about ... Connecticut!

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Connecticut’s S.O.S.
Mayors ask Hartford to save them from collective bargaining.

Connecticut mayors grappling with rising retirement costs and sinking economies this week issued a distress signal to lawmakers in Hartford: Save us from our public unions.

The public sector unions are greedy self-enriching, self-aggrandizing whore political machines. They do not care about the workers, the cities which they are supposed to serve, and they do not even care about the future fiscal strength of the states where they live.

The state would be in a “stronger position if we don’t negotiate for benefits,” Joe DeLong, the executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, told a committee convened by the legislature to restore fiscal stability and economic growth. The conference of municipalities implored the state to end collective-bargaining for pensions and health-care benefits as well as limit binding arbitration when unions and local politicians deadlock during contract negotiations. This usually results in a sweet deal for the unions.

Of course the unions come out winning. They have effectively mobilized their relatively small numbers to assault and harass elected officials time and again. Even when prudent, fiscally disciplined conservatives take charge over a city council or school board, they don't have the heft or the help to stand up to these abusive unions.

The pigs at the taxpayer-funded trough need to pushed away and slaughtered.

“We’re suggesting it’s very difficult in the state of Connecticut under the current labor agreements and under binding arbitration,” said Waterbury mayor Neil O’Leary, a Democrat. His town’s health care and pension costs make up 30% of its budget.

Notice that Democrats are demanding relief. Public sector unions are losing support from both sides of the aisle. They have turned in the very bane of the political spectrum. This will not bode well for Democrats nationally, however, who are desperate to raise money, especially since their

Gov. Dannel Malloy, after multiple tax increases, last year tried to close the state’s $3.5 billion deficit by shifting teacher pension costs to municipalities. Mayors warned that this would lead to property tax hikes. The legislature punted some pension payments to the future, but mayors are worried that they will eventually be required to pick up more of the bill.

That's the way Democrats have been running Connecticut for the last eight years. They put all the costs on someone else, never taking into account that shifting the burden does not ease the burden. Governor Malloy is one of the most shameful demagogues in the country, an outright jerk who has routinely shamed and diminished political opponents and allies alike.

That’s because state lawmakers have little flexibility to cut spending since Mr. Malloy extended collective-bargaining agreements through 2027 despite receiving few concessions from government unions. Meanwhile, tax revenues have been declining amid a sluggish economy and retirement costs are soaring. About 35% of state revenues go to debt service and retirement obligations. Connecticut’s annual teacher pension contribution is projected to quadruple by 2032.

OUCH! Who's going to pay for these massive entitlements? Mexico? I guarantee that the rest of the country might build a wall around Connecticut to ensure that the pension liabilities don't spill into federal coffers.

While mayors say they’re willing to pay more for pensions, many want the ability to shift their employees to defined-contribution plans that give them control over the costs. But will Democrats in Hartford defy their labor friends and rescue Connecticut’s underwater cities? Connecticut voters are only beginning to understand the damage from two terms of Mr. Malloy.

Voters need to send a new kind of politician to Hartford, men and women who will defy unions and not bend over for their every wish. They need to start sending Republicans to clean up the mess and make Connecticut Great Again.

Burn it Down: Pensions Crises in California, Only Getting Worse

I have remarked for the past two months that California may have to learn major financial lessons the hard way. Instead of voters electing responsible men and women to office, who will tackle the pensions, benefits, and other fiscal liabilities, the power of supply and demand will have to shut down entire cities and perhaps the entire state of California.

How many Detroits will California have to endure to ensure that the citizens of California recognize that money does not grow on trees, and that they cannot retire with more money than they had earned when they were working? Taxpaying homeowners and private business owners are not going to put up with these high costs. Why should a city manager get to retire on a six-figure annual pension, while the rest of us pay their bills, yet we struggle to pay our own?

This is untenable, and more businesses, homeowners, and local leaders are just pulling up stakes and leaving. The tax base leaves, more takers move into the larger cities, then local jurisdictions struggle to pay the bills.

Then comes bankruptcy, like Detroit, one of the largest metropolises in the country, then diminished into an uninhabitable ghetto. Socialism with the public sector unions, welfare recipients, and gangs hollowed out a once thriving city.

California cities are all headed for bankruptcy, too.

How many Detroits will there be in the next two years?

California cities get next year’s pension bill. ‘It’s not sustainable,’Sacramento official says

The Sacramento region’s largest local governments will see pension costs go up by an estimated 14 percent next fiscal year, starting a series of annual increases that many city officials say are “unsustainable” and will force service cuts or tax hikes.

No matter what claims appear in the newspaper, the California economy is not as strong as it could be. The taxes, fees, the public sector costs pushed onto working Californians has driven costs so high. The pork and the handouts given to public sector employees is unconscionable.

The increases come after CalPERS in December reduced the expected rate of return from investments, forcing local governments and other participants in the state’s retirement plan to pay more to cover the cost of pensions.

Now why are there reduces rates of return? In part because the state legislature insists on pulling out pension investments from coal, from firearms manufacturers, and other successful enterprises which do not mesh with the progressive values and worldview of California lawmakers.

Responding to widespread concerns from local government officials, CalPERS agreed to spread higher costs over eight years. That means cities will see rate hikes each year that are similar to this year’s, assuming that the fund’s investments make 7 percent annually under the new expected rate of return.

That rate of return is a unicorn farting classical musical and belching rainbows. Not going to happen. The cities will find themselves having to shore up larger pension costs every year. What is going to happen to public services in these cash-strapped cities? They will cut the essential services, and then watch crime rates increase, property values decrease, and with it the revenue to pay back the exorbitant pension costs.

Expect more federal judges to step into these messes and start rewriting the public sector union contracts. Look forward to more retirees wondering how they will get through every month when more than half of their monthly pensions are cut.

Leyne Milstein, the city of Sacramento’s finance director, said the city’s pension costs will double in seven years. While city revenues have also increased in recent years, thanks in part to a strong real-estate market, they have not increased as much as pension costs in actual dollars.

That real estate market is going to expand then burst, just as it did in 2008 and 2009. The real estate skyrocketing market cannot last forever, especially with lawmakers toying with Prop 13, whether to push a split-roll or allow for more takings.

“We don’t know how we’re going to operate,” said Oroville’s finance director, Ruth Wright, who suggested that a doubling of pension costs in five years could force the city into the nuclear option. “We’ve been saying the bankruptcy word.”

BAM! Expect bankruptcy to be on the mouths of many locally elected officials in the next few years.

The League of California Cities and officials from several cities wanted CalPERS to consider funding options besides raising employer rates. They spoke last month in favor of a proposal by a Republican state lawmaker to have the retirement fund study the possibility of temporarily suspending cost-of-living adjustments for pensioners and look at moving current workers and retirees into less generous plans that agencies started offering in 2013.

Either the state officials and employees act like adults and make the cuts themselves, or the laws of supply and demand will impose massive cuts. They are not going to get everything that was promised to then. It's just plain unsustainable.

The CalPERS finance and administration committee declined to vote on the proposals, after a majority of committee members made it clear they would not support them.

Final Reflection

Sometimes, it has to get worse before it gets better.

I think of the verse in the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 6:

11Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

12And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

13But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.

That just might be what it takes for California voters to stop sending the send corrupt lawmakers who promise their constituents everything, only to line their own pockets while robbing law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Pension Envy: Union Whore Pat Furey Bending Over for Torrance Bankruptcy

Another Daily Breeze article targeting Mayor Pat Furey, another bad day for the city of Torrance.

There is no nice way to put it: Pat Furey is a Big Labor Union Whore who will do the bidding of the public sector unions, and will take no leadership to do anything about the onerous pension liabilities eating away at the city's budget.

1 in four dollars is now going to retirees. How does any city stand to stay solvent when all the money is going out to window? There is no funding for public safety, infrastructure improvements, etc.

And in the meantime, Furey wants to placate racist Brown Supremacists who have harrased women and children while upending city council meeting throughout the county.

What kind of a political fraud is this guy?

A union whore, just like his liberal loony pal Al Muratsuchi:

Torrance city pensions rank in state’s top 10 for retireesearning more than $100,000 a year

Torrance is ranked eighth in the state for the number of retired employees — 222 — drawing CalPERS pensions of more than $100,000 a year, according to data released Wednesday by nonprofit government watchdog Transparent California.

Everyone is getting fat of the taxpayer. When does the paying out end? 

When does the bleeding stop? I fear that there is no workable political solution to this problem, however.

Who is going to run on a balanced budget/cut the entitlements program?

Who is going to campaign on the argument that police officers and firefighters are retiring with too much pay?

That’s more than any other South Bay city and second in Southern California only to Long Beach, which has 360 members of the $100K-a-year club in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Los Angeles, which like many other large cities has a separate pension plan from CalPERS, has 1,938 former workers making over $100,000 a year in retirement.

Doesn't it mean that people are retiring with more money than they had earned from year to year.

The number of former Torrance municipal workers pulling in more than $100,000 annually in retirement jumped 41 percent in just the last four years, said Robert Fellner, who compiled the data. That’s because workers benefited from lucrative changes to the pension plan about the turn of the century, he said.

A lot of retirees are cashing in while cashing out. Who's left holding the bag?

We the Torrance taxpayers, that's who.

“That whole class of workers has now started retiring and that’s why the (retirement) checks are so much bigger than if you compare them to the previous generation” of government workers, Fellner said.

And that is a crime. It's immoral to make children and grand-children pay for the excessive retirement packages to public employees. This is beyond outrageous.

Public employees can retire after 30 years with a generous 90 percent of their highest salary, whereas previously it was no more than about 60 to 70 percent, he said.

Unbelievable.

“For every 100 Torrance police officers, their retirement costs are equal to the salaries of 57 police officers, which is pretty astronomical,” Fellner said.

OUCH! We are paying people who do not work, and we cannot pay people we need to work.

When does the hurting stop?

A state pension reform bill that lowers costs — but only applies to new hires, not existing employees — was passed in 2013 and adopted by many cities, including Torrance. But that will not help to reduce costs until three decades from now, not today, Fellner said.

Three decades from now, most of the people who own homes in Torrance may leave the city and never look back. It could get to a point where homeowners just walk off the property and refuse to pay. Why should legitimate, hard-working Torrance residents pay for the political cowardice of the city councils, both past and present?

Of course, pension costs are a reflection of the high salaries and benefits public employees receive that are usually far more generous than the private sector.

"Too generous" would have been a better statement.

That’s why Mayor Pat Furey, for instance, — a Democrat heavily backed by municipal unions and in some cases their well-funded political action committees during the last mayoral campaign — referred to the issue as “pension envy.”

Pat Furey, the Union Whore.

He made $218,657 in salary and benefits in 2013, his final full year as a senior deputy county counsel before retirement. Furey’s pension and benefits in retirement were $58,656 after 15 years of service in 2015, according to Transparent California.

Wow. That's a lot of money. Yet this guy still played nice and went all in with the corrupt McCormick Ambulance PAC.

Pat ignores taxpaying residents,
but celebrates child abusers

“There’s not much you can do about the pensions created,” Furey said. “I wasn’t a member of the City Council when they created CalPERS.”

Yes, but he voted to approve retro-active pay increases to the labor unions.

Furey added that Torrance had already completed its pension reform efforts and that, as longtime employees retire eventually, things will “even out.”

They are not evening out--they are actually getting more costly. Here comes the bankruptcy calls.

He noted that in recent years Torrance has contributed an additional $8 million to reduce its unfunded pension liabilities that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

A  one-time contribution from a land sale. Whoop-de-doo.

In five years, Torrance will be spending almost 25 percent of its annual operating budget for employee retirement benefits, officials said recently.

Councilman Mike Griffiths, who responded via email, said he was unable to say much because city officials are negotiating new labor contracts right now.

The negotiations need to be serious, reform-minded, and cost-cutting.

Councilman Geoff Rizzo did not respond to a request for comment. He made $176,560 in retirement benefits in 2016 after 30 years of service with the Torrance Police Department, according to Transparent California.

Rizzo the pensioner. Will he cut his own pension? Will he cut his own retirement? Not very likely.

Indeed, police officers and Fire Department personnel are generally among the top retirement earners.

Public safety officiers are depleting the public treasury.

No. 1 in the city is former and recently rehired Police Chief Michael Browne. He made $211,450 in retirement benefits last year after stepping down from the post six years ago; he was rehired in July for $102,000 — or $106.43 an hour — for six months.

That's outrageous.

But Aurelio Mattucci, who is running for a City Council seat next June, said more pension reforms are needed. He did not provide specifics.

What did I say? No one is going to run on a platform of "I am cutting your retirement."

No one.

“It is alarming, to say the least,” he said of the Transparent California study. “We seem to have lost sight of good government, one that looks out for the overall well-being of the people of Torrance. We are, in many instances, overpaying, overpromising and, quiet literally, pushing Torrance toward bankruptcy.

That might be what it takes. It happened in Loyalton, CA, where public employee retirees saw their pension checks cut by more than half. If there is no money, people, there is no money.

“The numbers just don’t add up, no matter how you try to manipulate them,” he added.

Manipulate is definitely the word, especially from this corrupt bargain of handing away the entire store to the public employee unions.

And Union Whore Pat Furey is going along with the whole scheme.

Right-to-Work is Good for Business: Wisconsin Beats Minnesota

Does a right-to-work state do better than a forced unionism state?

Some unions, desperate to hold onto what little political might they claim, like to draw comparisons between adjacent states who differ on this labor question.

One of  the most often reported distinctions falls between Minnesota, a forced-unionism state, and Wisconsin, which went right-to-work in 2015.

The Republican Eagle provides further differences:

People love comparing the economic performance of Scott Walker's Wisconsin to Mark Dayton's Minnesota. Both governors were elected in 2010 and took their states in dramatically different policy directions. Walker lowered taxes, ended collective bargaining for public employees and eventually made Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Dayton raised taxes on the rich, raised the minimum wage and worked to expand public unions. Most of these policies were implemented between 2013 and 2015.

The argument went for a long time that Minnesota' economy was still doing better than Wisconsin's. The main reason, however, for the slower recovery in the Dairy State rests on the deeper recession which the state had plunged into.

Besides, states moving into Wisconsin from other states are not going to kick-start into robust growth overnight. The development of a stronger recovery will develop over time.

The news has gotten better for Wisconsin:

But it's also becoming harder to argue Minnesota bests Wisconsin. While economic output and income remain higher in Minnesota, Wisconsin employment numbers are now besting Minnesota. The accompanying chart shows Wisconsin total employment minus Minnesota total employment, which shows employment has been growing far faster in Wisconsin for over four years. Since February 2013, Wisconsin's employment lead over Minnesota nearly doubled, growing from 70,108 jobs to 138,383 jobs in June 2017.

Let's not forget during hard economic times, especially throughout the Rust Belt, whatever savings which households got from tax cuts, they probably kept the money rather than spending it. 

Right-to-work is good for workers, it's good for businesses, it's great for unions, and best of all, the reform helps businesses to expand, hire more workers, and grow the economy. It's also been great for Republicans as a whole, and conservatives in particular because taking away public sector unions near-monopoly on all collective baragaining has facilitate pension and entitlements reforms, both at the local as well as the state level.

Wisconsin has the smallest pension liability of all 50 states:

That is a good thing, folks. More businesses are moving into the state, as well, and the tax burden has decreased considerably for Wisconsites across the board. 

Will Minnesota voters decide on a similar, pro-growth change of pace? Election 2018 will prove pivotal for the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Will Minnesota turn into a red state paradise, including right-to-work reforms? We shall see.

It's looking pretty solid, however, that Republicans will take over the lower chamber, and Republican gubernatorial candidates are looking strong enough to flip the Governor's mansion into their own column, too.

Minnesota a Red State in 2018?

Has a right-to-work bill been introduced in the Minnesota State Legislature? The last attempt occurred in 2012, around the same time that Michigan's right-to-work law passed, despite the most violent attempts to stop its passage. The political momentum rests with the freedom to work movement, and if the Supreme Court does not strike down forced union dues, very likely two or three more states will join the other 28 freedom to work states in the next year.

True Discrimination: Illegal Aliens Benefit at the Expense of Law-Abiding Citizens

Thank you for this analysis, Tony Ruiz!

Wake up Americans!!

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention....

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has 3,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. Joe Legal now has $1,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $1,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same elementary school.

Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches, while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.

Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program.

Joe Legal's children go home.

Now, when they reach college age, Joe Legal's kids may not get into a State School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while Jose Illegal's kids "go to the head of the class" because they are a minority.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens... You are part of the problem!

We need to keep this going--we need to make changes ASAP!

It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

This is a copy and paste... Feel free

Also, check out this video from Chanel Temple blasting the sanctuary city of Cudahy: