January 26, 2007

City Council decides to ban fireworks in Fontana as of July 5, 2008; some city councils have guts

Apparently some city councils actually have guts and some fire and police departments are willing to take on the money grubbing local interests that worked so hard against us in the November 2006 election (and spent $40,000). Note this was a 5-0 vote in Fontana. Apparently they are also smarter than most voters in Lakewood. And of course John Kelly, again front and center, and once again protecting TNT's right to peddle toxic smoke and flames. Oh don't forget the "California Fireworks Safety and Education Program". That looks suspicous. Ill bet that group is packed with fireworks industry prople.

This will never happen in Lakewood if left up to the voters, the lame city council and the fireworks peddlers (the so called sports clubs in Lakewood). Score one for the little guy.

City Council decides to ban fireworks in Fontana as of July 5, 2008

http://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/01newsfireworks.txt

By MARIA ELENA KENNEDY

After listening to presentations from public safety and nonprofit groups, the Fontana City Council voted 5-0 on Tuesday to ban on the sale of fireworks within the city limits of Fontana.

The ban will not go into effect until July 5, 2008, which gives nonprofits two more years of selling fireworks.

The proposed ban had caused an outcry by nonprofit organizations, which are dependent on the income they receive from selling fireworks during the Fourth of July season.

At the Jan. 23 meeting, the City Council heard from numerous nonprofits how the proposed ban would adversely affect them and their ability to deliver needed services to the community. There are 45 nonprofit groups in the city which sell fireworks.

John Kelly, vice president of public affairs for TNT Fireworks, which supplies fireworks to approximately 80 percent of the nonprofits that sell fireworks in Fontana, claimed that a ban on fireworks will not stop the real problem -- the misuse of illegal fireworks.

"We are curious what the city hopes to achieve with the ban," said Kelly, who added that his company offers a "safe and sane product" that undergoes rigorous testing. "We offer a product that is approved by the state of California. The fireworks that are causing the problem are illegal fireworks."

Dennis Revell of the California Fireworks Safety and Education Program reiterated that the problem does not lie with the sale of legal fireworks, which he refers to as fire marshal approved fireworks, but with the sale of illegal fireworks.

"California has the strictest standards in the nation," he said, referring to the controls over legal fireworks. "We also have the biggest problem with the illegal fireworks."

Kelly noted that the city's attempt to ban the sale of legal fireworks would harm the nonprofits.

"We all know the problems on the 4th of July are caused by lawbreakers using illegal fireworks. Such a ban would only punish Fontana citizens who look forward to celebrating patriotic traditions, legitimate businesses, and the 45 nonprofit groups in the city that depend on fireworks sales to fund vitally needed services," Kelly said. "It seems fundamentally unfair to punish all the people who abide by the rules for the criminal actions of the few who knowingly break the law."

THE BAN was proposed by the Fontana Police and Fire departments.

Police Captain Tim Newsome said the problem of illegal fireworks has rapidly escalated in the city, especially over the past five years, to the point that "it's out of control."

In a report to the City Council, Newsome said that complaints from residents about fireworks on July 4 skyrocketed from less than 100 in 2002 to 333 in 2006.

He said that despite prolonged efforts to educate the public about the dangers of illegal fireworks (particularly ones that are purchased in Nevada and Mexico and smuggled into California), many residents still do not know the difference between legal and illegal fireworks.

He said the line between the two has become so blurred that legal fireworks are now just as much a part of the problem as the illegal ones. A ban on all fireworks is necessary to ensure public safety, Newsome claimed.

When asked if the nonprofits which benefit from the sale of the fireworks would be helped in finding alternative sources of income, Lt. Bob Ramsey said that the city was exploring funding possibilities for nonprofits such as the Fontana High School Marching Band, the Fontana A.B. Miller Marching Band, and the Bloomington Boosters 4-H club.

Judie Brown of the Bloomington Boosters 4-H club said that the ban would add up to a loss for the children.

"It's going to hurt the community services we provide. The money we make at the fireworks booth we return to the community. There will be a lot of children impacted," she said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editorial:
Fontana right to forbid sale of fireworks
Article Launched: 01/29/2007 12:00:00 AM PST
http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_5107984

Fontana has joined the growing number of cities in San Bernardino County to see the light and ban fireworks.

After two more Fourths of July, this year and next, there will be no more legal fireworks in Fontana. The city apparently was willing to risk two more flash-and-burn holidays.

The City Council last week unanimously voted to ban all use of fireworks, except for professional and civic displays, effective July 5, 2008.

Better late than never.

The action will leave Chino as the only Inland Valley city to permit the sale of fireworks.

Fontana officials chose to put public safety first, even ahead of fundraising for nonprofits, service organizations and high school activities.

Councilman Frank Scialdone, who once served as the city's police chief, said, "I can't rationalize raising money and putting people in jeopardy."

Setting off fireworks is a dangerous pastime, resulting in loss of limb and property. In Fontana, fires around the Fourth of July, mostly caused by fireworks, resulted in at least $1 million in response costs and property damage last year.

No one wants to see civic groups or schoolchildren forced to scale back on worthwhile activities because of the loss of revenue from fireworks sales. But there's got to be a safer way to raise money.

Fontana council members, who acknowledge the pain it will cause local groups to do without the money raised from fireworks sales, plan to schedule a meeting with nonprofits to discuss other ways to come up with needed funds.

"Being one of the last cities in this county, in this region, offering fireworks, somebody's doing some fundraising other than fireworks," said Fontana Councilwoman Acquanetta Warren before the council fell in line.

Public safety has to come first.

January 25, 2007

Govt Pensions: When will the madness end?

Although the story below is an issue brewing in Orange County (behind the "orange curtain" as we like to say) it is emblematic of a wider problem. Govt. employees at one agency talk with their pals in other agencies or counties and generate an endless public sector (taxpayer financed) bidding war. A race to the top of the pay scale sorta speak whereas in the private sector, where outsourcing is common, we are at a race to the bottom, a race to eliminate pensions and even the jobs themselves. For God's sake the federal min. minimum wage is under 11,000 per year and we have LIFEGUARDS earning 115,000 a year for life (Dont forget lifetime pensions with cost of living raises and the best free health bennies in the biz). That also assumes these lifeguards are not "forced" to retire at 40 due to a job related disability (sun burn).

Here is a government solution I learned from Nancy Reagan: "Just say No" Thats right, no to pay raises. Then what? The lifeguards will quit? Where will they go? Will they go into that lucrative private sector and become extras on "Baywatch". Nope that's in syndication already. Maybe they can go work for Motel 6. Nope they have signs posted at the pool: "swim at your own risk no lifeguard on duty". Even if they did want to hire lifeguards they would have to wait in line behind the maids union, which is currently trying to boost their pay over the federal minimum. Plus those "benefits" at Motel 6 are only all the soap you can steal.

But what about the poor Newport Beach residents that might drown you ask. What about the "children"...oh my God. Well thats where Darwin's law comes in. Swim during a rip tide, alone, or into a shark and you won't be contributing to the gene pool any more. The City is safe as the government code in California gives them absolute immunity for people that die or are injured due to natural conditions. Tons of drowning cases out there where the city walks away from the case due to the fact that signs were posted: "Swim at your own risk: No lifeguards on duty (due to pensions)"...

Here is another solution: Hire more part timers. It is primarily a summer position. Hell their are great swimmers out there that would love to have this job. It beats working at McDonalds. Who would like to work on Baywatch and scam on chicks all summer? Lots of cities do that.

Another solution: let the voters (who are not so beholden to govt. unions and have more backbone) vote on these scams. I think the voters would vote the way I would: Outsource the lifeguards!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newport lifeguards pushing pension issue
They want the same retirement benefit that police and firefighters in the city receive.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1557689.php

By JEFF OVERLEY
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

NEWPORT BEACH, CA – Seven months after their contract expired, Newport Beach lifeguards are still locked in negotiations with city officials.

The impasse centers on a request by lifeguards for a lucrative pension plan known as "3 percent at 50." Under such contracts, employees can retire at age 50 and get 3 percent of their salary for every year worked.

The payout, received annually for life, is capped at 90 percent of a worker's salary. For retirement plans, though, salary isn't just base pay, but also includes the value of certain benefits.

Similar arrangements are common for police officers and firefighters, and officials say they have been extended to lifeguards in such cities as Seal Beach and Huntington Beach.

In Newport Beach, police receive the 3-at-50 plan, and firefighters are due to switch over by year's end. Lifeguards currently have a 3-at-55 agreement, and non-safety employees get 2-at-55.

"We just wanted to be treated the same" as police and firefighters, said Brent Jacobsen, president of the Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association.

Jacobsen said lifeguards face the same risks as their public-safety counterparts.

"How many times does a police officer or firefighter have to go swimming at The Wedge when it's 20 feet, or scuba diving at night? It's just as dangerous," he said.

It's not clear why council members have not agreed to change the benefit. Officials largely declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of contract negotiations.

But one issue could be cost. In 2005, Newport Beach faced an unfunded liability for public-safety pension plans of more than $50 million, up 20 percent from two years earlier. Last week, the City Council approved an agreement making the city's police the highest-paid in the county.

Annual pay for full-time lifeguards ranges from roughly $50,000 to $115,000, not counting overtime or benefits.

Perhaps mindful of those bills, the City Council has balked at boosting the pension benefit. Jacobsen argued that the cost would be "trivial" because the pension plan would apply only to the city's 16 full-time lifeguards, not seasonal workers.

The two sides haven't talked since early November, but the council's makeup has since shifted, with two new members joining since the fall election.

Negotiations are set to resume Tuesday, Jacobsen said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lifeguards to shore up support for retirement
They want a benefit given to others but need to persuade a council majority that denied it in 2005.


By Alicia Robinson
http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/01/27/publicsafety/dpt-lifeguards27.txt#blog

Newport Beach police and firefighters are eligible to retire at 50, and the city's lifeguards are now asking for the same benefit.

But they may have to win over the City Council, after being turned down for that benefit in their last contract.

Under the "3% at 50" provision, employees can collect 3% of their final salary for each year they worked with the city. So an employee who started working for the city at age 49 could retire at 50 and collect 3% of his or her final salary.

It's a common benefit that lifeguards in Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and San Diego, among other cities, enjoy, said Brent Jacobsen, Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Assn. president.

All Newport Beach public safety employees were given a "3% at 55" provision in 2000, and police were later granted 3% at 50. City firefighters' most recent contract lowers retirement to 50 at the end of 2007.

If lifeguards are granted 3% at 50, it would cover the 17 full-time lifeguard positions represented by the management association, but not the 225 seasonal lifeguards, who are covered by a different contract.

It's been a goal for the lifeguards for "quite some time," Jacobsen said, "but it didn't really become a reality until the fire [department] received it in this contract. With a group of 16, we weren't really in a position to go out and get something like that."

Now, with negotiations in progress, lifeguards are pushing for it more than any other benefit. But four of the seven council members — Leslie Daigle, Stevve Rosansky, Ed Selich and Don Webb — were on the City Council that turned the liifeguards down in 2005, so they may need to be persuaded.

Most council members could not be reached or declined to comment on the negotiations. Just this week, they voted for a new contract that made city police the best-compensated in the county.

Councilman Keith Curry, who wasn't on the council in 2005, said giving the lifeguards 3% at 50 wouldn't be that expensive because it doesn't cover many people. But he hasn't made up his mind. "The issue for me is going to be how do all of the elements [in the contract] fit together in terms of overall cost to the city," Curry said.

Former Councilman Tod Ridgeway, who was termed out in November, said he never supported retirement at 50 for lifeguards because "nine months out of the year, they're doing minimal work."

He also pointed to the city's $51-million unfunded pension liability for public safety employees, and he said last year one lifeguard earned $199,000.

"That's an extraordinary amount of money for a lifeguard," Ridgeway said.

City officials couldn't confirm Ridgeway's figure, but the 2006-07 budget shows the top-paid lifeguards, two battalion chiefs, will earn $172,915 in salary and benefits this year, not including any overtime.

Jacobsen rebutted Ridgeway's claim that year-round lifeguards work less in the winter. He patrols the beach and also prepares to recertify seasonal lifeguards, train new hires, and get the popular junior lifeguard program going, he said.

"In the middle of the night when it's cold and dark, it's the permanent lifeguard staff … that have to get in the wwater" for rescues, he said.

"The potential to risk our lives happens throughout the year."

January 24, 2007

Govt. Pensions: Federal pay, benefits double private sector's

Report: Federal pay, benefits double private sector's

8/4/06
By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com

New figures from the Commerce Department's U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis show average compensation for federal employees to be double that of private sector workers for the first time.

Federal workers earned an average of $106,579 in 2005, including benefits, or about twice the average private sector compensation of $53,289 with benefits included. This marked the first time federal compensation reached this point; for 2004 the bureau's statistics put it at slightly less than double the private sector's.

Without benefits, the difference for 2005 is less. Federal employees earned an average salary of $71,114 while their private sector counterparts earned $43,917.

Read the full article here: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0806/080406r1.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 18, 2006
Pay Gap: A Different Take

By Karen Rutzick
krutzick@govexec.com

The pay gap between private and public sector employees seems to be a given. Just this week, 10 congressmen made their case for a higher 2007 civilian pay raise than President Bush has requested by citing a 30 percent private-public gap reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"The federal government may never be able to compete with the private sector, dollar for dollar, but we must ensure that we do not fall further behind in the battle for talent," Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va.; Jon Porter, R-Nev.; Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and others said in a letter to fellow members.

But a new paper from the libertarian Washington-based think tank the Cato Institute argues that the pay gap actually travels in the other direction. Pointedly titled "Federal Pay Outpaces Private-Sector Pay," the paper by Chris Edwards, the institute's director of tax policy studies, makes the case for freezing government salaries.

By bundling federal benefits -- including defined pensions, the Thrift Savings Plan and health care subsidies -- together with wages, Edwards calculated that the average federal worker earned $100,178 in 2004, compared to $51,876 in salary and benefits for the average private-sector worker. Those numbers were based on statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

"The federal civilian workforce has become an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of private-sector American workers who must compete in today's dynamic economy," Edwards wrote.

Read the full article here: http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0506/051806pb.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also for a really interesting read take a look at the Cato Institutes article on the "Parasitie Economy"

excerpt: "It is useful to describe the United States as having a dual economy. On the one hand, there is the private-sector economy, which produces goods and services in response to the wants of consumers and businesses. On the other hand, there is the government sector, which largely redistributes income. Typically, government is said to redistribute income from rich to poor or from young workers to older retirees, but increasingly there is evidence that individuals use government to redistribute income from the general taxpaying public to themselves. Author Jonathan Rauch has termed Washington, D.C., a "parasite economy."[2] Of course, not all governmental activity is of a parasitic nature. The protection of rights--through police, courts, and national defense--is an essential function of government. Many traditional functions of government such

as providing roads and schools do yield benefits to taxpayers, (though some of those services might be produced more efficiently in the private sector). However, as government as grown larger, the parasite economy--that is, the people who derive their livelihood from government spending and taxes--has flourished. The amount of government spending defines the potential "pie" from which the parasites ("rent seekers" to economists) try to siphon off income for themselves.[3]"

Read the full article here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-250.html#

Mallard Fillmore 9/14/06:

January 12, 2007

fireworks company, Pyrospectacular, dumped perchlorate

10:00 PM PST on Thursday, January 11, 2007

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_perch12.3621dbe.html#

By JENNIFER BOWLES
The Press-Enterprise

A long-awaited hearing on the Inland region's largest unabated plume of perchlorate pollution in groundwater is scheduled for March 23, officials said Thursday.
Story continues below

The hearing is aimed at assigning blame and cleanup of the plume of the rocket-fuel chemical, which pollutes a key drinking-water basin and stretches several miles below Rialto and Colton. It has shut down more than a dozen drinking-water wells that served some 150,000 residents in the two cities.

"I hope this will be a really big first step to cleaning up the entire perchlorate contamination. The polluters have to start going to work," said Davin Diaz, an activist with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice in San Bernardino.

Perchlorate, also used in road flares, fireworks and similar products, has been detected in the water supplies of Corona, Redlands, Fontana, Riverside and other Inland communities.

The chemical can interfere with the thyroid gland's ability to make hormones that guide brain and nerve development in fetuses, babies and young children.

The state has proposed a drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion. In the Rialto plume, tests have revealed that groundwater below the suspected source, a 160-acre industrial site in the northern end of the city, contains concentrations of perchlorate at 10,000 parts per billion.

The March hearing will act much like a trial. Regional water-quality investigators will present testimony from witnesses and evidence that workers at Goodrich Corp., a subsidiary of Black & Decker, and a local fireworks company, Pyrospectacular, dumped perchlorate on the ground or burned it in pits at the industrial site, where the chemical eventually seeped into the groundwater.

The three companies will have an opportunity to respond. Officials at Emhart, the subsidiary of Black & Decker, say that the company is the corporate successor of West Coast Loading -- which made perchlorate-containing flares and ground-burst simulators for the Army at the site from 1952 until 1957, said the company's attorney, Bob Wyatt.

January 6, 2007

Noise laws and regulations in Lakewood

We get lots of inquiries about "noise" on our site. As is typical of the Lakewood official city website it offers very little specific information so we have had to obtain the information from other sources.

"Ordinary" business and residential noises are acceptable between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. "Construction work" (we suspect this also includes yard and tree maintenance people) is permitted between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. This is governed by Lakewood Municipal codes.

The Lakewood Sheriff’s Station claims that it responds to complaints about loud parties, bands, and similar disturbances. Please call the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station at 562-623-3500, or better yet email them directly so you have a written there is a record of the complaint. There email addresses are on this site or contact us directly. There is no Lakewood Municipal code dealing with "noisy parties". California Penal Code section 415 deals with noise coming from parties and other unlawful gatherings:

Penal code section 415
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of
not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment
and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

Barking Dogs and other Noisy Animals:

When the City contracted with the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority in 1992, they adopted their uniform ordinance. Animal control sections within the municipal code were suspended and Ordinance No. 92-9 now controls. The following section is from that ordinance:

Section 911. NOISY ANIMALS. It is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and no person shall keep, maintain or permit upon any lot or parcel of land within the city under this control, any animal or animals including any fowl or fowls, which by any sound, or cry, shall interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an individual.

What is Good About A Barking Dog?

* Alerts owners of potential problems.
* Warns owners of a stranger's presence.
* Alerts neighbors of intruders when the owner is not home.
* Indicates an animal in distress.

What Is Bad About A Barking Dog?

* One dog barking usually starts another dog barking.
* Excessive barking is extremely annoying.
* Barking disturbing one's sleep is aggravating.
* Excessive noise disturbs those who are ill, shut-in, etc.
* Citizens can obtain a complaint for this code violation.
* Usually indicates a highly nervous or bored animal.
* Excessive barking can be harmful to dogs.
* Unless stopped, barking may develop into a type of hysteria.

Do You Own A Watchdog Or A Nuisance?
Determine for yourself whether your dog is a good companion and watchdog or a neighborhood noise nuisance by asking yourself these questions:

Does your dog bark excessively.....

* When someone rings your doorbell?
* When garbage collectors, mail carriers, paper carriers, etc. come to, or go by your house?
* When children are playing outside?
* When another animal comes into view?
* When hearing a siren?
* When wanting to get into the house?
* When you leave or get home?
* When left alone and lonely?

If your answer is "yes" to any of these questions, your dog could be a neighborhood nuisance. This disturbance of the peace is one of the quickest and most common ways to become a bad neighbor. Persistent barkers are more likely to be ignored if there is a real emergency since they seem to bark all the time.

What Can You Do About Your Barking Dog?

* Determine what causes the dog to bark.
* Dogs are less inclines to bark if a barrier blocks their view.
* Be alert to stop the barking as soon as it starts.
* Train you dog to respond to a command to be quiet.
* Reward your dog whenever it barks for a watchdog reason.
* Don't leave an animal unattended for long periods of time.
* Train your dog to stay quietly within its quarters when you are away.

Breaking A Bad Habit
The best cure for the barking habit is prevention early in a dog's life. If a dog already has a barking habit, then you must make efforts to correct the situation. Whatever training method you choose, be consistent and persistent with the animal. Simple scolding and punishment may be sufficient.

When left alone in a house, help the loneliness by leaving a radio on. To help either an indoor or outdoor dog with boredom, be sure to have some toys available for amusement. Don't make a big thing out of leaving or returning home; and overly excited dog is more likely to bark and yelp.

You may consider taking the animal to an obedience training school if the dog is too neurotic for an inexperienced trainer.

Your dog will soon learn that his silence pleases you.

Water Training Method
The Humane Society of the Unites States has endorsed a method of breaking the dog of a barking habit that is both inexpensive and humane. The solution is based on animal conditioning and the method is almost 100% effective when properly carried out.

Every time a dog barks unnecessarily, it is sprayed with water from a plant mister. The spray is harmless, but it stops the barking. Usually, a day or two of training is enough, as the dog learns to expect a squirt of water if it barks for the wrong reason. Be ready for an immediate response. Have a plant mister filled with water ready for use when needed. Say "QUIET" and give one or more squirts at the dog while it is barking. Spraying after it stops barking will confuse the dog. Repeat "QUIET" and give one more squirt of water each time the dog barks needlessly.

With this conditioning procedure, your dog will learn to expect a squirt of water when you say "QUIET," for once the dog has made the association you won't need to squirt the animal again, only when he forgets.

Remember to reassure the dog that you are still friends by petting him later when he is quiet.

The Responsibility Is Yours
As a dog owner, you know the companionship, loyalty, love, and fun that your dog adds to your life, but you must also realize your responsibility toward your neighbors. Dog owners are sometimes insensitive to the barking of their own dog. Put yourself in your neighbor's place to see how your dog's habits affect them. Excessive barking can be extremely annoying to neighbors as well as to those who have to live with a noisy dog. The security of knowing you have a real watch dog, as well as enjoying a peaceful and quiet neighborhood, is well worth the effort.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

January 3, 2007

Retiree costs in state could hit $100 billion

Public agencies must tell liabilities for workers

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5249827,00.html

By Timm Herdt, therdt@VenturaCountyStar.com
January 1, 2007

When Charles Weis took over as superintendent of the Ventura County Office of Education in 1993, he took a look at the agency's employee benefits package and envisioned a potential train wreck far into the future.

The agency was promising to pay the health insurance costs for employees after they retired, but it was putting no money aside each year to cover those distant financial liabilities and had no real idea of what those future costs might be.


"I ordered the business office staff to buy out those in the program," Weis said. "You can't allow employers to give away something they don't have to pay for 30 years."

Across California, however, government agencies have been doing precisely that for decades: promising their workers several years, or even a lifetime, of free or subsidized health insurance after they retire, but putting not a penny aside each year to pay those costs when the bills inevitably come due.

The practice remains commonplace in the public sector, even as large private employers have scrambled in recent years to pare down or scrap their retiree healthcare benefits.

A day of reckoning approaches, hastened by a new accounting regulation that takes effect in 2007.

When large government agencies close their books on the budgets they adopt in the coming year, they will have to tell the world how large the financial liabilities they have accrued after decades of, as Weis describes it, giving away a benefit that relied on future generations for payment.

Unlike pension benefits, which are funded over a worker's lifetime through annual contributions from employers and workers, retiree health insurance is typically financed on the pay-as-you-go plan, with all costs for current workers put off well into the future.

Today, the image of that looming train wreck that Weis envisioned years ago has become increasingly clear to auditors, government officials and taxpayer groups.

The state, its university systems, counties, cities, school districts, special districts, nearly all have obligated themselves to pay at least some level of health insurance premiums for a swelling pool of retirees, racking up unfunded liabilities that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates could total in excess of $100 billion.

Estimates of future costs

A new regulation adopted by the Government Accounting Standards Board will require all large government agencies to close out next fiscal year's books with financial notes estimating the future costs of paying for retiree health benefits.

Phased in over three years, the regulation will eventually apply to every government entity in the nation.

The numbers are expected to be sobering in all cases, horrifying in some.

An actuarial study completed for the Los Angeles Unified School District, which pays full lifetime healthcare benefits to 32,000 retirees and 18,000 of their family members, estimated the district's unfunded liability at $5 billion. It now spends up to 4 percent of its general fund to pay retiree health benefits; if the district were to begin putting enough money aside each year to eliminate the unfunded liability over 30 years, the cost of retiree health benefits would soar to as much as 20 percent of the district's annual budget.

It works out to about $2,000 per student, says former Assemblyman Keith Richman, who recently formed a nonprofit group that will be dedicated to educating the public about the costs of paying benefits to retired government workers.

"The issue can't be ignored," Richman said. "It's an extraordinary liability. ... We all ought to be concerned. It's the biggest fiscal issue facing California."

The Government Accounting Standards Board regulation has caught the attention of government officials at all levels.

The most dramatic reaction came last month when the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to stop paying $30 million a year for retiree health benefits.

County officials said the new accounting rule would force them to start prepaying future liabilities, a change that would cost the county an estimated $1.8 billion over the next 20 years.

After the new accounting rule was drafted two years ago, the California School Boards Association sent a survey to 1,000 school districts asking about their retiree health benefit policies. It received more than 600 responses.

"We saw that districts were worried about it," said Suzi Rader, director of the organization's district financial services division. "We saw that it was going to be a concern."

A 2003 survey conducted by the State Teachers' Retirement System found that districts covering 57 percent of retired teachers in California pay all or a portion of their retirees' health insurance.

Dwight Stenbakken of the League of California Cities said a survey went out last month to cities across the state as the association seeks ways to assist cities with an issue "that has been coming to the forefront."

The survey, he said, will allow cities to get "a statewide handle" on the size of cities' liabilities. "I suspect it's going to be tremendously substantial," he said.

As with every issue concerning healthcare, the severity of the problem is being driven by runaway costs. When the state first began offering group health insurance to employees in 1961, the premiums were $5 per employee per month. At that price, giving the benefit to retirees didn't seem an extraordinary burden.

In recent years, however, the cost of insurance premiums has soared. Since 2000, annual increases have averaged 17 percent, and the cost of providing health benefits to retired state workers has tripled in just the last nine years, topping $1 billion this year.

Number of retirees on rise

The state pays 100 percent of the premiums for a basic HMO plan for retirees and 90 percent of the premiums for their spouses, or $738 per month for each couple. Those who choose a more expansive health plan must pay the difference between that plan's higher cost and the base price of the HMO plan.

At the same time costs are rising, the pool of retirees is climbing by about 4 percent per year and could grow even faster, as an estimated 40 percent of the state's active work force is expected to retire within the next 10 years.

Calculating those two growth trends, the legislative analyst predicts that the state's annual cost for retiree healthcare will hit $1.6 billion in the 2010-11 fiscal year.

Financial analysts suggest a variety of strategies for dealing with the growing liabilities.

One approach many agencies have already adopted is to establish a multi-tier retiree benefit plan, keeping existing rules intact for current employees and creating less generous benefits for those hired after a certain date.

A report from the Ventura County Office of Education, for example, shows that the Pleasant Valley School District provides full lifetime benefits for teachers who worked for at least 10 years and retired at age 55 by June 30, 1984. The district policy provides gradually less generous benefits for those who retired after that date. The existing policy, which applies to all teachers hired after June 30, 1986, allows retirement at age 60, requires at least 15 years of service, caps benefits at $2,400 a year and stops the benefit entirely when retirees become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

Another approach that agencies can take is to prepay retiree benefits, in part by requiring monthly contributions from workers. The legislative analyst has recommended that the Legislature adopt this approach for state workers.

Stenbakken of the League of California Cities said the "state of the art" among cities is to pay as they go — paying each year's costs out of that year's budget. "Only a handful — and I mean two or three — are doing something to fund their costs up front."

Among them is the city of Simi Valley, which offers lifetime health benefits to police officers but deducts a portion of each officer's paycheck to put into a trust fund that will pay benefits after he or she retires.

Caryn Moore, an administrator in the state Department of Education's financial services division, said school districts are awakening to the need to put money aside each year to cover future retiree healthcare costs.

"To the extent that you delay annual funding, you make the problem worse," she said. "You really need to start funding this."

Weis said school districts in Ventura County might be a little ahead of the statewide curve on setting aside funds for these future liabilities.

"In our county, it's probably the rule rather than the exception," he said. "They may not be setting aside enough, but they're putting aside something."

Prefunding future benefits

Legislation enacted this year allows a number of counties, including Ventura, to start setting up accounts to prefund retiree health benefits.

Chief Executive Officer Johnny Johnston said the county already pays "a blended premium" that covers costs for both active and retired workers. An actuary has been retained to determine a precise figure, but Johnson estimated that Ventura County's unfunded liability for retiree health costs at between $15 million and $20 million, a significant, but manageable, amount.

The legislative analyst notes that prefunding future benefits will save agencies money in the long run as earnings on money deposited in trust accounts will offset direct contributions to the account.

Finally, agencies can consider eliminating retiree health benefits, although the legality of taking away a promised benefit is uncertain.

Courts have long established that retirement pensions, once promised, become a vested right that cannot be taken away from a retiree or employee. Whether retiree health benefits are a vested right is an unsettled legal question.

"You'll hear people argue everything from it's a vested right to districts can take it away whenever they want," said Rader of the School Boards Association. "That is a question that will end up in the courts, and we haven't seen any public ruling yet."

She notes that one state court outside California has ruled agencies cannot rescind promised health insurance benefits to those who have already retired, but can rescind the promise for those who have not yet retired.

Richman, who unsuccessfully crusaded for reform of retiree benefits in his six years in the Assembly, said he does not believe that the Legislature will be able to confront the issue because of the political influence of public employee unions, which do not want to see retiree benefits reduced.

Noting the strong negative reaction in 2005 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger talked of reforming public employee pensions, Richman said it will be a challenge to propose reforms that won't be interpreted by the public as an attack on teachers, firefighters, police officers and other valued public employees.

He hopes that the nonprofit advocacy group he has formed will be able to able to lay the groundwork for a possible ballot initiative designed to limit taxpayers' future liabilities for paying for retiree pension and healthcare benefits.

Richman advocates an approach he says will not reduce benefits and not be punitive: raise the retirement age for public workers.

"Private sector workers are working to age 65 or 68 paying taxes so that miscellaneous government employees can retire at 55," he said.

Richman believes that there are legitimate reasons to allow police officers and firefighters to retire at 55, but if all other government workers had to wait until age 65 to start collecting benefits, the system could be made financially sound.

Workers would pay into their pension funds for 10 more years and draw 10 fewer years of benefits. In addition, current assets invested in pension funds would double over that 10-year period.

Medicare eligibility

The pension savings, Richman believes, could be enough to cover unfunded liabilities for retiree health insurance. Future costs would be substantially lower, because 65-year-old retirees would immediately be eligible for Medicare.

"I don't have any issue with offering some benefit for retiree healthcare that's a supplement to Medicare," he said.

Richman and others who have sought to shine light on the financial implications of unfunded retiree benefit expenses believe that the

Government Accounting Standards Board rule will focus the attention of policymakers and the public.

Weis, whose office is legally responsible for reviewing the finances of all school districts in Ventura County, said the new regulation will provide his auditors with important new information.

"My folks who read over the district budgets will be looking at this closely," he said. "That's the issue we'll be looking at for fiscal solvency."

governor puts off into future any serious consideration of pension, health-care debt

Wednesday, January 3, 2007
He'll be retired before reforms are made
The governor puts off into future any serious consideration of pension, health-care debt

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1404696.php

When politicians face a major problem but lack the courage to propose a plan to actually fix it, they typically adopt the standard dodge: create a "blue ribbon" commission to study the problem. Often some of the appointees to such panels are part of the problem, which only assures that nothing of any substance ultimately will be adopted.

That's exactly the approach Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took with the state's unfunded retirement liability problem – the long-term debt faced by taxpayers to make good on the pension and health-care promises made to the state's large class of government workers. The governor last week signed an executive order that established the Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission, charged with making recommendations after a year of study.

Some observers have praised him for at least recognizing a true problem, but this commission will do nothing more than delay by a year any real-world solution to such debt.

"Promised pensions and health benefits are vitally important to state workers and their families, especially public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day," the governor said in a statement. "And they are obligations that must – and will – be paid by government. Soaring obligations of this type, however, also remain one of the biggest problems facing governments everywhere for the simple reason that rising pension and retiree health care costs mean less money for other government programs such as education, public safety, environmental protection and health care."

The governor at least got it right about how big a problem these retirement promises represent. As his office pointed out, unfunded pension liabilities for the state's two main government pension systems amount to $49 billion and will go much higher after a federally mandated change in accounting practices forces governments to deal honestly with the full liability. The health care debt is estimated at $40 billion to $70 billion. In 2001, the governor's office explained, the direct annual cost to the state budget for pensions was $160 million. It's now $2.6 billion.

At this rate, if something is not done to control these benefits, taxpayers will have to pay far more in taxes or in new debt.

The governor did not really deal with the reason for the run-up in liabilities: Employee unions, especially those in public safety, have secured enormous increases in already generous benefits in recent years. Police and firefighters can retire with 100 percent of their final pay, and full health care benefits, guaranteed forever. Other government employees can retire with more than 80 percent of their final year's pay, such as Orange County employees, who received a retroactive pension spike a few years ago.

Compare those benefits with the 401-k-style plans and Social Security that most private sector workers will depend upon.

This is not only unsustainable, but unfair. As government employees retire at earlier ages with nearly full pay and Cadillac-style health benefits, many private-sector employees delay retirement and depend on benefits from the federal government's creaky retirement systems.

The Schwarzenegger executive order was lauded by some union officials. That should offer a hint that the commission will propose nothing that will fix the above-mentioned problem. In 2005, the governor had proposed pension reform, but did not push forward with it after he ran into political problems. Since then, he has abandoned any effort to reform the current system.

The technical solutions are fairly straightforward, albeit politically difficult to accomplish. Current government workers by law must receive their promised benefits, but new workers should be shifted from a defined-benefit plan with guaranteed benefits to a defined-contribution plan similar to those in the private sector. Health benefits, which can legally be changed, need to be trimmed back to real-world levels. Furthermore, the state government needs to slow spending, trim the size of government and start shutting down unnecessary departments.

Instead of doing any of that, the governor wants to spend a year gabbing about the problem in a commission that will be dominated by union members and Democrats who will resist any serious reform. What else would one expect from a governor who seems more interested in being liked than in fixing the state's serious problems?

December 30, 2006

Let's See if we can dupe the Taxpayers

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pensions30dec30,0,2127262,full.story?coll=la-home-local

This article is scary as it shows the politicians (whores for votes) have no back bone to stand up to either the taxpaying voters OR the public employee unions so they will let the unions take their campaign to the the voters to see if they can get the poor private sector voters to approve pension plans worth two to three times what their own private sector pensions are worth! And knowing how stupid voters are in approving bonds (they don't cost taxpayers right?!) they will give billions away to very un-deserving public employees. Are Californians as smart as taxpayers in New Jersey that have already caught onto this scam and are fighting for their lives (or their own future retirements) against the greedy union employees retiring at 50?

S.F. is seen as a model of -- restraint?
The city has controlled employee pension costs by putting plans to hike benefits to public votes.

By Evan Halper
LA Times Staff Writer

December 30, 2006

SACRAMENTO — San Diego flirted with bankruptcy. Orange County, still emerging from its mid-'90s cash crisis, moved back toward the brink. And in Fresno County, the grand jury recently declared that public employee retirement costs have that government "facing insurmountable debt in the near future."

Statewide, governments are rattled by the soaring price of public pensions expanded by politicians at the bargaining table and gobbling up an increasing share of taxpayer dollars. But a rare exception has emerged in an unexpected place: San Francisco.

Even as a bulwark of organized labor, the city has kept its pension costs in check while many others are digging deep into their general funds to pay for benefits that taxpayers were assured would cost nothing.

Why is San Francisco different? Politicians there can't give much away; a century-old provision in the City Charter prohibits it. The only group empowered to enhance government benefits is the public, which must sign off on changes in the municipal pension plans at the ballot box.

The provision was unique to San Francisco until last month, when San Diego voters overwhelmingly decided that they too would like a say in such matters. Now the gospel of voter oversight is spreading.

"There is no question that it has been a sobering force for any aggressive or ambitious union seeking to improve benefits," said former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos. "They know they can't rely on the politicians who are anxious to please them. Any proposal ultimately goes to the voters. They are the ultimate bankers."

The city's officials say the rule has helped save San Francisco from itself in recent years. When other governments kept constituents in the dark about their actuarial assumptions — such as an unending stock market boom — as they raised pension benefits in the late 1990s, San Francisco officials had to explain exactly where the money for benefits would come from, and then get voters' permission.

In the last decade, residents there have approved at least four benefit increases — moderate ones.

"If you need to win a majority of voters, you are more careful what you ask for," said Claire Murphy, executive director of the city's retirement fund.

The only proposal voters rejected in that period was a 1996 initiative championed by former Mayor Willie Brown to give him the authority to cut deals with public employee unions on his own — without having to go to the ballot.

Not everyone is a fan of San Francisco's policy.

"Our preference would be to amend the charter so we wouldn't have to have voters involved," said Maria Guillen, regional vice president of Service Employees International Union Local 790 in San Francisco.

Guillen said that, although the public may be sympathetic to police officers and firefighters, getting voters to sign off on retirement benefits for other government workers is another matter. People aren't as eager to rush to the polls to support street sweepers and custodians, she said, and their benefits are falling far behind.

"We don't have the same public relations," she said. "We have a harder route. And these are the workers that do so much to make the city run."

Many pension fund managers also are skeptical.

"I don't think employee compensation issues should be subjected to the politics inevitably injected into any debate that includes a vote of the people," said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Assn. of State Retirement Administrators, "just as you wouldn't want people voting on how much water should be let out of a dam, or what neighborhoods police should patrol at night."

But he also acknowledged that the San Francisco model "looks like it's working."

The city's fund is on target to have more than enough money to pay all of the cash retirement benefits promised to its employees. Orange County and San Diego are short about 30%. That translates into billions of dollars, and residents could be forced to make it up by sacrificing services or enduring tax hikes. Scores of other local government funds also are struggling.

And the state's giant public employee pension plans are short tens of billions of dollars, despite impressive returns for pension funds from the stock market, real estate, venture capital and hedge fund investments in recent years.

Many experts blame politics. Elected officials, they say, want to reward government employees — and endear themselves to the politically powerful unions behind them — but don't want to confront taxpayers about the true cost of increasing benefits.

So they mask the price tag with overly optimistic investment projections and other maneuvers. It isn't until years later, when the higher benefits kick in or the stock market dips, that voters get the picture.

"No one is minding the store," said J. Fred Giertz, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "Politicians give out the benefit increases to keep the employees happy, and they also keep taxpayers happy because they can do it without raising taxes at that moment. But the burden gets passed on to the future."

Brainard, of the retirement administrators group, says the solution to runaway pension costs is not bringing every contract to the ballot, but bringing more transparency and oversight to the bargaining process.

He points to Georgia, which has strict rules in place to ensure that politicians cannot increase benefits without having the funds to cover the cost. Georgia is one of the few states not facing a large shortfall in its pension funds.

But in San Diego, where lack of disclosure about a multibillion-dollar tab for enhanced public pension benefits led to federal sanctions for securities fraud, voters decided that they wanted to go a step further. Last month, nearly 70% of them cast ballots in favor of putting the San Francisco model in place in their city. All future benefit increases must go through them.

Unions bitterly fought the proposal, saying it would cripple the city's ability to attract quality police officers and firefighters.

"San Diego already has one of the lowest ratios of police officers and firefighters per population in the state," said the ballot argument opposing the measure. "Proposition B will only make that problem worse."

Former San Francisco Mayor Agnos calls such arguments "purely special-interest rhetoric." He said his city has had no problem attracting job applicants.

Now activists hope Orange County will follow suit. One is George Passantino, a senior fellow at the libertarian Reason Foundation.

Passantino sees the irony of looking for solutions in the liberal city that activists such as him love to hate. But there is no denying it, he said: "San Francisco is way ahead of the curve."

evan.halper@latimes.com

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Public pension funding

Most of California's large public retirement funds lack enough money to cover benefits promised to government workers. But San Francisco's fund has a surplus.

Retirement plan Surplus/ Percent Value of
shortfall funded assets
(in billions) (in billions)
San Francisco +$0.42 103.8% $11.3
City of San Diego -1.4 68.0 3.6
City of Los Angeles -2.1 77.2 7.2
Orange County -2.3 71.5 5.8
Los Angeles County -5.6 82.8 27.0
California State Tchrs -20.3 87.0 157.0


Sources: National Assn. of State Retirement Administrators, Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System, Orange County Employees Retirement System, San Diego City Employees Retirement System.

December 29, 2006

Governor creates pension task force

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs an order creating the Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission in his hospital room in Santa Monica on Thursday.

Keith Matheny
The Desert Sun
December 29, 2006
http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20061229

As President Bush did with the Iraq Study Group, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is turning to a new assembly of minds for new ideas to address a worsening problem.

The new group's task: find solutions for California's fast-growing, budget-sapping public employee retirement benefit costs.

The new commission Schwarzenegger created will have six members appointed by the governor; three by the Assembly speaker and three by the president pro tem of the state Senate. The Democrats control both the Assembly and Senate. State Sen. Jim Battin, R-La Quinta, applauded the governor's move.

"You've got to sit down and have a realistic conversation," he said. "We cannot continue to operate the way we are. It will eventually bankrupt the state."

The group is to provide to the governor and Legislature by Jan. 1, 2008, a report that:

Identifies the full amount of unfunded post-retirement health care and dental benefits for which California governments are liable. It's estimated at $40 billion to $70 billion;

Evaluate and compare various approaches to address governments' unfunded retiree health care and pension obligations;

Propose a plan for addressing the unfunded obligations.

State Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, D-San Diego, the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, is cautiously optimistic about what may come from the new commission.

"I always get a little nervous when we're forming another commission," she said.

But employee pensions and retiree health care, she said, "is an issue we really need to look at.

"If we get good people and they hear good information, hopefully they will come up with something that they can present to us in the Legislature that we can use intelligently."

Costs dramatically rise
California state employees' pensions went from costing $160 million annually in 2001 to $2.6 billion this year. Unfunded pension liabilities for the California Public Employee Retirement Service, or CalPERS, and the California State Teachers Retirement Service, or CalSTRS, are at $49 billion.

A new accounting rule going into effect next year will require governments to more fully disclose their long-term retiree health care obligations. A state Legislative Analyst's Office report from February estimates that will reveal an unfunded liability of between $40 billion and $70 billion for state workers and their dependants.

The report recommends that the state set aside $6 billion a year, in addition to the $1 billion it currently spends on such costs.

Schwarzenegger, in his January 2005 State of the State address, touted as a cost-saving measure a state constitutional amendment to transition state employee pensions away from traditional, defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans such as 401(k)'s.

That effort was shouted down within a half-year, with critics including public employee unions arguing the reforms would wipe out orphan and widow death benefits for firefighters and police officers, an assertion Schwarzenegger and proponents denied.

Striking a more moderate tone since defeat of his special election measures in 2005, Schwarzenegger is now re-engaging the issue of public employee retirement costs with Democrats and union officials at the table.

"The governor wanted to continue looking at this issue very seriously, and wanted to do it in a bipartisan way," said Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's deputy chief of staff for communications.

Union officials Thursday expressed willingness to work toward solutions.

Joe Kerr, president of the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, noted that to address his department's retiree health care debt, the county contributed an additional $7 million; the union contributed $1 million; and employees agreed to forgo an annual 3 percent cost of living adjustment.

"It comes down to assisting your employer in being around, because if your employer isn't going to be around, it doesn't help employees any," Kerr said.

Though the commission is tasked with considering all options in dealing with the escalating benefits cost, one won't be supported by Schwarzenegger, Mendelsohn said - tax increases.

There's only two paths to take to reduce retiree health care liabilities: contribute more money or reduce the costs by reducing the benefits provided, said Jason Dickerson, the principal fiscal and policy analyst for the state Legislative Analyst's Office.

Both approaches are difficult and have political ramifications, he said.

"There are no easy answers here," he said. "These are difficult changes with a lot of dollars involved both for governments and public employees' families."

The Palm Springs City Council just last week agreed to use about $20 million in bonds to pay for its city's unfunded liabilities.

Riverside County borrowed $400 million through bonds to help pay off its retirement costs.

SOARING COSTS: PAYING FOR PUBLIC RETIREMENTS
The complete story

Alarming numbers
# The skyrocketing costs of retirement benefits for public employees will be a yearlong topic of discussion for a new commission formed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Among the issues causing concern - including some first reported in a Desert Sun investigation published earlier this month:
# State retirement systems for government workers and teachers, CalPERS and CalSTRS, have a combined unfunded pension liability of $49 billion.
# California may owe between $40 billion and $70 billion in promised but currently unfunded long-term retiree health care for state workers. New accounting standards will soon require a full accounting for the long-term debt.
# Coachella Valley cities' pension savings were wiped out when the stock market crashed around 2000. Now they face a collective $51 million unfunded liability.
Cathedral City's population has increased almost 70 percent since 1990. Its emergency fire calls tripled in that time. The cost to run the city fire department jumped almost $1.7 million in the past five years alone.
# Yet the city's number of firefighters has remained virtually unchanged for nearly two decades because the costs of benefits prohibits them from hiring more staff.
# Palm Springs and Cathedral City fire departments often run engines with only two firefighters, instead of the recommended four or five. It can cause delays in responding to emergencies.
Coachella Valley's three school districts have a combined $114.5 million retiree health care liability.

December 27, 2006

JON COUPAL: Public retirees feast as others pay piper

Article reposted from LA Daily News opinion section 12/26/06
http://www.dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_4904477

'TIS the season, and the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future are about to visit themselves on local governments as retribution for their wastrel ways.

Cities, counties and school districts have provided public employees a perpetual Christmas gift - consisting of lavish pensions and health care benefits - for years. But beginning soon, new guidelines by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board will require full disclosure of these unfunded government liabilities.

Since most California agencies operate on a fiscal year that begins in July, and they are not required to fully report until the end of the fiscal year, sticker shock will not actually hit the fan until 2008. But the tension in some administrative offices already is palpable. When taxpayers see what has been wrought by their elected representatives - and face higher taxes or service reductions to pay for retirement benefits that are often vastly superior to their own - the backlash will be severe.

According to Steve Frates of the Center for Government Analysis, annual health care costs in California for state and local government retirees are expected to total at least $4.5 billion this year. This figure could swell to $31.5 billion by 2019. In January, Frates will release results of a study of the other major unfunded government liability, pensions.

San Diego is the poster child for local elected officials' eagerness to give public-employee unions everything they want - even if they have to bend the law - to advance their own political security. Unrealistic promises to San Diego employees have put the city, known to many as "Enron by the Sea," on the verge of financial collapse.

In Orange County, John Moorlach, newly elected supervisor and former county treasurer, warns that recent generous pension agreements are pushing the county toward its second bankruptcy in a dozen years.

How did governments get themselves and taxpayers into this bind? Public employee unions go all out to elect "their" candidates to office. When it comes time to negotiate pay - the U.S. Census Bureau says California has the highest-paid public employees in the nation - and benefits, the unions have representatives on both sides of the table.

One of the few drawbacks to term limits is that elected officials who make these sweetheart deals will not be around long enough to face the consequences. They can approve these irresponsible deals and lock in union gratitude as they attempt to prolong their careers by seeking higher office.

And the expense to taxpayers will be more than just the cost of benefits. Just wait until government entities try peddling bonds and the rating agencies ask for their Governmental Accounting Standards Board number - or estimated liability. With these mammoth unpaid liabilities, the interest rate to lure bond buyers will be usurious, costing governments - and ultimately taxpayers - billions more.

Things are going to get much worse before they get better, but at least the new accounting rules will force our spendthrift representatives to confront fiscal reality and start working on solutions. Either that, or they will be tossed from office.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Contact him through the organization's Web site, www.hjta.org.