Posted on 07/03/2007 9:08:41 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration on Tuesday lost a long-running court battle over its plan to sell bonds to cover the state's public employee pension costs.
The ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal could complicate negotiations over the state's already overdue budget. Republican lawmakers are holding up the $104 billion spending plan in part because they believe it will leave California with an unmanageably large budget deficit next year.
Tuesday's ruling may only add to that concern, depriving the state of more than $500 million to help close the estimated $5 billion-plus deficit in the 2008-09 budget year.
Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders have proposed balancing the current, 2007-08 fiscal year budget with billions of dollars from a prior-year tax windfall. That money will run out by the time officials begin drafting the budget that begins on July 1, 2008.
Consumer rights and anti-tax groups praised Tuesday's ruling. They said it set an important precedent limiting the state's ability to borrow money to pay ongoing expenses without voter approval.
"If they had gotten permission to do this, we could have seen massive deficit spending," said Harold Johnson, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which fought the bonds. "It's a big victory and a sobering message for the spendthrifts in the Legislature. They can't use the credit card to cover ongoing costs of government."
Former Gov. Gray Davis' administration designed the pension bond plan.
In 2004, Schwarzenegger endorsed the plan. He proposed paying a portion of the state's annual contribution to the Public Employee Retirement System with money raised from a $560 million bond sale.
Schwarzenegger's administration argued the state did not need voters' approval to do so.
But a three-judge panel on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that said voters - or two-thirds of the Legislature - had to approve the use of bond money to pay the state's pension obligation.
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Schwarzenegger's Finance Department, said the administration would not appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
The administration did recently prevail in another court case involving welfare payments that would have cost the state about $500 million. However, California's nonpartisan legislative analyst calculates the state faces $2 billion in potential costs from other ongoing court battles.
The best pension plan is to buy investment real estate and put the equity into indexed universal life. Outruns 401k or IRA by 2.5-3:1
Ok, if you say so...
I know CA teachers who are retired at 100%.
Oh, I’m not the only one who says so.
What is the formula used by their district and how old were they?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
He rolled when he couldn’t beat the teacher’s union and nurses propaganda advertising. He wants to be senator next donchano!
Here’s an example. 2.5% x 40 years would be 100% if their contract has no cap on retirement. So a 23 year old could retire at 63 with 100 if that was their contract.
....figures. :/
California has since Johnson’s war on poverty. It does exist. However it is designed to be a failure, and eventually will fall on its’ rear.
.....well, after twenty years....Police/firefighter (hazardous positions).....*ugh* corrupt politicians/bureaucrats.
The formula’s I found say minimum age of 50. Please tell me which Cal employees can retire in their 40s.
what does this mean for Arnold? will he now have to start acting like a Republican on budget issues?
Are you being sarcastic? This is nothing more than evidence of how far to the left he's gone. The "end of partisanship" means that Republicans should surrender and go home."
No, sir, what will happen is that the politicians will look at your 401k (and mine) when you retire, realize what a honey pot it is, declare you (and me) to be the evil rich who stole everything you have from the poor, and take your (and my) 401k in the name of "fairness". They'll do it when you're at an age when you're too old to recover, and too feeble to revolt against them. That's what will happen. Bank on it.
Heck no! The man has grown government faster than a Dem could have dreamed and to finance it, he's deferred, borrowed (this time unsuccessfully), raised fees, and entered into special deals with Indian tribes. But the next big scheme will come as he pumps up the volume for his proposed Public Private Partnerships, helping his cohorts loot Government assets if they will pump some one time cash into the State's revenue coffers, in return. Think about the possibilities of his privatization deals: tollroads, bridges, ports, other privately run highways, schools, housing, security, etc. This man has 3 more years to payoff his donors through sweet deals and favorable legislation. He's only halfway done in his 2 term governorship. Hang on!
Interesting point. I have been struck by the fact that the "post-partisan" politicians that Arnold has been hanging with - Bloomberg and that lady from Arizona with the short hair - all seem very liberal. So "post partisan" really means "post-conservative"? Partisanship ends because conservatives give up? Is that what it's about?
So how do you really feel about your governor? LOL!
I’ve got a 4-H to attend to... See ya!
Apparently so. Based on Arnold's policies since the end of partisanship all we have seen is liberalism and big government. I work in the same building as he does, so I have a firsthand perspective. We have returned to the Davis Administration. The only thing left for Arnold to do is to make Davis himself Governor again. If he could find a way, I expect he would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.