Beware the billionaires behind pension reform

03.01.11 - 6:40 pm | Sarah Phelan |

(51)

SEIU Local 1021 leader Gabriel Haaland just pointed me to a Chronicle op-ed in which David Crane asks if public employees should have collective bargaining rights:

The Chron describes Crane as a Democrat, who was an adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and now lectures on public policy at Stanford University and serves on the UC Board of Regents and the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

But Haaland points out that Crane is also the multi-millionaire former investment banker who donated $37, 500 to Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s failed Measure B, last fall.

“And the Capitol Weekly reported that after Schwarzenegger’s 2005 State of the State Address, Crane said he would support any effort by the Governor to eliminate pensions for government workers, which he described as ‘burdensome special privileges,’” Haaland continued in a recent Facebook post.

Actually, Crane went a whole lot further than that, according to a 2006 blog post that describes Crane’s free-market economic philosophy as sounding “distinctly libertarian.”

“He advocates against government intervention in private business and touts his admiration for conservative economist Milton Friedman,” wrote UC Berkeley graduate and former Capitol Weekly reporter Shane Goldmacher on the California Observer blog.

Goldmacher also noted that Crane called defined benefit pensions "non-market deals,” saw minimum wage as a "market distorting mechanism,” and endorsed Schwarzenegger’s defined contribution pension proposal in 2005.

"All the governor proposed would be a limitation to some of these special privileges held by government employees, “ Crane reportedly said.

But Crane isn’t the only billionaire behind Measure B’s curtain. As Haaland points out in a recent SEIU flyer that says, “Beware the Billionaires, Stop the Attacks on Public Workers,” one of Prop. B’s biggest donors was Howard Leach, a billionaire financier and investor who served as George W. Bush’s ambassador to France.

“”Leach was a Republican ‘pioneer,’ raising more than $100,000 for Bush’s campaign,” the SEIU flyer notes. “He also contributes to the Republican Governors’ Association, whose main objective was the election of the new crop of conservative governors pushing anti-worker measures in Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin and other states.”

The SEIU flyer also identifies billionaire venture capitalist, Michael Moritz, as “a major financial backer of Ohio Governor John Kasich and contributed to the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee.”

Now, it should be noted that SEIU and other unions countered these billionaires’ contributions and will doubtless do so again this fall if Adachi goes ahead and puts a modified Measure B on the fall ballot. But SEIU's flyer suggests that folks need to wake to the fact that a bunch of extremely rich people were lurking behind the pension reform curtain, last fall, are likely waiting in the wings to finance another attempt this fall.

And Haaland recommends that folks start tracking what these funders have been doing with their money elsewhere.

“My point is that we need to get beyond asking whether Gavin Newsom was opposing Measure B and onto questions of who Adachi’s financial backers will be for his new pension reform proposition,” Haaland said.

Pension reform

Comments

Great job, Sarah! You beat

Great job, Sarah! You beat me to the punch. I was just about to list the latest backers of Son of B and their agenda. I think it's important to realize that the campaign to crush unions is being orchestrated by Republicans and Democrats alike...and even some so-called "progressives". And people should understand that this is a highly orchestrated campaign to break the backs of the unions, which has been in the works for a long time.

As Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs says, "these billionaires have been doing is buying up the whole Congress, now buying up the governors to make sure they never have to pay taxes again. And then we have these huge budget deficits because they don’t pay taxes any more. And what do they want to do? Cut the benefits for the poor, cut the education, stipends, cut the wages of the teachers.

This is, it’s unbelievable, the game that’s going on in this country. A little bit of it was exposed today, but this is absolutely vile, given what’s been happening in the last twenty years. We’ve got workers going down, we’ve got billionaires soaring and they’re doing everything they can to put in that final twist."

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

So we should ignore anyone with money but

hang on to every word that a union organizer says?

Posted by Wally on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 8:22 am

Gabriel speaks

and Sarah writes.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

You forgot to mention Crane is a Democrat.

Good lord, you people are getting pretty pathetic on this issue. You know, some Democrats care that we are going to have fewer cops on the street next year and even fewer the year after that and so on, or that our streets are falling apart and we are borrowing money to fix them. The Mayor is calling for employee pension and health reforms three to four times Prop B's savings/reforms and you are still whining.

The funny part is that you are railing against Adachi's "billionaires" and even with his contributors, he was still outspent by the unions including independent expenditures from Stand Up for "Working Families" (working 'til 55). Unions have more money than god.

And you throw in that the workers of Wisconsin ALREADY AGREED TO the same types of reforms and you look even more pathetic- give it a rest.

Not a single reporter at SFBG even understands the depth of the City's financial problems as it relates to employee benefits so you are left to regurgitating union rep talking points- please go bankrupt another CIty. Adachi's mistake is that he was about 12 months ahead of the curve.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 11:19 pm

In this wacky libertarian

In this wacky libertarian world, people without property are taxed in order to provide policing to protect the property of very wealthy people?

Why can't these billionaires take personal responsibility for their own security instead of forcing public employees to take the hit so that billionaires can outsource responsibility for policing to those who have little or nothing to protect?

I mean, there were two violent crimes two fucking blocks from the Mission cop shop and the SFPD's response was to blame the neighborhood. See Mission Local:

'“There’s a lot of gang banging, a lot of prostitution,” said one law enforcement official who asked not to be identified. “I’m not surprised that violence has popped up there. And then you have the hipsters coming around to the nightspots. There’s a lot of people looking for drugs, so that all works well together. It makes for a thriving community.”'

http://missionlocal.org/2011/02/stretch-of-mission-where-saturdays-fatal...

The SFPD is paid for by those who have little to protect those who have much. Given their lack of desire to do their job, perhaps it would not be so bad to have fewer on the streets, perhaps it would be a progressive advance were those nonexistent cops not providing a drain on the retirement system?

-marc

Posted by marcos on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 11:15 am

I am confused?

I am confused?

Posted by Patrick Brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

And, What about Chiu's

And,

What about Chiu's ties to the Republican National Committee? And, labor's to Warren Hellman whom they worship and who tripled and more the hit on labor to address the tsunami from Jeff's 100 million to 300-400 million?

Sarah, when you don't tell all of the story it's the same as writing a lie. An old Chronicle wise man wrote:

"The definition of a 'lie' is withholding all or part of the
truth from someone who has a right to know it."

Thus, you're a liar. Haaland? At least you were honest about who really wrote the article. It's hard to believe how Gabriel moves y'all around like pawns. Redmond even let him sit in on candidate interviews in the last election cycle.

Balance your story. Write about labor and their billionaire coming up with a plan that causes triple the pain to the rank and file. Or, won't Haaland let you?

Adachi for Mayor!

And, as always, Go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 11:51 pm

Don't you relish the irony of

Don't you relish the irony of H. Brown making hay of David Chiu's ties to RNC fat cats, as he turns a blind eye to Adachi's biggest donor, Howard Leach, the GOP billionaire who raised more than $100,000 for G.W. Bush’s campaign? Or the fact that Leach has contributed to conservative governors pushing anti-worker measures in several states (thank you, Sarah).

Oh, and I hate to bring inconvenient facts to h.'s attention, like the transparent union busting of Schwarzeneggar advisor David Crane who wrote an op-ed in the Chron questioning the right of public employees to engage in collective bargaining? (shades of Walker?)

Funny, I don't recall that Hellman contributed so much as a dime to the unions. In fact, show me one damn billionarie who has actually contributed big bucks to the workers' cause. Fact is, it was working men and women who chipped in their hard-earned pay to fund that effort. If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

And let's not forget that it was Hellman who gave a hefty chunk ($50k worth) to fund Adachi's misguided measure. Goodness, I don't believe he got a refund on that, did he? And perhaps we should overlook the fact that Hellman has indicated that his support for workers (if you can call it that) is only "temporary". He has made it clear that he will shift back to the Adachi's side if he's not satisfied with the effort to come up with a viable alternative. Best not to bite the hand that's feeds you, eh h.?

And by all means, let's hear H. Brown's attempt to explain away Mike Moritz's contribution to Ohio Governor John Kasich ($11,000), who makes no bones about his pro-Tea party agenda. (to refresh your memory, Moritz was the primary backer of the original Prop B.) Nary a peep about that, eh hombre?

Ya know, you used to be a rather good muckraker/ blogger. But lately, it appears that you've allowed your friendships with Adachi and his "number 2" to cloud your judgment. Pity.

Posted by Lisa Pe on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

The road to hell...

btw, I think you were right to call David Chiu out for his odious ties. But you can't turn around and pretend that Adachi hasn't courted similar backers to fund his pet project. Now, I'm sure that Jeff has the best of intentions. But any journalist worth his/her salt would question these alliances.

Posted by Lisa Pelletier on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

Tea baggers.

Tea baggers.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 11:56 pm

hunh

Do you ever ask Haaland about helping unionize the Bay Guardian?

Posted by knuckles on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 12:16 am

Conspiracy anyone?

Conspiracy anyone?

Someone who knows Bruce lots better than I do told me that his excuse for crushing the union organizing effort at the Guardian was that the organizers were from the same union that represented workers at the Chronicle and that he'd just won a few million in settlement money from the Chron and thought he'd sic'd their union on him.

Thank God it wasn't just to put more money in his own pocket.

Denials please.

Go giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 1:34 am

Are you interested in

Are you interested in following the money or attacking the messenger?

Posted by sarah on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 10:37 am

following the money

Follow the money to any number of billionaires results in money handed out to the left and the right.

Following the money leads to; SEIU, the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, the Christian Coalition, the Cato institute and then some billionaire.

Following the money leads to studies financed; by unions, business groups, and environmentalists.

One side only follows some money and views it in a certain way. The money spent by right wing billionaires is in defense of the millions spent by the left, in the view of the far right. That same money is an "attack" on the left, in the world view of the left.

This is a chicken/egg dilemma, your money is corrupt and our money is golden.

Posted by meatlock on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 11:21 am

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0

The city's campaign contribution archive shows that less than 500 people donated a total of $1 million in support of Adachi’s Measure B. And that unions, collectively representing the 25,000 local workers who chose to donate $2 per pay check for political purposes last year, donated $1 million to fight Measure B. Those are the facts on the ground. And you can follow the money yourself by checking the city’s electronic campaign archives here: http://nf4.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=sfo

Posted by sarah on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

Sarah, When anyone in

Sarah,

When anyone in this town writes crap that I read, I respond to it. What you've written is crap. Tell both sides of the story or you're not a real journalist. You're simply just another shill. And, as mentioned, a pawn of unions whom your employer has spent 4 decades shutting out of your workplace.

You ready to organize a union at the Bay Guardian, Sarah?

Yeah, I know. You just drive the car.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

H, you make shit up

Gabriel has never sat in on a candidate interview unless the candidate invited him (and as you personally know, h., candidates can bring whoever they want when they come in for interviews. I believe Matt Gonzalez brought you, did he not? Amazing we endorsed him anyway.

The interviews are conducted by the Guardian staff. Where do you get this stuff?

Posted by tim on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

RE: " fewer cops on the street next year"

"some Democrats care that we are going to have fewer cops on the street next year and even fewer the year after that and so on"
- Guest on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 11:19 pm

Maybe "some democrats", as well as republicans, or any other concerned San Franciscans should take a moment to consider whether we want quantity or quality when it comes to our police officers.
Weeding out the bad ones will save San Francisco millions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements, leaving room for our good cops to do their jobs more efficiently and to enjoy the trust and appreciation from the community that they are paid to serve.
We also need to get rid of all the gold plated middle and upper management that sucks more millions of taxpayer's dollars out of the system every year.
In fact, this could be done across the board, at Rec and Park, especially at Muni, pretty much every city department.
Let's not kill off the unions, lets just pull off a billion dollars or so of leeches that produce very little in the way of public service.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 2:33 pm

Tim, I got it from Steven

Tim,

I got it from Steven T. Jones. Ever heard of him? He must have been referring to the instance/s (?) in which, as you say, candidates brought him into the interviews. And, I don't recall ever being in an interview at your place or anywhere else with you when Gonzo was a candidate. Can you validate that or are you just running at the mouth?

Miss Pe,

My argument against Chiu is that he's a stone liar and manipulator. Adachi has always been honest and forthwith. You should judge people on their deeds and Chiu has given us a Board run by Moderates on the Budget and Rules committees which are the bigee's. He's given us a Willie Brown tool (Ed Lee) as Mayor. In fact, we have the most conservatively oriented Board since Babs Kaufman's last time around as Board prez. And, your name sounds familiar, were you with David and Matt Fong when they founded Grassroots?

Go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

Tim is right, you make shit up, h.

Listen, I'm no fan of David Chiu, nor do I see what any of this has to do with the price of tea. If your strategy is to spread lies and innuendo about folks you disagree with, you're no better than Chiu, are you? You don't know me, so I'll thank you not to associate me with people I've never met nor care to.

Back on topic~ I asked you a simple question, h., and you couldn't answer it. So you went on the offensive by attacking me, Sarah, Tim...and anyone else who dared to challenge you. Way to dodge an issue!

My challenge still stands~ I asked you to name one billionaire who has contributed money to the union effort to beat back these anti-worker measures (Prop B and 'Son of B'). And you can't do it, can you?

Fess up, hombre, you haven't done your research. Well, Sarah has, and you castigate her for it... Amazing! So, you resort to calling her names, and go so far as to accuse her of lying (!). (btw, these personal attacks do little to advance your argument.) Goodness, this is high comedy, hombre.

My, but you're all atwit over Chiu's dubious connections, yet curiously blind to Adachi's (equally repugnant) billionaire backers. How do you explain that?

Well, unlike you, Sarah has done the research, and here's what she found out~

"The city's campaign contribution archive shows that less than 500 people donated a total of $1 million in support of Adachi’s Measure B. And that unions, collectively representing the 25,000 local workers who chose to donate $2 per pay check for political purposes last year, donated $1 million to fight Measure B. Those are the facts on the ground. And you can follow the money yourself by checking the city’s electronic campaign archives here: http://nf4.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=sfo "

H, you lose all credibility when you attack people on a personal level, and you haven't even done your homework. If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist or blogger, walk the walk!

Posted by Lisa on Mar. 03, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

Final challenge to Sarah and

Final challenge to Sarah and Tim,

Give your opinion regarding the 300 to 400 million that Hellman is quoted as saying must, "come out of your hides" (meaning labor)?

Just answer the gosh darned question for once.

Can labor really give up 3 to 4 times what Adachi proposed and you'll accept it?

And, please, I want your opinions, not Gabriel Haaland's.

The rain's great, huh? Got a new batch of pot and a bottle of whiskey and some pompous asses to school online.

It can't get better.

Like your new haircut, Tim. Saw it on De Renzo's film. Takes 20 years off.

Giants open in 29 days in L.A.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

Dear h, Once I get my hands

Dear h, Once I get my hands on what labor, or Adachi's latest plan , to reform pensions looks like, I'll be happy to report on it. In the meantime, enjoy the rain.

Posted by sarah on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

Sarah, It's simply very

Sarah,

It's simply very poor journalism. You just wrote an entire column slandering Adachi and refuse to comment on Hellman's quote. Do you have any thoughts of your own regarding Hellman's statement that he regretted that 300 to 400 million was going to have to come "out of the hide" of labor?

Please answer me.

And, Giants not being on the radio tonite sucks.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

Why don't you ask him, H?

Fact is, Hellman contributed $50,000 to Adachi's Prop B campaign, and not so much as a cent to the other side. Isn't that true? So, I think that Jeff Adachi would stand a better chance of having a word with Hellman than a Bay Guardian reporter, don't you?

Posted by Lisa on Mar. 03, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

Here's your data, Sarah,

Here's your data, Sarah,

You read the Chronicle? Last Sunday's Matier and Ross column led with some quotes Adachi made to them for his new ('Son of B') plan:

"An $85,000-a-year cap on pensions for new hires.

Raising the retirement age for new city workers to 65 years old from 62 and to 57 years for new police officers and firefighters instead of 55.

Having workers kick in 2 to 5 percent of their pay for a trust fund to cover rising health care costs."

Matier then gives us labor's reaction:

"He's looking for headlines, not solutions," said firefighters union chief Tom O'Connor. "We're going to find real options without making city workers the enemy."

The Chron's dynamic duo continues:

"Union opposition will be no small hurdle for Adachi. Labor spent more than $1.3 million against Prop. B and the measure went down in flames, 57 percent to 43 percent."

There, do I have to do all of your research?

So far all we've gotten out of Haaland's world is that their billionaire wants to take 300-400 million out of labor's "hide".

Your comments?

I'm certain the whole world must be on the edge of their seats waiting for you to give your take on the Hellman numbers.

go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

What research?

You said, "There, do I have to do all of your research?"

You quote one newspaper article that caught your eye and call that research? My word, you have a lot to learn about journalism, hombre. Seems like Matier and Ross have done your job for you.

Posted by Lisa on Mar. 03, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

Seriously?

This article is sourced from a Gabriel Haaland facebook post, a 2006 blog post from some guy no one has ever heard of, and a smattering of Haaland quotes/opinions.

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 02, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

Tim, You're friends with

Tim,

You're friends with Hellman, right? He says he's ready to share his wealth. Why not support a U.S. program patterned after our foreign policy? The one where we 'Freeze Assets' of those who have gotten them by enslaving their people or ripping off their resources? There's 15 billion in Fisher money alone available under that kind of a program.

I'm not kidding. It worked in Bosnia. Their leader kept murdering muslims and had the support of his ruling elite until I suggested that Clinton bomb some of their assets (thru the Turks with whom I was tight at the time). Don't know if they got my personal plea but they listened to someone with a similar idea because they bombed one furniture factory of a close Milosevic ally and it shut the war down. It's no accident that the Obama administration has spread their threats of Asset Freeze across the ruling class instead of just leaders like Ghadaffi and Mubarak.

See if it's cool with Warren.

go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 03, 2011 @ 10:28 am

You were not responsible for ending the war in Bosnia H

You've really gone off the deep end and you've made this same mistake before, and I called you out on it then too. You're mixing up Bosnia and Serbia - they are two entirely different states.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 03, 2011 @ 9:55 pm

Tim is right, you make shit up, H.

Well, unlike you, Sarah has done the research, and here's what she found out~

My, but you're all atwit over Chiu's dubious connections, yet curiously blind to Adachi's (equally repugnant) billionaire backers. How do you explain that?

H, you lose all credibility when you attack people on a personal level when you haven't even done your homework. If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist or blogger, walk the walk, hombre.

Posted by Lisa on Mar. 03, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

Lisa, You're right, I

Lisa,

You're right, I don't know you. I didn't see your question. I don't know any billionaires who have contributed to the union effort. Are you saying there are some? I really don't understand you.

Arthur, it was whichever country Milosevic ran. I didn't take credit for ending the war but I did make the suggestion to the Turks that Clinton would be better off attacking the assets of the ruling class instead of bridges and power plants. The Turks at that time were incensed that the Serbs were using rape as a tool of war against Muslim women and were ready to enter the war. They'd have had to cross another country but were prepared to do so. I also suggested that they make a non-aggression treaty with Israel which they did. I could care less what you believe but I was there and it all happened as I described it. Thank you for making your post short.

Go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 04, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

I don't understand Lisa,

I don't understand Lisa, either. She wins the prize on this board for most unpersuasive comments.

From what I can tell, her message is that if a rich guy donates to a campaign, it's really, really bad. If unions donate to a campaign, it's really, really righteous.

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 05, 2011 @ 8:25 am

Does this ring a bell, H?

You said:

"What about...labor's to Warren Hellman whom they worship and who tripled and more the hit on labor to address the tsunami from Jeff's 100 million to 300-400 million?"

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

@H It appears that you are

It appears that you are trying to create the misleading impression that city workers are somehow allied with billionaire Warren Hellman. That's why I challenged you to name one billionaire who has contributed to the workers' side. In fact, Hellman hasn't contributed a single dime to the workers' struggle. By contrast, Adachi's Prop B took a cool $50k from Hellman, and I don't believe they gave any of that money back. So, I just wanted to show that there's a world of difference between these two campaigns.

The fact is, the Prop B camp is entirely funded by billionaires and corporate interests. So, I'm wondering why you haven't looked into it, since you did a stellar job of exposing David Chiu and his GOP backers. I would think you'd be concerned to see names like Howard Leach as the primary funder of 'Son of B'. It seems to me that any journalist worth his salt would at least wonder, What's in it for these billionaires?

Now, if you were inclined to follow the money (as you did with Chiu), you'd discover that Mike Moritz has contributed $11k to Ohio Gov. John Kasich's campaign for governor. Kasich is proud of his Tea Party affiliations. In fact, he recently stated, "I was in the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party." Kasich is also a founding members of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a partnership between corporations and conservative legislators with a strong unionbusting agenda. That's what's really behind the nationwide campaign against public employees. This has been flying under the radar for a long time, but it has all come out in the open with the uprising in Wisconsin. And all I'm asking you to do, hombre, is check it out for yourself.

Posted by Lisa on Mar. 05, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

Lisa, still confused

by your comments. Who cares if he's contributed to Ohio, John Kasich, or whether Kasich is affilated with this "ALEC" organization. This isn't a conspiracy. Good lord.

What this guy H. says is true. Hellman abandoned prop B, but now he notes a $300-$400 million contribution and/or savings will be required. Adachi's prop B would have only been about $120 million. So now Labor is in a much worse spot.

Is your plan just to spout off union talking points--billionaires bad, Koch, ALEC, nonsense, etc.? It's not persuasive. What is your plan to come up with $400 million? Taxes on billionaires that will never pass and aren't legal in any event?

Posted by The Commish on Mar. 05, 2011 @ 8:39 pm

Lisa, hate to pile on here...

But girl, you have to focus.

I don't know if *you* realize it, but your posts suck. Bottom line, if you can't discuss local issues without including global conspiracy, then you aren't working with a whole lot. Right now, right here, in SF, we have an unfunded obligation. Can you address that (as has been requested of you multiple times), or do we get more rants about the Koch Brothers?

Try hard.

Posted by Sambo on Mar. 06, 2011 @ 12:18 am

What's stopping you, Sambo?

What's stopping you from writing this post that you so desperately crave?
You can post it right her for the edification of the whole world.
So what's holding you back?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2011 @ 12:35 am

Hellman's poodles,

Hellman's poodles,

That's what your people are, Lisa. He even demanded meetings be held on his ground. You and the Guardian and labor in general are still refusing to offer an opinion regarding the 300-400 million yearly that his proposal will take, "out of your hides".

And, you say he gave you nothing? You really are a cheap date.

Go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 05, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

H, you weren't singing this tune when Hellman was behind Adachi

"Your people" planted their pampered asses on Hellman's lap and slobbered all over him for a $50,000 kibbel treat. Just as you're doing by shilling for Howard Leach, Michael Mortiz, and David Crane. And you call me a cheap date?

Well H., I can see that you're an old-school misogynist with a penchant for degrading women. But you still haven't answered my question~ Why is your side so willing to prostitute themselves to serve these billionaires?

You want my opinion about Hellman's proposal regarding the 300-400 million yearly he wants to take out of workers' hides? None of these billionaires give a shit about workers, nor do they give a damn about saving essential services. As economist Paul Krugman wrote in a recent (NY Times) op-ed, this is "a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy."

H, I can see that you're too full of your own bluster to offer anything more substantive than insults, so I see no reason to continue this conversation. No me importa, hombre. I'm buoyed to see that some of your friends are actually beginning to get what's going on. Luke Thomas just posted this marvelous quote by George Carlin on Daly's fb page. I hope he won't mind if I share it~

'As George Carlin poignantly stated, "They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. THey'll get it all from you, sooner or later coz they own this fucking place."

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it."'

Posted by Lisa on Mar. 06, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

Reality? The SEIU people

Reality?

The SEIU people will not put forth any kind of definitive reform to match 'Son of B'. They'll only snipe from the sidelines at whatever Jeff puts forward. The City's going bankrupt and there are only two ways to balance the budget. One is through making workers pay a larger share of the burden. Two is to make the billionaires pay more.

I'm for option two.

But, since you can't get at their money through ballot measures, it will take violent revolution to pry them away from their giant stashes of wealth.

That's reality.

You ready for a revolution Lisa?

Go Giants!

Posted by Guest h. brown on Mar. 06, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

Firefighters donated $200,000 to No on Prop B.

I believe that was the figure. Does that make the fire union evil too because they could muster such are large donation- the "billionaire firefighters."

So we are to assume that these are bad people, people like Crane and Moritz who live in San Francisco and can donate $10,000 or $50,000 plus; but somehow the firefighters most of whom don't live in San Francisco have our best interests at heart??

I guess Lisa is a mind reader because she knows exactly why each individual donated to the Yes on B campaign- it's not that she is just making *hit up. Mortiz wrote an Op-Ed in the Chron detailing his motivation precisely- google it and spare us the thoughtless talking point rants.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 12:49 am

Because billionaires never

Because billionaires never lie.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 8:40 am

Because the $136K/annual pension firefighters

never lie either.

Try to keep up, Marcos.

Posted by Sambo on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 9:49 am

Had Prop B passed, then the

Had Prop B passed, then the firefighters would have had to contribute 10% to their retirements and their dependents would have had to have paid $500 per month minimum each.

That might help the current account deficit slightly but does little to solve the problem moving forward. Why is this? Because instead of following the Civil Grand Jury recommendations, Adachi pulled Prop B out of Michael Moritz' ass.

This all belies the fact that Prop H requires that the Controller determine when public safety contributions were flagging and to order contributions to meet the gap, but that the law was not being followed. Surely, a talented attorney like Adachi and his billionaire buddies could have figured out how to sue the City to compel compliance, but that's not nearly as fun as condemning the kids of janitors to needless death and sickness, is it?

-marc

Posted by marcos on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 10:36 am

Maybe tone down the hysterics a bit?

The real intention of Prop B was to "condemn the kids of janitors to needless death and sickness"? Really? Like, that's your honest take?

Because if so maybe you and Lisa can get together and have a back and forth about the what's going on in your world.

In addition, that claim (which was central to the No on B campaign) has been disproven on this very board - on threads you were a part of - multiple times. And to suggest that Adachi could have easily just sued the city into compliance of Prop H is bizarre. Would've taken just one or two people and a couple of weeks, right?

Anyway, the original point was this - both sides have motives driven by greed. Instead of realizing that, people seem intent on taking sides... and ensuring nothing gets done. Lame.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 11:38 am

Look, it is not like

Look, it is not like billionaires are without sufficient resources to identify attorneys capable of filing such a lawsuit and financing the project. They chose otherwise.

Had such legal action commenced this time last year around the time that Prop B was being pulled out of Michael Moritz' ass, then maybe we'd have seen some forward progress on actually checking the cost drivers of unsustainable pension obligations. Instead, Adachi came at us with a chainsaw and the voters responded in kind.

The shrill Tea Party billionaire propaganda machine has been hammering home the hysterics that "we're broke" and that "pensions are unsustainable" for the the better part of a decade now, and since that prophesy has become fulfilled in the media and in perception, they are doubling down on that hysteria.

I agree with Michael Moore, that we're plenty rich, it is just that billionaires like Moritz are doing everything they can to make sure that nobody else gets their hands on any of that money and attacking unions because that's their idea of sport, now that fox hunting has been banned.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

Marcos - wrong on facts on Prop B and Prop H (2002)

Well - generally your opinions are out there but you get your facts right. You are achieving a double whammy here -wrong opinion and wrong facts.

1) Prop H 2002 has been a colossal cluster*uck for the City - yes, complete corruption from City officials in bed with unions. But Prop H did not call for the "Controller" to flag cost problems and require police and fire to increase their pension contributions. It required "City officials" to do so and hence, no accountability. In addition to the Controller, both the Director of SFERS and Dennis Hererra have stated on the record that they are not responsible for the enforcement of Prop H, essentially no one is. The Controller said on the ballot Prop H should not cost anything for ten years - it will probably cost about $500,000,000 because the City did not enforce the cost sharing provisions.

2) A lawsuit to enforce Prop H in lieu of Prop B would have been massively expensive for reasons to numerous to go into here (and the problems go beyond just police and fire but they are the main culprits and Prop H was the genesis more or less). Moritz was not on board until AFTER Prop B was certified for signatures.

Yet of course, unsustainable pensions are a media fabrication and perception only - you forgot to throw in the Koch brothers.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 07, 2011 @ 9:54 pm

Come on now... Did you hear any mention of the Koch brothers?

With Howard Leach, et al, in your camp, who needs the Koch brothers? But let's see... You're saying that workers' pensions are underfunded because of the corruption of elected officials who colluded with some unions (mainly police and fire). So, in the process, the workers got screwed and now must pay the price.

Yet of course, evil city workers are to blame -- you forgot to toss in the fact that the corporatist agenda is just a "lefty-wing nut" conspiracy theory.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 08, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

Guest, you said: "Moritz was

Guest, you said: "Moritz was not on board until AFTER Prop B was certified for signatures."

This is false. Moritz came on board in mid-June of 2010 DURING the signature drive. In fact, he helped to fund the drive BEFORE Prop B was certified for signatures. Please get your facts straight.

Posted by Guest 33 on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

Getting clued in...

Yesterday's Finance and Budget committee had a 3 hour plus hearing on the state of City finances, going over pension, retiree health, heatlhcare and employee compensation costs.

Here is the link for those interested in where things now stand:

http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=11848

Among the bigger ticket items now faced at City Hall is what is required to make up for the shortage in SF's pension system because equity markets tanked in 2008. City contributions to this will need to double by 2015. This is the so-called "employer contribution rate" which will go from just north of 13% now to 28% by 2015, and that is with benefit of "smoothing" which the retirement chief describes after Controller Rosenfeld makes his presentation. This involves hundreds of millions of dollars each year in expenditures. Expenditures that otherwise could build affordable housing, staff MUNI, repave streets and educate the City's youth.

In philosophy there is the concept of the phenomenon and the epiphenomenon. The epiphenomenon is a consequence of the primary act. For all of the blog blather about our pension system, the Proposition B campaign, Google investor Michael Moritz, Adachi's heresy, Warren Hellman et al there is a core financial problem to be confronted and there is no way around new levels of employee cost-sharing. Modest reductions in benefits for future employees is also inevitable.

Such changes can and should be made to shield city workers who are not the big earners, and do not make $100-250K a year. This is a matter of social equity that hopefully is shared by most Guardian readers. However, such change won't happen if progressives are distracted by the epiphenomenon and miss the basic financial issues. If the pedantic and grubby SFERS problems are again avoided and denied, not only will public employees suffer, every San Franciscan who relies upon a public service will too.

So unless you are rich, you have an interest in checking out the Budget and Finance committee hearing and appreciating what some of the critical facts are and what the challenge now is. The good news is that San Francisco can solve this problem with modest sacrifices but more people need to be conscious of what is required first for that to take place politically.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 7:14 pm