Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
To my knowledge the Betty Rexford lawsuit is still in full blown litigation. Why on Earth would you think I was somehow involved? ===================== 1. Seemed like your cup of tea. 2. I saw a quote somewhere whereby the attorney called Rexford a queen. Seemed like your style.— October 10, 2009 8:49 a.m.
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
"Dohenyrocks" is one of JF's sock puppet/gimmick accounts that he is posting under on the another blog. JF, do you deny that? ======================== Sure do. I don't even know which blog Johnny is talking about. Maybe he will enlighten us. I'll be glad to join the conversation there. I've only ever posted under two names. I started as Joe Friday, shortened that to JF and went back to Joe Friday when I couldn't register a two letter screen name in the new UT system. Again, I find it ironic that a guy? who has posted as Billy Bob Henry, BBH, BBH rocks, Johnny Vegas and now SurfPuppy619, as well as variations of those names is so concerned about my screen name. But then, in case you hadn't noticed, Johnny is a little obsessive.— October 10, 2009 8:48 a.m.
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
It is premature to call him a tax cheat. ============== Yes, you're right. Nonetheless, he shouldn't be using the name of a suspended corporation to give credence to his anti-tax views.— October 9, 2009 5:22 p.m.
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
Johnny, I'm confused. You've been shouting from the mount that safety retirement costs 100% of salary. Remember? That's how you came up with your $200K/year BS? Yet the SDCTA report shows that TOTAL employer pension costs, including unfunded liability, ranges between 11% and 43% for SD County cities. How could the results of several CPA be so much lower than yours? Incidentally, I'll save you some time. The SDCERS CAFR for 2008 shows those figures to be: General Members Normal - 11.41% Amortization - 8.05% Total - 19.46% Police Safety Normal - 19.67% Amortization - 14.07% Total - 33.74 Fire Safety Normal - 20.70 Amortization - 18.24 Total - 38.94 Can't speak for other unions, but for L145 members, pick up is now gone and it was NOT reported as income. Wish we had thought of that. Oh well.— October 9, 2009 4:27 p.m.
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
Johnny, Here's what the corporate status of the SD Tax Fighters has to do with it. Rider is the loudest critic of city employees "ripping off the taxpayer". Yet it turns out he's a tax cheat himself -- ripping off the taxpayers. Ironic, no? Incidentally, was that you who won the suit against the Poway councilwoman? I saw some quotes that reminded me of you...— October 9, 2009 3:22 p.m.
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
Johnny, First, I have no idea who doheneyrocks is. I find in ironic that a guy who's used the monikers Billy Bob Henry, BBH, BBH rocks, JohnnyVegas, SurfPuppy619 and others would throw rocks about one's screen name. Funny how you accuse me of spin by including one line. You forgot the follow up lines to your one liner, "But pension costs are just that: a contributing factor. Declining property tax revenues, Sacramento revenue clawbacks, increased operational costs—like health-care benefits—and increased spending mandates are also contributing factors. The report does not state just how big an impact pension pressures have had on tax hike decisions. Indeed, the report provides no empirical statistical evidence in support of the initial hypothesis except a simple association: Since cities have high pension costs and cities have raised taxes, the tax increases are caused by the pension costs." Hmmm... "no empirical evidence in support of the initial hypothesis". Shocking. That's what I've said all along. Pension costs ARE part of the problem. But so is a lack of income, corporate welfare and a lack of SD getting back it's fair share of property taxes. They are ALL part of the problem, yet short sighted people like you seem to think that the pension is the ONLY thing that needs to be fixed. It is not. What was that about doing some thinking?— October 9, 2009 3:20 p.m.
In San Diego County, Fat Pensions Mean Higher Taxes
News flash. People who make more tend to live in bigger houses! That's about the conclusion that was made in the report. Alas, not every millionaire has a mansion. And not every city in trouble has a high pension rate. San Diego employees now pay a full half of their retirement -- at least the ones in my union do. Costs have been curtailed. Yet the deficit is higher than ever. Could it be that the income side is lacking? For a little better analysis of this report, visit your competitor Carl Luna's blog. "But the SDCTA report is a less a real analysis of tax policy and pension plans than a wish-list for those dedicated to the proposition that the only good defined-benefit retirement plan is a dead defined-benefit retirement plan." http://politicallunacy.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/4… If you want a real story rather than parroting what others have said, take a look into the corporate status of the San Diego Tax Fighters. Hint: Suspended. Might be an interesting story on how the anti-tax guy was evading taxes.— October 9, 2009 1:50 p.m.
Utilities Commission Denies SDG&E's Power Cutoff Plan -- Leaving an Out
Doesn't make any sense because it is supplemental ============== Makes plenty of sense when you consider that SS is intended to be "supplemental" as well. That's basically what I've been saying all along. You cannot compare the city's DB plan to SS. Is the city's plan better than most people get? Absolutely. But I argue that we should be trying to bring all people up to our level, not down to yours. When you argue that, you simply look jealous.— September 29, 2009 1:49 p.m.
Utilities Commission Denies SDG&E's Power Cutoff Plan -- Leaving an Out
Johnny, So what you are saying is that members of the military should not be allowed to retire at age 38 nor should they be allowed to hold other employment?— September 20, 2009 8:33 p.m.
Utilities Commission Denies SDG&E's Power Cutoff Plan -- Leaving an Out
Hey, I didn't publish the stat, I'm just repeating it. It does include people receiving disability. So does the SDCERS stat. Apples and apples, right? http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/10/art2full.pdf Here's the other thing you don't seem to be admitting. Social Security was never intended as a "full retirement". SDCERS was. "The purpose of this article is to recognize a public obligation to City employees for their long service in public employment by making provision for retirement compensation and death benefits as additional elements of compensation for future services" SDMC 24.0100 401K's were never intended as a full retirement, but rather as a tax shelter for employers. SDCERS was intended as a full retirement. Oh, one other thing. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no right to SS. Meanwhile SDCERS members have a vested right to their retirement.— September 20, 2009 8:31 p.m.