RLJ

I think it would be more helpful if you posted here what procedures you actually used to win your case.

Onto the bigger picture: The solution to what the governor claims "impossible to meet" situation is to stop paying interest on government debts by ceasing to carry high debts. To do that quickly, taxes need to be raised by several percentage points for 4 years. The governor will continue to posture and spit out the same negative nonsense (which are not truths or facts and create impasses to real solutions) on economic concerns knowing that he's leaving office soon. We need a governor who's willing to do what the public has been brainwashed to fear, tax everyone, cut LE positions and future contract salries and benefits.

If the politicians really stood for fiscal responsibility, they would put aside the same old political posturing and fear mongering rhetoric and apply the simple solutions that are clearly in front of us all. It's what individual americans have been doing as shown by decreasing national personal debt averages:
1) Rein in outstanding contracts and debts by paying them off with any avalable means(i.e. increase taxes -- with clear dates when each increase will be repealed, i.e. dates not dependent on debt or fiscal values but rather the amount of the increases should be based on current debt and interest amounts to allow full repayment of the debts by a given date with the increased taxes earmarked for repayment of that specific debt only),
2) minimize current expenses(fire more LE) and
3) cut offers on future contracts (lower salaries and benefits for new hires)
4) make sure the state does not accrue any new total debt under current budgets, which are kept separate and independent of #1 above.

A man has to eat, drink and be nice to women.

As to your statement of having an interest in the public sector, who doesn't? We all benefit from the convenience of having good public roads, rails, hospitals, schools and even some of the basic research at Universities, etc... And most would like these things to be maintained so that the latest tech, knowledge and science is applied soon after it becomes available.

I think what you may be saying is that we need to make cuts in public services instead of raising taxes. The reality is that we need to do both. However, cuts are far more difficult to negotiate and to economically equate to the outstanding value of the total debt and ensuing interest since most public services do not have set values but rather a range of spending which is usually allotted from a general fund by department.

This raises the question, which state departments would you like to see cut first, second, etc? I believe that law enforcement and prison spending is where a lot of the fat and waste is, particularly knowing how many laws are in the books that cause so many harmless citizens to be housed at taxpayer expense. Cut LE hiring, increase LE layoffs, cut future benefits in upcoming contracts, and reform laws to reduce or remove anti drug laws, DUI penalties, prostitution enforcement practices and other laws that are moral value choices that cause little or no increased harm to others or the population. It would be best to start by focusing on repealing legislative interference where it is not essential. Or where it is unfair, such as increasing taxes on those with children rather than giving them tax breaks. Single people without children should not have to bear a proportionately greater burden for services that benefit only those with children such as public education spending and certain public health and hospital programs.

The picture gets even more complicated when you start dealing with people who authored legislative actions that created special interest projects.

Bottom line: We need to pay off the debt; raising taxes is the clearest immediate and reliable solution to clear the bulk, if not all of it.

Also not just the private sectors but there are also plenty of fat cats in the public sector as well, i.e. the top management at the SJPD or SJFD who not only draw excessive pays but also obscene benefits during and after their careers.

Still feel sorry for these FAT CATS?

On a related note the average dumfuck also does not realize that when politicians talk about "tax cut" they are in reality talk about "tax cut for the rich".

"Tax cut" has always been and will be meaning only "Tax cut for the rich".

How about feeling sorry for the FAT CATS who may soon lose their "Bush tax cut for the rich" when it expires this year?

IMO you misplace blame. Labor (union's) create fear mongering with posturing and ads.

Remember OPD's threat of slowed response time, that they'd be "unresponsive to "these" types of calls"- after Oakland's mayor (a politician) laid off 10% (80) OPD officers?

Go "behind" California's 3 strikes law and see how many jobs were created to deal with the increased prison population, staff courts, increase law enforcement, prosecution, etc. Think those jobs bolstered union membership?

The Teacher's union spent millions slamming Guv Arnold for cutting their budget a few years ago. The teacher's union lobby for smaller classroom size- creating more teachers jobs - ergo union members. So blame politicians, public ignorance, or unions?

And for more perspective - A pimped girls rates versus independent girls rates.

c-man