San Diego's Budget - Impact of Prop D Defeat

Last November's defeat of the half-cent sales tax measure, Proposition D, was supposed to be the warning shot across the bow that galvanized city leaders into drastic action to cut budget deficits. From the Citizen’s Fiscal Sustainability Task Force Analysis of FY2012 Budget Deficit:

In all frankness, the seeming absence of a sense of urgency demonstrated by the City leadership since the public’s November 2, 2010 rejection of Proposition D’s additional revenues as a deficit solution is disturbing. On November 3rd, the citizens of San Diego anticipated swift and aggressive actions from the City leadership to resolve what was advertised as a dire fiscal situation. With the prospect of $500 Million in new tax revenues coming from the passage of Proposition D, there was a commitment by the City to quickly implement the reforms articulated in our last report. Instead from November to December, little or no significant actions were taken by the elected officials to eliminate the Structural Deficit in 2012. When the 18 month budget was passed in December 2009, Councilman Young added an amendment requesting the Mayor present a plan by June 30, 2010 that would permanently eliminate the Structural Deficit. If Proposition D was that plan, then once Proposition D failed, it was anticipated that a new plan would be forthcoming. Instead, during the November Budget Committee meeting, when asked if the City would be developing a new mid-year budget to get a head start on new savings and reforms, City Management went on record indicating there were new positive economic results coming and a mid-year cut was not necessary (City Council Meeting November 11, 2010). In light of pre-election assurances by elected officials that Propositions D’s failure would result in drastic service and cost reductions, the decision to not address mid- year budget cuts given that Proposition D did in fact fail stands in stark contrast with these promised actions.

Almost a year later we get the following news report.

The San Diego city budget deficit for next year is shrinking and the future is a bit brighter with a projected surplus in 2017, according to the latest financial prognostications from Mayor Jerry Sanders Wednesday.

Maybe that's why the politicians didn't do much after the defeat of Prop D, they knew the situation wasn't as dire as they had claimed. But here is what Mayor Sanders had to say in 2010 about public safety if Proposition D was rejected.

Sanders says there will be significant cuts to public safety if Proposition D is rejected. “To date, we’ve spared them, by and large, but we don’t have a lot left to cut,” he said. “And there’s going to be some public safety implications, implications in terms of services throughout the neighborhoods.”

However, no such cuts materialized. Indeed, so the called fire station brown outs ended in July of this year. Clearly better not to listen to politicians asking for tax hikes to close budget gaps. Better to force them to reduce spending, it seems to work.

More on that U-T Poll

The U-T poll on Proposition D, reported on October 23rd, has come under heavy criticism for its methodology. At the time, I thought we had a good chance based on the flawed methodology:

• The survey is of registered voters, not likely voters. My belief is that Tea Party energy makes the No's more likely to vote.


• Some of those interviewed were considered reluctant supporters, who didn't trust politicians to carry out the reforms.

The polling company's president and the U-T editor disingenuously stated that the poll wasn't meant to be predictive. My rear! Why would one go to the bother. Anyway, when you look at polls, you have to consider if the pollsters are asking likely voters and what their turnout model is.

Exit question, was the U-T shilling for the proposition, releasing a poll whose method was knowingly flawed, to generate momentum for Prop D?

Mayor Sanders Resign - No on Proposition D

Conniving tax and spender.

I echo Richard Rider's call for Jerry Sanders to resign as Mayor of San Diego for cutting back room deals for the Chargers and lying to the public about the need for full, open and transparent hearings. Best to just read Richard Rider's post.

The relationship to Proposition D?

Earlier this month - while Jerry Sanders was urging voters to approve Prop D's massive sales tax hike – and to trust him to dutifully work with a labor-backed City Council to reduce government spending after he gets a half-billion dollars in new taxes – our Mayor was working behind the scenes to funnel a half-billion dollars toward a new Chargers stadium.

Coincidence? Maybe. But the fact is that these tax dollars are going to public funding of a stadium if the mayor gets his way, not "protecting public safety" as advertised. Still need convincing that we should make the politicians demonstrate good faith budget cuts and outsourcing before we pass Proposition D?

Isn't That Cute?

Headline in the San Diego U-T:

Council commits to achieve savings if Proposition D passes

Well isn't that cute, coming from the political class that got us into this mess. They pass a resolution in which they promise to enact reform. Aren't they adorable? Don't they look so sweet when they pretend they're passing real legislation:

Sanders acknowledged the financial thresholds in the resolution aren’t binding legally.

Well they looked good doing it.


Meanwhile from KUSI:

The pension expert who revealed the outrageous payout's in the city of Bell, has analyzed San Diego's pension payout's.

Marcia Fritz compiled a report from information gathered from San Diego's pension system.
Fritz's analysis projected what the top 10 pensioners would receive over their lifetimes, using their age and life expectancy.

According to Fritz the top 10 pensioners will receive 61-million dollars over 25 years.

Here is the money quote though:

Tuesday, the council will consider one of the 10-reforms tied to the tax increase. This is to increase what elected officials pay toward their pensions. Currently they pay 8%, the reform would boost that to 23%, but the charter says they should pay 50-percent.

The council's unwillingness to enact real reform now is the reason we should vote No on Proposition D. It's really very simple, enact meaningful reform, then see where we stand. No tax increases until that happens.

Join the No on D campaign by clicking below.




More reasons to vote No are at this web site. Oppose the half cent sales tax increase.

Cutting a Deal on Proposition D

Jerry, Let's Make a Deal.

I have come out strongly against Proposition D, the proposed half cent sales tax increase in San Diego. However, it occurred to me that we should cut a deal to see if the politicians who put it on the ballot are serious. I'll vote for the increase if two conditions are met:

1. The city's budget is cut in actual dollars year on year, by at least 5%
2. The city outsources enough jobs to reduce the number of union workers on the city's payroll by 10%.
   

Those two measures would prove they are serious. Absent those achievements I am voting no. Talk is cheap, and the way the proposition is structured, not a single job actually has to be outsourced, giving city council members plenty of wiggle room to take our money and continue to fail. Don't let them play us for fools, vote No on Proposition D.

Good to see W.C. on board with my recommendation; He'd better be, I've got clout. You don't get to be unofficial chief ideologist just by self proclamation.

OK, actually you do, but don't tell anyone.

More Reasons to Vote Against Proposition D

City strikes deal with unions to allow outside bids

. . . or so states the newspaper headline. At first, it sounds like the city council is working to keep its promises to get Proposition D, but read the fine print, as pointed out by Carl DeMaio. Although the outside bidders do not have to provide health care benefits, as previously demanded by the city's unions, two other factors make a mockery of this process:

City Councilman Carl DeMaio, who opposes Proposition D, said the managed competition guide is a watered-down version of what Sanders proposed last year and creates several opportunities for the council to avoid outsourcing city jobs, such as not requiring the city to accept the lowest bid. He also noted that, in addition to their 10 percent advantage, city workers don’t include annual pension costs in their bids — one of the most significant expenses in each department’s budget.

The 10 percent advantage is a provision that the winning bidder must be 10% less expensive than the city. Unfortunately, I don't care if they are slightly more expensive, if we could offload pension and health care obligations for city workers.

The deal isn't done either, city union members have to approve the negotiated process for outsourcing. Hard to predict how that vote will go. Taking the pensions out of the calculation gives them a significant advantage, but who knows, their salary structure still might be too high to withstand competition.

Until we see actual outsourcing, we should not be voting for tax increases.

No On Prop D in San Diego

Do you think they'll figure out we should just start the reforms before we ask for the money?

The U-T got this one right on the editorial page, with the following headline:

Prop D: Does mayor really have a hammer?

The editorial board argues in essence, that Proposition D doesn't give the mayor the hammer to reform spending that Sanders and Frye argue for in the front of the Dialog section. Because this is getting adequate publicity and the No campaign seems to be adequately funded, for now, I may not spend much time on this issue, core as it is to the Tea Party philosophy. A few points from the editorial:

Given that five City Council members were ready to place the sales tax proposal on the ballot without linking it to reforms and that the council has stalled outsourcing of some city services despite a 2006 voter mandate to do so, Sanders’ comments are highly reassuring. They suggest reform savings would be on the high end of the $700,000 to $85 million-plus range of annual savings cited in ballot language.

But does the mayor really have the hammer he says? City Attorney Jan Goldsmith doesn’t think so.

This goes to my basic argument about Proposition D. Structural budget reform, pension reforms and aggressive outsourcing of city services can be performed right now, without the need for a half cent sales tax increase. If the ruling class was serious about reducing spending they would show good faith by taking those actions now, in advance of any vote. That they want the people to pony up first is prima facie evidence that they cannot be trusted. Kevin Faulconer and Carl DiMaio echo my sentiments:

Opponents, such as Councilmen Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio, rightfully pointed out that many of the reforms listed in the ballot measure are those the council has been working on already for years with no success. Further, they argue, no one knows how much money the city might save by implementing all the reforms. They expressed doubt that the package alone could fix the city's mounting obligations forever. It was another example, they said, of city politicians kicking the can down the road on the backs of taxpayers.

It is analogous to the border situation. We all know that aggressively securing the border is not a sufficient condition to solve our immigration woes; but it is a necessary first step. Every day that the Congress and the President fail to perform this basic function, is another day that deepens our distrust of any "comprehensive plan" that any of them may propose. The only way to win back trust is to secure the border. The only way for our city council to win back trust is to deal with out of control spending on employees salaries and pensions. Do a good job and we might not even need to talk about a tax increase; but if it still looks required, we might be willing to listen. Until you get serious, NO DEAL!