Posted on 03/23/2004 2:42:17 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
(I instructed the Admin Moderator to remove the other thread).
______________________________________________________
Public payroll soars
Salaries move far ahead of inflation
From the city of Los Angeles to California state government, the cost of salaries and benefits for public employees has soared far faster than inflation in the last five years -- three times as fast in the case of the Los Angeles Unified School District, a Daily News analysis has found.
The study showed that spending for public employees' salaries and benefits at the state and local levels increased overall at more than twice the rate of inflation and grew faster than the per capita income of average Californians. The cost of pensions was excluded from the analysis because of the wide disparity between different levels of government.
The spending binge started at a time that tax revenues were soaring, at the peak of the 1990s dot-com boom. Now that the boom has gone bust and the economy remains weak, state and local officials are making deep cuts in public services and looking for ways to raise fees and taxes. The review covered the fiscal years from 1997-98 to 2002-03.
"At all levels of government, the rate of compensation has gone up much more rapidly than it has in the private sector and, most importantly, faster than the personal income of the people who pay for this," said Steven B. Frates, a senior fellow at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College.
"There has been a wealth transfer. It has gone from the citizens to the people in government".
"You often hear people in government cry that there are going to be cuts and we're hurting the poor and the little children. The fact of the matter is the citizens of the state, county and city are making life better, not necessarily for schoolchildren or people in need, but for government employees."
The review covered the state of California; the city of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County and three neighboring counties; the LAUSD; and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Overall salary and benefit expenditures increased between 18 percent at the MTA and 53 percent for San Bernardino County during the five-year period.
The portion for employee benefits alone jumped by 35 to 186 percent.
In comparison, the inflation rate in California rose 17 percent, and per capita income in the state increased 24 percent.
Pension costs varied widely and dropped at some public agencies like Los Angeles city government, which has its own pension fund that profited from the booming stock market, and skyrocketed by as much as 79 percent at other agencies. Many local governments now face huge pension bills largely because of expansion in pension benefits.
Workers' compensation costs rose between 29 and 141 percent, and overtime costs increased by 13 to 60 percent.
In the last five years, per capita income in California increased 24 percent, from $26,521 to $32,898. Nationally, employees in the private sector earn an average of $34,299 a year, plus $13,374 in benefits.
That compares to the $49,005 annual salaries local and state government employees enjoy, plus $21,528 in benefits, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics.
The highest average salary and benefits package is in Los Angeles County, where compensation jumped from $59,126 to $79,057, although officials point out that many employees went without raises for several years in the mid-1990s.
Local and state government officials said they approved compensation increases for their employees to remain competitive with other government agencies and the private sector, and that some cost increases, such as health care and workers' compensation, were outside of their control.
Some union leaders questioned the figures.
"We represent over 50,000 county employees whose salaries increased 24 percent over 10 years, an average increase of 2.4 percent a year," said Bart Diener, assistant general manager of Service Employees International Union, Local 660, which represents Los Angeles County workers. "We believe this is appropriate and in line with the growth in the economy."
But H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Department of Finance under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the 41 percent rise in state salary and benefits costs under former Gov. Gray Davis clearly exceeds similar increases in the private sector.
"Looking at that growth in the rearview mirror, it's clear that kind of growth is unsustainable over the long haul," Palmer said. "It's one of the reasons the governor has said he'd like to reopen a number of contracts with state employee unions."
With the state facing a massive shortfall even after voters approved a $15 billion bond issue mainly to refinance existing debt, state and local government agencies now face making steep cuts. Much of the problem was caused by a five-year state spending spree that raised expenditures 43 percent while revenue rose only 25 percent.
Los Angeles County faces making nearly $500 million in cuts, while the city of Los Angeles faces $250 million and the LAUSD $600 million.
County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said the biggest portion of the salary increases comes from often unnoticed 2.75 percent and 5.5 percent annual "step" increases, or merit raises, which local and state government workers get during their first five to 11 years of employment.
"And many times employees who reach the fifth step after five years will be reclassified for another five years," Antonovich said. "This is above any cost-of-living adjustments negotiated in labor contracts. That's why those numbers go up so much each year and services are cut.
"So what they need to have is a two-tiered system. Labor laws need to be modified. You could develop a new classification that would allow step increases based upon merit and performance with a smaller increase. So what you would have is something similar to the private sector where promotions are based on merit and performance, not just showing up and having your eyes open."
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the figures confirm that the only "growth industry" in California is government.
"It's clear that the size of government and the slice it takes from the private sector continues to expand," Coupal said. "And while private sector businesses have suffered, it appears that local and state government believe they are beyond economic pressures."
Coupal said local and state officials should renegotiate contracts with employees unions, consider salary and benefit cuts, work furloughs and layoffs to reduce spending.
But Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said government employee unions are powerful in California and he's not aware of any agencies cutting salaries and benefits since the Great Depression.
"These are pretty stout increases in both salaries and benefits," said Jack Kyser, chief economist at the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. "But the attitude in Sacramento was, 'Look at all this money coming in,' and they spent us into a massive budget deficit."
And, with the state plagued by a structural deficit of up to $10 billion a year, Kyser added: "We are either going to have to increase taxes or make painful cuts in spending. We are not out of the woods yet."
Frates of the Rose Institute said elected leaders bear the blame.
"They gave the farm away," Frates said. "California politicians need to be candid and open about what they are actually spending taxpayer money on.
"They frequently use the shorthand of, 'It's for public safety, education and public health,' when in fact it's for lavish salary and benefit increases for public employees at the expense of the general citizens of California. There are many public safety employees who now make more in retirement than they did when they were working and they get to retire at age 50."
Schwarzenegger is trying to renegotiate contracts. Los Angeles city officials have talked about renegotiations as well and County Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen has proposed a 1 percent salary cut for county employees and furloughs to save about $20 million.
"The question is do we make these necessary adjustments, or do we fire people?" Antonovich asked. "I'd rather make reductions and keep people employed. I believe you will find from workers a willingness to move forward and take reductions to retain their jobs and continue providing services to the public.
"The union leaders have traditionally opposed these reductions and would rather lay off people than have any reductions in compensation. To me, that is cruel and unnecessary. They don't want to jeopardize the benefits they have already gotten." l=8s=8 Troy Anderson, (213) 974-8985 troy.anderson@dailynews.com AT A GLANCE Here are highlights of the changes over the last five years based on figures from state and local governments, comparing fiscal year 1997-98 to fiscal year 2002-03. State:
Spending for salaries and benefits, excluding pensions, was up 41 percent, from $13.3 billion to $18.7 billion.
The number of full-time employees increased 10.5 percent, from 192,377 to 212,563.
The salary for correctional officers increased 25.4 percent, from $65,450 to $82,066 a year. City of Los Angeles (Not counting the departments of water and power, airports and harbor):
Spending for salaries and benefits, excluding pensions, rose 26 percent, from $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion.
The average salary of civilian workers rose 23 percent, from $45,534 to $55,919, while the average for police officers grew 28 percent, from $60,397 to $77,537.
Overtime costs increased by 61 percent, and workers' compensation costs went up 81 percent. Los Angeles schools:
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, expenditures for salaries and benefits rose 51 percent, from $3.6 billion to $5.4 billion.
The average salary and benefits package of an LAUSD employee grew by 27 percent, from $51,424 to $65,526.
The number of full-time employees expanded 18 percent, from 69,140 to 81,691. Los Angeles County:
Expenditures for salaries and benefits rose 39 percent, from $5.0 billion to $6.9 billion.
The average county employee's salary increased 31 percent, from $37,664 to $49,343.
Workers' compensation costs soared 96 percent, from $143.1 million to $281.0 million. Ventura County:
Salaries and benefits rose 22 percent, from $271.5 million to $330.9 million.
Overtime shot up 55 percent, from $1.9 million to $2.9 million.
Workers' compensation costs skyrocketed 141 percent, from $4.5 million to $10.7 million. MTA:
Salaries and benefits increased 18 percent, from $499 million to $589 million.
The number of full-time employees was up by 17.9 percent, from 7,576 to 8,930.
HAHAHAHA. Thanks for the laugh Poo. I have four other jack booted friends over, and we all got a good ol belly laugh out of that one.
How much do you have to pay them to be your friends?
Well since you asked, a couple of chilled Margarita's, and some BBQd Pacific Salmon. What's funny, is these jack booted thugs are all wearing shorts and deck shoes...Hehehe......
You're really a kick Poo. Even if you are an illegal alien sympathizer. Just keep bumping this thread. I do appreciate it. Back to the patio. I'll check back with you in a while Poo. Keep the funny post coming. I love it.
________________________________________________________
Remember when government workers and politicians were considered public, civil servants?
Now it's the job of choice due to the big money, generous benefits, and top of the line benefits, all on the backs of the little peon, taxpayers.
Government is only growing larger.
They just built a new city hall not too far from me. It's the fanciest, most opulent building in the entire area.
The parking lot is full of near new cars, they have beautiful landscaped, secured, and guarded parking.
There are lavish fountains, landscaping, safe, secure bullet proof windows for their employees, guards, closed circuit cameras to watch for angry tax payers, and to top it off, they built one of the most expensive restaurants in the area right across the street, so the government employees don't have to travel far to those yummy, tax payer paid lunches.
What an odd accusation.
Lets see, I post a thread that clearly shows how govrnment employees wages are sky rocketing, as are their benefits and pensions, and you call me an anti liberty, jack booted thug, who sucks on the welfare teat?
Your complaint has far less to do with the government wages going than with the fact that you're not getting any of those fabulous wages, benefits, and pensions. Heck, your loudest complaint was that these jobs weren't being held by "real Americans."
"There has been a wealth transfer. It has gone from the citizens to the people in government".
This should be shouted from mountaintops by conservatives everywhere.
I generally have little admiration for "civil servants" at both local and federal levels. They too often forget who's putting the bread on their tables and paying for their overgenerous leave, retirement, and health care benefits.
The Federal gov't is the largest employer in our nation.
Of course, it's hard to draw any meaningful, justifiable conclusion from that fact alone. I mean, who "should" be the largest employer in the USA? General Motors? Wal-Mart? Microsoft? Boeing?
Why thank you blader.
Hows that Poobah?
I clearly stated that since this is again tax season, I thought it would be a good idea to bump the thread.
Since you came to this thread, you have attacked me and others, called names, and tried to make those of us in the private sector the focus of this big government problem.
You're the one that stated all this is all the fault of the private sector, as they demanded all of this, implying that the reason all these government employees are working in such nice beautiful, landscaped, new tax paid buildings and guarded, secure facilities, and the reason their benefits, and salaries, and pensions are some of the best to be found anywhere, is because the tax payers in the private sector demanded it.
Yeah, how about that?
That is EXACTLY what the taxpayers demanded.
They may not have specifically had it in mind--perhaps they thought that all those government "freebies" would be provided by unpaid serfs--but it's an inevitable consequence of outsourcing stuff to the government.
Of course, it's hard to draw any meaningful, justifiable conclusion from that fact alone.
So you see no "justifiable conclusion to draw" even though you know government, and government spending on the backs of the tax payers is growing by leaps and bounds, and government employees salaries, medical benefits, and pensions continue to grow and improve, yet most in the private sector have had their wages cut, benefits reduced, and even some of their pensions are now in jeopardy. Yet you draw no meaningful conclusion to all of this?
Why not?
That is EXACTLY what the taxpayers demanded.
Well Poobop, I am so glad you stated this.
So when I go to downtown LA, or downtown Chicago for that matter, and go into any of the thousands of goverment building, where upon I observe hundreds of thousands of government employees, most overweight, with 3 inch fingernails, and they are all moving in slow motion, like they have just been offended. As one of the common folk searchs for a parking spot, one can't help but notice the hundreds of exclusive parking lots, just for government employees, and most all are full of new cars, with guards posted, security cameras etc.
And then we find out that government employee salaries, their medical benefits, and their pensions are endlessly improving and growing.
And you say all of this is the fault of the private sector, and the private sector demanded this of their government.
The taxpayers wanted government to take care of them from womb to tomb. They can't say "Well, I didn't want THIS or THAT consequence of my decision."
When you make a decision, you're either willing to accept all the consequences of that decision--good and bad alike--or you are just not a mature human being.
The taxpaying public wanted government to do all the things that government does these days.
When they said, "OK, government, do it," they opted for the results of saying that.
And the beat goes on today--in my city, there's already a group of private-sector citizens working to raise local taxes even more because the city overspent its budget by a huge amount.
Look at it this way: somebody built those beautiful buildings, right? And they got paid for doing so.
Right there, you have one element of your big-government constituency. Whenever local, state, or federal government expands, there are several sectors that make out like bandits: architects, general contractors, construction unions (thank you, Davis-Bacon Act), and real estate agents (think of temporary office space while the new government building is built).
Because the stand-alone statement, "The Federal gov't is the largest employer in our nation," is meaningless without any additional information. By how much is it the largest employer? If you eliminate active military personnel from the number, is it still the largest? Second largest? Third largest? How large is too large?
Believe me, I despise the bloat of government at all levels. We've become a nation of teat-suckling socialist pigs, and we have the government payroll to show for it. But, my point was just that being the "largest" means nothing, just as saying my state ranks 39th in teacher salaries. Some people spout statistics such as that one, and expect everyone to respond with something like, "THAT'S TERRIBLE!" when the fact is, when there are 50 states, even if all teachers nationwide are making good money, one of the states is going to be 39th.
Similarly, even if it was reduced to the right size -- I know, it's a pipe dream -- the Fed gov't could very well still be the nation's largest employer, simply because of the DoD. But, I don't have that information at my disposal.
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.