A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Serious Constitutional Concessions « Back to Story
Showing 10 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
The author of this article uses leaps and bounds to connect his arguments. Frankly, Chapman University could do better.
It's another example of institutionalized corruption, which is something the Democrats are very good at. Create a union, have it pay substantial amounts of money to the Democrat Party, which responds with perks. Then keep on doing that. Problems with voters? Not a problem at all - import voters from south of the border, and pay them off too, with generous benefits.
People don't like it, and they and businesses are leaving California? That's not a detriment, it's a benefit and as intended - most, if not all of those leaving vote Republican anyway, and if some vote Democrat, that's no problem either since a steady stream of Democrats are coming in anyway, from overseas.
Money may run out? Not a problem either, since at some point the federal government will be Democrat, and the state cans imply get money from the feds.
The worse it gets for California, the better it gets for Democrats. Republicans make the mistake of thinking that Democrats want things to get better - WRONG.
And, of course, the media will never call the Democrats on this - major media is firmly pro-Democrat.
It's a wonderful corruption merry go round, and a first class ticket to the third world. But..for the elites who run the party..so what?
Anyone who would like to see the research/statistics behind the claims of this article should get to work and find this for themselves.
All California public employees should be on a 401K pension program which follows the private sector, not a guaranteed income for life. Unions give-aways are bought with campaign contributions. Enough of this harlotry!
Thanks for the great article. You say "Taxpayers spend about $48,000 per prisoner—nearly double what other states, such as Texas, or the federal government spends." May I see the research/statistics behind that $48K number?
Another failure of political will, this one by University of California President Yudof: wage and benefit concessions chancellors, vice chancellors, faculty. Californians face foreclosure, unemployment, depressed wages, loss of medical, unemployment benefits, higher taxes: it's time Governor Brown, UC Board of Regents Regent Lansing, President Yudof demonstrated leadership by curbing wages, benefits. As a Californian, I don't care what others earn at private, public universities. If wages better elsewhere, chancellors, vice chancellors, tenured, non tenured faculty, UCOP should apply for the positions. If wages commit employees to UC, leave for better paying position. The sky above UC will not fall.
California suffers from the greatest deficit modern times. UC wages, benefits must reflect California's ability to pay, not what others paid elsewhere. Campus chancellors, vice chancellors, tenured & non-tenured faculty, UCOP are replaceable by the more talented.
UC faculty, chancellor vice chancellor concessions:
18 percent reduction in UCOP salaries & $50 million cut.
18 percent prune of campus chancellors', vice chancellors' salaries.
15 percent trim of tenured faculty salaries, increased teaching load
10 percent decrease in non-tenured faculty salaries, as well as increase research, teaching load
100% elimination of all Academic Senate, Academic Council costs, wages.
Rose bushes bloom after pruning.
Governor Brown, UC Board of Regents Sherry Lansing, President Yudof can bridge the trust gap to public by offering reassurances that salaries reflect depressed wages in California. The sky will not fall on UC
Californians are reasonable people. Levy no new taxes until an approved balanced budget: let the Governor/Legislature lead - make the tough-minded (not cold hearted) decisions of elected leadership. Afterwards come to public for continuing, specified taxes.
Thanking you for advocating for California, University of California
Barjubg up the wrong tree! Prohibition does not work. One third of the convicts are non-violent drug users. One half of the violent criminals are addicts who only needed a fix.
Reduce the price of drugs to zero by giving the stuff away to any adult who wants it and all your problems will go away.
Add this to the long list of reasons why I would never live in California!
If the claims are as outrageous as D.D. Todd claims, I suggest writing a column rebutting them. Clearly the unions are a problem and I suspect that the claims of Mr. Eastman are correct. Everywhere you find unions, you can find corruption. The union pays the politician, the politician then grants the union everything it demands and a vicious cycle develops. The taxpayer gets screwed. And for anyone who thinks that turning 37,000 criminals loose is a good idea, you are being unrealistic. By the way, how old does one have to be to not become a recidivist?
More anti-Union humbug from the City Journal. This is getting pretty tiresome.
As for California's "problem" of having to release 37,000 felons into the State population, it is extremely unlikely to be any kind of problem. They will release a large number of elderly prisoners who certainly will not be running around raping and pillaging the populace, and an even larger number of prisoners who are in for non-violent crimes. Doubtless some of these will go out and steal a few cars or the like, but public safety will not be adversely affected. They will not be releasing rapists and murderers (unless they are too old to become recidivists). Actually they could release some murderers without danger to the public, viz., those who murdered some member of their family, perhaps a wife or husband. Such murderers almost never kill a second time - their rate of recidivism is almost zero.
Right on John. Just what is sit going to take to get our state to stand up to the public sector unions?
Money pit for the unions? These claims are unfounded lies. A correctional officer earns between $3050 a month to a top salary of $6743 after 20 years on the job (if they can stand the stress). This gets no where near the in excess of $200,000 Mr. Eastman claims for the average employee. You can not pay most people enough money to work in a prison and we can not afford to allow just any thug to work there. California prison standards are the highest in the nation, if they have to change anything they need to change to a results based program system. This article does not even begin to adress real solution. It is just an other political agenda piece.