patrick.net

WTF Mish, don't you care about the plight of Marcus and his ilk?

I mean the poor starving public servants and all, it brings a tear to my eye when I hear stories of the poorest of them having to scrape by on 100k plus gold plated benefits, just terrible, obviously you just don't give a rat's ass.

The kids are the biggest losers in this reckless neo-keynesian borrow-and-spend scam.

Yup, this is why the future growth states will be Utah and Colorado.

indigenous says

Yup, this is why the future growth states will be Utah and Colorado.

As they cannot keep from eating future seed corn. ~

Another well researched piece by Mish.

Why is it that he thinks that quoting some guy making up a bunch of stuff and pulling a lot of inferences out of his ass is any different than Mish himself doing it ?

I guess it allows him to send a dishonest message without actually lying himself. Or so he tells himself.

But if you don't even ask yourself "where does that conclusion come from ?" when no supporting evidence is given, then you might as well be lying yourself.

Funny how Jon Coupal is quoted. You know, the Jon Coupal who runs the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, also known as the union for wealthy landlords. What's funny is how this clown was quoted, yet it is his organization that is singlehandedly responsible for so many bond proposals.

How you ask? Prop 13, that's how. Jarvis and his crew starved the state's education budget, and subsequently school construction and modernization funding from providing school districts with the ability to receive money from the state, like they do in others, for keeping schools up to date and modern.

Then they have the nerve to propose alternative solutions for funding, and bring in red herrings like the Vergara ruling (nothing to do with school construction) and CalSTRS.

I love how the people that caused the mess, know nothing about how school financing is run, now are the same people with the chutzpah to provide "solutions".

What next? Are they going to tell us that fracking is the answer to our debt, like oil was the answer for paying for the war in Iraq?

Do yourself a favor and stop listening to hacks like this.

Mish, that sucker! He makes a living selling bogus gold investment schemes when he can be sitting on his fat ass, smoking expensive cigars, riding in a new Escalade, and collecting a fat union pension. What a dupe!

And to acknowledge the biggest, sickest elephant in the room – that massive, teetering colossus called CalSTRS, should teachers, who only spend 180 days per year actually teaching, really be entitled to pensions that equal 75% of their final salary after only 30 years, in exchange for salary withholding that barely exceeds what private employees pay into Social Security?

Should anyone deserve a pension ?

How are you going to attract good people to the profession if the compensation isn't pretty good ?

It's simply part of teachers compensation. You could have been a teacher if you think it's such a great deal. If the marketplace works, shouldn't compensating teachers well pr st least very decently, attract great people to the profession ? Many people think teachers should be compensated better.

Waitingtobuy says

I love how the people that caused the mess, know nothing about how school financing is run, now are the same people with the chutzpah to provide "solutions".

That may be true for many, but doesn't change the numbers, math doesn't lie. While you can argue where and how borrowed money is best spent, the simple fact that it's borrowed from future generations who have no say or choice makes it irresponsible. Everybody thinks their sector should be the biggest receiver of funds. This is not a partisan issue, never has been, never will be. Make balanced budgets mandatory and any diversion punishable under prison and the problem resolves itself quickly.

mell says

math doesn't lie

No a priori discipline does. But don't ask me to splain it to the mutts.

mell says

Make balanced budgets mandatory and any diversion punishable under prison and the problem resolves itself quickly.

That's moving the field goal posts. If, for example, it takes $20B to adequately run California's schools, but you are providing $15B and saying make it work, that's ridiculous. You want to get mad at people bringing us unbalanced budgets, look at Howard Jarvis and his crew.

I was a school board member for two terms. I understand how school finances work, and I come from business, but it took me a while to learn. We passed two large bond issues, did the work on time and on budget, and our city and schools are now the envy of those surrounding us. In an era of declining enrollment, our schools are more than full and property values keep climbing. People are pulling their kids out of the private schools and sending them to the publics. How many places in CA can say this? And it's because of the bonds and hiring the right people to teach.

People like Jon Coupal who have no idea how any of this works should keep their traps shut. It's no better than a teacher or principal walking into an apartment owner's complex and telling them how to run their business.

Waitingtobuy says

That's moving the field goal posts. If, for example, it takes $20B to adequately run California's schools, but you are providing $15B and saying make it work, that's ridiculous.

I'd argue that the amount that makes it work is not set in stone. But even if it is for you, all I am saying is spend the money that's available only, so if you need 5B more you need to justify, promote and ratify cuts of 5B elsewhere. Do not borrow as it is irresponsible and you are forcing the consequences onto those that have neither voice nor choice. That's why it should be punishable under law, except for in well-defined catastrophic situations.

mell says

Do not borrow as it is irresponsible and you are forcing the consequences onto those that have neither voice nor choice. That's why it should be punishable under law, except for in well-defined catastrophic situations.

Are you saying then that corporations should also not borrow because it is irresponsible? Because if you are, then there are a number of corporate bond people on Wall Street that would like to have a conversation with you.

I think you are naive to believe that we need the approval of minors to move forward with borrowing. There will always be minors and also adults. I seriously doubt that after seeing how well things turned out, my children will be mad at me. To the contrary.

I get what you are saying and fiscally, Im pretty conservative. However, much of the work done in bonds today is work that has been delayed for 40+ years. Our high school is more than 80 years old. If we hadnt waited so long, it would have cost a lot less to fix the serious problems that were there before modernization. That's the reason that we had across the board support from the right and left, even from the local editorial board, which is very conservative.

Again, you cant give blanket statements that because we take on debt, it is bad. There are good construction bonds, and bad ones. Guys like Coupal are the irresponsible ones. It's like the old air filter commercial, "You can pay me now, or pay me later, but in the end, you are going to have to pay me."

BTW the only reason it is on the ballot in the first place is that the pussy legislators don't want to spend any of their political capital on bond issues.

Californians are notoriously naive on this subject, as are most Americans but California takes the cake.

Most bond issues are for capital investment construction or refurbishing, that type of thing. After the money is gone, there is an asset in it's place. The bonds are like mortgages, because these things can't be saved up for, and they shouldn't be.

If it's time to replace bridge or a school, then a certain amount can be allocated per year to cover the amortization and pay off the bond issues that covered the construction cost.

It's totally prudent and a very normal practice to pay for capital investments over time.

Again, think of it as similar to a mortgage or car loan.

mell says

While you can argue where and how borrowed money is best spent, the simple fact that it's borrowed from future generations who have no say or choice makes it irresponsible.

I don't know what you're talking about. Governments make decisions all the time about highways, schools, public buildings, parks and these are often if not usually paid for with borrowed money, and they are for the benefit of the present population and the future population. Their amortization over future years then has to be included in those future budgets. This is a common practice in government and in the business world.

humanity says

Most bond issues are for capital investment construction or refurbishing, that type of thing.

No they're not they are about funding pensions. The school are paid for by the developers who pass the cost along in the cost of the house or Mello-Roos.

Waitingtobuy says

Are you saying then that corporations should also not borrow because it is irresponsible? because if you are, then there are a number of corporate bond people on Wall Street that would like to have a conversation with you.

As long as there are no bailouts (zero exceptions) they can borrow all they want. Funny thing is that in case of bankruptcy there is a fairly decent protection for the bondholders, but certain administrations thought they were above the law and shat on the rule of law and fucked over the bondholders.

Waitingtobuy says

Again, you cant give blanket statements that because we take on debt, it is bad. There are good construction bonds, and bad ones. Guys like Coupal are the irresponsible ones.

That's where we differ. According to the proponents Prop 13 was all about not kicking out grandma/grandpa due to rising home valuations - how can anybody be so heartless to think that's bad? ;) Then you have FHA - how can it be bad to help helpless wannabe shack owners to their rightful 30-year mortgage? Everybody can make a damn good humanitarian case for their measure.

indigenous says

No they're not they are about funding pensions. The school are paid for by the developers who pass the cost along in the cost of the house or Mello-Roos.

You cant use general obligation bond proceeds for pensions. Not even for salaries, unless you can tie it directly to the capital improvements projects. I think you may be thinking of parcel taxes, which can be used for nearly anything school-related.

mell says

According to the proponents Prop 13 was all about not kicking out grandma/grandpa due to rising home valuations - how can anybody be so heartless to think that's bad?

Yes, but most of that was a ruse. If so, why was Jarvis operating out of the landlords' association HQ? Also, if it's about protecting granny and gramps, why is it that Prop 13 protects commercial too? You can buy the local shopping mall and as long as one person doesn't own more than 50% of your shell company, you keep the same property assessment as the prior owners, and your property taxes stay the same?

Know any poor grannies and gramps that own a shopping mall?

Waitingtobuy says

You cant use general obligation bond proceeds for pensions.

This is the state that has given you the city of Bell, the most onerous taxes in the country, with the biggest unfunded liabilities, they will find a way to interpret this absolute law to their favor.

For your perusal, Note that because of the hearing regarding the bullet train everything you said is NULL and VOID.

“As the result of California Courts refusing to uphold the language of the High Speed Rail bonds, the opponents of any bond proposal, at either the state or local level, need only point to High-Speed Rail to remind voters that promises in a voter approved bond proposal are meaningless and unenforceable.”
- Jon Coupal, October 26, 2014, HJTA California Commentary

If that isn’t plain enough – here’s a restatement: California’s politicians can ask voters to approve bonds, announcing the funds will be used for a specific purpose, then they can turn around and do anything they want with the money. And while there’s been a lot of coverage and debate over big statewide bond votes, the real money is in the countless local bond issues that collectively now encumber California’s taxpayers with well over $250 billion in debt.

Over the past few weeks we’ve tried to point out that local tax increases – 166 of them on the November 4th ballot at last count, tend to be calibrated to raise an amount of new tax revenue that, in too many cases, are suspiciously equal to the amount that pension contributions are going to be raised over the next few years. For three detailed examples of how local tax increases will roughly equal the impending increases to required pension contributions, read about Stanton, Palo Alto, and Watsonville‘s local tax proposals. It is impossible to analyze them all.

http://unionwatch.org/californias-12-3-billion-in-proposed-school-bonds-borrowing-vs-reform/

indigenous says

humanity says

Most bond issues are for capital investment construction or refurbishing, that type of thing.

No they're not they are about funding pensions.

This is whats called made up bullshit. It's what we get constantly from you when reality doesn't line up with your ideology or when you're just in the mood to troll reality.

humanity says

This is whats called made up bullshit. It's what we get constantly from you when reality doesn't line up with your ideology or when you're just in the mood to troll reality.

BULL SHIT, this boys and girls is called willful ignorance. As to the other he is just projecting.

indigenous says

humanity says

Most bond issues are for capital investment construction or refurbishing, that type of thing.

No they're not they are about funding pensions.

indigenous says

humanity says

This is whats called made up bullshit. It's what we get constantly from you when reality doesn't line up with your ideology or when you're just in the mood to troll reality.

BULL SHIT, this boys and girls is called willful ignorance. As to the other he is just projecting.

Okay let's play a game called "support what you said with evidence"

I'll go first:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CEEQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ppic.org%2Fmain%2Fpublication.asp%3Fi%3D874&ei=ZCVYVMECwbSiBIHVgpAK&usg=AFQjCNHIHTVWSVNFBeg0nOiukuq3VsOGZw&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cGU

Bonds are generally used to finance the cost of building capital facilities such as roads, fire stations, flood protection, and schools. They are repaid, with interest, using revenues from taxes or sometimes from fees and charges.

This from the below link:

A proper interpretation of the California Constitution would require voter approval of, not just the amount of the debt, but specification of the project to be funded. In our lawsuit, we argued that the current HSR plan so deviates from the proposal presented to voters in 2008 that voter approval of the former proposal should not be deemed approval of today’s plan. We presented evidence showing that today’s plan is not the true high-speed train that voters were promised. The HSR bond measure promised that the project would be built with federal and private matching funds. But today’s plan calls for a system that is not truly “high speed” and is funded primarily by California taxpayers. (And, by the way, the projected costs have now tripled).

http://www.hjta.org/california-commentary/could-the-high-speed-rail-ruling-imperil-the-water-bond/

BTW your article states government rhetoric it does not show how they actually work.

indigenous says

The HSR bond measure promised that the project would be built with federal and private matching funds. But today’s plan calls for a system that is not truly “high speed” and is funded primarily by California taxpayers. (And, by the way, the projected costs have now tripled).

So you don't even remember what it is that we are disputing ? I wasn't arguing that they never change what the funds were targeted for (although they usually don't and by law can not).

But this quote only proves my point which was that bond issues are usually spent on capital assets that are for the public's benefit and which are then amortized over time.

Thank you though, for helping to prove me correct. If the money is being invested in a rail system that is not truly "high speed" but it is still a rail system, these are capital assets, and the bond issue is essentially a mortgage on this.

I can tell that you know I'm right, and you did even when you made your original trollish comment.

indigenous says

humanity says

Most bond issues are for capital investment construction or refurbishing, that type of thing.

No they're not they are about funding pensions.

humanity says

I wasn't arguing that they never change what the funds were targeted for (although they usually don't and by law can not).

Tell that to the bond holders for GM, O decided they were SOL.

humanity says

If the money is being invested in a rail system that is not truly "high speed" but it is still a rail system, these are capital assets, and the bond issue is essentially a mortgage on this.

Right, here they say we have spent:California's bullet-train project has spent nearly $1.2 billion since 2006, according to new estimates released by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Where the fuck is the train, or any fucking part of it. 1.2 Billion is a lot to spend on vapor don't you think???

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/bullet-train-spending-approaches-12b/24926580#ixzz3I46yTxgM

humanity says

I can tell that you know I'm right, and you did even when you made your original trollish comment.

Is that right, I have no doubt of your certitude, but that sure as fuck does not mean you are correct, as that would require certainty which you do not have.

I am sure that if you discuss individual tax and bond measures with conservatives, they will judge each one on its merits and change their views if presented with evidence.

Just an observation, but I think since Mish got long gold a while back, his integrity seems to be positively correlated to the price of gold.

The down swings really bring out the ugly and dishonest side of him. It's kind of weird. When he gets upset about his investments, it makes him feel like criticizing hard working folks.

You watch. If gold trends lower, he's going to get much more in to his fact free union bashing mode. In his view, unions aren't simply a collection of workers with a primary function of collective bargaining. He has all kind of elaborate fantasies about what unions are and what they do.

marcus says

In his view, unions aren't simply a collection of workers with a primary function of collective bargaining.

Since the only ones that exist are public, he would be correct.

indigenous says

humanity says

I wasn't arguing that they never change what the funds were targeted for (although they usually don't and by law can not).

Tell that to the bond holders for GM, O decided they were SOL.

Interesting trolling technique. You change the subject, and then when I say that's not what we were talking about you don't even hear me - and you go right on with some other unrelated comment.

The question was, are most state bond issues used for capital projects or upgrading refurbishing etc. of capital projects or infrastructure and that type of investment.

The answer is still yes.

humanity says

The question was, are most state bond issues used for capital projects or upgrading refurbishing etc. of capital projects or infrastructure and that type of investment.

The answer is that the politicians do what ever they want as with GM and Obama. The bonds get increasingly used for things other than what they said they were going to be used for, as with the bullet train in Calif. And the pressure is going to be greater and greater to use them for pension funding, as they do now and promote them as being "for the schools"