What could be more democratic than a signature campaign that garned more support in a mere three weeks than the number of people who cast ballots in the June election?

When running scared, always resort to a lawsuit. In politics, that's the Hail Mary pass before losing the game.

It won't work.

The unions look more pathetic every day...

"Vicious"? A "low blow"? "Pension-fed and pension-fat"?

Sounds like stuff from a pundit's mouth.

Does anyone have an original thought?

The unions are all about misdirection. You'll note they do not dispute the pension or health care costs projected in the grand jury report because the numbers come from the Controller's office. Nor do they dare broach the topic of how exploding employee benefit costs should be funded- they'll slash away and avoid such topics at all costs...Looking at comments posted in major newspaper articles, I don't think they're fooling anyone...

Dear Guest LD,
Thank you for addressing the questions posed. I will respond.

YOU: "Why are these pensions and benefits warranted?" -- Because these pensions and benefits have been negotiated, agreed upon, funded, sustained, and codified in a legal contract. "
Yes, I agree. Adachi's amendment will revise these codes in regard to future pension obligations. No one is going to have his pension pulled out from under his feet. We merely want to make public sector employees legally responsible for paying some of their own pension obligations.

YOU: " Cheiron, grand juries, controllers and the like can only forecast numbers based on the worst economic downturn in a generation or two."
I respectfully disagree. The controller's forecasts have little to do with the current recession. He wrote that the stock market will have to rise 15% a year just to meet CURRENT pension obligations. I don't think anyone expects the Dow Jones to triple over the next decade. The stock market had its big run from 1980-2010, and current public-sector pensions were negotiated based on a scenario that this rosy picture would continue forever. In short, you are the one with the rosy scenario. A realistic scenario demands pension reform now.

YOU: "SFGB recently wrote that the Adachi measure will cost taxpayers more in health care costs. Go figure."
You are referring to the federal stimulus package, which includes $23 million to cover healthcare costs in SF. First, the Public-Sector Unions believes this money is earmarked for itself, but this is not true. It is earmarked for San Francisco citizens one and all. The union wants the money for its own members. Second, this is a one-off gift. It will not be available next year, so our systemic pension problem will persist regardless.

YOU: "Why should City employees get guaranteed pension and benefits those in the private sector don't get?" -- Well, those in the private sector do get "guaranteed" benefits."
LD, you are referring to the union's defined-pension plans, which guarantee specified monthly benefits on retirement by a pre-determined formula. Very few people in the private sector are blessed with this little jewel. For most of us, your retirement payments depend on how investments are performing. Defined-pensions work fine when the economy stock market is rolling good. But those days are over. (see above about rosy scenario for 15% stock market growth needed). Your public-sector pre-determined formula requires us (the taxpayer) to raise your retirement pay 8% a year. Unsustainable. I know you don't like that word, but there ya go.

YOU: "Why should City employees be able to retire so early?" -- Why should any cop in the entire US retire after 20 years? Or fireman/woman for that matter? You tell me.
Totally agree. Why should SF public-sector workers, cops, and firemen, be able to retire on full pre-determined pensions as young as 55? UNSUSTAINABLE again (sorry-;)

YOU: "Look, the question here obviously revolves around broader budget issues. So, given that, pensions will not suck anything dry more than, say, corporations paying less payroll tax."
I agree, there are definitely broader issues here. But in the city of San Francisco, in the general fund stemming from tax revenues, the key issue regarding tax revenues, is how those revenues are spent. And the controller states that pension/retirement obligations will soon consume 30% of all tax revenues in San Francisco, thereby cutting funding to hospitals, Park & Rec, schools, and roads. I think this is a serious problem that needs addressing, and you should not be dismissing it as irrelevant and inconsequential.

YOU: "To you the numbers from the Controller's (capital "C"!) office are like the word of God. These predictions are predictably dire because they are based on a snapshot of pension funds from a moment in time that happens to be the worst economic slump in recent history."
You are wrong here. The controller's office did not make a worst-case scenario. Its scenario is realistic. The union has made the best-case, rosy scenario. The union believes that its defined-pension plan is sustainable, but this will require that the stock market rise 15% a year over the next decade. How best-case scenario can you possible get?

YOU: "Right now corporate profits are up, 401K's, mutual funds, and pensions are recovering."
You are channeling Ronald Reagan from the grave. You sound like a Chamber of Commerce Republican. Yes, the stock market rose in 2009, but the days of heady economic growth are long gone.

YOU: " Personally, I choose to be an alarmist about, say, climate change rather than fiscal matters, the latter being fully under the control of people."
Tell that to the 10% of Californians standing in unemployment lines and the 25% who are underemployed. "Fully under the control of people." Again, you sound Reagan-esque: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You full control your own destiny."

YOU: "And Barton: You and I disagree, no doubt. But you have to do better than hollow slogans such as "pension-fed and pension-fat city hall employees," or worse, the "unsustainable tsunami trainwreck." Plain English, por favor."
Plain English: Si senor, Si uno no esta de acuerdo con ti, sea un bufo.
There it is. All in plain English.

In sum, you seem to assume that once our little recessionary blip is over, public-sector workers will be able to go back to getting 8% increases in pension/healthcare payments annually and retiring at age 55, with not a complaint from the public that pays your wages. But I can assure you that the days of rosy stock-market growth to fund your pension and tax revenues flowing freely into your lap are over.

Vote Yes on Prop B...

...if you want tax revenues to go to non-profits, parks, schools, public hospitals, and roads instead of getting sucked into defined-pension plans for city hall workers.

Barton and Seej now freely admit the Adachi measure is based on projections. We're making some progress here. Good job guys.

Guest LD,

No, public-sector workers are ALREADY dipping into the general fund.

They are consuming funds that would otherwise have been given to non-profits, Park & Rec, hospitals, etc.

The situation is already dire. The controllers office believes that they will (realistically) only get worse.

Your projections are based on a rosey, best-case scenario.

The more I read the comments, the more I realize that it's really about stopping the collective bargaining process and unions in the public sector. The unions gave back over 250 million in concessions to balance our current budget. We did that throught the collective bargaining process which Proposition B makes an end run around. As far as lavish goes, given the fact that public sector unions bargained for health care benefits and a pension plan rather than higher salaries that the private sector has, this was done through a process and a contract. Adachi could have made this temporary but he didn't. It is permanent. Budget projections change year to year. But even in good years, services have been cut along with take-aways from the workers themselves. Having worked as a city and county worker for 15 years, it has always fallen on us to give back.

It really isn't about saving the actural services that we provide, it is about breaking contracts and stopping collective bargaining by any means necessary in the public sector. The fact that a poison pill section was added that would freeze all salaries and benefits for 5 years for workers who wish to exercise their collective ability to take the measure to court is anothe disturbing trend in this bill.
The propostion to win at the polls is going to have to demonize the words pension, health care benefits, government workers and unions under the guise of pension reform.
Since Propostion B did not specifically indicate the money saved going directly into services, the money gets dumped into the general fund which can be used for any reason. That includes hiring more highly priced consults, more adminstrators, more out-sourcing of jobs to corporations and just about any project not connected directly to providing more services or maintaining safety net services for growning numbers of people.

In the end, it is really about destroying what labor has buildt over the years; good collective bargaining agreements with employers that include a decent wage with good benefits. And it is about destroying the labor movement that has made substantial gains especially in San Francisco, since the 1930's, where the only general strike in U.S. history happened.

Is so hilarious.

Take for example the cities mandated hangover pay.

The city mandated sick pay law backed by the unions and the cities progressives trumps individual employment contracts between employer and employee. It also trumps company policy, which people accept when they take a job, so the board and their union masters are changing already agreed upon policies. And get this, the law also trumps union contracts that do not explicitly state that the contract supersedes the cities law.

In this case the so called progressives and the public employee unions used their employees on the board of supervisors to cancel out sick pay and calling in sick rules in already negotiated contracts.

The hangover pay law requires that until the next negotiation the cities law supersedes the (get this) negotiated union contract. When the contract is renegotiated the union can decide not to negotiate the insertion of language around the cities law.

That is an incredible line of reasoning you have there considering the unions have repeatedly proven that getting their way, anyway they can is the most important factor in any deal.

The symbiotic relationship of; supervisor, union master, non profit complex shouter, servile Guardian cheer leading, special interest $$, and general all around progressive scheming and getting over makes your argument purely naked opportunism.

Getting your way anyway you can then calling for some form of fairness makes Saul Alinski cheer from the grave.

Proposition B will not stop collective bargaining. The city will still have to sit down with you each year and bargain in good faith.

It will not stop you from getting pay raises when times are good (or even fair).

It is merely asking you to cover some of your own pension costs so you do not keep dipping into the general fund and we do not have to keep seeing city services wither and wither and wither as a result.

Yes, it will "force" public workers to pay for part of their own future pension obligations.

What is wrong with that? Paying for your own future pension costs. You and me and most everybody already does this. Why not public employees, too?

What's wrong with making public-sector employees pay the same costs (for their own future pensions) just like the rest of us already do?

Barton says:

"Public-sector workers currently pay $9 a month for full health benefits for them and all of their dependents that continues even after they retire as young as the age of 50 in some cases."

This convoluted, botched splice of disparate numbers is false. According to the SF Chronicle piece Barton quotes two posts later, the current Kaiser payment for one employee with one dependent is $9. Not $9 for "all of their dependents." The SF Chronicle reference makes no mention of age 50 retirement. Did Barton just throw that it for good measure?

Barton, where is your evidence that "public-sector workers currently pay $9 a month for full health benefits for them and all of their dependents that continues even after they retire as young as the age of 50 in some cases"? That SF Chronicle piece provides insufficient evidence. I would like to see proof of an employee retiring at age 50 paying $9 a month with full coverage for him/herself plus all dependents.

Back to reality, if prop B passes, that same $9 plan for one employee with a single dependent will increase to $249. What's that, like, a 2,500% increase? That is for only one dependent. You can be sure this will price people out of SF, perhaps most of the Bay Area.

But that is of no concern to Jeff Adachi or Michael Moritz.