Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15210)	11/5/2003 2:41:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793696

Broder knows the Political process as well as anyone. I suspect he is on to something here. _____________________________________ Primary Gift To Bush? By David S. Broder Washington Post There has always been a risk that Terry McAuliffe's decision to speed up the race for the Democratic presidential nomination would backfire on his party -- and now that risk looms larger than ever. It was McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who urged the rules change that permitted other states to move their primaries and caucuses closer to the January contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. The predictable land rush almost ensures that McAuliffe will achieve his goal of identifying President Bush's opponent before the middle of March -- the exact time when the delegate selection process used to begin. McAuliffe argued that the Democrats should finish their nominating process as early as possible so that the party could rally around the winner and fundraisers could accelerate the effort to equip that candidate with the cash he will need to compete against Bush's millions. It was not a crazy theory, and it might have worked if only the Democrats had found a legitimate frontrunner. If Al Gore had decided to try again, chances are he would have led the polls from the beginning and would have benefited if scattered rivals were dispatched before spring. In Gore's absence, if Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had been able to capitalize on his role as the vice presidential nominee in 2000 and make himself the consensus candidate of the party establishment, he also might have been helped by an early primary calendar. But Gore didn't run and Lieberman hasn't been able to assert his claim. And Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might have mopped the floor with all of the Democratic aspirants, said, "No thanks" for '04. The result is that the Democratic field is essentially leaderless, which means that whoever is chosen by March to carry the banner will be someone largely unknown to voters today. That is a heavy burden to carry into a race against an incumbent president. Along with six other Washington Post reporters, I spent the last part of October interviewing voters in different sections of the country. All of us found the same thing. Outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, the field of nine Democrats is basically a blur of undefined faces and voices to those who will elect the next president. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark were the two names most often mentioned to us -- though it was not uncommon for people to struggle to recall the surnames -- probably because they got the most attention on TV in October. When Post pollsters Richard Morin and Claudia Deane asked a large sampling of Democrats to evaluate their candidates, the impression of a leaderless field was confirmed. Only four Democrats had managed to break into double digits in support: Dean, Lieberman, Clark and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. Dean led with just 16 percent; the others were bunched at 12 or 13 percent. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was fifth, with 8 percent. When asked how much they knew about these five misnamed "frontrunners," only one-third of the Democrats polled claimed to know a great deal or a good amount about Lieberman, the best-known of the pack. And his numbers were twice as high as those for Clark. You think Howard Dean, who leads in New Hampshire polls and is challenging Gephardt in Iowa, has impressed the Democrats around the country? More than half of them said they know little or nothing about his personal qualities or his positions on issues. Of course, voters will learn a lot more about these men in the next four months, as the nomination fight moves from cable, print and the Internet and becomes a television story. That's the good news for the Democrats. The bad news is that much of what the voters learn will be negative, as largely unknown candidates try to tear down their opponents to gain a narrow plurality victory in the tidal wave of contests that will take place between mid-January and the second Tuesday in March. You can see the tear-down cycle beginning already for Dean. Even in his seemingly advantageous position, he has so little political capital in the bank that it will be difficult for him to defend himself. McAuliffe's scheme to shorten the contest may not reduce the bloodletting. It may simply intensify it. This schedule may be the best possible break for a vulnerable-looking president. washingtonpost.com

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15210)	11/5/2003 4:32:39 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793696

This is of little interest to non Californians, but Weintraub puts together the kind of info that leaves the rest of the Reporters in the dust. I would cut the Universities/College system and tell the Administrators to do the cutting in overhead and Social Science departments. And all of the Education PHDs can go. A few less Sociology Grads will be no loss. Let them get technical Degrees. And will cut down on the left in the system. The teachers would be better off with a four year degree and OTJ experience. lindybill@ifIruledtheworld.com ____________________________________________ Cutting state payroll costs not as easy as it sounds By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist - (Published November 4, 2003) As Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger goes hunting for ways to balance the state budget, he is quickly going to discover that the "bureaucracy" his supporters love to hate is not the easy target they think it is. Most of what the state spends isn't in public employees but in transfer payments to schools, welfare moms, old people and doctors and hospitals caring for the poor. About $17 billion of the state's $100 billion budget is in payroll. Add $2 billion for employee and retiree health care and another $2 billion for pension costs, and about 20 percent of the budget goes toward people who work directly for the state. Still, that number has been rising. In 1998, when Gray Davis was elected governor, employee costs totaled less than $15 billion. If Schwarzenegger could simply roll back those costs to 1998 levels, he would save roughly half of what he needs to balance the budget. But that's a huge "if." To get there the new governor would have to navigate a difficult path through employee unions protecting recent gains and constituents fighting to keep services at their current levels. Consider one much discussed number: the state added 36,000 employees between 1998 and 2002. That sounds extravagant. But 24,000 of those new workers were in the University of California and the California State University systems, where enrollment has grown almost as fast as the payroll. While I would like to know how many of those new bodies are academics and how many are pushing paper in support jobs, I'd bet it would be almost impossible to get rid of many of them now without radically reducing the course offerings available to the thousands of new students who have poured onto college campuses in the past five years. The rest of the state payroll isn't quite as inaccessible to Schwarzenegger, but most of the actions taken by the Davis administration could not be undone without the cooperation of the public employee unions, which is unlikely. In 1999, Davis negotiated new contracts with most state employees, giving them 4 percent raises retroactive to July 1, 1999, and another 4 percent that took effect a year later. Then, in 2002, Davis signed new deals promising a 5 percent raise on July 1, 2003. To save money in the midst of the budget crisis, most of the unions recently agreed to defer that raise for one year. In exchange, Davis gave them an extra day off each month, effectively paying them the same amount to work 5 percent less than they did a year ago. Health care costs also have been rising. As recently as 2000, the state was paying about $800 million a year for employee health care and about $360 million to insure retirees and their dependents. This year, those costs are nearing a combined $2 billion. And the most recent contracts signed by Davis and the unions commit the state to paying 80 percent of health care premiums that are rising at double-digit rates every year. Finally, as these columns have well documented, pension costs for state employees are soaring. A 1999 deal that gave modest increases to most workers, an across-the-board raise to those already retired and big boosts for public safety employees added at least $500 million a year to the taxpayer contribution for retirement. A stumbling stock market, meanwhile, has reduced the size of the pension fund and put taxpayers on the hook for even bigger contributions. A few years ago, at the peak of the booming stock market, taxpayers were paying nothing into the pension fund. This year the tab was $2.1 billion. Next year it could approach $3 billion. Davis agreed as part of this year's budget deal to shave $1 billion in payroll costs through layoffs and salary reductions. His administration claims this has been achieved. But past promises of administrative savings haven't always materialized. And it will be months before we know if the cuts to which Davis attests are real. Schwarzenegger has pledged to renegotiate the employee contracts to try to shave still more from the state's payroll costs. But he might have better luck focusing on the future rather than the past. The state's budget shortfall isn't just a measure of today's spending compared to revenues. It's a reflection of projected growth in spending in the years ahead. And that's where Schwarzenegger could have the most effect. Policies that trim the growth in health-care premiums and direct new employees into less expensive retirement plans would be solid steps in getting payroll costs under control. Beyond that, reducing the need for employees by re-engineering the way the state does business probably holds more promise than banging away at the unions to accept pay cuts. The state could be much smarter in the way it uses technology to improve productivity, as most private-sector employers already have done to great effect. This is not the kind of stuff that makes for sexy headlines. But if Schwarzenegger expects to make much progress on this front, it's what he is going to have to do. sacbee.com