Another lie in CA revealed

[DJofSD]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/california-s-new-taxes-are-paying-for-pensions.html

What if a corporation raised $500 million in a securities offering on the premise that the proceeds would go for operating expenses, then disclosed a few months later that $300 million of this amount would instead be used to service a debt that wasn’t disclosed in the offering document?

This would be false advertising, subject to sanction by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Unfortunately, the SEC doesn’t have jurisdiction over state politicians engaging in the same behavior, and, in the case of California, involving sums that are 100 times bigger.

[mostpost]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/california-s-new-taxes-are-paying-for-pensions.html
In what way are teacher pensions not a part of funding for education. These are obligations which the people of California agreed to when they hired those teachers. Now you are saying they should not pay for them because it is inconvenient?

Anyone with any sense would have realized that teacher salaries healthcare and pensions would be a big part of funding education. Or did you think they were just going to use the money to buy erasers? :rolleyes:

In any case, you have no room to complain about being fooled, as you certainly did not vote in favor of the tax increase.

[DJofSD]

Never said not to pay them. Never said there was not an obligation.

Makes me think you either did not read the article or choose to go off on a tagent.

You'll make any and every excuse to protect the politicians, their lies and to minimize or ignore the consequences of their deceit.

[Tom]

Now you are saying they should not pay for them because it is inconvenient?

Sounds like a plan to me.
Always go for the greater good - the most people who will benefit.
In this case, is is NOT the teachers.

[mostpost]

Never said not to pay them. Never said there was not an obligation.

Makes me think you either did not read the article or choose to go off on a tagent.

You'll make any and every excuse to protect the politicians, their lies and to minimize or ignore the consequences of their deceit.
I read the entire article. The whole premise of the article is wrong. The idea that California voters were misled as to the purpose of the Tax hike is false. The money was to be spent on education. Teacher pensions are a part of education.

Here is another thing which I just noticed as I went back to article. There are two separate situations here. One is the tax hike. The other is shortfall in the pension fund. Just because the shortfall in the pension fund is somewhat the same as the amount of money coming in due to the tax hike, does not mean that the additional revenue is what is being used to deal with the shortfall.

So we have two things to consider. First, were proponents of the tax hike being deceitful if they said the money was for education, then used it to fund the pension plan? No, because teacher compensation is an important part of funding education. Second, even conceding-in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary-that the two are unconnected, there is no evidence that the additional tax money is being targeted to the pension fund.

[delayjf]

These are obligations which the people of California agreed to when they hired those teachers. Now you are saying they should not pay for them because it is inconvenient?

We should not pay them because we cannot afford them. Also, these pensions were never put to a vote, they were political pay back.


The idea that California voters were misled as to the purpose of the Tax hike is false. The money was to be spent on education. Teacher pensions are a part of education.

BS - as someone who lives here I can tell you they never campaigned the tax increase as a means to payoff teacher pension funds.

[Tom]

Teacher pensions are a part of education.

No, they are not.