You cannot deny that the democrats run this state. The republicans have been reduced to weak a minority that at best can only delay the progressive agenda.

If two thirds of citizens are against union over reach then why are they represented by two thirds in Sacramento that will do nothing to stop it? Your party has been high jacked. The simple undeniable truth is that the electorate is to blame for all that ails this state. Your excuses, stats and data are nice but here is how it works. “Liberals” vote for democrats. Democrats will not stop pension abuse. Liberals support bloated pensions.
You can’t have it both ways. We are all accountable for our votes. Why blame the politico? Elections have consequences. According to the actions of our overwhelmingly Democratic state, local and County governments Democrats support $16 billion deficits, bloated pensions, higher taxes, stifling environmental regulations (unless you are Apple or a bullet train), High speed rail, union only government contracts, the welfare state, big labor over reach, 12% unemployment, illegal immigration, green subsidies etc…..etc….. You can make all of the excuses you want.When will the average Democratic voter step and take responsibilty for thier vote?

First, on the issue of pensions, you ignore the fact that GOP governors who have tackled pensions have generally left out law enforcement. That included Meg Whitman when she was running. You ignore that a Democratic mayor took on the issue in San Jose. A Republican mayor (but a former cop) did the same in San Diego. It was a self-described “progressive” Public Defender who took on pensions in SF. Democratic governors in Illinois, NY and CA have made serious proposals (not far enough for my taste), but admittedly are being blocked by Democratic legislators.

I don’t know Dan Borenstein’s political affiliation, if any, but I think I’m safe in saying he’s not part of the Tea Party. Resolving the pension issue is going to take support across the political spectrum, including Democrats who understand that there is nothing “liberal” about trashing important government services and programs to pay lavish benefits to government employees. According to a Field Poll, two thirds of CA voters favor capping pensions. You don’t get to two-thirds without including a lot of us terrible, state-destroying “registered Democrats.” You also wrongly assume that registered Democrats never cross party lines at the polls.

Second, as important as the pension issue is, there are many others. There are many Democrats who are not overly sympathetic to union over-reaching, just as there are Republicans (or used to be) who understand the path to fiscal responsibility does not include making all the Bush tax cuts permanent ($4 Trillion over 10 years) and then piling on the Ryan/Romney proposal to cut tax rates another 20% ($5 Trillion).

I could not agree with you more. Your your argument makes sense, but still Ca. will keep voting for politicians that are owned by the public sector unions. The democrats in Sac do not have the will or courage to stand up and do what is right for the people of Ca.

You pegged the problem, but like most Californians you are a registered democrat and continue to destroy our state with your vote.

I wouldn’t pick on just police and fire when it comes to pensions (and let’s not forget lifetime health care for retirees and their dependents). 2.5% at age 55 or 60 is pretty common in the local and county non-safety jobs. Plus, unlike teachers and police/fire, those people also get Social Security. On the other hand, most of the spiking with overtime and other factors happens in the police and fire jobs. That can and does make a huge difference.

Even the old 2% multiplier plans were way out of whack with the better private sector defined benefit plans, where they even existed. The typical multiplier for those plans was more like 1.5%, capped at about 45-50% of average of the highest 3-5 years. No cost of living adjustments, and full pension not available to start until age 65.

Defined benefit needs to disappear completely. No matter what reforms they do, you can count on loopholes you can drive a bullet train through. They keep coming up with ideas for tweaking the current system. Nobody even bothers to ask the basic question of what constitutes a reasonable retirement benefit. Where did they ever come up with 2%, 2.5% or 3% or the idea of retiring at mid-career age? Based on what?

Yeah right. If anyone knows how to game the system it’s Jerry.

When he was AG he would write ballot summaries of some pile of crap dimmiecrat backed initiatives in such a way that they smelled like roses.