A Lot about a Little - Dean T. Hartwell's Site
  • Home
  • Essays
  • 9/11 Theory
  • Non-9/11 Theory
  • Jury Duty
  • Appearances
    • Vancouver Hearings
    • YouTube
  • Stage
  • Contact

Reasoned Debate over Public Employee Pensions

9/1/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
I have trouble communicating with people who do not appear to care about facts.  One well-meaning acquaintance approached me, a public employee, and told me that the Los Angeles Times had run an article about how CALPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System) had based its projections about public pensions on the assumption that the Dow Jones would reach 25,000.

Given that the Dow Jones has never been especially close to this number, this sounded like CALPERS had made a tremendous mistake.  He implied that the taxpayers are being asked to pay too much toward public employee pensions and perhaps even saying that people like me should agree to reductions.

I researched and found what I believe is the article to which he referred.  Here is the relevant excerpt, from the Orange County Register, a newspaper not known to be friendly to public employees:

"CalPERS, which in 1999 advocated retroactive pension increases based on assumed rates of investment returns that essentially required the Dow Jones industrial average to reach 25,000 by 2009, is backed by taxpayers whether its projections are right or wrong."

I looked to see where CALPERS had actually made a statement or had implied that the Dow Jones would need to reach 25,000 by 2009.  So I went straight to the law that enacted the pension increases in 1999, SB 400.  Here is a portion of the bill where proponents say why they support it:

If this benefit package is enacted, the state contribution will fall initially in 2000-2001, to 1.07% of payroll, or $103 million, due to the initial impact of the accounting change, but will increase significantly thereafter, to 4.65% of payroll in 2001-2002, or $465.6 million.  The employer rate will level off in subsequent years, eventually falling below 3% in 2008-2009, but the employer contribution amount will remain in the $379 million range.  CalPERS, however, believes they will be able to mitigate this cost increase through continued excess returns of the CalPERS fund.  They anticipate that the state's contribution to CalPERS will remain below the 1998-99 fiscal year for at least the next decade. Overall, the benefit equity package is the equivalent to about a 2% to 2% increase in normal costs.

If no changes in benefits are enacted, and current assumptions hold, the employer rate will continue to decline, to below 2% of payroll by the 2002-03 fiscal year.  State contributions will decline from the $1.2 billion paid in 1997-98 to $112 million in 2005-06, a decline of about 90% in less than a decade.  With the enactment of this bill, the state will not realize all of these currently projected savings.  The CalPERS Board of Administration, however, has agreed to increase from 90 to 95% the assets considered in its valuation of the plans, and shorten the amortization of the excess assets to 20 years, to help mitigate the impact of the benefit enhancements on State employer contributions.”

I have put in bold what I think are the most important excerpts.  The comments mention state contributions (i.e. taxes to go towards funding of the pensions) to decline at least until about 2009 because of “excess returns of the CALPERS fund.”  I am still unclear about where the number 25,000 in connection to the Dow Jones came from.

At the time of the bill’s writing, CALPERS had gotten exceptional returns.  The Dow Jones had cited CALPERS for a 20.1% return in 1999-2000.  At around that time, the USA Today had said that “strapped” governments had “looked to pension funds.”

The point that critics make is not without merit.  When CALPERS investments go poorly in a given year, the state uses taxes to fulfill its obligations to the pension funds.  To guarantee pensions in this manner may not be the best idea, they say.

I can, as a taxpayer and as a public employee (who chooses not to belong to any union), identify with some of the calls for reform.  Recent hires at my and other cities are promised a lesser pension if and when they work a certain amount of years (typically 30) and reach a certain age (55 or 60).  The base of pension that one receives could be adjusted to their mean salary rather than their highest salary.  Annual pensions could be capped at $100,000.

These reforms would not likely upset the obligation of the state to fund the pensions.  We need a good dialogue between those who are concerned about taxes and those who serve the public.  It all begins with identifying the problem, the most relevant facts and the most just solutions.



0 Comments

A Dialogue, Not a Monologue, about Christianity

11/25/2011

0 Comments

 
I have recently written two diaries on OpEd News, "Did God Ask to Be Trusted?" and "The Choice of a Reluctant Messiah."

In the first, I questioned those who assume about Christianity what cannot be proven, such as the Virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus.  Many of those who profess to uphold these beliefs often fail to care about the beliefs of others, as was recently the case when members of the House of Representatives re-affirmed "In God We Trust" as our motto.

In the second, I made up a conversation with Jesus in which I "reported" him as one who simply preached the coming Kingdom of God and never referred to himself as the Son of God.  This representation of Jesus shows him as compassionate and thoughtful and certainly not vengeful or dogmatic.

I have received some replies about this diaries and was referred to a lengthy article.  If you liked my diaries, this is well worth your read.  It is called "About Christianity."
Picture
0 Comments

How to Spot an Internet Bully

2/9/2011

2 Comments

 
When you discuss matters on the Internet and get responses, be alert for those who want to make you the issue.  They prey upon those who have the audacity to say what they do not agree with.  Once you spot them, you will be wise to avoid communicating with them.

But first you have to spot them.

The Labeler

One sign of trouble comes when somebody puts a label on you.  They may say that you are a “liberal” or a “wing nut” or a “wacko” though they do not even know you and do not likely know much about your ideas.

These people are easy to identify because their use of labels is about all they have to offer.  They tend to see or understand complicated issues in black and white terms and once they put you in a label box, they do not care what you have to say.  Ignore them and move on to more interesting people.

The Subject Changer

A little more subtle are those who pretend to consider your point of view but they ignore the context with which you make your comments.  They shift the focus of the debate.

For example, I argued in an essay in 2003 that the Democratic Party should not nominate General Wesley Clark for President.  I made this statement because he had not been a member of the party for very long and he had endorsed several Republican candidates for a long period of time shortly before the Democratic primaries.

I got back replies from people who questioned whether I had paid my dues, though I was not a candidate.  Some suggested I was a Republican or that I was for another candidate, neither of which was true.  Here is a partial list of the replies I received:

The Exasperator

Others may ask you to provide detail for your point of view.  And when you do that, they respond with more complaints about your ideas than you can wrap your head around!  Too bad you are not discussing the matter in person, where you could cut them off at some point!

It can be mentally exhausting to go through each of the claims made by an opponent, especially one who misstates evidence, misquotes you or takes you out of context or otherwise manipulates you into thinking that you are in a fair debate.  If you proceed with the person, you have two choices: (1) answer every claim they make or (2) answer selectively.

Neither choice is very good.  Answering every claim will undoubtedly produce more rebuttals from your adversary and more headaches from their unbalanced logic.  But if you only answer some of the claims, you will likely get a response that your silence on the unanswered ones must mean you endorse their point of view on them.

Conclusion

You will really go nowhere discussing anything with those who play games with the facts and with your mind.  Like the one who pays the piper, you should call the tune in how you debate another person.

Simply say up front that you would like to argue one issue at a time.  If the other person does not comply, walk away.  If they call you names, walk away.  If they insinuate you do not care about victims or any other irrational point of view, walk away.

And walk towards the conversations of civilized people.
2 Comments

The Hartwell Manifesto - Creating Dialogue the USA Needs Now

8/20/2010

1 Comment

 
The United States has no solid answers in response to the numerous problems facing us.

Unemployment is still double-digits in many areas. So we wonder about our economic security, without which we can do so little.
Two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, fought for no good reason, continue. So we wonder about our nation's future in foreign affairs and about those who volunteer for the armed forces.
The government will still not release relevant information pertaining to events such as the JFK Assassination. So we wonder about the honesty of those who lead us.

We are a nation without answers because we do not ask the right questions. Political discussion, to be of use to our society, would revolve around identifying problems like the ones above, asking questions so as to determine their cause and use hypothesis to test for solutions. Instead, our discussion has been about whose fault something is and how it will affect the two main political parties in the next election.

Instead we hear people's feelings about political parties and candidates and outrage over who has done or said what. Two recent news stories, of Dr. Laura using the "N-word" on the radio and the proposed building of a mosque and cultural center near the World Trade Center, have stirred far more emotion than sense in those talking about them. We should respond to fear by calling upon reason. I really believe that we can do better than this and here is what I propose:

For every opinion like "Obama is not a natural-born citizen," we can use the reason of a summary judgment argument to determine if it is worthwhile to continue. In other words, we could stipulate or say for the sake of argument that the statement is true. Then we ask if it matters. Even if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, there is nothing Congress or anyone else can do to remove him from office. So we should drop the subject or put it into the political file for his opponents in 2012.

For every opinion like "The 'terrorists' are going to get us" we can employ facts over fear. We should ask who "they" are. If one responds the "Muslims" or "Radical Islam," we could ask for facts, such as any facts pointing to radical Muslims in regards to 9/11. Keeping accusers honest is imperative to keeping down the threshold of prejudice and bigotry in our society.

For every opinion like "Public employees are fat cats," we can address ad hominem attacks. Such statements stereotype a group of people unfairly and are becoming common after the City of Bell fiasco in which members of the City Council and other city employees arranged for huge salaries and pensions. The fact is that not all public employees are so well off: the average retired public employee receives $20,000 per year as a pension.

Reason tells us that it is wrong to attack those who cannot fight back. Good discussion is fair and affords everyone a chance to respond. Even if one wants all illegal immigrants deported, the scapegoating of this group or anyone without a voice in power destroys this basic tenet.

We need a dialogue, not a monologue. We can ask questions and listen to others to answer. In fact, we must do this or risk further dividing this nation based on emotions, prejudices and biases.

Here are four questions that we as a nation should answer as part of a dialogue:

What is the proper role of our government and how can we apply this role to basic issues?
Do we support the equality of opportunity and if not, to whom do we deny it and why?
How do we decide when it is time to go to war?
What is a reasonable expectation of privacy in this day and age of the Internet and cell phones?

The public should know the basics of law. Simple knowledge of legal rules like the presumption of innocence, that a law is presumed constitutional upon its passage unless a proper court rules otherwise and that the Bill of Rights refers to the government's suppression of rights like free speech and not the private sector's actions.

We can find the answers to what troubles us and make our nation a better place to live. That's my opinion. What is yours?
1 Comment

Communication Gap between Reagan Republicans and Democrats Resolved!

7/20/2010

2 Comments

 
In his book, Secrecy and Privilege, Robert Parry quotes the late Keith Fuller, general manager of Associated Press, as saying:

""I think a nation is crying, "Enough.'  A nation is saying, "We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims.  We don't believe that the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation.  We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics"but most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs." (205)

Fuller was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 when he made this statement.  Over the years, I have heard similar things said by Republicans who try to explain Democratic ideas.  It is bad enough that they, like Fuller, claim to speak on behalf of the "nation" or the "people."

But what is worse is that they mischaracterize some points of view and flat out distort others.  So I made a dialogue between this kind of Republican and me.

"We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims."

That's funny.  Neither do I and neither does anyone else I know.

Maybe you are talking about the rights of defendants.  I believe that a person is innocent unless proven guilty and deserves the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, such as the right not to be a witness against themselves, the right to counsel, the right to due process, etc.

If you want the rights of victims to take precedence over these rights, first ask yourself how you would feel if you were put under arrest.

"We don't believe the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation."

You probably have a different concept of creation than I do.  That's OK.  But what is not OK is a society where my wife and I have the right to marry one another and two other people are not allowed that right.

And please do not give me a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will wind up allowing people to marry animals or any other absurdity.  The movement to allow same-sex marriage simply would allow two people of the same sex the same rights as a man and a woman.

"We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics."

I don't believe this, either.  However, it is not what you say, but what you imply.

Some people simply cannot work.  Other people have trouble finding work.  Still others would rather take a welfare check than work.  And some of those on welfare do abuse drugs, including alcohol.

But how do we monitor those on welfare so they do not engage in this kind of behavior?  Do you want to add more bureaucrats to check on them?  (Just asking!)

"But most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs."

I assume you are talking about the government.  I've got news for you: have you ever been to a typical corporation?  They have a bureaucracy, too.  You don't apply for a job at Costco by going to the Customer Complaint line, do you?

It sounds like you are saying that you want the government off your back.  What, exactly, does our government force you to do?  Pay your taxes, serve on jury duty and"it used to force men to submit to the draft.

If you don't like what your government is doing, remember that most government is local.  Go tell your city council what you think about regulations, taxes, fees, etc.

Oh yeah, there would be a problem if you want fewer bureaucrats: no one would be there to listen to you tell them what you are sick of!
2 Comments

A Dialogue, Not a Monologue

5/28/2010

0 Comments

 
What is the future of the society we live in?

It won't be about what laws to write, where bombs will drop or who will get elected. It will instead be about something we have known how to do our whole lives.

We need to ask the right questions of one another.
And we need to listen.

Instead of asking whether one believes in God,
we should ask whether our own actions are godly.

Instead of asking whether one is pro-choice or pro-life,
we should ask what we can do to make sure every child is wanted.

Instead of asking "Why Me?"
we should ask "What Can I Do to Help This Situation?"

Instead of demanding the truth from others,
we should tell it ourselves.

Instead of pushing to make more money,
we should ask what we can to do be more valuable to those around us.

Instead of condemning illegal immigration,
we should watch whom we hire.

Instead of blaming "the terrorists"
we should identify the term objectively.

Instead of reading history literally,
we should talk back to it until we are satisfied of its facts.

We can choose a future where we continue to divide ourselves by labels or one where we confront problems and work together to solve them. The economy will be bad for quite some time and political matters won't be much better so divisions will be costly.
0 Comments

    Author

    Dean Hartwell keeps pursuing the truth about those who govern us.

    Categories

    All
    9/11
    9/11
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Lies
    9/11 Lies
    9/11 Myth
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Phone
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Plot
    9/11 Relatives
    9/11 Truth
    9/11 Truth
    9/11 Truth
    Acars
    Addiction
    Adventist
    Adversity
    A Fans Folklore5e0914a21d
    Afp
    Agent
    Agents
    Allies
    Amazon
    American 11
    American 77
    American 77
    American Free Press
    Amnesty
    Argument
    Armed Forces
    Assassination
    Associated Press
    Atheism
    Author
    Authority
    Authors
    Barbara Olson
    Barnes And Noble
    Baseball
    Battle
    Belief
    Bible
    Bill Giltner
    Bin Laden
    Bin Laden Framed
    Bipolar
    Bipolar Disorder
    Birthers
    Blogtalkradio
    Bob Fox
    Book
    Book Review
    Books
    Broncos
    Budget
    Bullies
    Bully
    Bureaucracy
    Burley
    Bush Administration
    Calpers
    Campaign
    Campaign 2016
    Candor
    Cell Phone Calls
    Change
    Charles Giuliani
    Cheating
    Cheney
    Choice
    Christianity
    Chuck Ochelli
    Cia
    Cimino
    Circle
    City Of San Bernardino
    Cleveland
    Colin Powell
    Comments
    Communication
    Conflict
    Conformity
    Conspiracy
    Constitution
    Constructiveness
    Contract
    Conversation
    Corporations
    Country
    Court
    Critical Acclaim
    Critical Thinking
    D
    Danne Burleyb5f49f8b7f
    Danne Burley Show3cf92a4960
    David Cay Johnston
    Dead Men Talking
    Dean Hartwell
    Debate
    Decisions
    Deficit
    Democrats
    Deportation
    Depression
    Detectors
    Dialogue
    Dick Cheney
    Discussion
    Dishonesty
    Disnformation
    Distortion
    Dont Ask Dont Tell
    Drugs
    Economy
    Election 2000
    Empowerment
    Enemies
    Error
    Euphemism
    Evidence
    Facts
    Facts Talk
    Fair Elections
    Faith
    Fakery
    Fantasy Football
    Fate
    Fear
    Fetzer
    Flight 11
    Flight 175
    Flight 77
    Flight 93
    Flights
    Football
    Footnotes
    Foreign Policy
    Free Agency
    Freedom
    Free Will
    Fuqua
    Future
    Game
    Gatekeepers
    Gay Rights
    Gays
    Gingrich
    God
    Gop
    Government
    Government Lies
    Government Responsiveness
    Grand Chessboard
    Guardian
    Gumshoe News
    Gun Control
    Gun Rights
    Happiness
    Hartwell
    Hijackers
    History
    Hoax
    Homophobia
    Hope
    Hypocrisy
    Identity
    Idolotry
    Illegal Immigration
    Immaculate Reception
    Immigration
    Infiltration
    Inlaws4243aba70b
    Innocence
    Integrity
    Intel Hub
    Intelligence
    Internet
    Interview
    Interviews
    Intuition
    Irancontra8ce74f07fb
    Isolation
    Issues
    Jack Tatum
    Jesus
    Jfk
    Jfk Assassination
    Jim Fetzer
    Jim Mason
    Jim Viken
    Joe Paterno
    John Anderson
    John B Anderson4f095ea31b
    John Madden
    July 15
    Juror
    Jury
    Jury Duty
    Justice
    Kennedy
    Kennedys
    Ken Stabler
    Killtown
    Kindle
    Kohan V Nbc
    Law
    Lawsuit
    Leaders
    Leadership
    Lee Harvey Oswald
    Lee Oswald
    Lessons
    Liaison
    Lies
    Life
    Lisa Jefferson
    Logic
    Loyalty
    Lying
    Malaysian Flight
    Manipulators
    Mary W Maxwell
    Mayor White
    Mcgreal
    Media
    Memoirs
    Mental Illness
    Mh370
    Military
    Mirsch
    Mistakes
    Modern Life
    Morality
    Movie
    Myth
    Mythology
    Nation
    Nationalism
    Nbc
    Needs
    New Media
    Newt Gingrich
    Nfl
    Nixon
    No Hijackers
    No Hijackings
    No Holding Back
    No Plane
    No Planers
    No Planes
    Oakland Raiders
    Obama
    Observations
    Occupy Wall Street
    Ochelli
    October Surprise
    Official Theories
    Olson
    Oped News
    Osama
    Osama Bin Laden
    Oswald
    Parole
    Passengers
    Paterno
    Patriotism
    Peace
    Penn State
    Pension
    Pentagon
    People
    Permanent War
    Perpetual War
    Pers
    Personal
    Persuasion
    Petition
    Philosophy
    Pictures
    Pilots For 911 Truth5753843a5f
    Planers
    Planes
    Planes Without Passengers
    Planes-without-passengers
    Planted Evidence
    Pledge Of Allegiance
    Podcast
    Policy
    Politicians
    Politics
    Power
    Praise
    Presidents
    Public
    Public Policy
    Question
    Questions
    Radio
    Raiders
    Ramona Rees
    Reagan
    Real Deal
    Reason
    Recommend
    Records
    Relatives
    Religion
    Republican Party
    Republicans
    Researchers
    Responsibility
    Resurrection
    Review
    Reviews
    Revolution
    Rfk
    Righteousness
    Rights
    Risk
    Robert Kennedy
    Romney
    Ronald Reagan
    Rules
    Rumors Fly
    Samesex Marriage05ed85f18c
    San Bernardino
    Satire
    Scams
    Scapegoats
    Script
    Secrecy
    Secret
    Self Help
    Selfhelp1a7d6cf1cb
    Selfhelp930f0ee660
    Shanksville
    Shepard
    Show
    Sirhan
    Sites
    Solutions
    Stabler
    Story
    St Peter64b59c8f07
    St Peters Choicef4a5414f38
    Strategy
    Summers
    Super Bowl
    Super Bowl Xiv
    Swan
    Taxes
    Team Sports
    Tea Party
    Technology
    Ted Olson
    Terrorism
    The Detectors
    The Detectors Featuring Dean Hartwell
    The Ochelli Effect
    Theories
    Thurman Munson
    Time Management
    Todd Beamer
    Tolerance
    Trump
    Trust
    Truth
    Type I
    Type Ii
    United
    United 175
    United-175
    United 93
    United-93
    Values
    Vancouver Hearings
    Video Fakery
    Voice
    Voters
    Wants
    War
    War On Terror
    War Party
    Was 9/11 A Movie?
    Watergate
    Will And Grace Case
    World Series
    Wrong
    Youtube
    You Tube

    Archives

    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    April 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    RSS Feed

Dean Hartwell - Banned by Amazon!