Jerry Brown Confiscates 48,000 Cell Phones

Hugh Pickens writes "The Sacramento Bee reports that California Governor Jerry Brown, in his first executive order since taking office, has ordered the collection and return of 48,000 state government-paid cell phones — half of those now in use — by June 1. 'It is difficult for me to believe that 40 percent of all state employees must be equipped with taxpayer-funded cell phones,' says Brown in a written statement. 'Some state employees, including department and agency executives who are required to be in touch 24 hours a day and seven days a week, may need cell phones, but the current number of phones out there is astounding.' Brown's cell phone order directs state agency and department heads to retrieve the cell phones and the governor says he plans to continue reducing cell phone usage in months ahead. 'In the face of a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, a cell phone may not seem like a big expense,' adds Brown. 'But spending $20 million, and perhaps far more than that, on cell phones can't be justified.'"

Comments

YRO?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, this was covered in every news outlet in the country, yesterday. Second, what the fuck does this have to do with anyone's rights online?

Re:YRO?

[GeorgeMonroy]

It has absolutely nothing to do with any rights.

Re:YRO?

[Colourspace]

And, while I'm feeling vaguely 'insightful' ;) - The USA (much as I love it) is NOT the rest of the world, who might still have an interest in the story. Should have used my mod points, instead of feeding the troll.

Re:YRO?

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck does this have to do with anyone's rights online?

It has absolutely nothing to do with any rights.

Some dumbass (probably the same guy who modded parent troll) only read the headline and thinks the Governor is confiscating people's private phones. The writeup makes it clear more than once that these are state telephones for state use by bureaucrats who can probably do just as well with land lines. Or they think they have a God-given right for their employer to pay for their personal luxuries. If people were using the phones for personal use, that is embezzlement of public funds and there should be criminal charges brought against the users.

I wonder how California's bureaucratic culture came to deploy cell phones to 40% of its workers, and if the state is going to face serious cancellation charges.

Re:YRO?

[fiannaFailMan]

And, while I'm feeling vaguely 'insightful' ;) - The USA (much as I love it) is NOT the rest of the world, who might still have an interest in the story.

Should have used my mod points, instead of feeding the troll.

Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.

Re:YRO?

[Desler]

Except that this has nothing to do with any online rights. These people have no 'right' to a state-paid cell phone.

Re:YRO?

[thrillseeker]

Going bankrupt doesn't usually mean ceasing to exist.

Re:YRO?

[clarkkent09]

Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.
 
Not really. The state can go bankrupt and the California will still be the worlds 5th biggest economy. The state will just have learned a valuable lesson not to spend more than it can afford.

Re:YRO?

[erroneus]

You think for even a moment that a huge customer like the state of california would have to deal with cancellation charges? I have dealt with groups as small as 50 users and was able to leverage better terms and conditions than that before. The utterly massive sway that such volume could command would keep me in free lunch and phone service for a very long time while being immune to such consumer abuses as cancellation charges and the like.

Re:YRO?

[jgagnon]

These people have no 'right' to a state-paid cell phone.

Unless, of course, their jobs require the use of a phone while away from their office. Either that or the state can look forward to a flood of reimbursement paperwork on a regular basis.

Re:YRO?

[Moryath]

For some offices, this makes sense.

For other offices, it's fuckwitted crap.

In my office, we switched from having office phones to spending the money on a cell allowance, with the understanding (written contract actually) that the allowance was compensation for using our personal cell phones as the office line.

Then, a government "budget cut craze" had them cut the number of cell allowances... AND nobody got their office line back. So we all share one line and it's a colossal fucking mess.

Re:YRO?

[jonbryce]

No, but "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold". Living in Europe, I am aware that the possibility of sovreign defaults in Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Belgium is concerning a lot of people. I live in the UK, and an Irish sovreign default would directly impact me. The Sovreign default in Iceland impacted a lot of people in the UK, even though that has an economy the size of a small neighbourhood in Los Angeles.

So if you are not interested in the possibility of California going bankrupt, you probably should be.

Re:YRO?

[stewbacca]

probably the same guy who modded parent troll) only read the headline and thinks the Governor is confiscating people's private phones.

Well, the typically sloppy slashdot editing is partially to blame.

The article doesn't say "confiscate". It says "the collection and return" (of items already owned by the Government...small detail). If people (not you) continue just read slashdot summaries, they are only getting half the picture, and even then, it's usually wrong, or so severely biased, that it leads people who don't RTFA to draw faulty conclusions.

Re:YRO?

[sharky611aol.com]

You actually think they'll learn a lesson? That's cute.

Re:YRO?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Indeed, I have a personal interest in good governments. I remember reading news about how California was going bankrupt, and how Schwarzenegger was planning severe all kind of budget cuts to education and other welfare. Now I read this and I wonder: why didn't he confiscated all these phones before doing that?

Probably because he was looking at a $25 Billion shortfall, and figured the $20 Million savings weren't worth wasting much time on.

After all, when you suddenly realize that you've no money to pay the rent on your apartment, "Damn, I shouldn't have bought that soda this morning!" is probably the last thing you'll be thinking...

Re:YRO?

[Bing Tsher E]

Bankruptcy allows organizations to slough off all kinds of parasites and needless layers of crap. It's an opportunity for a business to reorganize within well defined guidelines.

That's probably why the Government wouldn't allow Chrysler or GM to go bankrupt. There were too many parasites with an interest in things continuing along the way they were. All those Union dollars, and the entrenched management went wailing to Washington. Same as it ever was.

Bankruptcy is not an endpoint. It's not even a problem. It's a solution.

Re:YRO?

[brainboyz]

See the LA Riots for what happens when people here think someone else was wronged. Imagine what happens when those same people think THEY were wronged because they are cut off from their government cheese or have it reduced.

Re:YRO?

[h4rr4r]

So the workers who do the actual work, under a contract management freely signed are the parasites?

Not the execs who walk away with golden parachutes after losing market share and billions?

WTF is wrong with you?

Re:YRO?

[spamking]

If people were using the phones for personal use, that is embezzlement of public funds and there should be criminal charges brought against the users.

This is a joke right? You don't honestly believe that someone with a government-furnished cell phone should be charged with embezzlement if they use the phone for personal use do you?

If they stay within their provided number of minutes whats the problem?

Re:YRO?

[spamking]

That makes about as much sense as whining about being broke and not being able to feed your family while you walk to the closest 7-11 and buy a six pack and cigarettes.

Budget cuts have to start somewhere and enough of them will add up in the end.

Re:YRO?

[jgagnon]

Here's the law from California that says they must (section 2802): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2800-2810

I'm sure MANY other states have similar laws, though I'm not exactly willing at this moment to spend the time to provide you with a full list. :p

Re:YRO?

[FooAtWFU]

A large part of the California budget crisis can be squarely blamed on the pension system. For that you can blame Sacramento and the public-employee unions' lobbyists. Here's a snazzy little summary. Emphasis mine.

In 1999 then California Governor Gray Davis signed into law a bill that represented the largest issuance of non-voter-approved debt in the state's history. The bill SB 400 granted billions of dollars in retroactive pension boosts to state employees, allowing retirements as young as age 50 with lifetime pensions of up to 90% of final year salaries. The California Public Employees' Retirement System sold the pension boost to the state legislature by promising that "no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements" and that Calpers would "remain fully funded." They also claimed that enhanced pensions would not cost taxpayers "a dime" because investment bets would cover the expense.

What Calpers failed to disclose, however, was that (1) the state budget was on the hook for shortfalls should actual investment returns fall short of assumed investment returns, (2) those assumed investment returns implicitly projected the Dow Jones would reach roughly 25,000 by 2009 and 28,000,000 by 2099, unrealistic to say the least (3) shortfalls could turn out to be hundreds of billions of dollars, (4) Calpers's own employees would benefit from the pension increases and (5) members of Calpers's board had received contributions from the public employee unions who would benefit from the legislation. Had such a flagrant case of non-disclosure occurred in the private sector, even a sleepy SEC and US Attorney would have noticed.

-- Dow 28,000,000: The Unbelievable Expectations of California's Pension System

Not that this is the only problem with California, but it's a nice $3-4 billion chunk of the current $28 billion hole and is only set to grow bigger.

Re:YRO?

[Jawnn]

Last time I checked, California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt. Not really. The state can go bankrupt and the California will still be the worlds 5th biggest economy. The state will just have learned a valuable lesson not to spend more than it can afford.

Wrong lesson, my friend. The voters of California need to learn that you can't do stupid shit like slashing the state's income (Prop 13, for those of you with a memory or an interest in history) and expect the same level of service. And oh, yes. Expect it they did. As soon as it was time to balance the books, there arose an immediate stream of bitching about what was wrong with the state, bad roads, worse schools, etc. "Cutting taxes" sounds fine, until you have to face the fact that you will no longer enjoy those things that those taxes provided.

Re:YRO?

[Attila Dimedici]

So the workers who do the actual work, under a contract management freely signed are the parasites?

Not the execs who walk away with golden parachutes after losing market share and billions?

WTF is wrong with you?

You do know that his phrase that most closely supports the idea that he considered the workers parasites included the people with the golden parachutes as parasites as well? "All those Union dollares, and the entrenched management..."
So there is nothing wrong with him. He apparently considers the UAW and the management of GM and Chrysler to be equally parasites. I think that there is a good case to be made for that position (although parasites is not the word I would use).

Re:YRO?

[Martin Blank]

Speaking as one who has a government-issued Blackberry (county-level, not state, and required as I am in IT and have on-call shifts), I had to sign an agreement limiting personal use to "reasonable" volumes, and to pay any amount over the base bill that was triggered by such personal use. I have to do the same thing for my desk phone, and I get a listing every month of toll calls made from the desk phone.

I have a strict personal policy that splits home and personal lives with regard to employer resources. As such, I do not conduct personal business over employer phones or e-mail. Even my family doesn't have the work contact information -- that's what the personal cell phone is for. That makes it much easier to not have to deal with such things, as I can sign the bill each month and hand it back before the person handing it out leaves the room and not have to attach payment.

I realize that I am the exception. I have colleagues who make a call here and there, usually to let family know when they'll be home, and have to come up with anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars for the county every month. A few years ago, some secretary with a county-issued phone was found to be running up cell phone bills of several hundred dollars per month by spending 2000+ minutes on the phone. This happened back when the average plan was around 250 minutes. A lot of cell phones were taken away from users after that, though it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were still happening.

Re:YRO?

[commodore64_love]

You could have installed Skype or other Internet phones. And yes it's a heck of a lot cheaper to use the internet phone than a wireless cell at ~$40 a month.

Re:YRO?

[1s44c]

This is a joke right? You don't honestly believe that someone with a government-furnished cell phone should be charged with embezzlement if they use the phone for personal use do you?

If they stay within their provided number of minutes whats the problem?

It is embezzlement as well as tax fraud as consumer callers are taxed differently. But it's such a low level of theft most employers will ignore it. It's like taking stationary home. If you take one sheet of paper it's OK, if you take 10 reams it's not. There is no real guidance on where you draw the line.

Re:YRO?

[onkelonkel]

Oddly enough Mr Coward is almost right. Your employer can require you to buy a cell phone for company use. He can require whatever he wants to, (i.e. Auto mechanics that need to supply their own tools) as long as you agree to it when you are hired. He can't add it to your employment requirements later without you agreeing to it. Where I live that employer mandated cell phone bill would be an income tax deductible expense.

Re:YRO?

[sumdumass]

It's probably more like most of those employees need to be communicated with outside of the departments because their jobs take them outside their departments.

Two way radios traditionally filled this gap but they are expensive to purchase, maintain, and continue to operate (need repeaters or a repeater service, licensing, monitoring, and so on). Giving the cell phones out originally probably saved the government a ton of money. People were probably already using their personal cell phones to communicate back with the office and were getting upset because it was using all their minutes. Radios really only make sense now when you need to broadcast information to lots of people or don't care how confidential the information might be. But when your a CPS case worker wanting to know when the last physical checkup on a ward you are about to see in a home visit was, or the CHP officer taking a phone call from a witness who's concerned about her/his safety while he's on the other side of the state, you don't really want everyone picking that up with a scanner.

The article makes it appear that they are only going to allow department heads to have them. There is a good portion of the government jobs that are not traditional 9-5 behind the same desk every day jobs. Even the District Attorney's offices are typically located outside the court houses they work in.

Re:YRO?

[fiannaFailMan]

The solution for roads is to raise the road (gasoline) tax.
The solution for schools is to raise the annual school tax..... neither of which was forbidden by Prop 13 (limit property tax).

Incorrect. ALL tax hikes in California require a 2/3 majority thanks to Prop 13, which effectively gives a veto to the taxophobic minority.

A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the belief older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes, and I agree with that. In fact I'd like to see property taxes be 0%, because people should OWN their land, not have to rent it like serfs.

Oh yeah? And who's gonna pay to maintain the road to and from your house? Gas tax? Sure. You're gonna love it when you start paying European style $7 per gallon, aren't you?

Re:YRO?

[TheEyes]

These people have no 'right' to a state-paid cell phone.

Unless, of course, their jobs require the use of a phone while away from their office. Either that or the state can look forward to a flood of reimbursement paperwork on a regular basis.

As Gov. Brown pointed out, there is no way in hell that two out of five of all state workers require being on-call 24/7.

Re:YRO?

[turbidostato]

That's becoming a bit off-topic but anyway.

"An employee paycheck is payment for *work done*"

Not exactly. An employee paycheck is a payment for his work will, not work done. If there's no work to be done, the employee still gets to be paid by the end of the week. Not that such a situation could last for long, but that's the case.

"Employers are expected to provide the things *they dictate* you use for their business."

Well, yes, more or less; it's quite much a matter of convention, unhappily.

There was upon a time that a carpenter, or almost any other professional, was expected to provide his own hand toolset. Even today, how many companies do you thing that explicity pay for dress conventions? I for sure have paid for most of my neckties and suits even if the only reason for me to own them is because my employer *dictates* suit and tie: I'd be perfectly able to do my work on jeans and t-shirts and I'd do it on less expenses (against my checkbook), more comfortably and more efficiently even.

I wouldn't be surprised that in these days of "corporate rulez" more and more things we granted as obviously the company's reponsibility were thrown into the individual's.

Re:YRO?

[Pharmboy]

While California's budget is larger than most countries, it isn't a sovereign nation that has issued billions in treasury notes, etc. It does have the federal backing, even if the feds directly back them with cash instantly. Europe and the world could have said "piss off" to Greece (as an example) and just paid the price secondarily, but the U.S. can't do the same to California in the same way. Their economy is tied in with the other states much tighter than the E.U. states. Also, the feds *would* come in with some level of support, including paying unemployment to laid off state workers if the state couldn't and some other debts.

That said, it would be a huge problem for a short while, but in the end, it would be like any other bankruptcy in that the court would come in and insure the most important bills did get paid. We are talking about California being able to pay for 80% or so of their bills, not 0%. And if all else failed, legal or not, the feds would come in and "fix" enough problems so basic services would be provided. You couldn't do this in the E.U. because of the nature of the organization.

We are talking about a shortfall of $25 billion before any of these cuts. Hell, the feds have already cranked out $1000 billion in phoney money to keep the economy going after the banks went tits-up in 2008. The fed is $14000 billion in debt (yes, $14 trillion). California's shortfall is equal to .17857% (less than a quarter of 1 percent) of the total U.S. debt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt). Put another way, there are 9 people in the world with enough money to write a check for the full difference of 25 billion. If California cuts the deficit in half, then 42 people in the world could write the check (cite:http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank_2.html)

If they do go into default, it will be for less than 25 billion, likely half that. It will be inconvenient to lenders, and a bitch to the state employees, and make lots of headlines, but it won't be the end of times and will only be temporary, until they can declare bankruptcy and legally force unions to the table, and legally blow off some debts.

Re:YRO?

[gasmasher]

Up to $250 can be claimed as educational expenses on federal taxes with the appropriate receipts. Unfortunately we spend close to $1000 every year on things like photocopies for tests and in-class supplies.

The copier at the high school requires a teacher code and only allows a certain number of copies per quarter. My wife uses the entire budget on the first couple weeks since it amounts to about three double-sided sheets of paper for each of her students. A small part of our personal monthly budget goes towards keeping her classroom running but we can afford it.

Re:YRO?

[Obfuscant]

Incorrect. ALL tax hikes in California require a 2/3 majority thanks to Prop 13, which effectively gives a veto to the taxophobic minority.

Your "taxophobic minority" is another person's "reasonable concern."

A large number of taxes that appear on the Oregon ballot are designed to divide and conquer. For example, "shall we raise taxes on beer?" The majority of people, not being beer drinkers, thinks this is just swell. "Shall we increase the cigarette tax?" Different majority, same result.

I've long had the opinion that anyone who proposes a tax (and I do mean "anyone") should be required to pay ten years of that tax (ok, maybe five) personally before it ever comes up for a vote, either as a ballot initiative or legislative vote. This would put a real quick stop to the attitude "it's ok to tax the other guy as long as I don't have to pay it, too.".

I'm even a full supporter of the idea that anyone who votes in favor of a tax has to be subject to that tax even if they don't participate in the actions being taxed. Maybe for two years.This would not only put further hurdles in the path of "let's tax the other guy" attitudes, it would put a real crimp in votes from college students who vote in favor of taxes to pay for things they like knowing they won't be around to pay the taxes when the bill comes due. It's really annoying to see all the campaigning for taxes that goes on on and around campus aimed at people everyone knows won't have to pay the tax if it passes.

Re:YRO?

[jonbryce]

The shortfall is the amount by which the debt is increasing each year. The total debt was just under $90bn at June 2010 (source http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/publications/2010dar.pdf Sect 2, p5, pdf page 13), and I guess it will be about $103bn now. That doesn't include pension liabilities, or municipal bonds. The unfunded pension liabilities on 1st July 2008 were $425bn and estimated to be $534bn the following year (source http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=/system/files/shared/GoingforBroke_pb.pdf p2). Who knows what the unfunded liability is now. I understand that municipal debt is around $400bn, but most of that is insured by federal government backed insurance companies so probably isn't relevant.

I don't think any of the billionaires you listed could afford to write a cheque for $25bn. They would need to sell their companies and other assets to raise the money.

Re:YRO?

[fiannaFailMan]

You're gonna love it when you start paying European style $7 per gallon, aren't you?

I drive 15,000 miles per year at about 30 MPG. So 500 gallons of gas...times $7. $3500 or $300/month

Hmm...that IS kind of steep. Much more than my property tax but much less than my current gas usage at $150/month plus my property tax. You'd need to go to about $9/gallon to equalize.

It's the reason there's such great transport infrastructure in many parts of Europe. Sure the roads can get a bit congested, but at least you have the choice of taking the train, a choice that's denied to many Americans.

Re:YRO?

[Shakrai]

You are correct, though if you quit because the employer changed the conditions of your job you can and will collect unemployment. Most employers don't want to pay you half your salary to not do your job.

We went over this at my employer when they tried to impose random drug testing after the fact. The existing employees had all agreed to pre-employment drug screening but nobody had agreed to random drug screening. I was one of the few that fought it. My lawyer advised that they could fire me under at will employment but I'd be able to collect unemployment if that happened. They opted not to fire me and I'm one of a handful of employees that are grandfathered in and doesn't have to submit to the random piss tests.

Of course the victory is tainted somewhat by the fact that most of the sheep happily rolled over and signed new agreements consenting to random drug testing. I wasn't the only one that fought it but we were in the minority for sure. I think there's only two of us left that are still grandfathered.

Re:YRO?

[TClevenger]

It is embezzlement as well as tax fraud as consumer callers are taxed differently. But it's such a low level of theft most employers will ignore it. It's like taking stationary home. If you take one sheet of paper it's OK, if you take 10 reams it's not. There is no real guidance on where you draw the line.

When I worked in IT for, ironically, a cellular provider, the word came down from IT management that we no longer could use our company-issued cell phones for any personal calls. My manager then sent us an email, copied to the same upper management suits, that told us to turn off our cell phones at 5:00pm and put them in a drawer before we left, and not to turn them back on until 8:00 the next morning. When upper management realized that they had been trading a few minutes of extra airtime for, essentially, free after-hours on-call support, they quickly changed their policy.

I am Governor Jerry Brown

[gbjbaanb]

hang on, I know Arnie's left office but surely I haven't slipped back in some timewarp to the 70s?

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/californiauberalles.html

obviously they missed the verse about restricting communications :)

Re:I am Governor Jerry Brown

[HeavensTrash]

Jello a long time ago basically "took back" his paranoia of Jerry Brown. The updated version mentioning Ronald Reagan, "We've Got a Bigger Problem Now" basically spells it out.

What a concept!

[TheReaperD]

Finally budget cuts that start at the top... what a concept!!!!

Re:What a concept!

[Stregano]

You are saying this like there is some government office out there that does not have landlines and everybody 100% relies on cell phones. Come on now, even you know better than that. They are basically taking cell phones from employees that do not specifically need them for their job. Also, why is everybody associating this with just IT (well, it is /. but even still). What about the entry level accountants? Should they have government paid cell phones? Listen, if you want to pay another person's cell phone bill through your taxes when that person does not need the cell phone at all, you go right ahead. For me, and I have lived in Cali for multiple years, I would rather my tax money going to something other than paying for some person's cell phone bill.

Re:What a concept!

[edremy]

Why shouldn't you have expected it? Brown did exactly the same sorts of things last time he was in office- he's the guy who gave up the governor's limo and refused to live in the governor's mansion, for example. He's an actual fiscal conservative: the American Conservative has even commented that he was far more fiscally conservative than Reagan back in his first stint as governor.

Brown was the real conservative in the race last year.

Cool - a fiscal conservative

[ron_ivi]

Is this guy some sort of libertarian or pre-reagan-republican or something?

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[Reziac]

Except meanwhile, nothing is being said about Calif's runaway pension obligations, which amount to billions of unfunded debt. And don't expect Brown to be the one to do anything about it... some of us still remember half-built freeways and other financial boondoggles.

Penny wise and pound foolish, that would be CA's financial politics in a nutshell.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[sneakyimp]

Actually he's a pre- and post-reagan *democrat* who was famous for balancing the budget back in the 70s by refusing to cut taxes.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[digsbo]

He's not a mainstream Democrat by any stretch. He's widely known for promoting zero-growth policies, which I doubt most modern Democrats would support. He was at one time something of an environmental extremist.

Above all, he seems to be, whether you like him or not, a very principled guy, who has had trouble in mainstream politics due to being honest and uncompromising. Kind of a Ron Paul of the left. I don't like him, but I believe he is at least a sincere person with some degree of integrity.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[gknoy]

Listening to him debate Meg Whitman, I was relieved that I felt both candidates would take the job seriously. I didn't think either would do a poor job, though there were some platform stances that I liked less from Jerry Brown. It was refreshing to feel that both candidates would be both driven and competent.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[countSudoku()]

He bills and is listed as a democrat, but in the real world hardcore left or hardcore right is not going to get any job done. Unless that job is gridlock. I don't think for a second that Meg Whiteman (I spelled it that way for a reason, smartasses) would be able to cut the budget as well as this state's budget needs it. The way she pissed away $140+ million dollars speaks volumes for her wasteful lifestyle and lack of experience. I'm glad to have voted for Obama and for Governor "Moonbeam." THIS is exactly the type of thinking we need to keep California within its budget and an example the red states need to stop the useless political bickering and get the FUCKING JOB DONE.

More budget cuts and more openleaks/wikileaks! Obama did fail in making our government transparent. The "leakers" have fixed this. Brown also is slashing the salaries of many state agencies. More of the same is needed, and this is a step in the right direction. Stop the waste and fraud committed by both sides of the equation.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[shelterpaw]

Seriously... He's had trouble in mainstream politics due to being honest? You must have not seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlzYD4tk78

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[DragonWriter]

Except meanwhile, nothing is being said about Calif's runaway pension obligations.

That can't generally be done for represented employees except via labor agreements; one of the last things the previous governor did was negotiate labor agreements with many bargaining units that both reduced pensions for new workers and increased pension contributions for all workers in those bargaining units. It seems likely (given that his proposed budget includes cuts for those units that have not yet reached new agreements that mirror those under the agreements reached by the previous governor) that Brown will seek similar provisions for in contracts for the remaining bargaining units.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[corbettw]

who has had trouble in mainstream politics due to being honest and uncompromising

That would certainly explain his previous two terms as governor, plus his term as State Attorney General, plus his time as Mayor of Oakland. Yep, just a perennial loser in politics.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[digsbo]

He's never had success outside of California - he can't hold any Federal office (maybe I should have said "trouble in Federal politics"). California may be big, but it's not mainstream. Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor there, for heaven's sake.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[fermion]

It really depends on where you are. In Texas the liberal areas, often cities, tend to me more fiscally conservative while the outlying areas tend to more conservative and likely to spend other peoples money. At least in Texas, the money is often concentrated in the city. For instance, in this fragile economy, the conservatives want to continue to build a road around the Exburbs of house. Sure this will be good and will create jobs, but spending half a billion of discretionary funds when the state deficit has been officially stated at at least 30 billion dollars seems fiscally irresponsible. Such money wasted on a road to nowhere is a conservative plan and benefits only the conservative rural area.

And of course it is the conservatives in Texas who don't want an income tax. The problem is that Texas depends on sales tax, a tax which is not collected due to everyone ordering product from out of state. Of course the conservative legislature could create a new enforcement squad to collect these out of state taxes, thus destroying legitimatize businesses, or they could acknowledge a failed taxation model. Right now the sales tax is 6.25% If this tax was eliminated and replaced by a fixed income tax, say 3-5%, local business would no longer be at a huge disadvantage to Amazon and the like, and the average person, who spends all their income on goods, many taxed, would be no worse off. Of course, because conservative are more interested in dogma rather than conservative fiscal policy, this can never happen.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[DragonWriter]

That's why he's fixing the $27B budget deficit by cutting $20M worth of cell phone bills.

Ah, so you've missed the budget that he proposed which has much bigger changes than the cell phone takeback. The cellphone takeback is one of those small changes in the executive branch (there are lots of others) that can be done by the Governor by fiat rather than requiring legislative action and/or special approval of the voters.

A libertarian would have the state declare bankruptcy and nullify the state employee union's contract and pensions.

I'm not sure how placing the entire State government under the supervision of a federal bankruptcy court would be "libertarian".

That would fix the budget problem in one fell swoop

No, it wouldn't. Someone -- whether its the State government or the bankruptcy receiver -- still has to determine the actual specific cuts and/or the specific revenue generating measures to adopt. Bankruptcy might loosen some obligations and create more freedom to take certain choices among those options, but it wouldn't automatically choose among them (and it would instantly produce an enormous storm of litigation.)

There aren't magic bullets.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[diegocg]

Right now their "success" is measured purely by how much money they spend.

Yeah, it's not like managers of big companies do that kind of things.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[fiannaFailMan]

Listening to him debate Meg Whitman, I was relieved that I felt both candidates would take the job seriously. I didn't think either would do a poor job, though there were some platform stances that I liked less from Jerry Brown. It was refreshing to feel that both candidates would be both driven and competent.

Personally I felt like Whitman was reading from a script or a memorised list of talking points, whereas Brown was thinking on his feet and actually understood what he was talking about. I've heard that from people who have actually questioned the candidates too, they said that Whitman would respond to questions from left field with a pre-prepared answer that just barely dealt with the gist of the question and then refused to take any follow up questions. Brown could deal with anything. The better man won.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[h4rr4r]

Workers should come before investors. If you can't stand to lose it don't gamble with it.

Better check the contracts

[slapout]

Early termination fees may be more than $20 million....

What's this got to do with "rights on line"?

[John Hasler]

And why not require "executives" to provide themselves with phones at their own expense? They'll have them anyway.

Confiscates?

[Evro]

He runs the State of California, which owns (or is paying for) the phones. Sounds like he's saying "I want my phones back." Confiscating makes it sound like he's taking people's own property away from them.

Re:Good start

[peteinok]

Agreed. This is called "low hanging fruit". I'm sure that the ones who need a cell phone can justify it and therefore get one assigned to them. The rest....waste, fraud, and abuse is never cool.

Brown's Army

[Sporkinum]

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!

Re:Need a bigger knife

[Jerry Rivers]

It's really easy to anonymously call for the destruction of bureaucracy without citing a single specific example and providing alternative, less costly solutions to the services provided.

finally some common sense being applied

[v1]

cheaper or not, taxpayers don't need to be paying for a DMV clerk's cell phone. There are a few that it makes sense for, people in upper management positions, emergency response chain members, or project leaders that need to be reached off-hours and on-site, etc, but that's a very small percentage of the crowd.

Re:finally some common sense being applied

[StikyPad]

TFS describes the number as 40% of employees, and only half of *those* were active. So I doubt every DMV employee had one, although it's reasonable and prudent for a DMV road tester to have one, and any other mobile worker for that matter. "Oh, your plow slid off the highway? So sorry, you're on your own. We can't afford $1000/yr on top of your pittance of a salary."

Personally, I never liked the idea of having a cell phone provided by my employer anyway. It's nothing more than a privacy-depriving leash, and I don't really like the idea of being tethered to my office. That's why I only give out my home number and never answer my cell if I don't recognize the number (and often even when I do). If it's in my contract to be available outside of normal working hours then that's one thing, but if it's not, then I have no interest in having my personal life interrupted by work. If I was a state worker that didn't need a cell phone, I'd be overjoyed by the opportunity to return it. Internally, anyway. Externally I'd pretend I was outraged by having yet another tool removed to perform my woefully difficult job.

Re:finally some common sense being applied

[poetmatt]

no, it's neither reasonable nor prudent for a DMV road tester to have one.

It's reasonable or prudent for the DMV to have a group cellphone for road testers to share and take with them when doing a road test. Same thing applies to people in mobile roles. There is a difference between the two, and lazy bureacracies don't make the distinction, which leads to governmental bloat. At no time should any employee, including upper management, ever have a "personal" employee-paid for phone. they can get their own personal phone for that.

Re:finally some common sense being applied

[PopeRatzo]

taxpayers don't need to be paying for a DMV clerk's cell phone

Nice one. You have any reason to believe that "DMV clerks" were getting taxpayer-funded cell phones?

There are a few that it makes sense for, people in upper management positions

And why can't "upper management" pay for their own cell phones? Why shouldn't McDonald's employees be expected to pay for their own training? As a customer of your company, why should I be expected to pay for your health insurance?

See the United States commit mass suicide by "free market".

Stipend

[_16s]

Some states use stipends. They don't provide cell phones to state employees, they say, "Look, here's 40 bucks a month. Use this to pay for work related calls on your personal cell phone." It's much cheaper and everyone is happy.

Re:So what about...

[Archangel Michael]

Private phones are not allowed on the system. No need for "support" on private equipment. In fact, if you touch someone's personal devices you own it forever.

I work in IT, it is simple as saying "we cannot support personal devices at work". And it requires it to be Policy. At my job, I have a personal cell phone that I get a stipend for, it is my device, I own it, I use it for work and personal. Google Voice to the rescue. I turn on DND at 5:00 PM, and off at 7:30am .Those are the hours you can contact me .. guaranteed. Anything above that requires OT and an account code to pay for it (I'm not salaried), and planning.

I'm on stipend because I don't have a regular office phone, and am fairly mobile. I'm all for cutting the perks. Just because you're "Government" doesn't mean you have rights to stuff normal people have to pay for.

My last cell phone

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I had a cell phone was when I worked as the Unix admin for a 911 call center. It had all the GIS ani/ali GIS remote scada + traffic light control, + radio bells and whistles. They paid for the cell (and pager) and when I was on call I had to carry it 24/7. I did not use it for personal calls, except when I was on vacation, and then I would reimburse them for any calls I made. Cell phones are more convenient than pay phones (and surprisingly, less expensive than pay phones which have gone up a lot), but I genuinely try to avoid using them if I can (remember, I'm building a linux kernel on the other monitor as I type this), because cell phones are damned expensive. I might know craploads about technology (before studying computer science in university, I went to college for two years studying electronics engineering --it was only a 2 year course), but I'm also cheap. Cell phones are a lot more expensive than a corded home phone. Likewise, wireless television is a lot less expensive than corded television (and the content is about as good, and with digital, the picture is actually better than cable or satellite... hey you scoffers, read that again and listen up: the over the air picture quality of digital TV is better than what the 1960's technology of cable and satellite can provide, and it all has to do with compression and bandwidth). Cell phones are an excellent way to cut costs. My kernel build: 2.6.37-git8 is done. Keep in mind what I said about cell phones, and about TV. Some of you are likely paying way too much.

Re:Some state workers are on the road all the time

[wickerprints]

He's not getting rid of phones for ALL state employees. Just the ones that clearly don't need them. It's funny how this is being criticized...everyone has a personal phone. If it's REALLY important, they can still stay in touch. It's also false to bring out the claim that landlines are more expensive, because if you are a state employee with a desk and you sit behind it most of the time, you already have a landline, and it's not going away.

You know, as hard as it may be to believe this, there REALLY was a time when mobile phones did not exist. And the government did not collapse for want of them. There really was a time when people weren't able to get in touch with each other 24/7. Society did not collapse for lack of Twitter, Facebook, SMS, and email everywhere you go. And it's not like taking state-owned mobile phones away is going to kill these employees or put undue burden on them. They still have their personal phones they can use if it's necessary to do so.

He is not taking privately held phones

[Shivetya]

He is taking government paid for phones. More than likely they already have land lines in all offices anyway, used for everything from calls to faxes to internet in some cases.

He is just trying to put some sense back into what the government is funding, and a cell phone is a luxury in many departments. It certainly is not a requirement of someone who rarely if ever leaves their office. He is going after vehicles next which is another good step. He should also go after traveling expenses and the like, nuke any employee conventions, and similar until they get their finances in order. The hard area where he will have to play in is compensation and retirement benefits that state employees have in California. That is where the real abuse is.

Should be interesting, a hero of the left can probably do things Arnie could not. I bet if Arnie did this there would screams in every California paper out there about how mean he was, if not racist.

When you can't pay your bills you have to make cuts. Every penny counts. This is why Congress is such a mess, they seem to think its okay to ignore "this cost" and "that cost" because they are so small. Well, get enough small expenses out and it will add up.

Re:He is not taking privately held phones

[careysub]

... the Feds could eliminate every single program other than Social Security and defense spending and STILL be over budget...

Let's see: 2010 revenues $2,217 billion; Defense spending $663.7 billion; Social Security $677.95 billion.

$663.7 billion + $677.95 billion = $ 1341.6 billion < $2,217 billion

Is it to much to to ask to run one Google query and do one addition problem before bloviating about the federal budget so that it is not nonsense?

Re:He is not taking privately held phones

[horatio]

I'm not a fan of Jerry Brown. I'm not a fan of California, either. A beautiful state is near financial collapse because of total mismanagement and a massive entitlement burden. California has created this mess for themselves.

However, credit where credit is due -- I think this is a great first step. Of course some are going to scream because their toys are getting taken away. But good for Brown for doing this. On the other hand, I'm just cynical enough that I half expect to hear something like "we just saved $20,000,000 with those cell phones ... in other news we're giving all state union employees a 6% pay hike, and even more generous pensions. It was going to be $40mil, but it'll only cost half as much now because we just saved like $20million!"

Re:He is not taking privately held phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget interest on debt.

Also, does that Defense number include the "emergency" appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:He is not taking privately held phones

[Martin Blank]

California is not allowed by its own constitution from having a budget deficit. It means a lot of numbers games like holding tax refunds until July (the budget year is July-June) or moving the last paycheck for employees in June to July 1, but that just buys a little bit of time and pushes the obligation to the next year. It doesn't prevent bonds, but bonds have to be approved by the voters. Unfortunately, voters have been willing to pass most of them over the past few years, adding tens of billions in long-term obligations.

Re:I'm not sold on this.

[msauve]

It may be cheaper than a residential landline, but it's not cheaper than an extension off a PBX. I would bet the vast majority of CA state workers (much more than 60%) are in desk/office jobs, so a desk phone is cheaper than a cell phone. Many of those who are on the road, (police/fire) have other means to communicate, provided it's legitimate business (e.g. radio).

Re:Need a bigger knife

[NiceGeek]

Spoken as someone who probably has never had to use food stamps. Guess what? It's humilating but when I was a kid, with a mom who just had hip surgery, and a father who died while my mother was in the hospital recovering from that surgery, it kept us from going hungry.

It's a safety net, and it's very much needed.

Thought a good idea til the $20 mil figure.

[Maxo-Texas]

Such a tiny amount to close a multibillion dollar budget number. If even 25% of those employees use the phones effectively, then it will increase costs or lower quality of service.

There are probably $5 million to $10 million of real savings there- the rest will have a cell phone again in a year because it turns out the job requires one.

It's a good start-- but i hope they find some real meat.

Re:Thought a good idea til the $20 mil figure.

[east coast]

The problem with "real meat" in most budgets is that it means cutting service. Someone is going to have to do without something in order to put all the ducks back in a row and that someone is probably going to bitch and moan about it.

For Jerry to do what he needs to do to really turn things around he'll never have a snowballs chance in hell for re-election to the post. Reform looks good on paper but in action it's an ugly thing.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[h4rr4r]

But can they find a job?
Are there jobs available for them to do?

Re:Riiiight...

[Volante3192]

And yet I can't help but think you're one of those who wants to cut the Department of Education and keep the DoD intact...

Re:Don't need to confiscate.

[John Hasler]

Pretty much every IT job, every management job. every lawyer, every doctor need a phone.

Then tell them that carrying a phone (their own) is a condition of employment (you know they've got one anyway). Give them a small allowance to cover the added expense if necessary.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[h4rr4r]

1. Rehab is cheaper than jail or paying for a junkies ER trips
2. Poor kids really do need to eat.
3. We need someone who can think more rationally than you.

PLEASE -- take it !

[redelm]

I'm not a State of Calif employee, but I would _LOVE_ it for my megacorp employer to take my issued cell phone away. Then I wouldn't have to handle out-of-hours calls! For free (I'm exempt staff). I'd just get a pers cellphone for ~$15/mo.

All this instant connectivity is a race to the bottom. Employer funded competition between employees. Expectations get raised but must inevitably disappoint. There are only a few things that really benefit from instant reactivity, and you already know them.

Re:PLEASE -- take it !

[Minwee]

Then I wouldn't have to handle out-of-hours calls! For free (I'm exempt staff).

Just practice saying these phrases and you should be able to manage after-hours calls a little better:

"Really? Uh huh? Okay, I'll get right on that when I get into the office tomorrow."

"Oh, there's an emergency? You'd better call someone about it. Let me know how it went on Monday."

"Great, send me an email explaining everything you just said and I'll take a look at it in the morning."

"You have reached your name here. I'm not in the office right now so please leave a message. *BEEP*"

Re:So what about...

[R3d M3rcury]

but perhaps the 8 working hours they do each day, are they going to have to use their personal cell phone? Are you going to cover those minutes? Would it be cheaper?

Well, let's try a thought experiment...

The LA Times reports that the average phone bill for government employees is $36 per month. I pay $40 per month for 450 minutes, or about 9 cents per minute. So if the government has to reimburse me more than 400 minutes in a month, it's worth it for them to give me a cell phone.

Remember that forty percent of government employees have taxpayer funded cell phones. I have a really hard time believing that 40% of employees of the state of California need to be on call 24/7 or are out of the office that often.

I use my personal cell phone for work. I give my employer a copy of the bill and highlight the calls that were work related and they write me a check. Even with personal calls, though, I have never gone over my 450 minutes of talk time even with company minutes added in. So in my case, it's definitely cheaper for my employer to compensate me for the time rather than pay for a cell phone.

The phones are already paid for if they were in use by the employees. You couldn't have just put in an order to NOT get new cell phones?

I'll agree that doing this is grandstanding. The deadline for this is actually in six months, when a new cellphone contract is to be set up, so it's not like Jerry Brown is walking through offices today and saying, "You! Give me that cellphone!" But, come June, 48,000 people who had government cellphones will be losing them.

Re:Some state workers are on the road all the time

[Rich0]

Agreed. In theory I'm generally on-call in emergencies and occassionally need to dial into a meeting, but my employer does not issue a cell phone. The reality is I use the phone for work probably once every two months. If I needed to I could expense the minutes. It doesn't make sense for them to fork out $50/month so that I can take a call every other month. And, I don't particularly care to carry an extra phone for that either, or be forced to use an employer phone for personal use.

The people at work who actually qualify for phones HATE them. They're expected to answer them and get calls/texts/etc all the time.

If somebody really needs a phone give them one. If not, don't. That's all this policy is. Every company works this way.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[corbettw]

How about they legalize pot, release all of the non-violent drug and sex offenders (I'm thinking of prostitutes and johns in that last group, not molesters and the like), then close up some of the state's prisons and lay off/fire the security guards in those prisons? That would be a huge first step, and by itself would almost certainly balance the budget.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[PopeRatzo]

Alternative: Fire them all, hire contractors

Except there's no evidence that hiring contractors actually saves money. Why not just outsource every US job, too? Take a look at our military budget to see how well "hiring contractors" has worked out.

Here's an idea, instead of having to pay American military personnel, and then give them pensions and health care and other veterans' benefits, why not just hire Indians to fight our wars?

And regarding the teachers' union: there really isn't any evidence that privatizing education has any benefit. And instead of being pissed about the fact that teachers and cops and firemen get pensions, why not get pissed about why you're not getting a pension from the company you work for. Typical American shortsightedness circa 2010.

Re:Six months, really?

[h4rr4r]

They are not returning them, they are just not extending contracts. That means they have to wait until it ends as they would rather not pay the early termination fee.

Re:So what about...

[HuckleCom]

48,000 * 70 = 3,360,000 (3.36mil/mo).
3,360,000 * 12 = 40,320,000, or $40.3mil/yr.

Or average the two (20,70) you get 45...

48,000 * 45 = 2,160,000 (2.1mil/mo).
2,160,000 * 12 = 25,920,000, or 25.9mil/yr.

So it's 0.2% of the deficit, or .04% of the budget.

Re:So what about...

[azadrozny]

This article, from 2007, suggests that 82% of Americans have a mobile phone. Have we reached a tipping point where an employer might expect you to provide your own mobile phone? Exceptions will be made for those jobs that require frequent, daily usage, but what about the tech support guy with takes two or three 30 minute calls after hours every month? Odds are he already has a phone. Should your employer (in this case the State of CA) be expected to pay the base price of the phone and calling plan? I am not passing judgment on anyone with a company issued phone, just posing some academic questions.

makes sense to me

[swschrad]

why, back in the day, when I was a sysadmin, they didn't let me take my hammer and stylus home, I had to carve all my clay tablets at work.

the upside is, these guys now are AWAY FROM THE OFFICE !!! when they are away from the office. a lovely thing, more should try it.

the downside is, they have to use their own minutes. and hard to see what the downside is, frankly.

Re:Don't need to confiscate.

[wowbagger]

"Come to think of it there are a lot of state LEOs that carry cellphones so they can discuss matters not suitable for regular 2-way radio...."

And that is bullshit. Most states are now on APCO-25, which supports encryption up to AES-256 (it also supports encryption beyond that, if you get the appropriate crypto modules from No Such Agency). The only reason anybody would use a non-secure cellphone vs a secure radio is that the secure radio is recorded at the dispatch center, making it somewhat difficult to discuss how best to "accidentally" allow the suspect to fall on his face, repeatedly.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[amiga3D]

Actually the food stamp program is one of the few gummint charity programs I approve of. It's ridiculous for people in this country to go hungry, particularly children. We can afford to feed people. I'm not so keen on many of the other giveaways.

Re:So what about...

[Minwee]

I know the costs of support from your IT team will go up if you want them to support a smorgasborg of client phones, each with their own OS

I don't see what's so complicated about that. Perhaps you should just provide the helpdesk with a short list of useful phrases, in English, Spanish and Californian, like these ones:

"I'm sorry, I cannot support your iPhone. That's your problem."

"Lo siento, no puedo apoyar el teléfono android. Estás jodido"

"I ca't he`p ya wiff yo' cheap-ass Sizzimbian phone. Da's yo probbum."

"Are you calling me? On the phone? Then it works. What's the matter with you?"

Defining the role and scope of your IT support operations is key to ensuring success.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[stewbacca]

Also, if you choose a profession that you know you will be underpaid in for 20 years or so just so you can make a difference (teaching), then I think you should get a little security at the back end for that choice.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[h4rr4r]

No, I never said that. I only mentioned as a reason why those 50% might be on the dole.

Re:Don't need to confiscate.

[wowbagger]

Considering that I DESIGN the equipment the law enforcement types use to check out the system, I suspect I know quite a bit more about APCO-25, the uses of it within various law enforcement contexts, and the infrastructure than you do, sir. I doubt you could tell an LDU1/LDU2 from a TERMLC or a PDU, or even know what those acronyms are. I seriously doubt you have ever worked with any LEO comms officers, where I was working with the Phoenix/Mesa project on the first deployment of APCO-25 there a decade ago. I've worked with the FBI, the Secret Service, and several state level LEOs.

Again: there is NOTHING a LEO needs to discuss officially that cannot go over the radio, and be more secure than going over the PSTN, let alone any cellular networks.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[SomeJoel]

90% of pot smokers are still going to buy it from the same guy they buy it from today. A fact I also base on nothing at all.

You're right about not basing that on anything at all. It doesn't even make sense. The only reason to go to the same guy is if he's the most convenient or has the lowest prices.
If pot were legalized, he would almost certainly not be either of those.
And to your original point, the old drug dealers who peddled pot would either be out of work or move on to harder drugs, because they would be out of the pot business in a hurry. So, whether or not they want to share their profits is irrelevant, since the legitimate businesses now filling the niche would be only too happy to charge sales tax (liquor stores do!).

Re:Need a bigger knife

[Maximus633]

Really?

I don't live in California but I do live in another large state.

I have been unemployed for a year and 5 weeks. I count the weeks not because it is something I enjoy doing but because each week it is another failed week at finding a job to pay for the things that I once used to enjoy. Such as going out to eat 2 times a week. Or the nice house I used to live in. Or buying tires for my car.

The state pays me jack when it comes down to it. The company I worked for years laid me off. For all the years I was working I paid a tax to go to the state government insuring that if I lose my job through no fault of my own that I would be able to collect some money until I found a replacement job. So no the Government isn't a job program but it is in fact there to protect me if I may for the protection.

The state requires me to make 3 job contacts a week. I do about 5 a day so that's 25 M-F and not counting the about 10 or so I may do on a Saturday and Sunday. I don't care if you believe me or not but I don't like having to tell people that I am unemployed when I go into job interviews and they ask me why I haven't worked in the last year. I don't like having to explain to friends that I can't go out and meet them tonight because I don't have the money to pay for drinks or food. I actually don't like the fact that for another Christmas this year all I was able to get someone was a 10.00 Starbucks gift card. So please tell me that the handout I am getting means I am not really trying. Then be lucky you and the GP got a job. Because some of us would love to earn that money and no have to have a taxpayer to fund my paying of bills.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[ahodgson]

That must be why I still buy booze from the smugglers coming in from Canada. And sneaking into speakeasies in the middle of the night when the cops aren't looking.

Re:Don't need to confiscate.

[wowbagger]

"There are times when discussing a situation on the radio to a supervisor is not acceptable because of the questions relating to which charges should be filled or what city ordinances may relate to a certain situation."

And those are NOT appropriate for the radio why? That is what a unit-to-unit call is for: rather than the whole talk group hearing it, only the supervisor and the cop here it. AND you get it on the nice multi-track recorder, admissible in court, in case any issues arise.

"I know for fact that every department going doesn't use APCO-25..."

And those departments are upgrading as DHS money becomes available. Moreover, I'm pretty sure California is on APCO-25, since they are buying the equipment to test it, and are testing their radios on that equipment.

"You loose[sic] credibility with me when you make remarks that the police abuse people."
And you "loose" credibility when you assert they don't. I'm not saying ALL cops abuse people, but SOME do - this is a demonstrated and adjudicated fact - and many times they use the cell rather than the radio precisely due to that nice multi-track recorder on the comm center.

The cop has to carry his radio - that's a given. There is no reason for him to have a state paid-for cell phone. Even if he needs to make a phone call pursuant to his duty - again, he can make a PSTN interconnect call on the radio (and again, have the advantage that it is recorded in a nice court admissible format).

Sorry if I touched a nerve, but: it is exactly that mentality - "We are the Thin Blue Line, we must protect our own, no matter what" that is causing people to NOT trust the cops. Rather than saying "Use the radio. Be recorded. If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. If you ARE doing something wrong, IA will find you and destroy you, and we will all help, because enforcing the LAW is our JOB." you have folks like you saying "It's OK if we hide things, because, well, BECAUSE, citizen."

Re:Need a bigger knife

[eepok]

So very THIS. Look at what it takes to become a teacher today.

Cost of public 4-year education from a UC = $120,000
Cost of graduate program in education = $40,000
Cost of teaching credential program and follow-up clear-credentialing = $15,000
Cost of all tests and college/program applications from SAT to the end of credentialing = $2,500

By the time you're fully competent and qualified to teach in California, you...

... are 27 years old
... are $180,000 in the hole in debt (hoping for *some* kind of debt-forgiveness without having to teach in Compton)
... have moved at least 3 times (expecting to move yet again to whichever district will hire you)
... are without any investments
... are without any retirement
... are in a market where there are so many cutbacks that you'll be lucky to get a 75% appointment
... are looking at $25,000 take-home for your first three years and a final salary of ~$50,000 take home 15 years later if you're teaching the right classes

And this isn't artificial "you don't really need that..." stuff. California wants "highly qualified" teachers. That's been interpreted to means 4-year degree, "majored in the subject they teach" and/or "proving equivalent competence", and credentialing. If you actually want to be a GOOD teacher (not just qualified) from day 1, you're likely to seek out an MA, too.

After all that... here's what you can look forward to...

... paying out of pocket for student supplies
... lowered pay
... the imminent end of tenure
... severely reduced benefits
... severely reduced pension
... pressure to leave teaching so they can hire someone younger and cheaper
... proxy anti-union hate
... evaluations based on numbers that aren't directly related to your own performance
... 10-hour days and the myth of the "free" summer during which you're taking classes and/or training

People who shoot their mouths off about "over-paid" teachers, evil unions, and the need to privatize are just stroking their own ignorance. It blows me away how people are still trying to become teachers in this climate... I just recently gave up. It just costs too much money and time. I'd never have the chance to own a home. I continue to work in education, but my hopes at actually becoming a teacher have been shot.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[dubbreak]

Legalize and tax pot, and 90% of pot smokers are still going to buy it from the same guy they buy it from today.

Just like you are still buying your booze from bootleggers?

A fact I also base on nothing at all.

Obviously.

Taking liquor (or tobacco) as an example: the govn't licenses who can produce the product and they control who can distribute it. Marijuana would be no different.

Big producers wouldn't risk their license selling on the side, little producers are either priced out of the market (thanks to economies of scale) and those who aren't licensed are heavily fined and/or face jail time (just as they do now).

Dealers become completely unnecessary when you can buy at the store just like liquor or tobacco. If they can even source product at a competitive price to sell it's not convenient and the dealer is taking on needless risk (unless they are a licensed distributer equivalent to a dial-a-bottle service, in which case tax is being applied).

Legalizing marijuana will generate tax money and it will eliminate the need to jail users. The only people jailed will be those trying to avoid the system by producing or selling while not licensed to do so.

Virgin birth

[tepples]

If you want to continue this religion angle, let's bring in virgin birth:

How do you get around the simple fact that abstinence works 100% every time it is used?

It didn't work for Joe and Mary Christ,* two Jews living in Nazareth back in the single digits BC. Before Mary lost her virginity, they had a boy named Josh, who became known to the Greeks and Romans as Jesus. But on second thought, considering significant figures, you're probably right.

* Changed for comic effect.

Re:Don't need to confiscate.

[TofuDog]

Sorry, but your wrong. The California Department of Fish and Game and State Parks share a dispatch and it's still plain old FM radio. We are due to transition to digital to free up bandwidth, but that's a few years out yet, and we still don't know how to pay for all new radios. I also frequently need to contact a reporting party while in the field (i.e., telephone them). Problem is bureaucrats don't like to write justifications, such as will likely be required to keep a phone, so I may loose mine.

"real meat" is in the budget

[DragonWriter]

It's a good start-- but i hope they find some real meat.

The things that you see reported that are being implemented now -- this cellphone takeback, Brown returning most of the funds allocated for the gubernatorial transition to the State treasury rather than spending them, etc., are all the things that are within the Governor's direct control. The "real meat" is in the the Governor's proposed budget which requires action by the legislature (and, for those things that Brown has proposed, also action by the voters). An overview of can be found in the Introduction.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[sumdumass]

I don't think it really matters if he is getting more out then he paid in. While he was paying in, he enjoyed a lower crime rate and other benefits that comes from not throwing people to the street to do whatever they imagine in order to survive. And you or anyone else who is employed is probably enjoying the same right now when he's on the dole.

Also, somewhere in about 1956, the courts ruled that unemployment insurance, just like the name implies is actually an insurance program. The court ruled this in a SCOTUS ruling pertaining to Amish people having to pay into it and social security. Turns out, they don't under most circumstances and they can't take benefits either (because of some religious thing where their community takes care of itself).

So I guess the obvious answer to are you getting more out than you paid in might be a question of do you expect more then you paid in with any other insurance. If you have only made two payments on your auto insurance and total a 20k car, where is that money coming from? Someone else is paying for you to wreck. But that's how it is supposed to work.

I also don't think he applies to that many jobs unless he's reapplying to the same places. There simply isn't that many places to find a job in one location over a years time. That's like 1300 applications in a year.

Anyways, I'm not trying to stick up for him, he may be a loafer taking a vacation, he may not be. I don't know him. What I do know is that I had a hell of a time finding a job a few year back and ended up having to start my own business to become gainfully employed. I was either capable of doing the job but couldn't show any experience and when unemployment is high, they can pick the all the experience they want at rock bottom prices. Or, I was over qualified for the job and they wouldn't higher me because they didn't trust I would be comfortable with a lower position taking less money and eventually leave after they wasted time and resources training me. I also noticed that some employers wouldn't hire me because I had a large amount of time without a job. Yes, being unemployed disqualified me to an employer who ended up hiring me as a contractor later.

So it may not be that he's looking for the hand out as long as he can, it might be the simple fact that unemployment is sky high right now. And the average across the nation doesn't necessarily reflect the rate in his area. It may be higher in his area.

I used to think as you did. Then I was in his position and found it wasn't as easy as pulling yourself up by your boot straps and doing something. Trust me, walk into a buger hut with a masters in anything and try to get a job flipping burgers. Not only is the pay much lower then you would get staying home, they are going to look at you like you are crazy and laugh you out the door.

Re:Don't need to confiscate.

[MikeyC01]

Very few states have statewide APCO-25 systems. Most states are made of many counties who may or may not have countywide systems of some kind (very few APCO-25). Those counties may have many municipalities who themselves are spread all over the radio spectrum. While Motorola (and the other P-25 vendors) would love everyone to be on APCO-25 systems and buy their $4,000 radios (plus additional $$$ for encryption), the reality is that budgets are tight everywhere.

Besides, there are better ways of transmitting sensitive data than cell phones or encrypted radio traffic. Around here (small town in the midwest) that information is sent via the Mobile Data Computer in the squad cars (that's run on the Verizon cell network).

Actually the lesson was "starve the beast"

[perpenso]

Wrong lesson, my friend. The voters of California need to learn that you can't do stupid shit like slashing the state's income (Prop 13, for those of you with a memory or an interest in history) and expect the same level of service.

Actually the lesson was "starve the beast". Taxpayers in California figured out that politicians will *not* exercise self control, that they primarily view state spending as a vehicle to reward political supporters and garner additional supporters. That the only way to constrain politicians is to limit the amount of money they have available.

What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.

California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.

Re:Actually the lesson was "starve the beast"

[perpenso]

What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.

Arnie thought he could wave that old "let's plug the gap by eliminating wasteful spending" magic wand, but he soon found out that this is something that all governments attempt to do anyway ...

What Arnie said and what Arnie *did* are two very different things. The most generous thing you could say of Arnie was that the legislature took him on and he blinked.

... and the savings you get from it are not that great. It's like saying you're gonna pay off your mortgage with the pennies you find in the couch.

That was a poor analogy. A more accurate analogy would be lets fill the gap between income and expenses by cutting out the Starbucks coffee, taking a sandwich to work, replacing the Hummer with a Civic, etc. :-)

California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.

Yes it is. Prop 13 has prevented the people from voting for necessary tax hikes ...

No. Taxes can be raised with a 2/3'rds majority. The minority that blocks these increases largely do so because cutting the waste and the unnecessary has not really been done to a sufficient degree.

... and leaving more borrowing as the only option left to legislators who actually have to find ways to pay for the stuff that people take so much for granted ...

That is inaccurate. The various propositions/bonds that are proposed are sometimes a budget gimmick. Popular things that should be paid for out of the general budget are turned into propositions to move them out of the general budget. That frees up the general budget funds to continue the wasteful and unnecessary.

... The fact is, the people vote all the time for tax hikes but they have to get a 2/3 majority because of Prop 13, hence giving a veto to the taxophobic minority ...

That's not really true. As I mentioned before there is a large enough minority to stop additional taxes because waste and unnecessary spending have not really be addressed sufficiently. If reasonable progress had been made in spending and increased taxes were the only viable option then 2/3'rds would not be out of reach.

... What pisses me off even more is Prop 13 was passed by a simple majority. If I had my way, any measure that mandates a super majority must itself pass by that super majority.

The flaw in your logic is that prop 13 was voted on by the people as a mechanism for the people to exert control on a legislature that was ignoring the people. There should be no extraordinary barrier to the people exerting control over government officials.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[Natales]

Your comments are absolutely spot on. My wife teaches High School Physics and Biology here in California, and the amount of hours she ends up putting in the job are just ridiculous, not to mention our personal resources.

Nobody considers correcting papers as part of the working hours, or parent conference calls, or after hours meetings, and yet, everybody expects them. Setting up labs takes additional time. Keeping up to date (in particular if you teach Science) takes a lot of extra time. If I wouldn't be a Science geek myself, I'm not sure our marriage would have lasted 10 years. Occasionally, the pressure of the whole system affects her so much that she wants to quit. We could be OK only with what I make, luckily, but I'm a big believer that if you really have the love for teaching the next generation as well as the capacity and will, you have to do everything you can to stay on it.

Every once in a while a student from years past shows up at school with tremendous gratitude and fantastic stories. Those days you know you made a difference at least in one life. That keeps you afloat.