On Jon Ortiz' State Worker blog, which can be accessed by clicking here, is an email from Mr. McCauley in which he expresses his desire, through his proposed amendment, to modify annuities for retirees that are paid, annually, over $100k:
"As the economy tanks and an increasing number of people lose their jobs, their homes, their 0D 401(k)'s etc., their sympathy for a public employee who believes that he/she has an entitlement to retire on a $100,000 pension will wane."
However, Mr. McCauley has, certainly, NOT done his homework on this figure. As reported by CALPers, in their January, 2009, report, which can be accessed by clicking here, the summary of average annual retiree benefits are as follows:
Average monthly service retirement allowance all retirees: $1,985 X 12 = an annual benefit of $23,820.00
Average monthly service retirement for school miscellaneous members: $1,079 X 12 = an annual benefit of $12,948.00
Average monthly service retirement for State members: $2,291 X 12 = an annual benefit of $27,492.00
Mr. McCauly is, therefore, either (1) misinformed as to these recipients of these monumentally high annuities or (2) he is conducting a campaign of misinformation to further his political agenda. While it is arguable that there may be a few annuitants who draw in excess of $100k as Mr. McCauley asserts, the figures show that they are far from the mainstream CALPers retiree and, in fact, represent a very small fraction of all retirees.
Mr. McCauley's profession is that of a Certified Public Accountant or, in contemporary parlance, a bean counter. His stock and trade is precision in numbers and extracting an accurate bottom line from information that he has determined to be accurate. His foray into the political arena with this, ill conceived, initiative is inconsistent with his training and ethical standards of professional meticulousness. His measure, cited below, is the political equivalent of "fuzzy math" in the accounting world, a concept for which there is no place.
Mr. McCauley states that he is targeting retirees making $100k+ annually, however, this figure is nowhere to be found in his initiative. It, simply, lumps all retirees into the same pen for slaughter, regardless of their annual income.
When measured against his statement of intent, this means either one of two things:
1. Mr. McCauley has, incompetently, formulated an inexact initiative which is not that which he intended.
2. Mr. McCauley is conducting a campaign of misinformation to deceive California, thereby bolstering his own political aspirations.
The disparity between what Mr. McCauley says and what he does is not reconciled in his initiative.
Neither of these scenarios bode well for Mr. McCauley's clientelle, who pay for competence, accuracy and integrity in a CPA. These qualities are a Certified Public Accountant's stock in trade and should be as much a part of Mr. McCauley's political life as it is a part of his professional life and, if lacking in his political life, who is to say that these qualities are present in his professional life?
Perhaps the solution for California's financial ills lies more in the auditing of Mr. McCauley's clientelle by California's taxing agencies to see for themselves if, in fact, any of his political deficiencies have rubbed off into his professional life.
I do not assert that Mr. McCauley may be "cooking the books" for his clientelle, only that elements of his political life may be bleeding into his professional life.
I am The Blogger.
"As the economy tanks and an increasing number of people lose their jobs, their homes, their 0D 401(k)'s etc., their sympathy for a public employee who believes that he/she has an entitlement to retire on a $100,000 pension will wane."
However, Mr. McCauley has, certainly, NOT done his homework on this figure. As reported by CALPers, in their January, 2009, report, which can be accessed by clicking here, the summary of average annual retiree benefits are as follows:
Average monthly service retirement allowance all retirees: $1,985 X 12 = an annual benefit of $23,820.00
Average monthly service retirement for school miscellaneous members: $1,079 X 12 = an annual benefit of $12,948.00
Average monthly service retirement for State members: $2,291 X 12 = an annual benefit of $27,492.00
Mr. McCauly is, therefore, either (1) misinformed as to these recipients of these monumentally high annuities or (2) he is conducting a campaign of misinformation to further his political agenda. While it is arguable that there may be a few annuitants who draw in excess of $100k as Mr. McCauley asserts, the figures show that they are far from the mainstream CALPers retiree and, in fact, represent a very small fraction of all retirees.
Mr. McCauley's profession is that of a Certified Public Accountant or, in contemporary parlance, a bean counter. His stock and trade is precision in numbers and extracting an accurate bottom line from information that he has determined to be accurate. His foray into the political arena with this, ill conceived, initiative is inconsistent with his training and ethical standards of professional meticulousness. His measure, cited below, is the political equivalent of "fuzzy math" in the accounting world, a concept for which there is no place.
Mr. McCauley states that he is targeting retirees making $100k+ annually, however, this figure is nowhere to be found in his initiative. It, simply, lumps all retirees into the same pen for slaughter, regardless of their annual income.
When measured against his statement of intent, this means either one of two things:
1. Mr. McCauley has, incompetently, formulated an inexact initiative which is not that which he intended.
2. Mr. McCauley is conducting a campaign of misinformation to deceive California, thereby bolstering his own political aspirations.
The disparity between what Mr. McCauley says and what he does is not reconciled in his initiative.
Neither of these scenarios bode well for Mr. McCauley's clientelle, who pay for competence, accuracy and integrity in a CPA. These qualities are a Certified Public Accountant's stock in trade and should be as much a part of Mr. McCauley's political life as it is a part of his professional life and, if lacking in his political life, who is to say that these qualities are present in his professional life?
Perhaps the solution for California's financial ills lies more in the auditing of Mr. McCauley's clientelle by California's taxing agencies to see for themselves if, in fact, any of his political deficiencies have rubbed off into his professional life.
I do not assert that Mr. McCauley may be "cooking the books" for his clientelle, only that elements of his political life may be bleeding into his professional life.
I am The Blogger.
This is the amendment. the added language is offset by asterisks.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1, SEC. 9 is amended to read:
SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed, *except that public-employee pension contracts may be renegotiated, including reducing vested benefits for existing and prospective retirees, for the limited purposes enumerated hereinafter.*
*1. To enable the state government, local governments and taxing districts to meet the essential public services of fire and police protection, public health, education and prisons.*
*2. To enable California and its political subdivisions to meet long-term public investment needs to provide for fire and police protection, public health, education, prisons, transportation and energy needs as well as to make an urgent response to global warming effects on the environment.*
3 comments:
My hope is that the "flake factor" of Paul McCauley will be recognized resulting in this proposed initiative dying on the vine. Most people realize that public employees earn relatively low pay and that it is the benefit package, including retirement, that attracted us to work for a public agency in the first place. To think that now after more than 23 years of service that the deal can just be changed, is clearly not right.
Then there is the tremendous expense involved in this endeavor. Also, McCauley doesn't seem to have the organization to circulate the petition to get the, almost, 700k signatures to place it on the ballot.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of petition circulators out getting signatures and this nut-bag only has until June to get these signatures.
I sure wouldn't want this CPA doing my taxes, he doesn't seem to be very thorough in the other aspects of his life.
I'm ready to let now-destitute Californians put their hands on part of my munificent pension. As far as they will let me put my hands on their 401k's as soon as the market recovers.
Post a Comment