The sponsor of Prop A said the following on Monday night., if I recall.
1. One of the reasons for this proposition is that the Unions were concerned about the viability of the trust fund.
Later he said that the fund is fully fu;nded with the workers contributions.
Well , if It's adequately funded , why have a proposition that makes the rest of the city's budget on the hook>
If the unions are worried about funding, why do they support the ability to raid the existing fund.?
He also said that the Proposition is supported by Union, All the other Sups, and the business community.
Is it possible that all thhree of these institutions have people in them who do not like short term pain, and would like to just put the problem off, pretending to pay for the future promises while not taking care of providing for them now?
Is it possible that the business community supports it because the structure of cronyism makes them want to avoid a discussion that may involve taxes going up and affecting present revenue and bonuses.?
Is is possible that the board of supervisers want to make every body feel good now , and pretend that the fund is financed properly now., all the while putting every other part of the city budget at risk somewhere down the line?
Is it possible that the Union bosses can't imagine a time when the city may balk at hving the rest of the budget sacrificed .
If I were a Union member , I would be worried that there appear to be no adults in government, union, or business who think that Promises must be backed by something more than real.
If I were a union member , I would say, show me the money.
Then we can have the honest difficult debate about where the money will come from, starting now, and not wait untill the problem gets too big to pay.
Either the grown up kids will suffer, or the poor old retirees will suffer. by not having an adult tackling of this difficult issue.
