Letters for December 15, 2011

Letter of the week

An easier plan

Re “Trigger, unhappy” by Greg Lucas (SN&R Frontlines, December 8):

A $13 billion hole? That’s only $25 extra a month for each resident of California, the cost of a movie and popcorn. But even if we agreed to that, it would soon not be enough; new programs would be invented and we would again overspend. We have been deceived too many times with only promises of cuts accompanied by real tax increases.

The cupboard of easy solutions is not bare. Here are six simple steps to reduce the California state-budget deficit:

First, pay no state employee more than $100,000 (for 2011, then add [cost of living adjustment]). Remove administrative perks, including free cars, and save $1 billion a year.

Second, freeze all state hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced, and save $2 billion a year.

Third, reform pension system (use defined contribution plans), and save $3.5 billion a year.

Fourth, reduce rampant top-heavy manager costs; cap administrative costs for all state agencies to a maximum of 20 percent of each agency’s budget (or at the 1990 percentage of budget, whichever is less), and save $15 billion a year.

Fifth, reform prisons, and reduce prison population to save $1 billion a year.

Finally, cut all state salaries by 10 percent and save $3 billion a year.

The total savings per year come to $25.5 billion, twice what’s needed.

Cut from the top down, not from the bottom up, until the budget is balanced. Keep all rank-and-file workers on the job by sharing the pot of salary money among all employees. No one need be unemployed. Get rid of the avaricious unions.

Avoid future budget crises with a hard spending cap and zero-budget growth until the annual surplus equals 5 percent of tax income. No new bond issues.

Require all state managers and administrators to view the 1924 film Greed.

Evan Jones
Sacramento

Start with the leaf blowers

Re “Take action for the climate” by Jeff vonKaenel (SN&R Greenlight, December 8):

I was out of town for the November 18 workshop, but I fear that what I have read of the city’s proposed Climate Action Plan seems like same-old same-old, the extremely familiar litany of marginal conservation that I have been hearing for decades. I am sure staff worked hard, and these not-news ideas should be implemented, but I predict that effectively arresting climate change will require far more than marginal changes.

One measure that would be fundamental rather than marginal but would also not threaten anyone’s survival is banning leaf blowers and other internal-combustion gardening machines. (Hint: Electric leaf blowers and lawnmowers are also responsible for greenhouse-gas emissions.)

This would cut greenhouse-gas emissions without complicated trading schemes that invite cheating. It would also create jobs, and more regular exercise would reduce health-care costs. And it would improve Sacramento’s quality of life—everyone hates leaf blowers. There’s no downside (except maybe some whining from drama-queen landscapers and machine manufacturers).

But the fact is that the kind of fossil-fuel-dependent landscaping that passes for gardening is absolutely not necessary. Nothing fatal will happen if leaves are either raked or not raked, if lawns are mowed with manual mowers or not mowed at all.

The advantage of such a ban, which I suggested to staff, is that it offers us an opportunity to really grapple with what true sustainability would require without actually putting anyone’s survival in more danger than the mortgage meltdown has already created.

Muriel Strand
Sacramento

We can fix it

Re “Water grab, part II” by Burt Wilson (SN&R Essay, December 1):

The North American Water and Power Alliance is the answer to the water and power production and allocation problems of North America; the Parsons engineering firm developed it in the ’60s. This solution was shelved due to the assassination and Vietnam [War] fiascos.

It is apparent that a science-driven economy using current technology to get 6 million productive jobs with NAWAPA would be a prosperous economy. Just as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Grand Coulee Dam were started when we were in a depression, it was this kind of project development that brought prosperity. We had a dust bowl in the ’30s that we treated. Now we have dust storms in Arizona. We can fix them.

Fern Henley
West Sacramento

Business expense, not a donation

Re “Common ground” by Jeff vonKaenel (SN&R Greenlight, December 1):

The Big Enchilada, Le Grand Manitou of SN&R, its CEO, etc., insists on lauding the Bank of America for “donating almost $500,000” to hereabouts.

It’s not donating: It’s business expensing and tax deducting.

If Le Grand Manitou thinks this is charity, he hasn’t read or understood the most brilliant economist in history, Trier’s very own Karl Marx. That amount of money for such a huge institution doesn’t amount to a sparrow’s fart.

CEOs may be impressed; the 99 percent are not.

Owen McGowan
Courtland

Katehi’s on the way out

Re “UC Davis demonstration” (SN&R You Are Here, December 1):

In my opinion, the members of the Board of Regents have already decided to replace Dr. [Linda] Katehi—but not right away. Look for the move, quietly, next spring.

John Campion
Stockton

Neighborhood school?

Re “Here comes the neighborhood” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Bites, November 23):

[St. Hope] is the neighborhood school. It was taken over in 2003 to avoid the federal government from taking it. Now that the campus houses three schools—[Sacramento] Charter High School, [Public School 7], and The Met [High School], it is still being criticized for being underutilized.

Will the children in East Sacramento truly return to Sac High?

I have been in Sacramento 25 years, and the students of East Sac did not attend Sac High then. Why would they come back now? Do you truly think co-locating a comprehensive high school with West Campus will bring back the kids from surrounding neighborhoods? Do you think that West Campus parents driving to Sac High and the Sac High kids driving to another neighborhood will lower the smog in the city?

The reason the [charter high school] exists is because parents in the neighborhood actually wanted their kids to get an education. The previous campus had a 2.5 out of 10 graduation rate; now it is 95 percent. Forty percent of the students couldn’t read, and now 85 percent have college offers. The kids are taught respect for themselves and others, community participation and school pride. The yesteryears of Sac High from the ’50s and ’60s are gone, and the atrocious ’80s and ’90s appear to be forgotten. But the present is great!

Taking revenue from a cash-strapped district by removing the rent of over $200,000 received from the [charter high school] for the use of the campus and adding the expense of moving both campuses—projected at over $50,000— is ridiculous.

Sylvia Byrd
Sacramento