some say high PD salaries help prevent corruption.

Why? For police officers, in California, it’s pretty simple. Supply and demand. California is short 10,000 policemen. It’s a problem to the point that cities are cannibalizing each other.

West Covina PD is paying $12,500 to police officers who will quit their job and come to West Covina. Palo Alto pays $10,000. Anaheim $7,500… Most cities are now paying at least $5,000.

And police salaries are not stagnant. Referring to the May 2008 PORAC Law Enforcement News, I see that Beverly Hills Cops just signed a contract that guarantees that they will ALWAYS be paid at least 1% higher than any other PD in the State. Santa Monica is guaranteed to be the second highest in LA County. Oxnard got a one year 9% raise, Buena Park got 12.5% over 2 years, Montebello got a one year 10%, and Santa Paula got a one year, 8% contract.

Supply and demand.

Fire”fighters” (???) are a dime a dozen, but they are also very clever. They simply point to the police contracts and say, “us too.” And weak city managers defer to weak city councils whom capitulate because they fear negative public opinion drummed up by fire union political action money…

I have no problem with what police and fire get paid, especially police. I have a problem with lucrative pensions that allow police and fire to retire at 50 and pension rules that allow them to collect pensions that are way out of line with what corporate America pays in pensions. Granted pensions in corporate America are going away, but most certainly don't pay anywhere close to 100% of your last salary. When a government employee is allowed to retire at 50 you double up on the salary burden for about 15 years, 1) you pay the retiree, and 2) you pay his/her replacement. This is why cities are declaring BK. And who gets screwed by these stupid contracts, the public who has to pay, the city which goes BK, and the retiree, who is going to get his/her pension adjusted downwards. Nobody wins except the lawyers negotiating the BK.

Oh, and the politicians who have gotten the campaign contributions and maybe are still there, or moved on to another elected gig they have profited and left a troubled legacy.

Again, Check your facts.

The pension disbursements (except in rare cases like the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Diego) are not paid by cities. The cities pay into a pension fund called CalPers. The contribution formula for police/fire is 9%.

The city pays into CalPers and then when the person retires, CalPers pays the monthly benefit. Take a good look at CalPers. You will see that CalPers is solvent. CalPers has never missed a payment and likely never will.

Further, the shortfall seen by some cities occurred because during the years when the stock market was very strong the CalPers Pension Fund was DEEMED FULLY FUNDED and as such, CalPers was politically pushed into the position of giving cities the “option” of fully funding (paying the 9%) into the fund OR NOT. Many foolish cities chose the OR NOT option and instead spent the money on other things instead of paying the 9% into the fund.

Fast forward to the dot.com crash and the resulting downward stock market trend, and suddenly CalPers told the cities that their accounts were NOT FULLY FUNDED and that “catch up” cash infusions would be required. Thus, the resulting shortfall.

You obviously didn’t read the info that I stated in my prior post. The state is short 10,000 police officers. Any city that hopes to attract new police officers would get ZERO applications if they cut the pension benefit. Remember, California pretty much sucks. Other states are much more appealing to young guys who want to be police officers, raise a family and have a decent life. California has to compete with this.

One last thing… please give the “100% pension” and “Lifetime Medical Benefits” rhetoric a rest. CalPers caps the pension at 90% (after 30 years) and hardly any city offers “lifetime medical.”