According to today's Sacramento Bee, California will sustain $948 million in spending cuts and $1.8 billion in higher taxes after fiscal leaders announced Friday that the state will not receive enough federal budget relief to avoid those measures.

Sacramento Bee columnist Jon Ortiz reports in his blog that a few publications are calling for public employees to pay more of their pension costs. In "Sharing the Pain" in Government magazine, Girard Miller calls for new formulas in which retirees share the cost of increased pension benefits and increased health premium costs. The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial suggests agencies under CalPERS return to pre-1999 pension plans for new hires (in 1999, CalPERS increased the fretirement ormula to a 3 percent multiplier). And a (Los Angeles area) Daily Breeze editorial favors the riskier defined benefit contribution pension plans (such as 401(k)s).

The Legislative Analyst's Office has published an analysis of Proposition 1A, the May 19 ballot measure that would require the state to make annual contributions to a budget reserve up to a minimum level. It also would limit the use of the reserve in "bad budget" years. Proposition 1A was placed on the ballot as part of the budget negotiations. The analysis also discusses Proposition 1B, which would -- IF Proposition 1A is approved -- allocate general fund revenues to the Supplemental Education Payment Account.

As the keynote speaker at an ACSS board meeting last year, DPA Director Dave Gilb warned that nearly half the state’s supervisors and managers could retire in the next five years. A Bureau of State Audits report released yesterday, and reported by The Sacramento Bee’s State Worker blog, confirms Gilb’s general predictions: Forty-two percent of the state’s leadership and more than 20 percent of its rank-and-file employees may retire in seven years. In the departments surveyed, nearly half the workers were 50 or older. Of even greater concern is that succession plans are just beginning. The blog contains a summary link; read the entire report (pdf) here.

According to The Sacramento Bee's State Worker column today, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has filed a lawsuit against the governor contending the furloughs are an illegal pay cut. This suit differs from previously filed suits by contending the order can't be executed rather than challenging the governor's authority to issue it. The association says its members will not be able to take off their furlough time.

Mac Taylor, California's legislative analyst, warns the plunging economy could open an $8 billion hole in the state's new budget. That deficit will worsen by $6 billion if voters reject the ballot measures on May 19.

Judge Patrick Marlette, the Sacramento Superior Court judge who ruled in the governor's favor on the furlough issue several weeks ago, has ruled in his favor again: Employees of constitutional offices are subject to the furlough. The tentative ruling could be made final as early as this afternoon. The ruling affects about 15,000 state workers. The passing of the budget didn't negate the need for the furloughs, the judge wrote.

State Worker columnist Jon Ortiz's "random observations" this week make a lot of sense. One of those observations was generated by ACSS' meet and confer with DPA. The point he makes: If the May 19 ballott propositions don't pass, state workes may be in a world of hurt.

State Controller John Chiang has begun releasing more than $2.8 billion in payments -- tax refunds and student aid included -- that were delayed because of the budget crisis. Payments are being made on a "first in, first out" basis.

Californians will vote on seven measures in the special election called for May 19. These measures were originally scheduled for the June 8, 2010, primary, but the Legislature and governor called the special election to address four of the budget provisions. Those are propositions: 1A, which would increase the amount of money put into the state's rainy day account and restrict withdrawal of funds; 1B, which would provide supplemental education payments to public school districts and community colleges beginning in 2011; 1C, one of the major components of the budget plan, which would allow the state to borrow $5 billion in the 2009-10 fiscal year from future lottery profits and potentially more in future years; and 1D, which would temporarily redirect a portion of First 5 program funds for budgetary savings. The deadline to register to vote in this election is May 4 (postmark date OK). For more information, see the Secretary of State's news release and the Legislative Analyst's analysis.

The Sacramento Bee's State Worker columnist, Jon Ortiz, explains the effects of the change to "self-directed" furlough days in his online blog. For the full text of the entry, click the headline above. Excluded employees, who are still covered by the governor's order to take two furlough days, will take this Friday (March 6) as a furlough day but will be on a self-directing schedule thereafter.

According to a Sacramento Bee article, Gov. Schwarzeneggers' State of the State speech asked only for a solution to the budget crisis. The governor warned the state is within weeks of not having enough cash to pay its bills.

According to the Associated Press on msnbc.com, more people are moving out of California than moving into it. They're even trading ocean sunshine for snowy winters. The budget problems are part of the story.

If you work for Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, Attorney General Jerry Brown or state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, you're in luck. According to The Sacramento Bee, the three state officials will not furlough their employees. Lockyer challenged the legality of the furloughs. Jerry Brown will implement "alternative measures." Our favorite State Worker columnist, Jon Ortiz, has published an internal memo from Brown's office.

A Sacramento Bee alert reports that a lawsuit filed by the Professional Engineers in California Government and the California Association of Professional Scientists, seeking to block the governor's executive order, will be argued in court today. The organizations are challenging the governor's authority to force furloughs on state workers.