If you wish to help support the ongoing costs of running this blog and you haven't purchased anything through Amazon on this site, please consider a small donation to defray basic costs. It isn't free to me to keep this site current. I have to pay for bandwidth, costs of duplicating documents when they exist only in paper form, and keep printer ink around to read lengthy documents, and the time to do the research. Thank you. Marc Feldesman, site owner and publisher.
Oregon PERS Information is Copyright Marc R. Feldesman (c) 2003 - 2018 All Rights Reserved. Posts may not be reprinted without prior consent.

Please don't post your comments more than once. I moderate all comments and a delay between posting and appearing is part of the drill here. I get to all comments in due time. Please don't continually repost the same comment. Only one will be posted. Thank you.

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Gentle On My Mind

There seems to be some confusion about the recent spate of posts about proposed changes to PERS.  To gentle the minds of those already retired, none of these bills propose to do anything to anyone already retired, or to anyone retiring before any of these bills are enacted (if at all).  So those of you already retired can spare your anguish, and return to your (hopefully) relaxing retirement.  All these bills target those still working and those not working for a PERS agency, but not yet retired.  While I think that targeting the next generation to pay for our retirements, it really is no different than Social Security.  It isn’t fair, but it is life.  I oppose it on principle, and will fight like hell to keep any of these obnoxious bills from taking effect, but the reality is that there is no other way to pay for PERS without a general tax increase aimed at businesses that have gotten away with tax murder since the passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990.  As far as I can tell, payback for those businesses is a bitch, but it is necessary.


Kolbs said...

Thank you for the articles, I look forward to your postings. I am not quite sure what this means:

"The Rs in the Legislature are doing a full-court press on the Ds, and the Ds don’t have the votes to override a Governor’s veto. So, be afraid, very afraid."

I understand the R's full court press but how does the D's inability to override a veto fit in?

Thanks again for these excellent posts. This is my go to spot for the latest on the legislature's plots to steal my pension.

mrfearless47 said...

The Rs are making all the desires that the Ds want contingent on PERS reform. At some point the Ds will have to compromise if they want tax reform and/or transportation infrastructure. The Ds only have a 17-13 majority, and a defection of 4 Ds is all that's needed to pass a bill by the Rs. Even if the governor vetoes the bill, the Ds don't have enough votes to override the veto. That might be good or bad.

mrfearless47 said...

To further clarify, the Ds cannot pass a tax increase with 18 votes in the senate, which means that they would have to get R buyin. But to do that, the Ds are going to have to yield some on PERS. How that plays out is anyone's guess, but the significance of their lack of a 60% in either the house and the senate means that we're the Gov to veto any PERS bill negotiated as part of an overall revenue compromise with the Rs, would be compromised by the Ds inability to override the veto. They Ds are in a precarious position because they lack the votes on revenue enhancement without R support, and they can't overturn a veto without R support. The Rs are throwing so much PERS chaff in the air that the Ds are going to expend a lot of potitical capital and goodwill batting away PERS bill's, that any hope for some revenue raising bills could be squandered.

mrfearless47 said...

Kolbs. Your comment refers to the post above this one. Re-read the post now, with the clarifying note added. I think it summarizes the problem the Ds have.