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.
4 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment