The political silly season has started in earnest early this year. Over the past week, I’ve repeatedly seen two ads running regularly on several Portland TV channels during the nightly news hour. The ads are anti-Kate Brown, and depict several infamous PERS retirees who draw large monthly benefits. The ads are of the old newsreel type, and ask whether these people cured cancer, or won Nobel prizes, and then dismisses them as just ”retired state employees”, as if they did nothing of merit to ”deserve” those benefits. These commercials, which have run multiple times during any half-hour segment of the local news are sponsored by a group called Priority Oregon, whose origins, association, and financing are a bit elusive (there is a bit of information out there suggesting that several individuals may be behind this organization, including the infamous Loren Park). Each ad ends with a picture of Kate Brown, a derogatory statement about her, and a phone number for the Governor’s office. I presume these ads are to make Kate Brown the cause of PERS’ high benefits with the implication that (a) the Governor alone is the solution to the problems; and (b) a change of Governor would dramatically alter the status quo. I presume that these ads are a lead up to more targeted ads featuring Knute Buehler (Buehler? Buehler?) as the savior Oregon needs as it's next Governor.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Hangout At The Gallows
What makes these ads so pernicious is the fact that they play on the very issues incorrectly addressed in the article I refuted in the post immediately preceding this one (”A Hard Rains Gonna Fall”, below). They also play to the Oregon Business Alliance’s package of proposals that will be delivered to the Legislature for its consideration in 2019. Those focus on eliminating the pickup, capping benefits prospectively for future retirees (I’ve seen two numbers for the cap - $100,000 and $150,000), increasing employee health care contributions, and a Tier 4 as a pure 401K, eliminating any defined benefit for new members.
Adding to the PERS angst is the recent US Supreme Court decision in Janus v AFSCME, which eliminates the requirement that unionized public employees who don’t wish to be union members will no longer be compelled to pay fair-share dues. Higher Education has already implemented Janus, effective with July salaries paid on August 1st. This challenges public employee union finances just as they head into the season where political sponsorship and endorsements are critical, and lobbying expenditures during the long legislative session loom large. I expect a heavy recruiting campaign by the unions to raise employee awareness of the value of union membership. Regardless of their success, this is a major jolt to their finances and is the beginning of a long-known objective of conservatives to seriously diminish the union role in influencing election results in local, state, and national elections.
So, if you thought my last post about the NYT’s screed on public employee retirement systems was either over the top, dour, or too pessimistic, this post is intended to reinforce the message that things look grim for PERS members not yet retired, and for those not yet members. Our only good defense is a good offense. I repeat my long-held, and frequently repeated maxim - ELECTIONS MATTER! And the November elections matter more than most. Just remember that your votes for local and statewide offices are critical for your own fiscal well-being, while your votes for national office are critical for your (and our) psychological, social, physical, and economic well-being. VOTE CAREFULLY! VOTE EARLY! AND VOTE OFTEN (just kidfing). Remember the title of this post and the last. Poor voting choices could turn those titles from hyperbole into reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I just saw the third variant of the same anti-Kate Brown ad from Priority Oregon. The three ads depict three of the highest benefit recipients in the system, and characterize them, in effect, as tit-sucking, worthless "government employees". Two are physicians and administrators; the third was a football coach. These kind of ads infuriate me because they are deceptive, misleading, and, oh wait, we're used to "fake news".
After all, it's just money; you just print it.
So...vote carefully... Because of the amount of fake news, it’s dometimes difficult to determine the reality of a candidates leanings, unless you just vote party line. Any good voting guides or advice out there for us folks impacted by Pers?
@Melinda. If you look where ad dollars are being spent this year, you can see that one party and one PAC is pushing heavily on PERS Reform (i.e. PERS Cuts) using a lot of misleading information, and laying the blame on the current Governor. The other group of ads I’m starting to see, lay off much of the blame on the Governor’s political party. In truth, the major 2003, 2005, 2011, and the failed 2013 reforms were all initiated by the then current Governors and Legislators from the same political party. The opposing party objected to the cuts not because they opposed them, but they were not draconian enough. While divided party rule in Washington, DC should be an objective to keep checks and balances in place, in Salem lack of a supermajority can be a prescription for the tyranny of the minority, where the minority party on a non-supermajority status could extort more draconian bills in exchange for something the majority party wants badly. Revenue reform (eliminating the kicker, raising corporate income taxes, even (heaven forbid) a sales tax) won’t ever gain traction without supermajority status in both legislative bodies and the Governors mansion. That said, Kate Brown has been a terribly uninspired leader, with no appetite to fight for anything significant except the health care expansion. I think she’s in real trouble this year, and the silly season has started much earlier.
This isn't related to the above discussion, but I wanted to share experiences I had when I went for my retirement application review meeting (RAAS) with PERS, and a separate meeting to apply for my Social Security benefits. Regarding my RAAS session: the PERS employee would not accept as a form of identification my Oregon ID card. It was issued in 2012 by the DMV after I had to present my birth certificate to have it renewed. The Oregon ID card was not accepted because that specific form of identification is not on PERS's list of acceptable forms of ID. I've never had a driver's license. I have bought 2 homes using an Oregon ID card, so I was really surprised to run into this. I fortunately had also brought my original birth certificate, so I was able to complete the RAAS session successfully.
As for the Social Security meeting, I just went down to the office on SW Yamhill street in downtown Portland. According to the Social Security website, filing for benefits in person without an appointment is an option. They recommend filing online, but I was uneasy about doing that. When I arrived, I noticed that the kiosk where customers sign in to receive their number did not show "applying for benefits" or similar, as a reason for coming to the office, so I signed in as "other". When called, the Social Security employee did not understand what I meant when I told her I was there to apply for benefits. I had to repeatedly explain what I meant. It turns out, in spite of what is shown on the Social Security website, you can no longer apply for benefits in person. You call the number on their website, make an appointment for a telephone interview, and they call you by phone at the appointed time. According to the employee, you also don't have to present documents in person either. The Social Security employee was very helpful, very pleasant, and I received very good customer service, so I had no problem there. One other thing. In case you've never been there: expect to go through TSA type of security when you visit the Social Security office. Belts are removed, shoes are removed unless you are wearing sneakers, you walk through a body scanner. Your jacket or sweater has to be removed and searched, your belongings are searched. Do not bring anything that is classified as a weapon. If you are bringing a drink in, it has to be completely clear. No taking photos or video recording while inside, either. I did so want to take a selfie, but I resisted the temptation.
But the truth is Brown has been negligent with PERS issues along with many other critical issues that she refuses to address. Now she will not even debate East of the Cascades, preferring to stay in liberal areas. Oregon will continue its decline until the State gets real leadership.
How has Brown been negligent with PERS issues? After the Moro case decision in April 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court slammed the dooron any changes deemed retroactive with an 8-0 decision. They left no doubt that prospective changes can be made, but you show me a prospective change that applies to Tier 1 and Tier 2 members, and I’ll explain to you how (a) it will save so little money that it will be useless at solving problems, and (b) why it probably won’t survive a court challenge because it will turn out to be implemted retroactively, and © that PERS will oppose the change because they would have to spent a ton of money to invest in a new IT system to handle what would turn out to be unique circumstances for every affected member. Ther are actually few changes that can be made and those wouldn’t save much money, and would affect younger members far more severely than the more expensive older, longer-serving members.
Post a Comment