Oregon following California?

[maxiep]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/18/oregon-catches-pension-bug/

http://pubsecrets.wordpress.com/201...egon-collapse-of-progressive-model-continues/

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This is the natural outsome when a special interest group runs the gov's office. When the union says 'jump', the guv asks, "how high"?

 

[HailBlazers]

Workers hired before 1996 get a guaranteed annual return on their account of 8 percent, regardless of the actual performance of financial markets. In some years when market returns exceeded 8 percent, the entire growth amount was credited to member accounts — as much as 21 percent in one year. As a result, workers shared in the fruits of economic booms without losing out during busts.

Holy $hit. Democrats motto: if it feels good, do it.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

yeah, when public unions hold all the power, thats when local governments go broke

 

[maxiep]

And this is why public unions shouldn't be allowed. With private unions, there's a healthy conflict. Management has one objective, employees have another. That conflict leads to a market wage. With public unions, there is no conflict. The public union gives money to help elect the group against whom they're negotiating. In other words, in the public sphere, they're both on the same side, and it's not the side of the taxpayers.

A pox on both their houses, I say. I'll be interested to see what happens when the State tries to make up the shortfall.

 

[Masbee]

This all came up in the mid to late 1990's.

Sure it didn't get tons of press, but it the information was out there that the state pension system was overly generous in their promises and benefits and that they were using assumptions that would be CRIMINAL in any private settings. Also, another problem was the pension board would make changes to the system that almost always meant larger payouts to retirees, and these changes were not negotiated during contract talks, but just "because", and even so, these changes were one-way ratchets. The pension board could not undo any of these free "gifts", no matter how poor the original reasoning behind the decision.

It is really quite an insane system. And there were folks in the 1990's who I read who predicted that what you see now would happen. It is not a mystery or surprise. Those part of the system have known about this ticking time bomb all along.

 

[maxiep]

This all came up in the mid to late 1990's.

Sure it didn't get tons of press, but it the information was out there that the state pension system was overly generous in their promises and benefits and that they were using assumptions that would be CRIMINAL in any private settings. Also, another problem was the pension board would make changes to the system that almost always meant larger payouts to retirees, and these changes were not negotiated during contract talks, but just "because", and even so, these changes were one-way ratchets. The pension board could not undo any of these free "gifts", no matter how poor the original reasoning behind the decision.

It is really quite an insane system. And there were folks in the 1990's who I read who predicted that what you see now would happen. It is not a mystery or surprise. Those part of the system have known about this ticking time bomb all along.

Yep. There are friends of my mother's who all worked for the State, and their retirement packages are incredible. In fact, two "retired" at 55 and then were rehired as "permanent temporary workers" for their old jobs. In other words, they get paid twice. It's criminal and the taxpayers of Oregon will end up footing the bill.

 

[Masbee]

For those of you in Oregon (or other states with the same problem) you need to realize that there is effectively no solution.

The state Supreme Court will not allow any substantive changes to the (insane) promises that were made. They say it is a "contract". The ignore that in order to have a legal contract you have to have two parties on either side come to an understanding.

Since NO ONE was representing the interests of the taxpayers or the general public, there is a good argument that no valid agreement was made. And since long ago at the time, the financial insanity of the promises made was known, then no rational actor negotiating would have agreed to those changes, how can you have a contract?

Oregon's only hope is the Supreme Court of the United States says as much, and sends these lawsuits back to lower courts for a hearing to answer the questions: Were illegal, non-negotiated changes made to the pension system by the (corrupt) pension boards? If so, those should be modified or reversed. During negotiated chages to the pension system, would a rational actor have agreed to the changes as made? If not, reverse them.

The above isn't going to happen.

So Oregon, get ready for taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes. You don't think they can get any higher? Look to California and Connecticut for all the ways and rates taxes can go.

But, the increased and new taxes won't raise nearly enough money, so they will borrow all the way up to their credit limit saddling future generations, and they will cut current operating budgets, so be prepared for decades of reduced services and pissed off, overworked government workers, most of whom don't get the insanely great pension bennies.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

California...knows how to party.

California...knows how to party....in the citttttyyyyyy...of LA.....in the City.....of good ol' watts...in the citttttyyyyy......City of Compton...we keep it rockin!