Politically, it would be far more effective if it came from the left.

But that will never happen. Anyone on the left who dares question is ostracized. Just ask Greg Macpherson.

It strikes me that some of these folks are going to need the higher pension payments to pay for the private security force they're going to need once these numbers and associated names are made public.

You'd be hard pressed to find too many in the $100K club here in Oregon. So few positions pay that much to begin with that the well isn't very deep. Most of the big hitters in Oregon have come from elsewhere and they don't stay here very long - not long enough to earn that kind of money in their PERS accounts. Although I don't know the figures, I'd bet there aren't more than 30 or 40 people currently retired who are in the $100K+ club - and probably all are from OHSU.

"...to pay for the private security force they're going to need once these numbers and associated names are made public."
=====

Yeah, well maybe they are also 2nd Amendment types who have CWPs, and also signed a petition to get some controversial initiative on the ballot.

The trifecta of public records releases.

My take is, if you really want privacy, don't do anything that can become public.

I'd bet there aren't more than 30 or 40 people currently retired who are in the $100K+ club

Trust and verify.

When will Margaret Carter retire?

The number one guy on the CalPers list, from the tiny burg of Vernon, has a pretty interesting story, if the report linked below is accurate. He's bagging half a million bucks a year. Nice work if you can get it, I guess. Note: I said interesting, not uplifting . . .

http://www.senseoncents.com/tag/bruce-malkenhorst/

Mr. Keisling pointed out that PPS offset/ compensated their teachers more than the 6% contribution to their own retirement when that started.

How sweet.

Of course the Portland Police and Fire as well as TriMet are much worse than PERS.

Another interesting web site would be one showing union contributions to politicians who make this happen.
Maybe BlueOregon would set that one up?

Come on,, that was funny.

Why? I already need medication for my blood pressure.

Besides, do you really think there is one politician in this state who won't do exactly as told by the public employee unions?

"So few positions pay that much to begin with that the well isn't very deep."

Slight problem, there are a lot of CoP jobs and Police (those not on PFDR) that are >$100K/yr when you count overtime. All they need to do is pull that overtime for 3 yrs or so and bingo.

"Slight problem, there are a lot of CoP jobs and Police (those not on PFDR) that are >$100K/yr when you count overtime. All they need to do is pull that overtime for 3 yrs or so and bingo."

Except that you get a percentage of your final salary when you retire so a cop with $100,000 a year salary gets maybe $50k or $60k and only if they have 25 - 30 years in PERS.

Mr. Keisling pointed out that PPS offset/ compensated their teachers more than the 6% contribution to their own retirement when that started. How sweet.

Why are you unhappy that teachers often work for less pay and worse health care coverage, but get a retirement pension? At best, it's deferred compensation. At worse, teachers are beat to hell yearly by school districts, denied pay raises and contracts, get to watch their health care coverage get worse every few years, are subject to ever growing class sizes, shrinking budgets, lack of materials, increase in federal "testing" requirements...

should I go on? Because I'm hearing a stunning amount of ignorance about the big picture when I hear PERS and teachers discussed.

Most of the public employees covered under PERS are not Peter O. Kohler, but Peter Kohler is on PERS and is probably raking in a damned decent retirement.

Most public employees who retire with PERS are clerks.

If you want to talk about obscene, let's talk about private sector CEO 'retirement' schemes. And bonus boners. And stock options. And vast disparities at what executives make (and retire on) as versus the clerks and salespeople that they've stolen the retirement fund from...

And teachers...Teachers have to spend their "time off" taking classes to keep their teaching certification. Plus, during the year they tend to work 80 to 90 hour workweeks, pay for classroom materials out of their own pockets, and expose themselves to the viruses and bad manners of all your little brats. They deserve to be making more than they get, not less.

You people who worship the 'invisible hand' are just ready to bend over and accept the inevitable from your insurers, despite the chicanery they get up to, but when public employers finally get a decent shake, you feel the need to screw them over....just to bring them down to your level, I presume.

"I'm hearing a stunning amount of ignorance about the big picture when I hear PERS and teachers discussed."

Those are my thoughts as well. The big picture reveals that PERS mainly covers people working for lower-middle-class to middle-class wages, with teachers no doubt making up the largest category of those covered. If the self-styled populists who generally inhabit the blog comments here can't find some sense of common cause with the people who struggle to teach their children and who aren't very well rewarded for it, then we've got a very serious citizenship problem on our hands.

How about attacking a tax system that helps the rich get richer, or corporate practices that funnel huge amounts of money to the very top and make it easy to lower wages and benefits for the bottom 90 percent and cut workforces without suffering consequences? If you're a member of the lower or middle class and you're attacking unions, you're working against your own self-interest and the interests of the great majority of Americans.

No, I'm not a government employee covered by PERS or a member of a union. And even though PERS retirement benefits are better than mine, I'm okay with some of my tax money going to provide good retirement benefits for valuable members of society.

Without unions, and especially without public employee unions, employer-provided retirement benefits would be almost non-existent in this country.

The union haters--aside from the few captains of industry, trust fund babies and Wall Street tycoons among us--are dupes.

"Most public employees who retire with PERS are clerks."

YOu mean like Larry Gallizio, Margaret Carter and Max Williams?

"expose themselves to the viruses and bad manners of all your little brats."

Hey, at least they send their kids to private schools to avoid contact with the rest of us.

"let's talk about private sector CEO 'retirement' schemes."

I'd rather talk about the average taxpayer who sees less money spent on educating his kids and more on benefits. You should know better, two wrongs don't make a right.

"I'd rather talk about the average taxpayer who sees less money spent on educating his kids and more on benefits. You should know better, two wrongs don't make a right."

And you should know better. The main cost of public education is personnel: older people hired to teach young people. To hire those teachers, we need to pay them in wages and/or benefits. Wages and benefits for teachers constitute money spent on educating kids.

If it's the retirement portion of the wages/benefits that you object to, then you should come right out and say that you're in favor of paying people as long as they can function in the difficult job of classroom teacher, but once their working life is over, society has no obligation to them. In most advanced countries, that cruel notion was abandoned three-quarters of a century ago.

"How about attacking a tax system that helps the rich get richer"

You might want to consider this:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3601/13329/

I think soaking the rich has its limits, when the top 1% pay 25% of the bills.

I'd rather talk about the average taxpayer who sees less money spent on educating his kids and more on benefits.

Steve, I have an idea. Let's pay teachers for the hours they actually work, reimburse them for the out-of-pocket expenses they incur, and remove their retirement benefits.

Sound good? There--PERS problem solved: no PERS for teachers at all, not one dime.

What do you say? Support it? C'mon, all that money can then be spent on "educating kids".

"If it's the retirement portion of the wages/benefits that you object to"

What I object to is that taxes keep going up and the amount actually spent on classroom supplies and reducing student/teacher ratios is diminishing exponentially.

What would your recommend as a solution then? I think raising taxes (I'll hold my breath on M66/67), is a limited option, so doing more with less like the private sector does, might be an option.

"Let's pay teachers for the hours they actually work, reimburse them for the out-of-pocket expenses they incur, and remove their retirement benefits."

Not bad, but I don't think I advocated this.

On retirement plans, if the taxpayers made a matching contribution to the teacher's contribution like everyone else does, great.

The issue is defined benefits which are unsustainable under the current situation, so I'll ask what your preference is - Adjust PERS and medical benefits or keep cutting the learning environment for students?

I think after 10% increases in revenue per biennium for a long time and we are still falling behind, maybe we need to look at another solution than raising taxes?

Yes, we should soak the rich with higher taxes. Soak them moderately more in Oregon, since we can't get too far out of line with other states, and soak them quite thoroughly on the federal level. The wealthy aren't going to be driven out of the U.S., since no other advanced nation treats them with so much deference and demands so little from them.

The last 30 years have been very kind to the people at the top of the economic ladder. That class has gotten richer and richer. We should use the tax code to do a better job of--now hear this, those of you fear socialism--redistributing some of the nation's wealth.

I think that would be much healthier for the country than forcing teachers and other average-wage workers to take additional pay cuts.

"I think that would be much healthier for the country than forcing teachers and other average-wage workers to take additional pay cuts."

Uh, what additional pay cuts for teachers?

I don't think you really can solve a problem by throwing more money at it - you can delay dealing with it like we are now.

I'll ask what your preference is - Adjust PERS and medical benefits or keep cutting the learning environment for students?

False choice--it's not PERS that's responsible for class sizes and program cuts. But that's the popular, simplistic way it's being put, isn't it?

Not bad, but I don't think I advocated this.

Let's do it! What do you say, Steve? Unload a few billion in PERS costs immediately, freeing it up to spend on "educating kids".

Win-win, right? Are you in favor? Because if you're characterizing the problem as "PERS vs. money to educate kids", this should be a dream scenario for you.

Except that you get a percentage of your final salary when you retire so a cop with $100,000 a year salary gets maybe $50k or $60k and only if they have 25 - 30 years in PERS.

Most Portland police are not in PERS.

"False choice"

OK, give me the third way - Assume just raising taxes isn't going to work, again I'll wait until the vote on M66/67, but higher taxes ain't quite on the menu today.

I only mention this way since the path we are going down now is to not touch benefits and cut classroom services.

Uh, what additional pay cuts for teachers?

Look around, Steve. Teachers in PPS and other districts routinely forego pay raises, take retroactive "raises" that were promised years ago (and get promoted by school districts as raises), get inferior health care coverage, and so forth.

"Let's do it!"

OK, how about this then. We give each teacher the cash value of their PERS account today. From here on out we make matching contributions and their payout is based on investment returns. It seems to be the way most taxpayers do it.

"if you're characterizing the problem as "PERS vs. money to educate kids"

Alright, you give me the reason why almost all of the 20% uptick in education spending went to benefits according to our Governor in 2005.

Believe it or not, I am open to alternate explanations.

"Teachers in PPS and other districts routinely forego pay raises, take retroactive "raises" that were promised years ago (and get promoted by school districts as raises), get inferior health care coverage"

Get inferior health coverage? That's news.

How would the foregoing pay raises contrast with Intel cutting pay 10% instead of layoffs?

If you want to talk about obscene, let's talk about private sector CEO 'retirement' schemes. And bonus boners. And stock options. And vast disparities at what executives make (and retire on) as versus the clerks and salespeople that they've stolen the retirement fund from...

There goes Godfry again. Save for companies that receive government bailouts, I don't care what private sector execs make; it's the private sector, and if I don't like those expensive pigs at the trough that aren't productive, I won't buy their products and I won't invest in them. That's my choice. With this PERS ponzi scheme, I have no say in it, other than with my measly vote (if I get one) and the corrupt, sleazy unions will make sure they get their way anyway.

mrfearless, you may or may not be right about the size fo the 100K club, but I'd bet the 85k to 100k club probably rivals the size of one of Oregon's largest counties. For one, I think this list should be published. At any rate, it shouldn't be too hard to find these folks...just go to a public golf course during business hours. I know quite a few PERS recipients that work at these places collecting golf balls for a small wage and get free rounds....Ah, some folks just know how to "game" the system.

Then, publish the list you're on, PD. I'd like to see what you're dragging home in benefits.

C'mon...put it out there for us all to see.

I agree with Jack's call for a similar website to cover Oregon PERS. What saddens me, however, is Jack's implication that calls for prudent fiscal policy can only be made by the conservative end of the political spectrum. Is he suggesting that government mismanagement is the ideological territory of the Left? I prefer to believe that fiscal discipline should transcend conservative vs. liberal politics.

ecohuman:
"...get inferior health care coverage, and so forth."
====

Ecohuman just shot what little credibility he had as a OEA shill.

Inferior health care? At $14,800 per year per person, including that $25K bus driver? Health care benefits in Oregon's public unions are Caddilac, Gold Plated benefits, not inferior. The only people with better health care are US Senators and Obama himself.

Are a liar or do you take everybody here as just ignorant rubes?

"Save for companies that receive government bailouts, I don't care what private sector execs make; it's the private sector,and if I don't like those expensive pigs at the trough that aren't productive, I won't buy their products and I won't invest in them. That's my choice."

If that's your attitude, then you're missing most of the big economic picture in your eagerness to demonize public employees and unions. It was the private sector execs who wrecked the financial industry and severely damaged the rest of the economy. They all got away with their personal loot before the government came in to bail out their ruined companies and save the wider economy from disaster. So there's little disincentive to engage in the same type of personally lucrative, widely destructive "private" behavior again.

Did you have a "choice" in all that?

"Inferior health care? At $14,800 per year per person,..."
----

I was wrong. It is $12,800/year. (Compared to $4-5K/yr for a Fortune 500 private sector package.)

From the May 28th Oregonian:
"Oregon remains one of the most generous states in the country when it comes to health care. Full-time state employees pay no deductible for medical care and nothing in monthly insurance premiums for themselves or their spouses and children.

The average cost per employee? About $12,800 a year, or roughly half a billion dollars out of a projected $15 billion two-year general fund and lottery budget."
===
See the url:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/05/budget_fight_wont_touch_oregon.html

"It was the private sector execs who wrecked the financial industry and severely damaged the rest of the economy."

I believe PERS and over-generous benefits pre-dates the financial crise and therefore would not make any link.

However, if you want to fix both problems, great. Yet I don't see where saying someone else exploiting the system justifies not looking at fixing our system.

"Except that you get a percentage of your final salary when you retire so a cop"

Unless of course, he decides to retire with a stress disability and run a restaurant like the guy that ran the place on 21st at full pay pension.

In addition, if he can get his doctor to say he is stressed, no one else can challenge or appeal it - Thank you Randy and PFDR.

Then, publish the list you're on, PD. I'd like to see what you're dragging home in benefits.

Godfry, I'm in that small and shrinking population of self-employed individuals that pay a 15% self employment tax. I pay 100% of my family's health insurance on top of that. No bennies here, buddy. I have to pay my own freight and also that of the PERS recipients such as yourself.

Don't you get it: that's how the system works. Government employees and their entitlement programs are sucking the lifeblood out of productive individuals. That's why we love you so.

Happy retirement!

If that's your attitude, then you're missing most of the big economic picture in your eagerness to demonize public employees and unions. It was the private sector execs who wrecked the financial industry and severely damaged the rest of the economy.

Richard, Richard, Richard. It's always the greedy Wall Street fat-cat, isn't it? Perhaps you missed the fact that in 1999 our last democratic president championed to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers at crazy lending ratios. Hungry, irresponsible borrowers followed, purchasing homes far, far outside of their "real" (as opposed to "teaser") ability to service the assosiated debt. This left a hole large enough for any greedy mortgage lender, syndicator, and/or derivative peddler to drive a truck through.

Hey, as a left-left-of-center guy, I'd love to blame Wall Street alone for the ensuing financial mess, but there were many participants involved -- including mortgage borrowers themselves. As much as you and/or the media may want to place blame on Wall Street alone -- look at the facts.

...And government employee entitlements (and the shortfall in funding) IS the next collapse, so be prepared my friend.

Richard: Oh yes - let's soak the rich. My wife and I just retired and left the State of Oregon largely because of it's idiotic tax structure. Between us we will be saving close to $12,000 a year in taxes; and we are far from rich. I also just closed my business in Portland after 20+ years; and two of those "Family Wage" jobs you Progressive types always talk about but never actually produce, also are now gone as well.

PERS whether it is in California, Oregon, or whatever will fail, it is not a question of if, but when. When it starts running deficits, approaches 50% of the General Budget, and when 25 year olds such as myself have kids and desire differing priorities for our tax dollars.

Harry,

Thanks for digging up the numbers on the amount of healt hcare benefits spent per school district employee per year.

If I take it at $12,800/year, then that is roughly $1067/month per employee.

Ecohuman,

How much of that $1067/month do individual school district employees pay per month? How much of the $1067/month does the school district pick up?

When my Mother worked for WIC (Women, Infants and Children), she was paying maybe $100 to 200 max per month for full healthcare bennies on a fairly comparable plan.

I would like to know from your experience or those you know.

To all who challenged my assertion that there are only a small number of PERS recipients who get more than 100K per year: The latest "PERS By The Numbers", published July 16, 2009 shows that among ALL PERS retirees there are 1310 recipients (1.3% of the total) who receive benefits amounts of between $7000 - $10,000+ per month. There is no individual breakout of amounts but we are talking about 1.3% of all recipients who get benefits ranging from $84,000 per year to somewhere north of $120,000 per year. The upper limit, under Federal Law for this kind of plan is currently $180,000 per year. I still submit that only a small fraction of those 1310 people are receiving more than $8500 per month. I also confess that within that 1.3% of recipients, I fall. I worked for 34 years at PSU and rose to an administrative/academic position for my last 22 years. I worked a 12 month contract so my base salary as an academic was increased by 22% for the additional 3 months per year I worked.

If you wish to read the same document I read, you can find it at our web library of PERS documents:

http://oregonpers.info or at the Oregon PERS site: http://www.state.or.gov/PERS

Oregon teachers have the best benefits package in the nation, or at least they did when I researched it three years ago. It was either the best or the second-best, above or below Minnesota.

"My wife and I just retired and left the State of Oregon largely because of it's idiotic tax structure. Between us we will be saving close to $12,000 a year in taxes"

Dave A.:

I don't know anything about the particulars of your situation--source of retirement income, source of previous income, where you're now living, etc.--so I can't comment on the relevance of your personal example to Oregonians in general.

I do know that Oregon's state and local tax burden per capita ranks right about the middle among all states. According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/476.html), we were #26 in 2008.

I also know that Oregon's income tax isn't very progressive--it kicks in at a low income level and flattens out quickly. Wealthy working people in Oregon can afford to pay more, and they should pay more.

Maybe you think Oregon's tax structure is "idiotic" because there are other places in the country where retired Dave A. and his wife can pay less. If that's the only standard by which you gauge government policy--simply by how much it costs you personally, without any thought for how much it benefits society in general--then I'm sure you're perfectly happy in your retirement tax haven.

What a shame it is to lose citizens like you to another state.

"Wealthy working people in Oregon can afford to pay more, and they should pay more."

http://wweek.com/editorial/3601/13329/

Again, soaking the rich has its limits, when the top 1% pay 25% of the bills. We can keep raising sin taxes too if you think that is morally justified.

Besides, public employees are pretty well compensated for their skill set, should we have a special tax for them?

"Again, soaking the rich has its limits, when the top 1% pay 25% of the bills."

That statistic is meaningless unless you also point out how much wealth the top 1 percent controls. Figures vary, according to source and year, but a frequently cited conservative estimate is that the top 1 percent of the population controls about 40 percent of U.S. wealth.

By that measure, the rich pay far too little in taxes, for all the good reasons that we supposedly have a progressive tax system. Such as: those with more disposable income are better able to afford tax payments, and those at the top profit from the labor of the many beneath them.

And let's remember that the income tax is bracketed, so millionaires don't pay any more (roughly) on their first $20,000 of income than you or I do. Personally, I'd be happy to pay 90 percent in taxes on everything I earn over 1 million, as long as everyone else were required to do the same.

ADP:

Web sites covering PERS:

http://persinfo.blogspot.com

Yahoo Groups: PERS_OREGON_DISCUSSION

Complete Database for PERS:

http://oregonpers.info

How about those for a start.