This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 11, 2011 7:53 PM. The previous post in this blog was Tick tick tick. The next post in this blog is Willy Week hit piece targets BlueOregon. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Cylvia's revenge?

Governor Retread just took away the raises that the state's fearless attorney general laid on his managers last week. It's not the first time that the guv has flipped Mr. John Kroger the bird over money. Remember when Kroger urged the Kitz concubine to disgorge the Consulting Fee That Launched 1,000 Ships? The phrase "lead balloon" comes to mind.

Comments (5)

More like Gov. Retard.

Has the Democrat Hegemony in Salem produced any improvements in public policy or government transparency?

You would think a few thousand boomer progressives will start voting their pocketbooks while they still have something left to protect.

Alternately, we're going to need two new bridges over the Columbia to account for all the Oregonians who will retire in Clark County.

"The raises, projected to cost the state $400,000, didn't look good."

The "projected cost" surely did not include a present value calculation of these raises for the remaining years of the affected employees working careers and for their retirement pay for the balance of their lives. The cost is many orders of magnitude higher than what routinely gets peddled as the cost.

I would settle for a little summary on how such a raise would impact an actuary's calculation of the funding level for the state retirement system, consistent with GASB guidelines. The affected employees can certainly do such math (for their own individual accounts) in their head or on a napkin while sucking down a martini. If they can't or don't then they have no business being employed as public attorneys.

The raise would have an instant impact on such funding level calculations.

Why offer only the lowest of low-ball estimates of the projected public cost? (Other than intentional deception, for one's own benefit?)

Many years ago I was privileged to sit in on a Company/Union negotiations demands meeting for a major employer here in Oregon. The Unions demand was for a 10% pay increase over 3 years. The lead negotiator for the company asked one question and made one statement I will never forget. "If I agree to a 10% increase will your people work 10% harder?" If they aren't already giving a 100% effort, we really don't need them!"

The end result was a cost of living increase for 3 years.

You forget the basic rule in Oregon, which is different rules for different people.

Cylvia should be thanking her lucky stars she wasn't prosecuted...

Clicky Web Analytics