2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

What is often ignored in the public/private debate is the public + private problem for the many employees who, by the time they retire, have worked in both sectors. The issue is generally called the "Social Security Takeaway," based on the Social Security principle that public employees should not have both public and private pensions: so-called "double dipping." The principle, though, ignores the fact that both types of pensions are generally based on time worked; and, of course, private retirees are permitted to have pensions for time covered from more than one private employer. As I understand it, the formula reduced--and probably still reduces--Social Security checks by two-thirds of the value of the government pension. Thus, in spite of paying into the Social Security system for years, even a few years in a public sector job can seriously erode the combined pensions, as it has for me. These double-sector workers are thus paid benefits for fewer years than fair for their total working life. It's something to think about when looking for a job, but most people don't find out about it until they meet with Social Security after they retire.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

My hope is that the auto industry will expand the concept of flex fuel and hybrid vehicles to manufacture most vehicles with more on-the-road choices. For the foreseeable future we can?t and shouldn?t rely on a single energy source as a society or as individuals. Electric cars are great and an admirable industry for Oregon, IF we have clean and abundant electricity. I?ve wanted an electric car since a Harley-Davidson dealership sold them in Chicago in the 1970s; but unassisted electric is still for those who require and can afford two vehicles or don?t need hauling space. Owning two vehicles may not be an environmental choice when one flexible vehicle can do.

Hybrid vehicles, of course, should plug in, but should also be flex fuel, with ethanol enabled up to E85, at least, and perhaps other choices built in for the longer haul, as in the Salt Lake City conversion company mentioned above. People talk about cellulosic ethanol technology being the holy grail of the future, but cellulosic ethanol plants are being built now (not well known in the media but documented in industry publications such as Biomass Magazine).

The best news is that there are existing technologies (including one I represent) to convert the biomass part of garbage and other wastes to ethanol or other fuels?simultaneously saving landfill space and money without those troubling issues about using food crops and fertilizer and extra transportation fuel to produce our alternative fuels. Running our transportation on our throw-away problems?how sustainable can you get?

R. Lombard, Hillsboro

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context