2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election 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 international 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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'm no expert, but I think in theory you are right.  If the social security system becomes under funded, then those still working are the ones paying to keep it afloat.

I think PERS may be a little (or a lot) different than social security, however.  What's different is that retired employees covered under the PERS system have their funds invested in accounts that can't be raided.  I believe the U.S. Government raids (borrows from?)  the social security fund on a regular basis.  What's similar is that shortfalls in investment returns for the PERS system may require that public employers make up some or all of the difference for PERS members covered under the "old" system.  Obviously, public employers get most of their revenue from tax payers one way or another.

The changes that the legislature implemented several years ago will have the affect of reducing future liabilities as Tier I members pass along.  At that point, most of the argument about PERS will be no longer apply. 

I think the things to be careful about start out with "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear".  Certain politicians have made a career for themselves by portraying the PERS system in a damaging and erroneous light.  Certain newspapers have also bolstered their flagging sales by doing the same thing.  Scruples be damned in politics and the newspaper business, I guess.  The effect has been to turn Oregonians against each other when what we need to do is support each other, especially now in these very difficult times.

PERs is not the bogeyman that some of these characters would have us believe.  I think the data in the referenced PERS report demonstrates this.  However, creating false enemies is an old tactic used by some in politics and the media to distract the public from their failures of courage and leadership in facing the most important issues of the day.

Gary

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context