Kate Brown: “It was clear transparency was not a priority in the prior administration,” she told lawmakers. “I changed that my first day on the job and every day since.”
Well, not exactly. She used her government credit card for personal expenses and only reimbursed the state after she got caught.
Then there's this little oddity noted by the group "American Transparency":
In 2016, as politicians across America were fleeing voter wrath, Oregon’s governor and attorney general were blazing an unlikely trail – accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from businesses with state contracts.
Since 1940, at the federal level, individuals and entities negotiating or working under federal contracts are prohibited from giving political cash to candidates, parties or committees. In Oregon, however, this political patronage is perfectly legal, at least for now.
Even Illinois doesn't allow this sort of thing. It may be up for a change here in Oregon, finally, as a representative from Bend is moving legislation that would ban the practice of allowing businesses and unions with state contracts to make political campaign contributions. He'd like to see the state at least meet the standards that have been in place at the federal level for nearly 80 years.
Unsurprisingly, the public employee unions call the effort "shameful", claiming that "working-class Oregonians who pool political funds through a union can't participate" - a claim that's ludicrous on its face: public employee unions collect monthly "dues" from employees and use a large portion of the funds to contribute to Democrat campaigns. If an employee objects to having his or her "dues" diverted to political campaigns, union bosses are quick to assure them that "Oh, no - your "dues" go only to support contract negotiations and so forth." The political money comes from fairies or something.
Moreover, if a union employee wishes to contribute to a political cause or campaign, he or she is free to do so - which is to say, participation is not denied them by barring unions with state contracts or negotiations from contributing to candidates.
Speaking of Oregon public employee unions, however, somebody should donate a lot of thongs to them, because the bosses have their panties in a wad over proposals to alter the Public Employee Retirement System, which is presently underfunded by between $22 billion and $50 billion, depending upon which scenario one wishes to contemplate.
Over the years, PERS has been divided into three generations, based on date of hire — Tier 1, Tier 2, and the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan.
Senate Bill 559 would require that retirement benefits be calculated using the average salary from the final five years of employment, instead of the current three years.
Senate Bill 560 would take the 6 percent of salary employees contribute, or have contributed on their behalf, to a defined contribution plan called the Individual Account Program and redirect it to their retirement benefits. The bill also caps the amount of salary used in benefits calculations at $100,000.
Both bills have public employee union bosses in a state of apoplexy; their "solution", as always, is "more revenue" - as in higher taxes. This is because when their tax burden increases, they'll simply "negotiate" higher compensation packages from the compliant Democratics whose campaigns they fund. Which means that, well, there will have to be even more revenue to pay for that. And so it continues.
