Chuck Sheketoff:

Eugene's Jesse Springer nailed it, again.

Bob T:

Well, no he didn't. The government will always try to make us cry uncle by cutting services that are high on the list of the ones most people say are basic. Why would the state threaten to cut waste? It won't lead to tax increases.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Got to agree with Bob, there are efficient and effective ways to have furloughs without shutting down entire divisions of government (or businesses for that matter).

Nailed it? Maybe if it was a TEA-bagger doing the talking.

Kurt's right. It's a tantrum. Fact is Dems simply can't deal with people that are progressive about taxation, but sticklers for efficient use. Have to turn us into one or the other, then vilify the caricature.

I worked in Oregon government as a civil servant for 3 years. I never met a middle manager or better that didn't think they deserved every dollar- all sacrifice must come from you, never them- didn't break the law disbursing those funds, wasn't grossly incompetent, wasn't privately hostile to the legislation they were implementing, and didn't compare their position with a private sector career. Like certain editorial staff at BO, the idea that it should be a service ethic, they will tell you to your face that it is "the dumbest idea I've ever heard". In every case where I've seen a formal complaint made, it was dismissed out of hand by the AG, without review.

If Oregonians could spend a day in whoever's office in Salem, they would pay not a dime in tax. That has nothing to do with the fact that many- most, actually- realize that the spending is necessary. Meanwhile, we're left with this position. Give us every dime, every time, or we will stomp our feet and do nothing! But don't tell the Dems; they'll detect you're not "down with it". Maybe take a page out of their book. Document and sell the results to conservative talk radio. Gotta make a living.

Let's face it. If you're a real progressive, ANYWHERE in the US, your life will be pointless, mind-numbing frustration, and death will not come soon enough. You're supposed to look at this as "us" and "them" and be proud of "us"...for not being "them". Need a refresher course? Check out Jeff's post on them waskaly wepublicans again.

Maybe we should be looking at this opportunity constructively rather than trying to score political points via op-ed cartoons. (BTW, it's 'And now the state wants to 'Tax The Rich MORE'? - and yes, they do...) Perhaps Oregon, the ever 'progressive' state we profess to be, should have looked (or be looking) at the 'more sustainable' 4-day 10 hour work week Utah has went to for most executive branch employees:

The Associated Press is reporting this morning that Utah's plan to close state offices on Fridays has resulted in a 13% reduction in energy use. The program began last August, when about 17,000 of the state's 24,000 executive branch employees begun working 10 hours a day, four days a week.

...the real story is the energy savings and the employee approval of the program. A survey of state employees found widespread happiness with the four-day workweek and absenteeism is down. Additionally, state employees are estimated to save between $5 million and $6 million annually by not commuting on Fridays. And many are acting as energy captains, reminding their fellow state workers to turn off lights and their computers when not using them.

Conservatives are hilarious.

When you demand expensive things like long mandatory sentences for criminals... then demand huge reductions in revenue... what exactly do you think is going to happen to other services, hmm?

At least Libertarians are up front in their expectations of service reductions. But Republicans seem to want to make cuts and then whine about service reductions.

So please enlighten us: Where would YOU make the cuts?

(And Lord Beaverbrook, please also enlighten us to the dastardly illegality going on in Salem. If you indeed filed complaints with the AG's office, then they're public record anyway.)

This tactic is reminiscent of what the Multnomah County Library system did several years ago when a library levy failed. They closed libraries on Sundays, one of the most used days of the week, as a way to stomp their feet and make a point instead of finding creative ways to make the system work in spite of the levy failing.

Everyone is having to tighten their belts in this bad economy and when government agencies are asked to share the burden they should suck it up and do so in ways that inconvenience taxpayers as little as possible.

The Associated Press is reporting this morning that Utah's plan to close state offices on Fridays has resulted in a 13% reduction in energy use.

So what would a 13% reduction in energy use save the state, anyway? Hint: It's a small fraction of the $4 BILLION shortfall that the state faced for the next biennium. And I'm not sure that taxpayers want the reduced service that comes with a four-day week.

" It is a way to deal with a budget shortfall at a time when revenues keep falling."

Thanks for the intelligent remark. Our local newspaper put everyone (incl. editors) on furlough days. Anyone emailing them would get a response, "not in office until... because I am on furlough days".

Folks, out in the real world there are those whose lives are so busy they don't have time to think about "marginal tax rates" and other topics of debate. Many don't understand the path a budget must take (W & M subcommittee then full committee, then House and Senate action, then Gov. signature) to into effect.

If people have concrete ideas, that is one thing. But just generalized gripes don't solve anything.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 15, 2009 9:37:30 AM

Uh, LBB, you "never met a middle manager" who "didn't break the law"?

Care to name names and provide evidence? Or are you just whistling out of your ass?

I've tried. They often go through an administrative process to get anything they want to do declared mission critical, hence, exempt from whatever the leg. was designed to make them do/not do. I've had directors of personnel hold up my signed copy of the employee handbook and say, "you're a contractor, this doesn't apply to you", despite the fact that the first paragraph explicitly says it covers contractors. I've seen it go to the point of scandal- read: outsiders got wind of it- and, barely acquitted on a technicality, key personnel have been sent back to manage identical, new projects, no change in practice or attitude.

I'll admit I've only worked directly with three, but the tone of those goings ons was that the self-confidence came from knowing that that was how business was done and that ranks would close behind them. And they always did. And it was the tone that really sticks in the craw. At the planning stages of a project, a director would simply brush aside a regulatory concern, confident that an exemption could be had. Planning. They could do it the right way. It's pure contempt, that the leg. didn't understand how they have to get on, and that they are justified. And they were all very conservative. They did not appreciate the legislation they were implementing. So, from their point of view, what's the worst that can happen? You know you'll get off criminally, and if the program fails, the public will conclude it was a bad idea. That's just scratching the surface. Day to day legal waste and inefficiency were mind boggling.

Oh, and all three where at DHS. I like Oregon. I'd love to work for its government. It is with no pleasure at all that I relate this. So, to answer your question, no, it wasn't unicorns and puppy dogs.

LT, I've got a concrete idea. Take the DMV offices and divide the tasks and people by 2. one-half get furloughed on Friday, the other half get furloughed Monday. Then publish the days that folks will be out of the office so folks know/understand that on certian days the DMV will be short handed.

CLOSE ON SATURDAY MORNINGS........ REDISTRIBUTE EMPLOYEES.

That is short term. Longer term - Have OR DMV purchase the exact same system that WA DMV just purchased for on-line license renewal. Offer that and start redistributing employees and closing offices.

DMV could probably make up their shortfall simply by penalizing/registering all those WA cars that sit in Portland parking lots every night. 99% of apartment managers keep track of legally/illegally parked cars. It would be a trivial addition, while they're screwing people, to note the out of state licenses that have been residents for months.

At least get an 800 number... More evidence, per my original assertions, that they only know how to beg for more. Plenty could be done by working smarter.

Jack Roberts, thanks for your realistic and tempered comment.

Actually, I'm a little surprised that you have not yet come out in favor of Measures 66 and 67. You of all Republicans should realize that partially filling the state's budget hole will be far more beneficial to the economy and protect far more jobs than if the measures are defeated. I'm sure you have figured out by now that voting "no" would siphon something like $1.5 billion out of the Oregon economy and cost around 15,000 jobs. And that the people spearheading the "no" campaign are mainly big multistate/multinational execs trying to protect their bonuses and stock options.

Tax the rich and tax the corporations...they've benefitted more from State infrastructure and services, so should damned well finally pay for what they've been getting. I'm a class warrior...adamant and unapologetic.

Tax the rich and tax the corporations...they've benefitted more from State infrastructure and services,

Can you document that with data? I mean, it sounds good, but is it true?

If they couldn't run at a reduced staffing level, then why not 100% staffing for half days? That's what the business next door to me did on Friday.

Jack, if you had a business with customers who are public employees (restaurant, grocery store, dry cleaners, etc.) would it be OK with you if some of your customers who are public employees lost their jobs?

"I'm sure you have figured out by now that voting "no" would siphon something like $1.5 billion out of the Oregon economy and cost around 15,000 jobs. And that the people spearheading the "no" campaign are mainly big multistate/multinational execs trying to protect their bonuses and stock options. "

I am getting tired of hearing that REAL jobs exist only in private business. Do these folks only want the business of those who work in the private sector?

Or is this all about theory and turf and not about real life?

how about we cut the size of the state govt significantly and take the millions of dollars annually wasted by the state on 100,000 dollar and outside consultants and use that to fill the budget hole instead of taxing businesses and taxpayers.ever heard of that all you pro tax and spend more liberals?you liberals have no idea how to be financially responsible and neither do any of these democrat candidates for governor who i will not vote for.quit overblowing how bad the states financial situation is liberals.its the states fault for poor spending practices not taxpayers and businesses who dont want to pay more taxes.you liberals are an absolute joke and dont care about and are doing nothing to get our unemployment rate down and make oregon more business friendly.all you want is more taxes,fees and are very greedy and selfish.

"how about we cut the size of the state govt significantly "

OK, exactly what would you cut? I mean line item detail. And have you talked with either legislators or candidates who back your suggestions?

Or would that be too much work and blogging about those awful liberals is easier?

Even back when there were 35 Republicans in the House, or when there were 20 Republican state senators, it still took 31 votes in the House and 16 votes in the Senate to cut government spending.

You know this is much ado about nothing. It is 10 days total over TWO YEARS. That amounts to less than a 2.1% cut annually.

"Everyone is having to tighten their belts in this bad economy and when government agencies are asked to share the burden they should suck it up and do so in ways that inconvenience taxpayers as little as possible." - Posted by: Buckman Res | Oct 15, 2009 10:05:55 AM

Vote yes on Measures 66 & 67 on January 26, 2010. These tax increases will have no impact on 97.5% of individual taxpayers. 93% of small business owners will see no impact from these tax measures. Measures 66 & 67 will provide adequate funding to schools and vital public services "in ways that inconvenience taxpayers as little as possible."

<hr/>