I was wrong, Bob

Another "yeah..."...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...


Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.

That's why the state hired ECONorthwest to prepare their analysis of the
economic data. They came up with three very interesting recommendations.

1. The cost of raising children in Oregon must be about the same as the
rest of the counry because Oregon's median household income and per capita
incomes are within 5 percentage points of the national averages. Of course,
this assumption does not take into account the divorce rate in Oregon is at
or near the highest in the nation so the incomes in statewide averages do
not accurately reflect what actually goes on for divorces/separated/never
married family household situations.

2. The exisitng "simple methods of adjusting guidelines" should account for
differences in incomes and cost of living. Have you ever tried to get a
judge to vary from the guidelines using the "simple method" of viewing the
guidelines as guidelines based on assumptions and not de facto law? This
comment by ECONorthwest is just plain BS.

3. The department should review Oregon and US statisics using more recent
data. This is a shot at the fact the PSI guideline model process is based
on data from the last 2-3 decades and does not reflect current conditions.
What they implied was the recent economic downturn was not being considered
and the more severe impact on Oregon versus the national impact was being
ignored.

Despite what I personally consider three significant criticisms of the
process, this report was treated as supporting the PSI recommendations and
their underlying economic data. I read the recommendations from
ECONorthwest as critical comments rather than approval comments. Of course
the flaw in the process is the law only requires the local state analysis to
be completed. The law does not say the local analysis needs to agree with
PSI and, if not, force re-evaluation of the proposed guidelines to meet
local state conditions.

Like those "public input" meetings last fall - I doubt if anybody ever
put those tapes in "play" mode after the meetings. Looks good to
"solicit public input" and hold town-halls...until you realize it's all
for show and the public employees running the thing aren't thinking
about anything more earth-shatterring than next-year's raise.

At least it looks like I may have gotten my night job to carry me
through until I can go self-employed in a mostly-cash business I've been
thinking about for a while. But I'm still burning over that 43%...

Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )

You are on the right track, but the facts need to be clarified. The two
guys on the horses are Lewis and Clark. The woman is Sacagawea, an Indian
princess who Lewis and Clark rescued from her kidnappers. So the symbolism
is the state's long standing desire to help women in distress and rescue
them from adversity - you know just like our family law and CS systems
operate.

It should have been a man standing their, trying to protect himself and
his child from the gestapo...

Thanks for your usual insight into what the state has been up to... : )

Mel Gamble