Contradictions: observations from a government employee

The elections are over, which just means the next ones are starting. Sigh. But during the lull, I have a few observations to make on regular citizens, and their thoughts about "the government."
My career in public service is at 27 years. Curiously, some citizens seem to spew more vitriol as time passes, although agencies have (I think) become more responsive to requests and even more proactive in citizen outreach. Anyhow, I won't cover 27 years of thoughts here, just recent contradictions:

Overall, some citizens want less government except when they want more.
a. National example: we should let businesses alone, and they will always do the right thing. Then during the BP oil spill, folks wanted to know why the government wasn't doing more.
b. State example (applies to both Oregon and Washington): we should cut our property taxes, and government will have to figure out how to spend less. Then people expect the state to fully support/fund the schools. And roads. And parks. And police/courts/jails. And mental health services.
c. Local example: public employees are overpaid so we should let private businesses do the work. Then when the City of Vancouver extends a contract for a business to operate the wastewater treatment plants, the newspaper readers comment, "We can't Hire/Train local people to do the same job for less than that?"

I previously blogged about voters who went for all the "R"s on the ticket. And that's their choice, but disregarding that the incumbent, non-R, Clerk of the Court (different from county clerks in Oregon) had been with the court systems over 30 years, and the challenger -- the R -- was a purchasing agent for a drywall company. So the voters were willing to "hire," that is vote for, someone and pay them $90,000 a year. Hire someone with no training or education in the position. Seriously.

Oh, and speaking of "overpaid public servants" let's talk retirement. The whole retirement conversation is very complicated, which makes it hard to have a conversation. And every jurisdiction is different, so we don't have the same problems as say New Jersey. Basically for Oregon, when I started in 1983, the design was equivalent to a private company plan (is that a 401(k)?) where the employee contributes 6% and the employer matches 6%. If you do the math on that over 30 years with interest, you can end up with enough to get half of your final salary for the rest of your life. (Really. If you start at say $20,000 per year salary and end at $40,000, and the interest earns on average 8%, your balance after 30 years will let you take out $2,000 per month for 37 years.) But tiny miscues on the design or execution of the plan can compound into large problems over time if not fixed immediately. One problem on the design was that employees could risk a higher portion of their contribution on the stock market, but the employer/agency share couldn't go there, so those years of 20% stock market returns meant the employer/agency couldn't make the matching share. The (reasonable) plan design never dreamed that we would have five years in a row with 20% returns! HUGE problem not really because of the design but because of unimaginable world financial markets. And when I do retire I do NOT get free paid health insurance. I will have access to buy it at market rates, which I think is about $800 or more per month.

There's more, but I've vented so I am okay for a little longer. Two divergent thoughts here -- thanks for your patience.