Oregon Blog Updates

OK, so now there's a press release from Wu that makes it sound like he may have been holding out for something that is actually a good thing:
“We are in the final stages of putting into writing an agreement that would begin to move the American health care system away from paying doctors for the number of procedures and toward rewarding quality and results."
So let's hope he's making good policy on the way to voting yes. And oh, by the way, in response to comments on my last post: I did call Wu's office prior to my last post and they just said he was undecided. I'm glad they are saying something different now. And one more thing: Context matters. If Peter DeFazio voted no I would assume that it was on hardnosed progressive grounds. But Congressman Wu voted for Bush Medicare. That would make me look at a no vote on this from him in a very different light. 
Meanwhile, a HAT TIP to  the Congressional Democrats for something I was not aware of until I read today's Times: part of the financing mechanism is applying the Medicare tax to unearned income (capital gains).  A progressive move. As you may know, I share an interest in taxing unearned income same's earned income with our good Senator Ron Wyden. (Whose tax reform bill does not go all the way there - he did have to get Judd Gregg on the bill -- but took a step toward that.)   
And a WAG OF THE FINGER to my man John Kitzhaber for not letting us know how HE thinks our delegation should vote on the health care bill. C'mon, John, I know you disdain D.C. but you must at least have an opinion.  These Bradbury people are beating me up, saying you're not taking enough specific positions on issues. Give me something to work with, willya?

Over at NW Republican, they went crazy when they learned that Ron Saxton - '06 Republican candidate for Governor - was supporting Senator Ron Wyden by hosting a fundraising event.

It also should not surprise folks that the new "turn around" strategy for Jeld-Wen is to invest in politicians who will create more incentives from government to purchase energy efficient windows. That is just one of the fall-outs from having a government that becomes so large (true progressivism) that it reaches it's ever expanding tentacles deeper and deeper into the private economy. Picking winners and losers.

Of course, while I'm sure that's of interest to Saxton, it's also true that he's supported Ron Wyden all along. He donated $500 to Wyden in 1996 and $1000 in 1998.

Unfortunately, law professor Jim Huffman - Wyden's 2010 opponent - didn't do the research before calling Saxton for his support, or firing a broadside at Wyden. From the O's Jeff Mapes:

Huffman said it is this kind of approach to governing that drives up federal spending. "We ask of our legislators that they deliver the pork, and they expect our support for that," he said. "That is a vicious cycle that is hard to break."

I couldn't get any comment out of Saxton about Huffman's account of their conversation. But Saxton did release this quote through the Wyden campaign:

"I support Ron because he is a good senator and he's effective for Oregon. I'm not backing away from this one bit."

UPDATE: I received this further comment from Saxton Thursday night:

Senator Wyden has been very supportive of JELD-WEN's efforts to promote energy efficient products and we are regularly working with him and his staff on efforts to increase the sale of such products and create manufacturing jobs for Oregon.

So, it's not particularly suprising that Saxton would support Ron Wyden. He's been supporting him for years AND his new employer has some aligned interests.

But what is surprising is how tone-deaf and amateurish Jim Huffman was on this one.

Senator Wyden is working to reduce energy consumption, save families money, and create manufacturing jobs right here in Oregon. And Jim Huffman is against that?

I agree with Anna Griffin: a worthy debate on the great issues of our day would be a good thing. But it sure doesn't look like that's what we're going to get from Jim Huffman. Unless he really thinks he's going to run a campaign in favor of wasting energy and against Oregon manufacturing jobs.

Earlier this week citing ongoing drought and lower water conditions, Governor Ted Kulongoski declared a drought emergency in the Klamath Basin.

The Oregonian:

With snowpack and precipitation down, water levels in Upper Klamath Lake are near historic lows. The governor is trying to avoid a repeat of the Klamath basin's farmers-versus-fish water wars in 2001 and 2002 that generated national controversy.

A state drought declaration -- in this case for Klamath County and five surrounding counties -- is far from a cure-all. But it would allow farmers to apply for emergency drought permits to tap ground water instead of surface waters and to transfer water from one piece of land to the other.

Many in Oregon will likely remember the water wars from 2001 in the Klamath Basin. It wasn't pretty. The drastic lack of water led to an enormous tussle between farmers, fishermen and Indian Tribes--highlighting the problem of too many users and not enough water.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced that it hopes to send at least 30 percent of normal irrigation to the 1,300 farmers in the region--about six weeks later than usual.

SFGate:

The irrigation cutbacks are similar in magnitude to those in 2001, the first time that water needs for fish protected by the Endangered Species Act trumped farms on the Klamath project. But the political tensions this time are much more calm. In 2001, federal agents were called in to guard headgates controlling irrigation waters after people forced them open.

Greg Addington, director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said no one believed the water would be shut off in 2001, but they were expecting it this year and appreciate the work that has gone into offering some water.

"People are not outwardly angry, but there is a lot of anxiousness in the air and frustration," he said.

The bureau has a system to determine who gets water and who does not in dry years, but it remains to be seen just who will receive it this year, Addington said. The low level would likely be enough to keep some alfalfa and pasture alive, but would rule out planting high-value potatoes and onions unless a farmer has a well, he said.

Though the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement designed to end decades of fighting over water has yet to go into force, it was praised by federal and state authorities for helping to avoid past conflicts. The agreement was signed last month by farmers, Indian tribes, salmon fishermen, conservation groups and government agencies as part of a plan to remove dams from the Klamath River to help salmon.

With all this, the region is still faced with the same problem: too little water for too many users.

This is a Gordian Knot of a problem in which I can see no solution that satisfies all of the stakeholders, even if you negate the people without a real financial stake (generally, the enviros). Farmers and fishermen/tribes have completely opposing interests here and there's simply not enough water to go around.

David Wu voted for George Bush's Medicare prescription drug bill. 

But he's not sure how he'll vote on Barack Obama's health care reform bill.  

Call 503-326-2901 and tell him it ought to be a pretty simple choice. 

I think the bill is flawed. So does Dennis Kucinich. But even Dennis has now decided that we're better off with it than without it. So has Paul Krugman. So has the thoughtful New Yorker columnist Atul Gawande. And defeat of the bill would be political disaster; as a smart acquaintance observed recently, the polls are largely against the bill now because people don't really know what's in it. If it passes, the coverage might actually explain what's in it. If it fails, many voters will think Democrats tried but failed to pass something horrible.  

I might hold my fellow Dems' feet to the fire occasionally, but when it comes right down to it I'm a pretty loyal party guy.I would rarely support a primary challenge to an incumbent Democrat. And Wu generally votes right. I'm willing to cut some slack for almost anyone in Congress who voted against the war in 2001. And I'm personally grateful to the Congressman for calling me to wish me well after the 2008 primary. And I'm a Star Trek fan too. (Although someone should tell the Congressman that the space program is one of the three least popular items in the Federal budget.)

But this is a defining moment. if Congressman Wu votes with the Republicans on health care, he's courting a serious primary challenge in 2012. 

 

By Catherine Thomasson, MD of Portland, Oregon. Catherine is the Chair for Environmental Work Group of the Oregon Medical Association.

The Sleeping Giant has awoken and is coming back with a vengeance. After nearly a decade of skirting environmental rules under the Bush Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is, once again, ready to protect the environment. Since President Obama took office, the EPA has ruled that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, stopped numerous Mountain Top Removal mining permits and now is tightening regulation on ground level ozone.

Ground-level ozone, or smog, is formed when Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), two pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants as well as cars and trucks, are exposed to sunlight and heat. Ground-level ozone is both bad for our health and our environment.

Ozone, or smog pollution, poses serious health threats. Scientists have compared exposure to smog pollution as getting sunburn on the lungs. Even at low levels smog can aggravate asthma, cause chest pain and cough, worsen respiratory problems, and cause permanent lung damage. Children, seniors and those with lung diseases, like chronic bronchitis, asthma and emphysema, are especially at risk.

The EPA is considering lowering the allowable limit for ozone which currently sits at 75 parts per billion. Smog is harmful even at very low levels, which is why the EPA should set the standard at the more protective limit of 60 parts per billion (ppb).

Strengthening the smog safeguards could help prevent thousands of hospital visits, heart and asthma attacks and millions of missed work and school days—also saving billions in health costs.

What does this mean for Oregon? Under these new rules some counties, including Multnomah County, will fall into “non-attainment,” which means that EPA will formally recognize that Portland’s air is dirtier than allowed, and so is threatening public health and the environment.

Multnomah County will be asked to put together plans for cleaning up its air. These plans can include ways to clean up existing polluters, like adding scrubbers to dirty coal plants, and reducing emissions from transportation through increased mass transit, smarter land use and cleaner vehicles. While Multnomah County is in non-attainment, it cannot move forward with any plans that would prevent it from coming back into attainment and meeting the new smog standard.

So as you can imagine, across the United States, big industry is fighting this tooth and nail.

EPA must stand strong for public health against Big Coal and other polluters who are fighting to protect the dirty, unhealthy status-quo. While health advocates and environmentalists are very happy to see EPA back at work ready to propose better protections from smog, they exhort you to comment on the proposed rule.

The current smog standards fail to protect the health of millions of Americans. It is vital that the EPA strengthen these standards.

(With apologies to John Lennon)

In her latest piece, Oregonian columnist Anna Griffin makes the case that Oregonians benefit from John Huffman's U.S. Senate run:

I am going to risk my liberal credentials and say that Jim Huffman's run for U.S. Senate is a good thing for the Republican Party -- and in this particular case, what's good for the Grand Old Party is good for Oregon.

Huffman, a Lewis & Clark law professor, isn't Scott Brown. Despite the excitement that greeted his campaign to unseat Ron Wyden, odds are he'll lose badly this fall, assuming he even wins his primary.

But the fact that someone with his credentials has agreed to run is happy news. The two-party system works best when two viable parties compete for voter attention, testing each other's logic and forcing incumbents to explain votes.

Discuss.

Willamette Week:

In the wake of a recent letter from the governors of Oregon and Washington urging the project proceed despite a variety of concerns, David Osborn at the Stop the CRC Coalition has now produced this brief video. It should serve as a reminder that the Oregon Department of Transportation told both City of Portland and Metro officials the project would not move forward unless local concerns were addressed.

Click on Osborn's video below to watch it:

Discuss.

By Steve Packer of Newberg, Oregon. Steve describes himself as "a retired computer programmer and sports fishing enthusiast."

At a candidate forum for the Washington County Democrats, Tom Hughes, candidate for Metro Council President, asserted that Oregon’s revenue instability is not intrinsically the result of our income tax but rather a result the capital gains portion of our state tax. This is not new news but it is interesting that the idea is not part of the continuing debate for stability. Tom based his participation in the Governor’s taskforce on Comprehensive Revenue Restructuring (pdf).

The latest economic down turn has resulted in unemployment increasing from about 4% to more than 10%. However, even now some of us are doing very well. So, one would expect revenue short fall from income tax to be in the single digits and not the huge double digit short fall we faced in this period. Capital gains, on the other hand, are very sensitive to the economic environment and can approach zero in a down market (and carry-forward will affect subsequent up years). If we are to achieve stability, we probably should address the capital gains component of our tax.

Both residential and business real estate taxes have a like-kind transfer so the instability has to be with stock sales. During the dot com bubble, stock options, stock grants, employee purchase plans and general exuberance produced stock sales and capital gains. A lot of these employer programs have changed and the market instability is producing capital losses to balance gains. It’s a wonder there are any tax revenues from net capital gains.

Taxes on net capital gains have two purposes. One purpose is to spread a fair share of the tax burden to people who do not get the majority of their income from wages. The second purpose is to damp down speculation in the market. The latter is increasingly important with the creation of computerized trading.

The first purpose should have a tax rate that is as high as earned income. There is nothing to indicate that stock profits used to purchase the benefits of life are more or less valued than earned income. The latter purpose, however, should be low enough to encourage trading at human speeds and curtail computer speed trading.

Of course, we all should be saving for the future, including our retirement. And, a prudent policy is a diversified savings plan that includes stocks, most typically in a mutual fund. Even more important for me is the diversification of the ownership of American corporations. If we all own a piece, we can inhibit the accumulation of great economic power in a few hands. Controlling corporate ownership is probably an unreasonable goal. For our savings plans the capital gains tax doesn’t make much sense to me unless we take the money out to spend.

Stock trading does not have the benefit of like-kind transfers like one finds for real estate. They do have a penalty for like-kind transactions that yield paper losses but not for prudent changes for performance and security. With the enormous volume of stock transactions, keeping track of the basis is hard enough but would become impossible with some sort of comprehensive like-kind exemption.

In addition, humans are susceptible to a money illusion. We just cannot adjust for inflation. One of the critical skills for any business plan is the use of constant dollars for judging a projects value. Without some inflation proof metric, the results may look good but are no be better than just buying bonds. This illusion happens with stock and capital gains as well. Far too often we pay taxes on gains that just the result of inflation and we end up paying a penalty for choosing savings plans that hedge for inflation. Chile may have the ultimate solution with a metric that is based on cost of a bag of groceries. One might then pay taxes only on the change in the indexed value and not on the dollar value. Fat chance of that idea every succeeding!

For the capital gains tax rate, the Feds picked a random number between 0% and 100% of the income tax rate. They picked ~50% which is a fine random number but not very logical. I think Oregon should reconsider the capital gains tax rate to both reflect taxing real gains and to smooth out the revenue it generates. This smoothing would have us save some of the capital gains revenue during boom years and compensate for flagging revenue during the bursting bubble. The question then will be to ask if anyone believes there is another bubble in our future and a subsequent burst. Or, will we run with the herd into another dot com or housing bubble. My guess is you will all want a black tulip sometime in the future.

Update: 6:45pm: After initially deciding to discuss the issue with me on the record, the legislator involved with the threats has asked to have their information removed from the piece out of concern for their personal safety. I have redacted that information at their request.

A few days ago, State Representatives Val Hoyle and Nancy Nathanson along with State Senator Chris Edwards held a town hall meeting in West Eugene at Willamette High School cafeteria.

A Eugene contingent of teabaggers attended the town hall. One of them who posts on YouTube as "adb024" posted a heavily edited video on the event, with the usual right-wing pap to go along with it. The Eugene Weekly recently spoke with this guy as part of a story on the teabaggers. His real name is actually Aaron Baker.

By itself, the video is your regular boring, run-of-the-mill, righty-fringe conspiracy stuff. Nothing to write home about. But the comments left at YouTube attached to the video are another matter.

Here are a couple of screen shots which include the more egregiously ugly material (Click on the images to view an enlarged version):

It's my understanding that Baker should have the ability to delete this kind of ugly and nasty crap from the page. He's obviously reading it because he's responding to other comments. Apparently this kind of misogyny is just fine with Mr. Baker. Pretty cowardly stuff.

Val Hoyle believes the comments are mostly directed at her because she's willing to speak up at the town hall. Hoyle is fighting back in part with a Facebook page called, "Rain on their tea party: Support Val Hoyle". Hoyle quickly gathered over 100 fans this morning for the page.

Worse than that however, is what's been happening to another state legislator. The legislator has been receiving threatening letters. The letters are characterized as threatening "physical harm".

Both of these incidents are way over the line. These people are cowards and bullies.

So let's give them exactly the opposite of what they want. Reelecting Edwards, Hoyle and Nathanson will do just that.

Pitch some campaign money their way to help them out:

Rep. Val Hoyle

Senator Chris Edwards

Rep. Nancy Nathanson

By Alan Moore of Portland, Oregon. Alan describes himself as "an unemployed union organizer who spends his days applying for jobs, doing home remodeling and wondering if the right wing really does want to return to the middle ages."

On January 1, I joined over 220,000 (pdf) other Oregonians in the ranks of the unemployed. Despite sharing the anxiety about the future felt by all out of work Oregonians, my first few weeks after leaving my job were marked by bittersweet surprise as I discovered the public programs that help the unemployed. These programs are much improved from my last period of joblessness after my discharge from the Army in 1990. Despite the recent rhetoric by some politicians, the real effect of these programs is preventing the high unemployment rate from causing a mass wave of hunger, homelessness, bankruptcies and other tragedies that would surely otherwise face many more out of work Oregonians and their families.

Unfortunately, some of these programs are not well known and most are not well understood. That situation was highlighted earlier this month when Oregon’s two Senators found themselves battling to extend unemployment benefits for those that have been unemployed over 6 months (some 6.1 million nationwide). While the response of Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) to Senator Jeff Merkley’s pleas on behalf of extending benefits for Oregon’s unemployed isn’t printable here, his colleague Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was able to express the same sentiment without reliance on “salty” language – “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work”. I think my experience is normal among Oregon’s 227,000 unemployed; I look for work daily. Before sitting down to write this piece, I applied for 3 jobs. Perhaps I should have simply reflected on how wonderful it is to have my income cut by 60% and had a beer instead?

So what are these wonderful programs that either shelter unemployed Oregonians and their families from economic tragedies or are disincentives to looking for work?

First and foremost are the state unemployment benefits that last up to 26 weeks and pay an average of $300/week (pdf) (the actual amount is based on each person’s prior earnings). The amount each Oregonian receives is supplemented by $25/week thanks to the much misunderstood federal stimulus package. Given unemployment rates remain so high, Congress and the Oregon Legislature have repeatedly extended the time that one can remain on unemployment and the U.S. Senate is currently considering extending these and other benefits through the rest of the year (in part to avoid more of the obstructionism that Oregon’s two Senators battled earlier this month).

As my former job had provided health care for my 3 stepchildren and my wife, maintaining my family’s health insurance was my number one concern when I lost my job. Thanks to action by both the Oregon legislature and federal Congress, I’ll be able to keep our health insurance at only 35% of the premium for up to fifteen months. Knowing we won’t lose our health insurance and join the 637,000 uninsured Oregonians (pdf) is a tremendous relief and will allow us to seek any needed medical care during my unemployment without incurring unaffordable health expenses or worse, without forgoing the care completely like many have to do.

Another pleasant surprise addressed one of my other high anxiety “problems”. Next year I’ll have 2 stepchildren in college and perhaps no job. Thanks to changes in the Higher Education Act in 1998, the university in Ohio my stepdaughter will attend is basing our financial aid on my projected 2010 income which is a fraction of what I earned in 2009. If I am still unemployed in July, the University of Oregon will utilize this flexibility as well to determine my oldest stepchild’s financial aid. Without this change, I would be writing about the tragedy of a future doctor and a future teacher having to give up their studies due to my joblessness.

There are many other programs that I haven’t personally taken advantage of yet. Job training, food stamps, mortgage assistance, job search assistance. The list could go on.

The smartly designed programs to help the unemployed are preventing my family becoming one of the unnoticed tragedies of this recession. These programs also help the entire state by keeping families participating in the Oregon economy. But that’s another story. For now I’m back to looking for work, because as good as these programs are, its better for my family that I find a job. That’s something that all Oregon’s unemployed understand and what some politicians in Washington seem like they never will understand.

It's easy to get overwhelmed when you try and study proposals for tax reform. All those "breaks and loopholes and deductions and exemptions and deferrals and exclusions", as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein puts it.

But Senator Ron Wyden's recent proposal - in collaboration with Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) - is an important one. Here's how Ezra describes it:

The Wyden-Gregg plan takes the six income brackets currently on the books and compresses them into three (15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent). It gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. It triples the standard deduction available to all taxpayers, which means that people don't need to spend as much time trying to itemize deductions and figuring out ways to game the system. It kills off the existing six corporate rates and eight corporate brackets, and replaces them with a flat corporate tax of 24 percent. And it reduces the task to a one-page form.

OK, sounds simple enough. But will taxes go up or go down?

Republicans and Democrats get into a lot of fights about how high taxes should be and what they should fund. But Wyden and Gregg have largely sidestepped those fights by holding revenue more or less steady and are simply attempting to clean up the code. ...

The result of all these changes? The average corporation and taxpayer would pay quite a bit less. But the system wouldn't be bringing in less money because fewer people would escape their burden altogether. That last bit is particularly important, says Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "If you're getting rid of loopholes and lowering rates, you get winners and losers, not just losers. So all of a sudden it's not only one side that cares. That's especially true on the business side, which is where the real action is in tax reform and lobbying. That's the dynamic that makes tax reform possible."

In other words, the folks who've been hiring lobbyists to win themselves all those "breaks and loopholes and deductions and exemptions and deferrals and exclusions" would pay more -- while the rest of us would pay somewhat less.

And that's why Senator Wyden said that - from the perspective of a special-interest lobbyist - it's the end of the world.

Save for a couple of big-ticket tax items -- the mortgage interest deduction, for example -- the politics for most of the sections you'd want to clean from the tax code pit a tiny group of beneficiaries who are committed to preserving their sweetheart deals against the vast majority of Americans who have no idea that the tax code contains that deal in the first place. "Every interest group around will be lined up saying if you take our tax break, Western civilization will end," Wyden predicts.

Who else loses? Tax preparers and tax prep software companies. But then, isn't the existence of that entire industry simple proof that our system is too damn complicated?

As Ezra notes, we're long overdue:

Most experts think you've got to scrub the code every 10 or 15 years, much like ship owners have to dock the boat every so often and shear the barnacles from the hull. For a while, we were doing just that: We had major tax reform in 1954, 1969, 1976, 1986, and then . . . nothing. We've gone 25 years without a serious effort at tax reform. That's 25 years that corporations and interest groups and constituencies have spent complicating the tax code.

Sounds like it's time for tax reform to me.

I hereby apologize to Bill Bradbury and his fans for posts seeming dismissive of Bill and his proposal to raise $2 billion for schools. As to the $2 billion, I should not have dismissed Bill’s vague promise to get $2 billion out of tax expenditures with equally vague assertions of my own. In this post, I will go through the major items in the Tax Expenditure Report, and explain why I think Bill was being unrealistic. I think this exercise is important, not just for purposes of this primary, but because the “can’t we just cut some tax expenditures?” question is one I have been hearing from a variety of fellow progressives for years.

I should also stress that I am not dismissing the idea of $2 billion for schools per se. If Measures 5 and 47 had not passed in the 1990s, schools would, in fact, probably have at least $2 billion more per biennium than they do today. So unless we are satisfied with living in the world Don McIntire and Bill Sizemore have given us (to paraphrase a line I once heard David Sarasohn use), striving for $2 billion more for schools in a worthy goal.

Finally, I should have made it clear that although I do not think Bill has a realistic shot at the nomination, I have high regard for him as a person and a progressive leader. In fact, on one issue dear to my heart, he has been demonstrably better than my choice, John Kitzhaber. Bill was one of the few electeds who went down to Lottery Commission hearings with me to protest the ongoing giveaway of lottery dollars to taverns, in excessive commissions, at the expense of schools, economic development, and natural resource programs.  As to John as Governor – well, just to prove my goodwill to the Bradbury forces, here, free of charge, is the question I would ask John at the City Club debate if I were Bill:

“John, one of the greatest ongoing scandals in state government has been the excessive commission payments the Lottery has made to video poker taverns, at the expense of schools, economic development and natural resource programs – the intended beneficiaries of the Lottery.  While you were Governor, you retained and / or appointed Lottery commissioners who perpetuated this shameless giveaway. What do you say to advocates for education, parks, salmon restoration, and economic development about that aspect of your record?”

Based on conversations I have had with John, I think his answer will be something along the lines of: “You are right. I ignored that issue. I should have done something, appointed more responsible people. I am sorry. If elected, I will end the giveaway.”  But it wouldn’t hurt to get him on the record.   

Now, let’s turn to the $2 billion in tax expenditures. I have the 2007-2009 tax expenditure book here. I don’t have the most recent one, so the numbers will be slightly out of date, but the big items will still be the big items.  (I’m leaving the much-discussed BETC out of it.)

The single biggest ‘tax expenditure’ is the fact that we do not apply the property tax to intangible property – such as stocks and bonds. That ‘costs’ $11 billion. I kind of assumed that if Bill meant to extend the property tax to all forms of wealth, that would be a big deal and he would have mentioned it specifically. But if Bill in fact intends to do that, that would be a very interesting idea, and it would be progressive: Rich people own most of the stocks and bonds. Essentially, we’d be transforming the property tax into a broader-based ‘wealth tax.’

Now, I would not jump on that bandwagon without a lot of study. The tax experts who write the Tax Expenditure Report claim that “the experience of most states that impose taxes on intangible personal property is that the taxes are difficult to administer effectively and equitably … [and] are relatively easy to avoid.”  Also, although I like the idea of a wealth tax at the Federal level, there probably is SOME point at which, in a Federal system, we might start taxing the rich enough to drive them to other states; I don’t think the 0.9% Measure 66 income tax increase is going to do it, but maybe an $11 billion wealth tax would. I dunno. 

But if Bill has that idea, it’s a serious idea. I have not heard him express that idea. But if he’s for that, it would be bold and real.  Maybe too bold. But it would be real.

But when you get beyond the exemption of intangible assets … I’m going to give you a list of tax expenditures above $100 million in the book. I think they’re all pretty tough nuts to crack. I invite Bradbury supporters to tell us which ones Bill has said he’s willing to go after.  I realize he could talk about means-testing them, not eliminating them entirely – but if that’s what he has in mind, he should tell us.

Here you go:

Cafeteria plan benefits: $286 million

Employer paid medical benefits: $910 million

Medicare Part A benefits: $190 million

Medicare Part B benefits: $130 million

Pension contributions and earnings: $884 million

Capital gains on home sales: $352 million

Life insurance investment income: $216 million

Capital gains on inherited property: $807 million (another possible progressive target, but opponents would point out that Oregon already has a separate estate tax)

IRA contributions and earnings: $120 million

Medical and dental expenses: $275 million

Accelerated depreciation of equipment: $104 million (OK, that IS a business tax break)

Property taxes (the fact that you get to deduct them): $259 million

Home mortgage interest: $972 million

Social security benefits (Oregon exemption): $299 million

Federal pension income: $137 million

Federal income tax deduction (this is what the Legislature just phased out, for the rich, in Measure 66): $747 million

Personal exemption (which we all take on our income tax): $924 million

Inventory (the fact that we don’t apply the property tax to the business inventory): $434 million

Western private standing timber: $415 million. (This refers to the fact that we don’t apply the property tax to the value of standing timber. An argument for this exemption is that otherwise we would give timber companies an incentive to harvest ‘prematurely.’  I don’t know if that’s a good argument or not. If Bill plans to eliminate this exemption, I’m ready to hear his arguments.)

Motor vehicles and trailers: $748 million (this refers to the fact that we don’t apply the property tax to cars and trailers)

Personal property for personal use: $725 million (this refers to the fact that the property tax doesn’t apply to your clothes, furniture, appliances, etc.)

Strategic Investment Program: $128 million (this is the tax break for capital-intensive companies like Intel, not applying the property tax to all their capital investments, which I probably would have voted against when it was adopted but have gradually been convinced that it probably has helped generate and retain actual good jobs – Chuck would probably disagree with me and say Intel would be here anyway. But anyway, this is in fact a corporate tax break. If Bill is going to take it on specifically I would listen to his arguments)

Farm land: $183 million (assessing land used exclusively for farming at its farm value, not its potential ‘development value’)

That’s the over-$100 million list. Does that look like a target-rich environment to you?  The progressive way to go after those things would be to means-test the hell out of them. But can you imagine the hit pieces on any legislator who “voted to cut the home mortgage deduction, tax pension income, tax Social Security benefits, tax Medicate benefits, tax capital gains on home sales …”?  Sure, you could explain that you were just means-testing those things. But you’d be taking a hell of a risk.  (And I’m not sure at what level of income the means-testing would have to kick in to raise $2 billion.)

If Bill Bradbury is willing to take that risk, and is planning to ask legislators to take that risk with him, and is willing to say so, then I might not agree with him, but I would applaud his courage.  But so far, as far as I have seen, Bill has shied away from doing that. I think he’s said he would eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for second homes, which is good, but how much does it raise?  I haven’t seen an estimate recently.

As some of you know, I am absolutely obsessed with letting people know where our tax dollars go. I think we’d have much more rational political debates, and we would shift the entire political spectrum to the left, if more Oregonians were aware of the simple fact that most of their state and local tax dollars go to education, health care, and public safety. 

I think it’s also important that we know where the tax breaks go. The fact is that the vast majority of the tax expenditures AREN’T big fat corporate tax breaks garnered by sleazy lobbyists for their clients. I wish it were otherwise. I wish I could rail against the $2 billion in sleazy corporate tax breaks that we could eliminate tomorrow if the Legislature just had the guts. Life would be easier.

But I can’t. Because there AREN’T $2 billion in sleazy corporate tax breaks that we could eliminate tomorrow if the Legislature just had the guts.  If there were, the Legislature that was gutsy enough to pass Measures 66 and 67 would have already done the job.

I can’t cheer for Bradbury’s $2 billion plan, not because I don’t like Bill Bradbury, not because I don’t want to get $2 billion for schools, but because – to quote the slogan of the Oregon Center for Public Policy – facts matter. 

 

 

Well over 100 supporters of Lynn Howe, candidate for State Representative HD 6 poured through the doors to enjoy an evening of political comedy with none other than the very funny Carl Wolfson. Carl has been performing stand up comedy around the country for 31 years.

Carl met Lynn and her husband Jim at an AFL-CIO gathering in Sunriver a couple of years back where he entertained another large crowd. Lynn immediently knew if she ever had the opportunity she would call on Carl to bring his brand of humor to Medford. Those of us who are lucky enough to know Lynn know she has a knack for putting fun into fundraising. Carl generously donated his performance to Lynn's campaign.

Things got serious when Lynn reviewed her opponent's key votes in 2009-10 reminding the crowd that just two short years ago R-Sal Esquivel sat down with the Medford Mail Tribune Editorial Board declaring that the economy was stable. The newspaper endorsed Lynn Howe. The Medford Chamber of Commerce Executive board chose to not to endorse either candidate two years ago. Now Sal Esquivel has his lips securely attached to the Chamber's behind even reading from their newsletter on the House floor after 66/67 was affirmed by the voters in Oregon. Sal continues to insist businesses will flee the state as a result of the vote even while his record of voting no on job creating bills makes me wonder what kind of soup Sal is slurping. One example among many, he voted against establishing the Building Opportunities for Oregon Small Business Today (BOOST) account to provide loans and grants to Oregon small businesses creating new jobs for Oregonians (HB 3698). In 2009 he voted against construction projects at Southern Oregon University and Rogue Community college eliminating hundreds of potential construction jobs (SB 5505 & SB 5506).

Last night the crowd left Lynn Howe's fundraiser laughing with a smile on their faces. Carl Wolfson's abillity to weave meaningful and serious political commentary with humor made for a terrific evening of fun. John Kitzhaber and Bill Bradbury had better be prepared for the twinkle in Carl's eye when he moderates their debate on Monday.  I fully expect Carl to level the playing field with laughter,

In Friday's Oregonian, Eric Mortenson has a terrific profile of farmer Dave Vanasche, who is farming on foundation farmland that's been placed inside urban reserves for Washington County. You should click through if for no other reason than to view Randy Rasmussen's great photo work.

At ground zero in Cornelius, Dave Vanasche leads fight to preserve Washington County farmland:

But there's more to it than soil quality. The acreage north of Cornelius is a large, intact segment of farmland where little development intrudes. Lacing it is the infrastructure that makes farming go: tractor and combine dealerships, fertilizer and chemical stores, metal fabrication shops, and plants that clean and bag the grass seed and clover seed grown here.

Vanasche points out the pickup window to a freshly plowed field. The churned earth is dark and loose. "Not a rock in it," Vanasche says.

The field has been designated an "urban reserve" where adjacent Cornelius will eventually expand. Vanasche and other farmers with the Washington County Farm Bureau ceded it last month as part of a strategic retreat when the Portland region mapped land to develop and areas to reserve for farming and forests.

Some land would be lost to growth, the farm bureau acknowledged, so that larger sections north of Cornelius could be saved.

Vanasche guides the pickup north again. At 61, he's a ruddy figure in ball cap and work boots. He and his wife, Ellen, have a son, Mark, 23, and daughter, Kari, 26. He grows grass seed, clover seed and wheat on 2,345 acres. He owns 632 acres and leases the rest from two dozen property owners. Even those who disagree with his land-use politics call him an excellent farmer.

His parents, Florence and Albert, raised milk cows, beef cattle and the alfalfa to feed them, but told their sons to get an education and do something else. It didn't quite hold. The younger son, Tom, became an emergency room doctor but grows hazelnuts on the side. Dave Vanasche became a civil engineer and licensed land surveyor. He worked for the city of Hillsboro and developed a love for planning, but in 1980 he bought out his father to farm full-time.

His mother's parents, the Wunderlichs, founded the farm on Susbauer Lane where Vanasche grew up and has his shop today. His father's parents farmed a mile away.

Many farms in Washington County have similar roots, deep and old, with place names and family names that ring of northern Europe. Helvetia, Schefflin and Verboort. Duyck, VanDyke and Spiesschaert. Vanderzanden and, of course, Vanasche, which is Belgian.

Vanasche steers the pickup over a stream on the north edge of Cornelius. It flows west to east, a trickle through brush.

"This is Council Creek," he says. "This is where the battle starts."

Discuss.

By Jesse Cornett of Portland, Oregon. Jesse is a candidate for Portland City Council.

Today is Ben Westlund Day in my household. However, one day will never suffice to pay respects to this Oregon statesman.

I grew to admire Ben Westlund, the Republican, during the 2001 Legislative Session when he appeared to be the only House Republican with compassion in a House full of slash-and-burn-I’m-only-going-to-be-here-for-6-years conservatives.

In 2003, when Westlund returned from the hospital in the middle of the longest session in Oregon’s history, he gave a speech that still rivets those of us who remember it.

He switched parties in 2006 to run for Governor, but citing his desire to be more than a spoiler, Westlund ended his race before his name appeared on a ballot. In an attempt to prevent repeats of the type of antics that Republicans tried to use in 2004 to make sure that Ralph Nader got on the ballot, the Legislature passed a measure, which unintentionally made it harder for anyone not affiliated with a major party to gain access to the ballot.

Blue Oregon readers will remember that I ran a last-minute campaign for the State Senate in 2006. During that time, it came to my attention that until I ran in 2006, Ben didn’t really know who I was. But that all changed as I sought to become his colleague. At various events, Ben would come and chat me up.

While I enjoyed my discussions with him, I was skeptical thinking he was only being nice to me because he wanted my support for his race for Governor, which was never going to happen. Time after time he’d chat with me and never did he mention his race, much less my support.

The morning after that disappointing election, I got a call – a message I retrieved later. It was a nice and long message from Ben, who referred to himself only as Uncle Bennie and asked me to do the same. I lost and a few folks called, mainly those who’d been supporters and active in the campaign. Uncle Bennie was neither and his call gave me a great reason to smile.

Ashley Henry asked the question in her post this week: what would Ben want us to do? I don’t know. I didn’t know him quite that well. But sign me up and let’s go.

Down the trail, Ben.

By Tony Crawford of Canby, Oregon. Tony is a 30-year classroom teacher. He is currently at Ackerman Middle School in Canby.

The purpose of the Oregon Education Association is to assure a quality public education for every student in Oregon by providing a strong, positive voice for school employees. This is the mission statement of OEA and one that reflects the first interest of members, such as me, pursuing what is best for my students. As a classroom teacher, my students come first. As a member of OEA, I believe what is good for Oregon’s educators is good for Oregon’s students.

For these reasons I am excited to have witnessed OEA’s endorsement of Bill Bradbury for Governor of Oregon. Bill Bradbury proves to be the true “Education Candidate.” Earning the OSEA and AFT endorsements on the same weekend certainly reinforce this message. Bradbury’s call to fully fund the Quality Education Model is a campaign that the education community in Oregon has been waiting years to hear. Yes, in the schools and classrooms of our state we are in need of optimism. We are tired of listening to excuses. Bill Bradbury’s plan to fund QEM will deliver the quality of education my students deserve.

As a delegate to the OEA / PIE Convention, I was pleased with the democratic and transparent process used to consider, evaluate, and eventually choose those candidates for office that will best support public education - and the students in my classroom. The Convention, however, was only the icing on the cake.

In the weeks and months before the convention many of the candidates met with groups of educators across the state to discuss the issues important to us. Bill Bradbury was strong in this effort. Bradbury traveled the education road show to not only detail his plan to support Oregon’s schools, but to also be a good listener. A candidate for governor who engages teachers and support professionals individually and in small groups to learn from us certainly earns our respect.

The top priority of the Oregon Education Association is to ensure that all students in Oregon receive a quality education. To meet this goal, OEA will pursue adequate and stable funding for public education. Our goal statement suggests that endorsing Bill Bradbury for Governor is a natural conclusion. A conclusion that best serves the interests of my students.

Warning: This post is really long. Only read if you’re obsessed with K-12 policy and/or are especially concerned with OEA / Kitzhaber relations.

In 2008, the Oregon Education Association and John Kitzhaber were among my more important supporters. (Heck, all of them were important! - but you know what I mean.) This last weekend, I went to Eugene to try to get my friends at OEA to endorse my friend John. I failed; they endorsed Bill Bradbury.

I don’t think OEA’s endorsement changes the dynamic of the race. In 2008, it went a long way toward establishing me as a real threat to win. But we had already surprised some people with our underdog effort; in fund-raising, for example, as a first-time candidate, I raised $500,000 in 2007.  Bill Bradbury, by contrast, has not been as strong as might have been expected; for example, after over 20 years as a public figure, he raised $187,000 in 2009.  And Jeff Merkley and I were both unknowns, tied in the polls (with huge undecided) most of the way; now, with both candidates well-known, John claims to have a 34-point lead, and Bill hasn’t offered up his own poll disproving that. And, of course, I wound up losing anyway. Kitzhaber is going to win the nomination.

But as a critical friend of John Kitzhaber, I hope he doesn’t draw the wrong lesson from Saturday’s result. The easy, self-justifying way for John to look at the result would be this: “Bill gave them a misleading, crowd-pleasing message, saying he could raise $2 billion by eliminating unnamed tax breaks. I gave them a challenging message that made them uncomfortable, saying the state budget for education has to be based in part on performance, rewarding districts for doing the right thing.  They’re scared of anything with the word ‘performance’ in it, so crowd-pleasing and misleading beat challenging and uncomfortable. I’m going to win the nomination anyway, and anyway, I’d rather be right than Governor, so I’m not going to worry about it very much.” 

It’s true that Bill gave OEA a crowd-pleasing, misleading message. Having read the State Tax Expenditure Book very carefully on numerous occasions, I can say, and have said, that Bill’s saying that we can find $2 billion by going through the tax expenditure book is just wrong – unless, that is, he plans to extend the property tax to intangible assets. (More on that in a future post.)  

But John needs to understand, really understand, why OEA members are worried about  ‘budgeting for performance.’ The fact is that it’s difficult to come up with good metrics for measuring ‘performance’ in education – at the teacher, school, or district level – and even more difficult to figure out how to improve performance.  Educators know that. So when you talk about using the budget process to improve performance, they have two questions: (1) What does that mean? And (2) How? 

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep on trying to find fair ways to measure and real ways to improve schools. To his credit, John told OEA he needed their help in developing the metrics and the policies involved in 'budgeting for performance.' And John is right that if we are going to sell the voters on giving more money to education, we have to be able to tell them some version of: ‘We’re taking care to spend the money on stuff that works.’ I think he’s even right that it’s not clear that the 10-year-old Quality Education Model is the be-all end-all of education policy.

But this is awfully hard stuff – as this New York Times article shows.  If you’re interested in education policy, I’d suggest reading the whole thing. And I certainly suggest that John read the whole thing.  

The article is about a guy named Lemov who is looking at data that seems to show that “who the teacher is” is (when you adjust for demographics etc.) an extremely important factor in how much children learn: perhaps more important than class size.  Lemov has been going around looking at what unusually successful teachers do, and trying to develop a “taxonomy of good teaching” – a list of dozens of recommendations.

As the article says, we don’t know yet if this ‘taxonomy of teaching’ will make sense in practice: “while Lemov has faith in his taxonomy because he chose his champions based on their students’ test scores, this is far from scientific proof. The best evidence Lemov has now is anecdotal …” And the article notes that some pretty serious people believe “that good teaching must be purely instinctive, a kind of magic performed by born superstars. As Jane Hannaway, the director of the Education Policy Center at the Urban Institute and a former teacher, put it to me, successful teaching depends in part on a certain inimitable “voodoo.” You either have it or you don’t. “I think that there is an innate drive or innate ability for teaching,” Sylvia Gist, the dean of the college of education at Chicago State University, said when I visited her campus last year.”

But what’s really interesting about the article, at least to me, is that Lemov started out with a charter-school, merit-pay, reward-performance perspective and, as he learned more, began to doubt it. Here are pieces of the article:

[One day Lemov] made a depressing visit to a school in Syracuse, N.Y., that was like so many he’d seen before: “a dispiriting exercise in good people failing,” as he described it to me recently. Sometimes Lemov could diagnose problems as soon as he walked in the door. But not here. Student test scores had dipped so low that administrators worried the state might close down the school. But the teachers seemed to care about their students. They sat down with them on the floor to read and picked activities that should have engaged them. The classes were small. The school had rigorous academic standards and state-of-the-art curriculums and used a software program to analyze test results for each student, pinpointing which skills she still needed to work on …

Incentives are intuitively appealing: if a teacher could make real money, maybe more people would choose teaching over finance or engineering or law, expanding the labor pool. And no one wants incompetent teachers in the classroom. Yet so far, both merit-pay efforts and programs that recruit a more-elite teaching corps, like Teach for America, have thin records of reliably improving student learning.

Lemov spent his early career putting his faith in market forces, building accountability systems meant to reward high-performing charter schools and force the lower-performing ones to either improve or go out of business. The incentives did shock some schools into recognizing their shortcomings. But most of them were like the one in Syracuse: they knew they had to change, but they didn’t know how. “There was an implementation gap,” Lemov told me. “Incentives by themselves were not going to be enough.” Lemov calls this the Edison Parable, after the for-profit company Edison Schools, which in the 1990s tried to create a group of accountable schools but ultimately failed to outperform even the troubled Cleveland public schools …

That’s the main reason OEA members worry about words like “performance”: It’s not as easy as saying “get better,” because we don’t have a MapQuest to betterness.  A lot of people are trying hard, and not doing anything that seems obviously ‘wrong,’ but by conventional measures they seem to be ‘failing.’ And I really think it’s tougher than health care, where it seems that there are a lot of procedures and drugs that researchers know are of limited effectiveness, and less cost-effective than other alternatives, but which are used anyway because of shrewd advertising and messed-up financial incentives in medicine.

I outlined my own views on what the State should be doing on education in this space a few months ago, as follows:

To a great extent, test scores don’t do a heck of a lot more than reflect the demographics of the district or school in question.  But there are occasional outliers. There are some places and subjects – like Lebanon Elementary in math – which stand out; where the teachers and students are beating the odds.  A major mission of the Department of Education should be to study those places, find out what they’re doing, figure out if it’s real (sometimes test scores are a kind of mirage), figure out if it’s replicable, and let other schools and districts know what’s going on in those schools. I’m not talking about mandates, I’m not talking one-size-fits-all; I’m not saying we can expect every district to produce miracles; I’m talking about doing some research and distributing the results.

I still think that. John might object that that’s not going to be enough to convince the voters we’re spending education money on ‘what works’: that there has to be a budget hook of some kind. He might be right. Maybe we can somehow condition some money on districts somehow demonstrating that they really, really looked at what the outliers were doing and really, really tried some of it out. (Emphasis on the ‘somehow’ – I admit that I don’t know exactly how that would work.) 

What’s ironic about this situation is that John – policy-wonk, apolitical John – is quite right about the politics: voters want assurance that we’re spending the money on the right stuff. OEA members are right about the policy problem: It’s not very clear what the right stuff is. If John is to be a successful Governor, the two of them are going to have to work hard, together, to make good politics and good policy in education. 

By Jon Bartholomew of Portland, Oregon. Jon is a policy advocate for OSPIRG.

It’s been about a year and a half since the crash of the global financial system that was brought on by deregulation and what have we done to prevent the next crash?

No significant financial system reforms have yet been enacted that will help consumers trust they aren’t being victimized by their banks and lenders. No significant reforms have been enacted that will stabilize the housing market. No significant reforms have been enacted that will ensure more stability of our entire economic system.

And for the last couple of weeks, Senator Dodd, Chair of the Senate Banking Committee has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan compromise that could water down proposed reforms until they are near meaningless. This is not what the American public needs or wants. In polling done just last month by Pew, Americans overwhelmingly support stricter regulations of financial institutions.

This is why I am pleased to see our Oregon Senator Merkley standing up for tough reforms and introducing a bill with Sen. Levin to curb risky trading by banks. This is exactly what we need – toughening up, not watering down of financial reforms. We should thank Sen. Merkley and then go further to call for Congress to beef up financial reform proposals.

The timing is critical. There are new reports that Sen. Dodd is going to back off his effort to get a bipartisan compromise, and propose something stronger. Now is the time to let all of our members of Congress know that we want consumers and taxpayers put before big banks. Check irresponsible financial practices with new rules and stronger, independent enforcement. We need a new strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

We also need to cover all players and transactions. Rein in hedge funds and reckless investments that escaped regulations and traded without oversight on “shadow markets.” We must prevent financial institutions from becoming “too big to fail.” Banks shouldn’t be able to freely gamble with taxpayer money covering the bets. And we support greater oversight, accountability and democratization of the Federal Reserve.

These reforms are already way overdue, but there will be action in the next few days and weeks that give us the opportunity to make things the way they need to be for consumer protection and financial stability. Senator Merkley is showing he is willing to fight for good reforms, let’s show him he’s right to do so.

I don't know about you, but I barely pay attention to the more obscure categories in the Academy Awards show.

(You see, I'm no Jeff Alworth, with his impressive high-brow appreciation of international film. I'm more of a mainstream Hollywood popcorn movie guy.)

But with a big hat tip to the Mercury's Sarah Mirk, I must insist that you spend 16 minutes watching the film Logorama, winner of the Best Animated Short award.

Might be the best 16 minutes of animation ever. (Be sure to click on that little red arrow in the lower-right corner to make it full-screen. Lots of brilliant little details.)

Klik hier om het video filmpje te bekijken