The virtual school bill finished its long shameful journey today on the last day of the session, as the house voted 31-29 to adopt the amendments made to the bill in the conference committee.
The bill had a total of 56 amendments, and by the time it got to the final form voted on today, it STILL had drafting errors and unintended consequences that the carrier had to pledge, on the floor prior to voting, to work to fix in the next legislative session.
The amended bill isn't anywhere near as destructive as it started. In its first version, it made it illegal for any K-7 student to attend a virtual school on line. Virtual charter school supporters were very effective in communicating their displeasure to the Democrats who were going along with this travesty.
In the four different floor votes on the bill, there was never a single Republican vote in favor. Democrats had a gun to their head by leadership. We constantly heard, all session long, that people had never seen a bill so many hated yet were voting for. Arm twisting doesn't begin to describe it.
The most shameful moment of all was Saturday's Senate floor session, when the bill passed 16-14. The bill's chief sponsor, Senator Devlin, gave the most insipid and self-aggrandizing floor speech I have ever seen.
He knew he had to explain to his colleagues why it was so important to him to deny virtual education to the thousand plus students who will not be able to enroll this year as a result of the bill. Of course, all of his colleagues KNEW the reason: he is a lap dog of the OEA and they wanted the bill.
But that explanation wouldn't fly on the floor. So he went on and on about how much he cares about education that he thinks about it every waking moment, and then he gave a tearful account of his own struggles in the third grade when bad eyesight made it so he couldn't learn to read. He was all choked up as the told this story - and anyone watching was thinking: "Then why do you want to deny today's third graders from enrolling in the school they want? What does your macabre display of overwrought emotion have to do with this bill, which will only deny kids what you were able to get?
It was amazing. I lost any respect I had for that man. He was nothing more than a shill for the OEA all session long, and he cared not a whit for the very real human cost of his desire to advance his own political career.
Senator Devlin is the worst type of politician. I will call him out every chance I get.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
House passes SB767
It was another weird chapter in a saga that has been fraught with bungling, mishandling, outright lies, and the most cynical political power plays that I have witnessed in almost 15 years of dealing with the legislature.
Here is the scene:
The bill as amended in committee before coming to the floor was still completely screwed up, and the Democrats knew it. The amendments they hurriedly moved into the bill in Revenue Committee were bungled. But instead of sending the bill back to committee to fix it, the Democrats did something a bit strange...
They decided to pass the bill as it is, but promise that it would go into a conference committee to be fixed. So the carrier of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Sarah Gelser, didn't really speak to the bill during her opening, she spoke to how the bill was to be amended in conference committee. And the members were supposed to vote on the bill just on the assurance that the bill would be amended as she said it would.
That is strange enough. But how do we know that the bill would be amended as Gelser said? What assurance does anyone have?
Among other things, Gelser said that the "time-out" for virtual charter schools would cap enrollment in existing virtuals at the levels of May 1st, 2009. That was different than how the bill currently read, which limited enrollment to the existing students on that date. That's a big difference - if enrollment is limited to existing students, then when a kid leaves the school, he can't be replaced, and the school will shrink.
The nature of virtual charters is that they do have a good bit of turnover, because lots of families use them for temporary solutions.
Rep. Matt Wingard asked Rep. Gelser for clarification on this point. He asked:
"Under the anticipated amendments that you were speaking about, will enrollment for Oregon Connections Academy be capped at the May, 2009 level until the moratorium is over, as my understanding of the current, or dash-29 amendments, capped ORCA at sts current students only, so if the student leaves, that spot is gone.?"
Gelser responded:
"My understanding, and we will receive further clarification in the conference committee, is that it is capped at the total number of enrollment on May 1st, 2009, but that all students currently enrolled in the school, are able to continue to attend, as well as are their siblings – brothers and sisters who may not yet be enrolled. So if a brother or sister wished to enroll, and they would cause the enrollment to be greater than what was in place on May 1st, 2009, that the total number capped from May 1st would not apply. Did that make sense?"
OK, there we have it. It is a BIG improvement in the bill. It is the difference between ORCA staying the same size, and perhaps growing a bit with sibling enrollment, to ORCA withering on the vine, unable to replace exiting students.
So after the floor vote (31-28,) Gelser let it be known that we could get from her office the amendments that would be moved into the bill in conference committee. Guess what?
The amendments (the SB767-C36) STILL limits enrollment to the existing students on May 1st, 2009! There is NO CHANGE in the language from the current bill on that point. It is completely contrary to what Gelser stated on the floor, in direct questioning from Wingard.
Unbelieveable.
Now, honestly, I don't think Gelser was lying. I think she was lied to by her leadership, and allowed to go make a fool of herself on the House floor as she carried the water on a bill she never sponsored and from all appearances never very much liked.
And the question now is will they fix this thing to read like Gelser said it would read? Or will the Democrat leaders who have engineered this travesty all along just continue the sham, force a vote on the dash-36 amendments in conference, and try to muscle the thing on the Senate and House floors, just like they have done all along?
If recent history is any guide, they will do the dishonest thing. Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, after all.
Here is the scene:
The bill as amended in committee before coming to the floor was still completely screwed up, and the Democrats knew it. The amendments they hurriedly moved into the bill in Revenue Committee were bungled. But instead of sending the bill back to committee to fix it, the Democrats did something a bit strange...
They decided to pass the bill as it is, but promise that it would go into a conference committee to be fixed. So the carrier of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Sarah Gelser, didn't really speak to the bill during her opening, she spoke to how the bill was to be amended in conference committee. And the members were supposed to vote on the bill just on the assurance that the bill would be amended as she said it would.
That is strange enough. But how do we know that the bill would be amended as Gelser said? What assurance does anyone have?
Among other things, Gelser said that the "time-out" for virtual charter schools would cap enrollment in existing virtuals at the levels of May 1st, 2009. That was different than how the bill currently read, which limited enrollment to the existing students on that date. That's a big difference - if enrollment is limited to existing students, then when a kid leaves the school, he can't be replaced, and the school will shrink.
The nature of virtual charters is that they do have a good bit of turnover, because lots of families use them for temporary solutions.
Rep. Matt Wingard asked Rep. Gelser for clarification on this point. He asked:
"Under the anticipated amendments that you were speaking about, will enrollment for Oregon Connections Academy be capped at the May, 2009 level until the moratorium is over, as my understanding of the current, or dash-29 amendments, capped ORCA at sts current students only, so if the student leaves, that spot is gone.?"
Gelser responded:
"My understanding, and we will receive further clarification in the conference committee, is that it is capped at the total number of enrollment on May 1st, 2009, but that all students currently enrolled in the school, are able to continue to attend, as well as are their siblings – brothers and sisters who may not yet be enrolled. So if a brother or sister wished to enroll, and they would cause the enrollment to be greater than what was in place on May 1st, 2009, that the total number capped from May 1st would not apply. Did that make sense?"
OK, there we have it. It is a BIG improvement in the bill. It is the difference between ORCA staying the same size, and perhaps growing a bit with sibling enrollment, to ORCA withering on the vine, unable to replace exiting students.
So after the floor vote (31-28,) Gelser let it be known that we could get from her office the amendments that would be moved into the bill in conference committee. Guess what?
The amendments (the SB767-C36) STILL limits enrollment to the existing students on May 1st, 2009! There is NO CHANGE in the language from the current bill on that point. It is completely contrary to what Gelser stated on the floor, in direct questioning from Wingard.
Unbelieveable.
Now, honestly, I don't think Gelser was lying. I think she was lied to by her leadership, and allowed to go make a fool of herself on the House floor as she carried the water on a bill she never sponsored and from all appearances never very much liked.
And the question now is will they fix this thing to read like Gelser said it would read? Or will the Democrat leaders who have engineered this travesty all along just continue the sham, force a vote on the dash-36 amendments in conference, and try to muscle the thing on the Senate and House floors, just like they have done all along?
If recent history is any guide, they will do the dishonest thing. Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, after all.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
THAT"S the problem!
If you want to understand exactly how much the public employee unions are running things around here, read this story from Willamette Week.
The OEA used the State Department of Education's lawyer to draft its bill to kill virtual charter schools - even though several of the provisions of the bill the ODE lawyer drafted for the teachers union are directly contrary to the State Board's own position on virtual charters.
And the State Board of Education chairman, Duncan Wyse, sees no problem with this!
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, IS THE PROBEM!
So OEA, a private interest group, gets to use public resources to draft legislation that is directly contrary to the public interest as expressed by the State Board chair, and that chair says "no problem!"
No sweat. I always want my employees helping outside entities that are trying to subvert my policies. Especially if I am the government. And especially if that outside entity is the Teachers Union, because, well, they really are the boss around here anyway.
Stay tuned - this story is far from over. SB 767 passed out of the House Revenue Committee on Monday, with some amendments that were so hurriedly drafted that they seem to now want to change the bill again.
On Thursday, the ORCA waiver request is once again on the agenda of the State Board of Education monthly meeting. The subject of the Willamette Week article, Cindy Hunt, has been "advising" the State Board through nine months of inaction on ORCA's waiver, despite the fact that the Board's own rules put in place a 90 day deadline for acting on such requests.
Now, after delaying month after month, if SB767 passes as written by Cindy Hunt, the State Board's authority to grant ORCA a waiver from the 50% provision would be taken away, and if the Board happened to grant ORCA the waiver on Thursday, the bill would revoke it.
No, there is no problem at all here. Things are apparently working just as they are supposed to be.
The OEA used the State Department of Education's lawyer to draft its bill to kill virtual charter schools - even though several of the provisions of the bill the ODE lawyer drafted for the teachers union are directly contrary to the State Board's own position on virtual charters.
And the State Board of Education chairman, Duncan Wyse, sees no problem with this!
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, IS THE PROBEM!
So OEA, a private interest group, gets to use public resources to draft legislation that is directly contrary to the public interest as expressed by the State Board chair, and that chair says "no problem!"
No sweat. I always want my employees helping outside entities that are trying to subvert my policies. Especially if I am the government. And especially if that outside entity is the Teachers Union, because, well, they really are the boss around here anyway.
Stay tuned - this story is far from over. SB 767 passed out of the House Revenue Committee on Monday, with some amendments that were so hurriedly drafted that they seem to now want to change the bill again.
On Thursday, the ORCA waiver request is once again on the agenda of the State Board of Education monthly meeting. The subject of the Willamette Week article, Cindy Hunt, has been "advising" the State Board through nine months of inaction on ORCA's waiver, despite the fact that the Board's own rules put in place a 90 day deadline for acting on such requests.
Now, after delaying month after month, if SB767 passes as written by Cindy Hunt, the State Board's authority to grant ORCA a waiver from the 50% provision would be taken away, and if the Board happened to grant ORCA the waiver on Thursday, the bill would revoke it.
No, there is no problem at all here. Things are apparently working just as they are supposed to be.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Senate did it
In a 16-14 vote, the Oregon Senate passed SB767. Now, the future of vitual charter schools will likely, quite literally, lie in the hands of their enemies.
Sure, the bill still has to pass the House. But we'd have to get 6 Democrat votes (and keep every Republican on board) to kill it there. That is a long shot.
What is disappointing about the way this played out is that the bill was so dishonest, so disingeneous, and everyone knew it. But enough of them went along because the power player in the building wanted the bill, and the Democrats were going to feed the beast.
It is this type of thing that erodes public respect for the legislature as an institution. When you see this kind of thing railroaded through, so brazenly tossing thousands of kids under the bus as a sop to a powerful interest group, the true motivations of many of the people involved is laid bare.
Most disappointing is those who often cast thoughtful, honest votes who just went in the tank on this one. Sen. Rick Metsger voted in favor of the bill. He saw all the testimony in the Senate Education Committee, and he even saw the railroad job that Sen. Devlin performed in the Rules committee. He knew what this was all about - he even said as much when the bill passed out of Rules. He publicly stated then that he reserved the right to vote no on the floor, because he was unhappy with the way the bill was amended in Rules.
Metsger is a good man, a likeable guy, and usually has at least legitimate reasons for voting the way he does. But today he was a bag man for Devlin. He cast the deciding vote. He sold the kids down the river. It is a shame.
Oh, they will all tell you their reasons. But these are nothing but rationalizations. The fact of the matter is, this bill will seriously cripple virtual charter schools in Oregon.
The bill creates a task force made up almost entirely of education establishment status quo defenders, whose job it will be to decide on a framework for governing online education in Oregon, and propose legislation to the 2010 special legislative session.
Think about that. Not only is the committee stacked with virtual charter opponents, but so will be the 2010 legislature.
So the future of each virtual school beyond the next school year is completely uncertain. What would you do if you had a child enrolled in a school that might be gone the next school year? What would you do if you WORKED at a school whose future was so uncertain?
Yet the Democrats in the Senate apparently don't care about creating this kind of uncertainty fo thousands of kids and hundreds of employees. That pales in comparison, I guess, to the needs of the OEA, COSA, OSEA, and AFT.
After all, these groups elect Democrats. So they must be pandered to.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sen. Vicki Walker and Sen. Joann Verger, both of whom voted against the bill. I don't really know Verger, but Vicki Walker is one of my favorites. She is tough, smart and fair. We of course disagree on plenty, politically. But I have long admired her toughness.
This is a sad day for the integrity of the Oregon legislature.
Sure, the bill still has to pass the House. But we'd have to get 6 Democrat votes (and keep every Republican on board) to kill it there. That is a long shot.
What is disappointing about the way this played out is that the bill was so dishonest, so disingeneous, and everyone knew it. But enough of them went along because the power player in the building wanted the bill, and the Democrats were going to feed the beast.
It is this type of thing that erodes public respect for the legislature as an institution. When you see this kind of thing railroaded through, so brazenly tossing thousands of kids under the bus as a sop to a powerful interest group, the true motivations of many of the people involved is laid bare.
Most disappointing is those who often cast thoughtful, honest votes who just went in the tank on this one. Sen. Rick Metsger voted in favor of the bill. He saw all the testimony in the Senate Education Committee, and he even saw the railroad job that Sen. Devlin performed in the Rules committee. He knew what this was all about - he even said as much when the bill passed out of Rules. He publicly stated then that he reserved the right to vote no on the floor, because he was unhappy with the way the bill was amended in Rules.
Metsger is a good man, a likeable guy, and usually has at least legitimate reasons for voting the way he does. But today he was a bag man for Devlin. He cast the deciding vote. He sold the kids down the river. It is a shame.
Oh, they will all tell you their reasons. But these are nothing but rationalizations. The fact of the matter is, this bill will seriously cripple virtual charter schools in Oregon.
The bill creates a task force made up almost entirely of education establishment status quo defenders, whose job it will be to decide on a framework for governing online education in Oregon, and propose legislation to the 2010 special legislative session.
Think about that. Not only is the committee stacked with virtual charter opponents, but so will be the 2010 legislature.
So the future of each virtual school beyond the next school year is completely uncertain. What would you do if you had a child enrolled in a school that might be gone the next school year? What would you do if you WORKED at a school whose future was so uncertain?
Yet the Democrats in the Senate apparently don't care about creating this kind of uncertainty fo thousands of kids and hundreds of employees. That pales in comparison, I guess, to the needs of the OEA, COSA, OSEA, and AFT.
After all, these groups elect Democrats. So they must be pandered to.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sen. Vicki Walker and Sen. Joann Verger, both of whom voted against the bill. I don't really know Verger, but Vicki Walker is one of my favorites. She is tough, smart and fair. We of course disagree on plenty, politically. But I have long admired her toughness.
This is a sad day for the integrity of the Oregon legislature.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Union lies to its members about virtual schools
The OEA publishes a monthly magazine, The OEA Today. The June issue has a blurb about SB 767 in which they blatantly lie about virtual charter schools and what the bill does.
You would think that the OEA could manage to be honest when telling their own members what they are up to, but I guess they know if people - including their own members - were actually well informed about what the OEA actually does, that they would lose support fast.
Here is what the OEA says about virtual charter schools:
"Currently Oregon's virtual school providers are taking money that has been allocated to public school students and spending it instead on subsidizing home school students. This is a backdoor voucher scheme."
There is so much in error here, it isn't funny. All these schools are doing is using money allocated to educate public school students to educate public school students. The OEA doesn't happen to like the public school these kids and their parents have chosen (because the teachers are not unionized,) but these are public schools, NOT home schools.
How could this possibly be a backdoor voucher scheme? A voucher is a way to use public funds to pay tuition at a private school. Virtual charters are public schools. Their teachers are public employees. The students take all the same tests and are held to all the same standards as other public school students. To describe a virtual public charter school as a "backdoor voucher scheme" is just ridiculous.
The OEA knows this full well, but it thinks so little of its tens of thousands of members that it doesn't think they will realize they are being lied to.
But someone has to point it out.
You would think that the OEA could manage to be honest when telling their own members what they are up to, but I guess they know if people - including their own members - were actually well informed about what the OEA actually does, that they would lose support fast.
Here is what the OEA says about virtual charter schools:
"Currently Oregon's virtual school providers are taking money that has been allocated to public school students and spending it instead on subsidizing home school students. This is a backdoor voucher scheme."
There is so much in error here, it isn't funny. All these schools are doing is using money allocated to educate public school students to educate public school students. The OEA doesn't happen to like the public school these kids and their parents have chosen (because the teachers are not unionized,) but these are public schools, NOT home schools.
How could this possibly be a backdoor voucher scheme? A voucher is a way to use public funds to pay tuition at a private school. Virtual charters are public schools. Their teachers are public employees. The students take all the same tests and are held to all the same standards as other public school students. To describe a virtual public charter school as a "backdoor voucher scheme" is just ridiculous.
The OEA knows this full well, but it thinks so little of its tens of thousands of members that it doesn't think they will realize they are being lied to.
But someone has to point it out.
Floor vote tomorrow on bill to kill virtual charters
The teacher union's bill to kill virtual charter schools in Oregon (SB 767) is scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor tomorrow. We will see once and for all which Senate Democrats are willing to sell the kids down the river at the demand of the union.
It really is that simple. The unions changed the bill in certain ways that might put off for awhile the death of the virtual schools they hate so much, but it is just window dressing. In its current form the bill freezes enrollment of all virtual schools, prevents any new ones from being approved, and then it creates a "workgroup" to figure out how to govern virtual schools.
The workgroup is just stacked with education establishment folks. There isn't even a parent of a virtual school student on it! The workgroup will recommend legislation to the interim session they plan to hold in early 2010.
Sen. Richard Devlin is the sponsor. This fight isn't over. We need three Democrat votes to kill this on the floor. Frankly, the fact that it is scheduled for a vote most probably means that Devlin has been able to twist enough arms to prevent three D's from defecting.
But why would reasonable folks like Rick Metsger go along? Or Martha Schrader? Or Betsy Johnson? if these folks cast a Yes vote on SB767, it will be disappointing indeed.
It really is that simple. The unions changed the bill in certain ways that might put off for awhile the death of the virtual schools they hate so much, but it is just window dressing. In its current form the bill freezes enrollment of all virtual schools, prevents any new ones from being approved, and then it creates a "workgroup" to figure out how to govern virtual schools.
The workgroup is just stacked with education establishment folks. There isn't even a parent of a virtual school student on it! The workgroup will recommend legislation to the interim session they plan to hold in early 2010.
Sen. Richard Devlin is the sponsor. This fight isn't over. We need three Democrat votes to kill this on the floor. Frankly, the fact that it is scheduled for a vote most probably means that Devlin has been able to twist enough arms to prevent three D's from defecting.
But why would reasonable folks like Rick Metsger go along? Or Martha Schrader? Or Betsy Johnson? if these folks cast a Yes vote on SB767, it will be disappointing indeed.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Brooks on the GM deal
David Brooks writes in today's New York Times about why the Obama plan for GM is fated to fail.
Here is just one of his many excellent points:
"Fourth, the Obama plan dilutes the company’s focus. Instead of thinking obsessively about profitability and quality, G.M. will also have to meet the administration’s environmental goals. There is no evidence G.M. is good at building the sort of small cars the administration demands. There is no evidence that there is a large American market for these cars. But G.M. now has to serve two masters, the market and the administration’s policy goals."
This is what happens when you nationalize industry. It bastardizes the purpose of business into worrying more about political considerations than business considerations. Which ensures it fails, since it has to compete with companies that have no such dual purpose.
This is so very sad.
Here is just one of his many excellent points:
"Fourth, the Obama plan dilutes the company’s focus. Instead of thinking obsessively about profitability and quality, G.M. will also have to meet the administration’s environmental goals. There is no evidence G.M. is good at building the sort of small cars the administration demands. There is no evidence that there is a large American market for these cars. But G.M. now has to serve two masters, the market and the administration’s policy goals."
This is what happens when you nationalize industry. It bastardizes the purpose of business into worrying more about political considerations than business considerations. Which ensures it fails, since it has to compete with companies that have no such dual purpose.
This is so very sad.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Why I love the Bend Bulletin
Read this all the way to the end. I received it over email, so I assume this is not a copyright violation. If it is, I will take it down. But at least there is one newspaper in Oregon that is calling out the ridiculous job killing policies Oregon is pursuing.
EDITORIAL: WE CAN BE NO. 1 IN JOBLESSNESS
Bend Bulletin
Editorial
June 1, 2009
Let Oregon politicians put any kind of spin they want on the latest state unemployment figures. The truth is, we lost out to Michigan — again.
Try as the Oregon Legislature did, Michigan has kept the crown of the nation’s unemployment king.
Michigan reported a 12.9 percent unemployment rate in April. We Beaver Staters staggered in behind at No. 2, reporting a flat 12 percent. It gets worse. Michigan pulled away. Its rate grew by 0.3 percentage point from March to April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We almost didn’t grow at all, moving up only 0.1 percentage point.
The Legislature can revel with some pride in the No. 2 slot. It has earned it. It has led us this far. But somewhere along the way, Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s strategy of The Oregon Way has lost its way. There may be hundreds of pages of new green requirements, new taxes and new regulations generated by this Legislature. It has not been enough.
Don’t despair. We can leave Michigan in the dust. We can be christened the king. There’s still time left this legislative session.
Brace yourself for what may come. All the Legislature must do is to keep doing what it has been doing: Keep digging the hole from which no job can return.
Let’s review:
• Thank goodness the legislators didn’t tweak the state’s minimum wage law. Oregon’s minimum wage went up by 45 cents per hour on Jan. 1 as the economy plunged in a nosedive. Legislators killed a bill that would have required increases in minimum wage to be suspended if the state unemployment rate was flying high above the national average. That was a close one. Employers may have been able to hire more people.
• There’s still hope for more new taxes. There’s a plan to single out the wealthiest Oregonians for tax increases. If one proposal becomes law, we could tie Hawaii for imposing the highest personal income tax rate. That’s a masterstroke, although you have to wonder if legislators will be satisfied with not being a tax leader. Oh well, maybe that will be enough to get those wealthy folks to leave the state. We don’t need their capital, their knowledge. They can help us get to No. 1 and take their jobs somewhere else.
• The Legislature’s efforts to hold down health care costs have been suitably minimal. That fits right in with making it more expensive to hire anyone. Kulongoski isn’t touching the rich health benefits of full-time state employees. Those workers contribute nothing toward their premiums and have no annual deductible. The plan for statewide health care reform is its own form of legislative genius. The Legislature wants a tax to pay for health care that will raise the cost of health care without any firm commitment to shaving costs. It’s a surefire hit to jobs.
• The Legislature hasn’t been just noodling around on green leadership. There’s a firm commitment to driving up the cost of energy, so Oregonians will have to pay more green for power than people in other states. That’ll make employers considering relocating to Oregon think twice. In a related move, the Legislature has done its best to restrict construction of new destination resorts. Resorts could have meant construction jobs and new homes for people who were likely to throw us off track by having jobs.
Fear not, there’s more than that in store. But sometimes it takes more than swarms of clever schemes to shoo away jobs. Every campaign needs a focus, a rallying point. For that purpose, we unveil below a humble suggestion for a new state flag. Behold:
Bend Bulletin
Editorial
June 1, 2009
Let Oregon politicians put any kind of spin they want on the latest state unemployment figures. The truth is, we lost out to Michigan — again.
Try as the Oregon Legislature did, Michigan has kept the crown of the nation’s unemployment king.
Michigan reported a 12.9 percent unemployment rate in April. We Beaver Staters staggered in behind at No. 2, reporting a flat 12 percent. It gets worse. Michigan pulled away. Its rate grew by 0.3 percentage point from March to April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We almost didn’t grow at all, moving up only 0.1 percentage point.
The Legislature can revel with some pride in the No. 2 slot. It has earned it. It has led us this far. But somewhere along the way, Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s strategy of The Oregon Way has lost its way. There may be hundreds of pages of new green requirements, new taxes and new regulations generated by this Legislature. It has not been enough.
Don’t despair. We can leave Michigan in the dust. We can be christened the king. There’s still time left this legislative session.
Brace yourself for what may come. All the Legislature must do is to keep doing what it has been doing: Keep digging the hole from which no job can return.
Let’s review:
• Thank goodness the legislators didn’t tweak the state’s minimum wage law. Oregon’s minimum wage went up by 45 cents per hour on Jan. 1 as the economy plunged in a nosedive. Legislators killed a bill that would have required increases in minimum wage to be suspended if the state unemployment rate was flying high above the national average. That was a close one. Employers may have been able to hire more people.
• There’s still hope for more new taxes. There’s a plan to single out the wealthiest Oregonians for tax increases. If one proposal becomes law, we could tie Hawaii for imposing the highest personal income tax rate. That’s a masterstroke, although you have to wonder if legislators will be satisfied with not being a tax leader. Oh well, maybe that will be enough to get those wealthy folks to leave the state. We don’t need their capital, their knowledge. They can help us get to No. 1 and take their jobs somewhere else.
• The Legislature’s efforts to hold down health care costs have been suitably minimal. That fits right in with making it more expensive to hire anyone. Kulongoski isn’t touching the rich health benefits of full-time state employees. Those workers contribute nothing toward their premiums and have no annual deductible. The plan for statewide health care reform is its own form of legislative genius. The Legislature wants a tax to pay for health care that will raise the cost of health care without any firm commitment to shaving costs. It’s a surefire hit to jobs.
• The Legislature hasn’t been just noodling around on green leadership. There’s a firm commitment to driving up the cost of energy, so Oregonians will have to pay more green for power than people in other states. That’ll make employers considering relocating to Oregon think twice. In a related move, the Legislature has done its best to restrict construction of new destination resorts. Resorts could have meant construction jobs and new homes for people who were likely to throw us off track by having jobs.
Fear not, there’s more than that in store. But sometimes it takes more than swarms of clever schemes to shoo away jobs. Every campaign needs a focus, a rallying point. For that purpose, we unveil below a humble suggestion for a new state flag. Behold:
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama Car Dealer Scandal?
It's very early in this story, but as the numbers start to come in, it sure does look suspicious.
NWRepublican has a post that is a pretty good portal to follow this story. Did the Obama administration engineer the Chrysler dealership closures to benefit political supporters?
The great thing about this story is it is just MADE for the blogosphere. One thing the atomistic nature of the blogosphere makes possible is applying large numbers of people to large sets of data. Most of the necessary information is out there - the closed dealerships, who owns them, where they are in relation to the surviving dealerships, who contributed money to Obama and who didn't, income levels of the geographic areas, the service records of the dealerships, and maybe even the sales figures.
So give the blogosphere a week to tear into this data, and if Obama actually was stupid enough to let this happen, it will be proven.
The mainstream media would take months to investigate something with this much data to nail down and crunch, if indeed it was inclined to do it, which it isn't.
If this thing pans out, it will be one of the biggest Presidential scandals ever.
This will be interesting!
NWRepublican has a post that is a pretty good portal to follow this story. Did the Obama administration engineer the Chrysler dealership closures to benefit political supporters?
The great thing about this story is it is just MADE for the blogosphere. One thing the atomistic nature of the blogosphere makes possible is applying large numbers of people to large sets of data. Most of the necessary information is out there - the closed dealerships, who owns them, where they are in relation to the surviving dealerships, who contributed money to Obama and who didn't, income levels of the geographic areas, the service records of the dealerships, and maybe even the sales figures.
So give the blogosphere a week to tear into this data, and if Obama actually was stupid enough to let this happen, it will be proven.
The mainstream media would take months to investigate something with this much data to nail down and crunch, if indeed it was inclined to do it, which it isn't.
If this thing pans out, it will be one of the biggest Presidential scandals ever.
This will be interesting!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Japanese scientist government advisory panel rebukes global warming theorists
A panel of Japanese scientists which also acts as an advisory panel to the government released a report last month that is highly critical of the IPCC's theory that human activity caused the warming apparent from 1970 -2000.
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) represents scientists from the energy and resource fields, and also acts as a government advisory panel. The report was a harshly worded rebuke of the IPCC's alarmism on global warming.
The report was recently translated, but it still has received almost no attention by the mainstream media. Go figure. Could it be that the report is "off message?"
As the Cap (American jobs) & Trade (away our prosperity) legislation powers its way through Congress, I'm sure we will hear time and again how universal the "consensus" on global warming is.
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) represents scientists from the energy and resource fields, and also acts as a government advisory panel. The report was a harshly worded rebuke of the IPCC's alarmism on global warming.
The report was recently translated, but it still has received almost no attention by the mainstream media. Go figure. Could it be that the report is "off message?"
As the Cap (American jobs) & Trade (away our prosperity) legislation powers its way through Congress, I'm sure we will hear time and again how universal the "consensus" on global warming is.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
When the government runs the auto industry
So President Obama proposed his new CAFE standards and tailpipe CO2 emission limits to nary a whisper of dissent from the auto industry. Why the silence?
Duh.
What amazes me is that people actually think its a good idea for the federal government to run the car industry. It's one thing when government regulates an industry that is trying to maintain profitability within the constraints of that regulation. But when politicians run an entire industry, profitability becomes entirely irrelevant in the face of political considerations of all types.
These new CAFE and emissions standards are a great example. Are they doable? Probably. Just like it would be "doable" to require that no new home could have more than 1500 square feet.
You'd probably get support for such a regulation in some circles. People who would tell us how much energy we'd save, how much cheaper it would be.
But a lot of people don't want that kind of house, just as a lot of people, would prefer a larger, heavier vehicle and will happily pay the extra $1500 a year in fuel expense.
President Obama is basically saying that people will no longer have this option. I don't think this is the appropriate role for government. Where will it stop? How about the meat industry? You know how much CO2 is created by that?
Back to autos - the government wants to mandate a vehicle fleet that would not be the preference of consumers if left to make their own choices. That is inherently bad for profitability. But now government is on both sides of the equation - regulator and owner.
Look forward to many more bailouts of the auto industry.
Duh.
What amazes me is that people actually think its a good idea for the federal government to run the car industry. It's one thing when government regulates an industry that is trying to maintain profitability within the constraints of that regulation. But when politicians run an entire industry, profitability becomes entirely irrelevant in the face of political considerations of all types.
These new CAFE and emissions standards are a great example. Are they doable? Probably. Just like it would be "doable" to require that no new home could have more than 1500 square feet.
You'd probably get support for such a regulation in some circles. People who would tell us how much energy we'd save, how much cheaper it would be.
But a lot of people don't want that kind of house, just as a lot of people, would prefer a larger, heavier vehicle and will happily pay the extra $1500 a year in fuel expense.
President Obama is basically saying that people will no longer have this option. I don't think this is the appropriate role for government. Where will it stop? How about the meat industry? You know how much CO2 is created by that?
Back to autos - the government wants to mandate a vehicle fleet that would not be the preference of consumers if left to make their own choices. That is inherently bad for profitability. But now government is on both sides of the equation - regulator and owner.
Look forward to many more bailouts of the auto industry.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Are they really that small minded?
Over at Bojack.org, there's a post saying that the Sam Adams recall effort is doomed because conservative talk show host Victoria Taft was "front and center" last night at the recall effort's kick-off party.
Bojack says that having conservatives involved will turn off all those groups that are needed to get rid of Adams - unions, Bus Project folks, greenies, etc.
Here is my question: I know that Jack Bogdanski himself is without question sufficiently small minded to actually not support a valid cause just because he politically disagrees with others who do support it. He has displayed his small mindedness time and again on his blog by banning commenters who do nothing more than make points he has trouble contesting.
But are Portland liberals as small minded as Bogdanski? Will they really think to themselves: "Oh I was going to sign the recall petition, but Victoria Taft and Lars Larson are supporting it, so maybe I won't. Are people really so limited in their sophistication and world-view that they automatically reject anything that is supported by people with different ideologies?
I doubt it.
Bogdanski works in the ivory tower. Lewis & Clark law school is famously extreme liberal. Conservative viewpoints at that place are simply not considered to be credible. It is a skewed view of the world that can only exist in cloistered halls like academia.
Bogdanski is a very clear thinker on many issues, but he has a barely concealed visceral hatred of conservatives that is actually standard-faire in academia. I don't think the majority of Portland liberals are similarly small minded.
But guess what? I actually hope Sam Adams survives this effort. I want the recall to make the ballot, but I don't want Sam out. It is important for the future of Portland that Sam Adams fulfill his term as mayor.
The recall, and the campaign (if the recall gets enough signatures) will be a very entertaining circus. I admit I will enjoy this. But I really think Sam should stay on as mayor because Portland really needs to hurry up and let the crash hit with the full force that Sam Adams will inevitably bring upon it.
Why delay the crash? Portland won't realize the lunacy of its many wrongheaded policies until the full effect of the ideology Sam Adams represents is allowed to take its course.
So that's why I support Sam Adams!
Bojack says that having conservatives involved will turn off all those groups that are needed to get rid of Adams - unions, Bus Project folks, greenies, etc.
Here is my question: I know that Jack Bogdanski himself is without question sufficiently small minded to actually not support a valid cause just because he politically disagrees with others who do support it. He has displayed his small mindedness time and again on his blog by banning commenters who do nothing more than make points he has trouble contesting.
But are Portland liberals as small minded as Bogdanski? Will they really think to themselves: "Oh I was going to sign the recall petition, but Victoria Taft and Lars Larson are supporting it, so maybe I won't. Are people really so limited in their sophistication and world-view that they automatically reject anything that is supported by people with different ideologies?
I doubt it.
Bogdanski works in the ivory tower. Lewis & Clark law school is famously extreme liberal. Conservative viewpoints at that place are simply not considered to be credible. It is a skewed view of the world that can only exist in cloistered halls like academia.
Bogdanski is a very clear thinker on many issues, but he has a barely concealed visceral hatred of conservatives that is actually standard-faire in academia. I don't think the majority of Portland liberals are similarly small minded.
But guess what? I actually hope Sam Adams survives this effort. I want the recall to make the ballot, but I don't want Sam out. It is important for the future of Portland that Sam Adams fulfill his term as mayor.
The recall, and the campaign (if the recall gets enough signatures) will be a very entertaining circus. I admit I will enjoy this. But I really think Sam should stay on as mayor because Portland really needs to hurry up and let the crash hit with the full force that Sam Adams will inevitably bring upon it.
Why delay the crash? Portland won't realize the lunacy of its many wrongheaded policies until the full effect of the ideology Sam Adams represents is allowed to take its course.
So that's why I support Sam Adams!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Another huge technology overrun at City of Portland
Story today at KATU about yet another mishandled technology project.
Portland is trying to join the late 20th century in terms of financial management systems. The new system was supposed to cost about $28 million. Current cost: $50 million and counting. The city is paying consultants on the project an average of $273 an hour.
Portland's CFO, Jennifer Sims, says these rates are commonplace for projects such as this. Oh really? The story quotes my friend Dave Lister, who ran for city council a few years ago. Dave runs a software company that writes and installs this same kind of software. He'll tell you that $273 an hour isn't typical at all.
So as Portland gets deeper and deeper into what is clearly going to be the next costly failure, what does the CFO have to say?
"I'd rather be talking to you this way about the success and how diligent we are being to make it right than have you sitting here asking me questions about how it went wrong,"
Uh, so would we, Ms. Sims. What does this even mean? Is she defending the obvious incompetence, saying that the almost two-fold cost overrun is just because she is being extra "diligent?" Apparently - the story went on to say:
"But Sims said in the long run, spending the money to make sure the job is done correctly is the right thing to do."
With the track record of city hall on these types of projects, does anybody honestly believe that spending all this money will ensure the system is done right? Or that it was actually necessary to spend $50 million (and counting) in the first place?
The city's credibility on such things is absolutely zero. But that doesn't keep them from spending tens of millions of dollars more than it should cost.
Why won't they just let Lister do the project? I've spoken to him at length about the Water Bureau billing system disaster. That project was doomed to fail from the get go, and when it did fail, the RFP the city put out for the replacement system pretty much ensured that the new attempt would be far more expensive than necessary also.
The rarest commodity at City Hall appears to be competence.
Portland is trying to join the late 20th century in terms of financial management systems. The new system was supposed to cost about $28 million. Current cost: $50 million and counting. The city is paying consultants on the project an average of $273 an hour.
Portland's CFO, Jennifer Sims, says these rates are commonplace for projects such as this. Oh really? The story quotes my friend Dave Lister, who ran for city council a few years ago. Dave runs a software company that writes and installs this same kind of software. He'll tell you that $273 an hour isn't typical at all.
So as Portland gets deeper and deeper into what is clearly going to be the next costly failure, what does the CFO have to say?
"I'd rather be talking to you this way about the success and how diligent we are being to make it right than have you sitting here asking me questions about how it went wrong,"
Uh, so would we, Ms. Sims. What does this even mean? Is she defending the obvious incompetence, saying that the almost two-fold cost overrun is just because she is being extra "diligent?" Apparently - the story went on to say:
"But Sims said in the long run, spending the money to make sure the job is done correctly is the right thing to do."
With the track record of city hall on these types of projects, does anybody honestly believe that spending all this money will ensure the system is done right? Or that it was actually necessary to spend $50 million (and counting) in the first place?
The city's credibility on such things is absolutely zero. But that doesn't keep them from spending tens of millions of dollars more than it should cost.
Why won't they just let Lister do the project? I've spoken to him at length about the Water Bureau billing system disaster. That project was doomed to fail from the get go, and when it did fail, the RFP the city put out for the replacement system pretty much ensured that the new attempt would be far more expensive than necessary also.
The rarest commodity at City Hall appears to be competence.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Shrinking our way to prosperity
I am sorry for the disrespectful language, but is our governor really this much of a dumbass?
He's in New York City the other day, telling the Times that we have to produce less. That's right, Governor. We can solve our problems by producing fewer consumers goods. That will make us better off!
Of course he doesn't understand that for something to be consumed, it has to first be produced. So when he sits down for his moral preening session with the New York Times (who also don't understand simple economic principles) he tells them how hard it is for him to lecture us hick Oregonians about being too materialistic, unwilling to cut back on consumption to save the planet.
He is on a higher moral plane that can only be appreciated in the offices of the nearly bankrupt New York Times.
I guess Governor Kulongoski must think that he is succeeding beyond his wildest dreams. With unemployment at 12.1%, obviously his policies are already making sure we are producing and consuming less!
A stunning success! The planet feels better already!
He's in New York City the other day, telling the Times that we have to produce less. That's right, Governor. We can solve our problems by producing fewer consumers goods. That will make us better off!
Of course he doesn't understand that for something to be consumed, it has to first be produced. So when he sits down for his moral preening session with the New York Times (who also don't understand simple economic principles) he tells them how hard it is for him to lecture us hick Oregonians about being too materialistic, unwilling to cut back on consumption to save the planet.
He is on a higher moral plane that can only be appreciated in the offices of the nearly bankrupt New York Times.
I guess Governor Kulongoski must think that he is succeeding beyond his wildest dreams. With unemployment at 12.1%, obviously his policies are already making sure we are producing and consuming less!
A stunning success! The planet feels better already!
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
'Hey dude, your fly is down, and your pants are unbuttoned!
It just gets wierder. Portland style.
So it turns out, when Sam Adams crashed into the Subaru, pushed it across a curbed garden bed and into another car, then continued spinning the car's wheels for another 75 feet, he got out of the car and was told by the first witness on the scene:
"Hey dude, your fly is down, and your pants are unbuttoned."
Why is the mayor of Portland driving around town with his pants down?
So it turns out, when Sam Adams crashed into the Subaru, pushed it across a curbed garden bed and into another car, then continued spinning the car's wheels for another 75 feet, he got out of the car and was told by the first witness on the scene:
"Hey dude, your fly is down, and your pants are unbuttoned."
Why is the mayor of Portland driving around town with his pants down?
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Chrysler - The Obama kleptocracy
The more I learn about the Chrysler "bankruptcy," the angrier I get. This is not a bankruptcy, it is a looting of a troubled business for the benefit of organized labor. Pure and simple.
The secured bondholders are getting screwed by Obama. They own almost $7 billion in secured debt in Chrysler. Obama asked them to take a 70% hit in the restructuring, and get nothing in equity. When they refused, Obama attacked them, called them "speculators, and now he is trying to cram them down even further and give to the unions the lions share of the equity (55%) in return for forgiving 57% of its unsecured health care and pension obligations.
It is so incredibly damaging to our financial markets for a President to intervene by changing the rules of the economic game in mid stream, and looting the assets of the company for the benefit of his political supporters.
What happens the next time a group of hedge fund managers are asked to provide financing to a troubled company? Who in their right mind would make the investment, knowing the President might just step in and steal your money?
Guess what? They are not going to play this game. They won't invest here when the rules can change in the middle of the game. Capital will dry up - the US isn't the only place on the planet to invest.
The secured bondholders are getting screwed by Obama. They own almost $7 billion in secured debt in Chrysler. Obama asked them to take a 70% hit in the restructuring, and get nothing in equity. When they refused, Obama attacked them, called them "speculators, and now he is trying to cram them down even further and give to the unions the lions share of the equity (55%) in return for forgiving 57% of its unsecured health care and pension obligations.
It is so incredibly damaging to our financial markets for a President to intervene by changing the rules of the economic game in mid stream, and looting the assets of the company for the benefit of his political supporters.
What happens the next time a group of hedge fund managers are asked to provide financing to a troubled company? Who in their right mind would make the investment, knowing the President might just step in and steal your money?
Guess what? They are not going to play this game. They won't invest here when the rules can change in the middle of the game. Capital will dry up - the US isn't the only place on the planet to invest.
Sam Adams car wreck
Reading about the Sam Adams car wreck, the only thing that is obvious is that the story and its explanation just don't add up.
He T-boned the passenger door of a Subaru which was making a right turn into the Car Toys lot. OK - that in and of itself isn't that suspicous. He could have thought the guy was going to turn left after getting into the lot, and took the stupid chance of trying to whiz by him on the right.
But that is when this gets interesting. Imagine yourself in such a circumstance. You'd speed up to pass the car on the right, but he turns right instead of left. Crash. You'd take your foot off the gas and stop.
But that isn't what Sam Adams did. Read the eyewitness account in today's paper:
He said he saw the pickup strike the side of the Subaru and push it over hedges and into a parked Honda. "And then the Honda and the Subaru kind of parted, and the mayor's pickup was powering through both of them. He was still on the gas pedal," Schweitz said. "After he broke free of the collision, he kept driving. He kept peeling out, and finally came to a stop about 100 feet away, near the Plaid Pantry lot."
So after he hit the side of the Subaru, he obviously GUNNED his car. That is the ONLY way you can push another vehicle across a curb and hedges into another car. Then, after his car disengaged from the Subaru, he was still gunning it! He was still "peeling out" for another 100 feet!
How does this happen? He said that he mistook the gas pedal for the brake. I don't get that - he was already on the gas pedal. And if he DID mistake the two, we would be forced to believe that he didn't realize he was standing on the gas rather than the brake the whole time he was pushing the Subaru over a curbed bed, across the lot, into another car, then for another 100 feet?
It doesn't make sense.
Nor does the police's behavior. No sobriety test? You'd think they would do that just for appearances. After all, guess who the police commissioner is: Sam Adams. There might be just a tiny appearance of a conflict of interest when a cop is handling a very strange incident involving the mayor and fails to even write a ticket.
He obliterated three cars in a parking lot, and sent one passenger to the emergency room, and no citation given or investigation of any kind was conducted?
Favorable treatment? Sure looks like it.
He T-boned the passenger door of a Subaru which was making a right turn into the Car Toys lot. OK - that in and of itself isn't that suspicous. He could have thought the guy was going to turn left after getting into the lot, and took the stupid chance of trying to whiz by him on the right.
But that is when this gets interesting. Imagine yourself in such a circumstance. You'd speed up to pass the car on the right, but he turns right instead of left. Crash. You'd take your foot off the gas and stop.
But that isn't what Sam Adams did. Read the eyewitness account in today's paper:
He said he saw the pickup strike the side of the Subaru and push it over hedges and into a parked Honda. "And then the Honda and the Subaru kind of parted, and the mayor's pickup was powering through both of them. He was still on the gas pedal," Schweitz said. "After he broke free of the collision, he kept driving. He kept peeling out, and finally came to a stop about 100 feet away, near the Plaid Pantry lot."
So after he hit the side of the Subaru, he obviously GUNNED his car. That is the ONLY way you can push another vehicle across a curb and hedges into another car. Then, after his car disengaged from the Subaru, he was still gunning it! He was still "peeling out" for another 100 feet!
How does this happen? He said that he mistook the gas pedal for the brake. I don't get that - he was already on the gas pedal. And if he DID mistake the two, we would be forced to believe that he didn't realize he was standing on the gas rather than the brake the whole time he was pushing the Subaru over a curbed bed, across the lot, into another car, then for another 100 feet?
It doesn't make sense.
Nor does the police's behavior. No sobriety test? You'd think they would do that just for appearances. After all, guess who the police commissioner is: Sam Adams. There might be just a tiny appearance of a conflict of interest when a cop is handling a very strange incident involving the mayor and fails to even write a ticket.
He obliterated three cars in a parking lot, and sent one passenger to the emergency room, and no citation given or investigation of any kind was conducted?
Favorable treatment? Sure looks like it.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Obama doublespeak on his Supreme Court Justice criteria
Obama said the following about the kind of person he would appoint to fill David Souter's seat on the SCOTUS:
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes," he said. "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
The amazing thing about this statement is that the two parts of it are wholly contradictory. Judges should specifically NOT take into account whether or not they "identify with people's hopes and struggles" when they make a legal ruling.
So having told us what attributes he considers essential in a judge, he then goes on to give a vignette of a supreme court judge that could have been written by Clarence Thomas!
This guy just seems to always want it both ways. And he seems to think that we are such dunces we won't recognize even his most obvious contradictions.
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes," he said. "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
The amazing thing about this statement is that the two parts of it are wholly contradictory. Judges should specifically NOT take into account whether or not they "identify with people's hopes and struggles" when they make a legal ruling.
So having told us what attributes he considers essential in a judge, he then goes on to give a vignette of a supreme court judge that could have been written by Clarence Thomas!
This guy just seems to always want it both ways. And he seems to think that we are such dunces we won't recognize even his most obvious contradictions.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Obama in his own words: "Electricity rates skyrocket"
He couldn't be much more clear. President Obama knows that Cap & Trade will dramatically raise energy prices. He admits in a very forthright way in an interview in January 2008 with the San Francisco Chronicle.
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Interesting that the city of San Francisco seems to be Obama's truth serum. Remember his statement about "clinging to guns and religion?" That was in San Fran. He apparently feels very comfortable being around fellow travelers, so he lets his guard down and is unusually honest.
What a great plan. Let's intentionally cause electricity rates to skyrocket.
Obama to low income Americans: "So sorry!"
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Interesting that the city of San Francisco seems to be Obama's truth serum. Remember his statement about "clinging to guns and religion?" That was in San Fran. He apparently feels very comfortable being around fellow travelers, so he lets his guard down and is unusually honest.
What a great plan. Let's intentionally cause electricity rates to skyrocket.
Obama to low income Americans: "So sorry!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)