The only thing you need to know about the first gubernatorial debate that aired last night was that Ted Kulongoski reaffirmed that he wants a sales tax.
"You're darned right I do!" I think was the exact quote.
Ok then.
Sounds as if the Governor has give Ron Saxton everything he needs to go over the top.
Thanks, Guv.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Hibbitts poll
Tim Hibbitts released a poll today showing Kulongoski with a 5 point lead, 43% to 38%.
I have a ton of respect for Hibbitts work and so I have no doubts about the accuracy of what his polls shows. I know Tim a little bit, and I can say without any reservation that his polling data is of the highest standard.
A five point Kulongoski lead at this point in the campaign is both good and bad news for both Kulongoski and Saxton - which means there is something there for both candidates to both spin and dread.
Five weeks out and Kulongoski is far away from a majority. That is not good news for him. There are 12% undecided - which normally breaks disproportionately to the challenger.
On the other hand, Saxton has had the airwaves to himself for three or four weeks, and he is still 5% behind. Kulongoski's ads have just started, and it won't be long until his negative ads start to run, which will drive down Saxton's support. You can make the argument that Saxton would have needed to be in the lead after having the TV airwaves to himself if he were going to pull it out.
Bottom line, this race is very competitive. Tim Hibbitts says he thinks Kulongoski is still the favorite, and I have a hard time disagreeing. But favorites get beat all the time.
Don't fall into the trap of presuming that Tim Hibbitts' poll is inaccurate or ideologically biased. It isn't. He is a consummate professional. And he is also one of the most astute anylists of the Oregon political scene. You can trust that his data is an accurate reflection of current reality, period.
If you would have told Ron Saxton three months ago that Ben Westlend was going to withdraw from the race and Mary Starrett was going to jump in the race, but he was still going to be only down by 5 points at this point, I'll bet he'd be thrilled.
So it is a very competitive race. Fasten your seat belts.
Update: 6:30 am Sept. 28
The minor party candidates have gathered about 9% of the vote between them. Mary Starrett is at 4%. I never thought her candidacy would be anything but a fringe vanity candidacy, and it looks like it's not. It's hard to make an argument that she'll climb from here. She had her moment in the spotlight when the media tried to trump her up as a spoiler, but in the end she'll get just a tad more than the Green Party and Libertarian candidates.
Her candidacy does give us a good idea of how many hard core single issue abortion voters there are in Oregon, and I am glad to see there aren't that many. Not because I disdain the pro-life part of the Republican party - I don't. I'm one of them.
Starrett's candidacy, despite her protestations to the contrary, was always about the abortion issue and the abortion issue alone. She tried to catch on with voters by making the absurd-on-its-face argument that there isn't any difference between Ron Saxton and Ted Kulongoski, so she was the only true conservative in the race.
While I realize she made this claim to try and shed her single issue reputation, the problem is that nobody bought it. Ron Saxton has done a very good job of defining the substantial differences between himself and the Governor. To claim there's not a dime's worth of difference between them does nothing but marginalize the person making the claim.
Which is where Mary Starrett seems to be ending up - a marginal candidate who attracts the single issue abortion voters. It doesn't really affect the race because Saxton wasn't going to get these voters anyway.
I have a ton of respect for Hibbitts work and so I have no doubts about the accuracy of what his polls shows. I know Tim a little bit, and I can say without any reservation that his polling data is of the highest standard.
A five point Kulongoski lead at this point in the campaign is both good and bad news for both Kulongoski and Saxton - which means there is something there for both candidates to both spin and dread.
Five weeks out and Kulongoski is far away from a majority. That is not good news for him. There are 12% undecided - which normally breaks disproportionately to the challenger.
On the other hand, Saxton has had the airwaves to himself for three or four weeks, and he is still 5% behind. Kulongoski's ads have just started, and it won't be long until his negative ads start to run, which will drive down Saxton's support. You can make the argument that Saxton would have needed to be in the lead after having the TV airwaves to himself if he were going to pull it out.
Bottom line, this race is very competitive. Tim Hibbitts says he thinks Kulongoski is still the favorite, and I have a hard time disagreeing. But favorites get beat all the time.
Don't fall into the trap of presuming that Tim Hibbitts' poll is inaccurate or ideologically biased. It isn't. He is a consummate professional. And he is also one of the most astute anylists of the Oregon political scene. You can trust that his data is an accurate reflection of current reality, period.
If you would have told Ron Saxton three months ago that Ben Westlend was going to withdraw from the race and Mary Starrett was going to jump in the race, but he was still going to be only down by 5 points at this point, I'll bet he'd be thrilled.
So it is a very competitive race. Fasten your seat belts.
Update: 6:30 am Sept. 28
The minor party candidates have gathered about 9% of the vote between them. Mary Starrett is at 4%. I never thought her candidacy would be anything but a fringe vanity candidacy, and it looks like it's not. It's hard to make an argument that she'll climb from here. She had her moment in the spotlight when the media tried to trump her up as a spoiler, but in the end she'll get just a tad more than the Green Party and Libertarian candidates.
Her candidacy does give us a good idea of how many hard core single issue abortion voters there are in Oregon, and I am glad to see there aren't that many. Not because I disdain the pro-life part of the Republican party - I don't. I'm one of them.
Starrett's candidacy, despite her protestations to the contrary, was always about the abortion issue and the abortion issue alone. She tried to catch on with voters by making the absurd-on-its-face argument that there isn't any difference between Ron Saxton and Ted Kulongoski, so she was the only true conservative in the race.
While I realize she made this claim to try and shed her single issue reputation, the problem is that nobody bought it. Ron Saxton has done a very good job of defining the substantial differences between himself and the Governor. To claim there's not a dime's worth of difference between them does nothing but marginalize the person making the claim.
Which is where Mary Starrett seems to be ending up - a marginal candidate who attracts the single issue abortion voters. It doesn't really affect the race because Saxton wasn't going to get these voters anyway.
Saxton and open enrollment
Front page ariticle in the Tribune yesterday, picked up by the Oregonian today, is making a big deal out of basically nothing.
Ron Saxton, it seems, wanted to get his son Andy into Lincoln High Schools International Baccalaurate program, but they lived in the wrong part of town for him to automatically qualify. So, the Saxtons moved into an apartment in the right part of town for a year to establish the proper residency for the school.
At the same time he filed to run for school board, and he used his old address as his permanent residency (which he fully intended to move back into as soon as it was within the rules for him to do so.)
The newspapers and the Democrats are making a big deal out of this.
Two issues here:
1) Did he act improperly in filing to run for school board under his old (permanent) address even though he was living in the apartment? No, say the Secretary of State's office. At the time, Ron even checked it all out with the SOS and the school district, and was told that it was OK.
2) Is it OK for a person with the means to move to access a desired program for his son?
#1, it seems, is not even an issue, even though my friend Jack Bog seems to want to hang him for it. He asked everybody about it at the time and got the OK, and even now the powers that be say it was OK.
#2, it seems, is something that is ENTIRELY consistent with Ron Saxton's education message. He wants to give EVERY child the chance to do what he was able to do because he had the means. It strikes him as unfair that just because he has money, he is able to work within the established rules to use that money and gain access to the program he wants for his kid.
Ron Saxton supports open enrollment, which would mean a kid in NE Portland could attend a Beaverton school without having to get the permission from a bureaucrat. So that parent wouldn't have to move to Beaverton just so his kid could attend the school of his choice.
So, far from being a liability in this campaign, Ron Saxton should use this issue to point out that school district boundaries are a leading cause of inequities in the school system. He should make the point that it is totally unfair that right now, only parents such as he, who have financial means, have the ability to send their kids to the school of their choice.
The system traps everyone else. That might be convenient for the bureaucrats, but it is not they who are the primary customer of the public school system!
Ron Saxton, it seems, wanted to get his son Andy into Lincoln High Schools International Baccalaurate program, but they lived in the wrong part of town for him to automatically qualify. So, the Saxtons moved into an apartment in the right part of town for a year to establish the proper residency for the school.
At the same time he filed to run for school board, and he used his old address as his permanent residency (which he fully intended to move back into as soon as it was within the rules for him to do so.)
The newspapers and the Democrats are making a big deal out of this.
Two issues here:
1) Did he act improperly in filing to run for school board under his old (permanent) address even though he was living in the apartment? No, say the Secretary of State's office. At the time, Ron even checked it all out with the SOS and the school district, and was told that it was OK.
2) Is it OK for a person with the means to move to access a desired program for his son?
#1, it seems, is not even an issue, even though my friend Jack Bog seems to want to hang him for it. He asked everybody about it at the time and got the OK, and even now the powers that be say it was OK.
#2, it seems, is something that is ENTIRELY consistent with Ron Saxton's education message. He wants to give EVERY child the chance to do what he was able to do because he had the means. It strikes him as unfair that just because he has money, he is able to work within the established rules to use that money and gain access to the program he wants for his kid.
Ron Saxton supports open enrollment, which would mean a kid in NE Portland could attend a Beaverton school without having to get the permission from a bureaucrat. So that parent wouldn't have to move to Beaverton just so his kid could attend the school of his choice.
So, far from being a liability in this campaign, Ron Saxton should use this issue to point out that school district boundaries are a leading cause of inequities in the school system. He should make the point that it is totally unfair that right now, only parents such as he, who have financial means, have the ability to send their kids to the school of their choice.
The system traps everyone else. That might be convenient for the bureaucrats, but it is not they who are the primary customer of the public school system!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
$70,000 welfare families
The big news yesterday wasn't that Ted Kulongoski proposed yet another tax (this time an 85 cent hike in cigarette taxes.) No, that is pretty much a weekly event, and is becoming entirely unremarkable as the Governor appears hell-bent on proving Ron Saxton's claim that he is a one-trick tax and spend pony.
No, the real news was in how he proposed using the $150 million or so that he claimed the tax increase would yield: he wants to lure upper-middle class families into depending on state welfare programs.
The Governor proposes to provide free health care for the children of any family making $40,000 or less, and subsidize on a sliding scale families up to $70,000.
Last time I looked, a $70,000 family income was well above the average in Oregon. To suggest that families of this level of income should have direct subsidies from the state reveals an awful lot about Kulongoski's view of the appropriate role of government in a free society.
I hope Ron Saxton uses this opportunity to not just oppose the tax (which he already has) but to also have the philosophical discussion and point out the dramatic difference between he and the Governor in their views on what the state government should be doing.
If I was Ron Saxton I'd be willing to just put it on the line. Place an all-in bet: if Oregonians think families with $70K incomes should be subsidized, vote for Ted. If not, vote for Ron.
Because if a majoirty of Oregonians think such families should be subsidized, then Ron shouldn't want to lead this state anyway - it is beyond hope.
No, the real news was in how he proposed using the $150 million or so that he claimed the tax increase would yield: he wants to lure upper-middle class families into depending on state welfare programs.
The Governor proposes to provide free health care for the children of any family making $40,000 or less, and subsidize on a sliding scale families up to $70,000.
Last time I looked, a $70,000 family income was well above the average in Oregon. To suggest that families of this level of income should have direct subsidies from the state reveals an awful lot about Kulongoski's view of the appropriate role of government in a free society.
I hope Ron Saxton uses this opportunity to not just oppose the tax (which he already has) but to also have the philosophical discussion and point out the dramatic difference between he and the Governor in their views on what the state government should be doing.
If I was Ron Saxton I'd be willing to just put it on the line. Place an all-in bet: if Oregonians think families with $70K incomes should be subsidized, vote for Ted. If not, vote for Ron.
Because if a majoirty of Oregonians think such families should be subsidized, then Ron shouldn't want to lead this state anyway - it is beyond hope.
Monday, September 25, 2006
A whole lotta nerve
In Governor Kulongoski's recent radio and TV ads, he takes bows for Jessica's Law.
What chutzpah! All last session he sat idly by while the Democrat senate majority leader Kate Brown bottled the bill up. Kulongoski did absolutely nothing to get the bill moved out of the senate.
The only reason they passed the bill in the special session was because they wanted to take it off the table for the upcoming election cycle. Signatures were being collected to put it on the ballot, and rather than let Republicans hammer Democrats on the issue during the elections, they made it part of the special session deal (in which Repblicans, as usual, got totally worked.)
So for Ted Kulongoski to make Jessica's law a centerpiece of his very first campaign ad is cynical in the extreme. I hope Ron Saxton jumps all over Teddy on this issue in the debates.
What chutzpah! All last session he sat idly by while the Democrat senate majority leader Kate Brown bottled the bill up. Kulongoski did absolutely nothing to get the bill moved out of the senate.
The only reason they passed the bill in the special session was because they wanted to take it off the table for the upcoming election cycle. Signatures were being collected to put it on the ballot, and rather than let Republicans hammer Democrats on the issue during the elections, they made it part of the special session deal (in which Repblicans, as usual, got totally worked.)
So for Ted Kulongoski to make Jessica's law a centerpiece of his very first campaign ad is cynical in the extreme. I hope Ron Saxton jumps all over Teddy on this issue in the debates.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Saxton has pulled even
Ron Saxton has gained a ton of momentum in the last few weeks. His campaign has zeroed in on what I believe is the winning message: taxes.
Kulongoski is a serial tax hiker, and Ron Saxton will not raise your taxes.
The Kulongiski camp is squealing about Ron's latest TV ads which say Ted supports a sales tax and keeping the kickers. Kulongoski says he is no longer proposing these things so it is unfair for Ron to hang them around his neck.
Sorry, dude. You don't get to run away from positions you took just a few short months ago. It is absolutely fair game for Ron to tell voters that Ted supports a sales tax and keeping the kicker.
The tax issue, I have said for months, is the winner in this race. This election will swing, as usual, on the independent voter. Most independents are fiscal conservatives, but are independent because they are uncomfortable with the social conservative platform of the Republican party. That is why Republican candidates regularly get 45% of the vote while Republican issues such as Measures 37, 38 and 40 get 60%.
Ron Saxton aligns himself directly with this 60% of the voters when he speaks strongly against higher taxes. The voting public is in no mood for higher taxes, but Kulongoski seemingly can't help himself - he keeps proposing new taxes.
Tomorrow should be fun. On the heels of his campaign complaining about Saxton's TV ads, Kulongiski is apparently going to propose a big health care initiative, paid for by a hike in cigarette taxes!
He's trying to change the subject so he can talk about something the D's have an adavantage in, but he proposes a new tax to pay for it? This gives Saxton a perfect avenue to keep the subject on taxes.
"Stop me before I tax again!"
Is it a coincidence that if you spell "Saxton" backwards, it almost spells "no taxes?"
Kulongoski is a serial tax hiker, and Ron Saxton will not raise your taxes.
The Kulongiski camp is squealing about Ron's latest TV ads which say Ted supports a sales tax and keeping the kickers. Kulongoski says he is no longer proposing these things so it is unfair for Ron to hang them around his neck.
Sorry, dude. You don't get to run away from positions you took just a few short months ago. It is absolutely fair game for Ron to tell voters that Ted supports a sales tax and keeping the kicker.
The tax issue, I have said for months, is the winner in this race. This election will swing, as usual, on the independent voter. Most independents are fiscal conservatives, but are independent because they are uncomfortable with the social conservative platform of the Republican party. That is why Republican candidates regularly get 45% of the vote while Republican issues such as Measures 37, 38 and 40 get 60%.
Ron Saxton aligns himself directly with this 60% of the voters when he speaks strongly against higher taxes. The voting public is in no mood for higher taxes, but Kulongoski seemingly can't help himself - he keeps proposing new taxes.
Tomorrow should be fun. On the heels of his campaign complaining about Saxton's TV ads, Kulongiski is apparently going to propose a big health care initiative, paid for by a hike in cigarette taxes!
He's trying to change the subject so he can talk about something the D's have an adavantage in, but he proposes a new tax to pay for it? This gives Saxton a perfect avenue to keep the subject on taxes.
"Stop me before I tax again!"
Is it a coincidence that if you spell "Saxton" backwards, it almost spells "no taxes?"
Friday, September 22, 2006
They simply cannot be parodied
Several years ago I wrote a parody for BrainstormNW Magazine that applied the arguments against abstinence-only sex education to drug education.
I argued, tongue in cheek, that we ought to teach kids how to use drugs safely, because they are going to do it anyway, even if we tell them not to. (This essentially is the argument the "safe sex" advocates use.)
I of course thought I was being absurd. Who would ever support teaching kids how to safely use drugs?
The Oregon Department of Education, that's who.
Hat tip to Daniel at the Daniel's Political Musings blog - the Oregon Department of Education has a very helpful FAQ on AIDS that tells kids where to buy needles and what is the proper concentration of bleach to use when cleaning shared needles.
Below is the parody I wrote back in 2000. I never imagined that they would actually do what I suggested.
Practice Safe Drug Use
In Oregon, schools are rightly required to have an AIDS curriculum in every grade K-12. But Oregon’s AIDS prevention efforts leave a gaping hole that risks the well being of our children.
Many Oregon districts, thankfully, have beat back the groups who insist the schools teach "abstinence only" sex education curriculum. Indeed, it is irresponsible to not teach kids about safe sexual practices, since a good percentage of them will almost certainly be sexually active, despite so-called "abstinence" training.
Denying kids access to good information and the tools to practice safe sex - birth control and disease prevention - will save many unwanted pregnancies -- and many cases of sexually transmitted disease.
This entails teaching kids about the emotional and health risks – as well as the pleasures – of sex. Schools rightly offer non-judgmental counseling for students considering becoming sexually active or considering an abortion, as well as frank classroom discussion about human sexuality and sexual practices. And yes, schools make available condoms.
Denying that kids will be sexually active, or pretending that abstinence-only education will prevent them from doing so, is a head-in-the-sand attempt by a small segment of society to impose its values on everyone else. It does so at the expense of unwanted children, and preventable disease. Ruined lives.
But these AIDS prevention efforts only go halfway. We know for a fact that the vast majority of AIDS infections come from two high risk behaviors, not just one: unprotected sex and shared-needle intravenous drug use.
Educators have shown the political toughness to ignore the "abstinence only" crowd and teach safe sex, but they cling slavishly to an "abstinence-only" (Just Say No!) drug education policy.
They do so at the tragic cost of the spread of preventable AIDS cases.
It is indisputable that a good percentage of kids will experiment with drugs, even with the school telling them to abstain. Pretending we can keep them from doing so is as much a head-in-the-sand approach with drugs as it is with sex.
Denying kids access to good information and the tools to use drugs as safely as possible will save lives, prevent future addictions, and minimize the spread of AIDS from needles.
Yes, as with sex education, this entails teaching kids about various drugs, appropriate dosages, and the effects, the risks –and the pleasures - involved with drug use. As with sex education the schools should offer non-judgmental counseling for students considering using drugs. There should be frank classroom discussion about drug use, and schools should distribute sterile needles for those students who choose to use intravenous drugs.
Why do school officials think they can dissuade kids from taking drugs but not from having sex? Perhaps they just lack the courage - or the intellectual honesty - to apply to drug education the same reasoning they apply to sex.
Or vice versa.
I argued, tongue in cheek, that we ought to teach kids how to use drugs safely, because they are going to do it anyway, even if we tell them not to. (This essentially is the argument the "safe sex" advocates use.)
I of course thought I was being absurd. Who would ever support teaching kids how to safely use drugs?
The Oregon Department of Education, that's who.
Hat tip to Daniel at the Daniel's Political Musings blog - the Oregon Department of Education has a very helpful FAQ on AIDS that tells kids where to buy needles and what is the proper concentration of bleach to use when cleaning shared needles.
Below is the parody I wrote back in 2000. I never imagined that they would actually do what I suggested.
Practice Safe Drug Use
In Oregon, schools are rightly required to have an AIDS curriculum in every grade K-12. But Oregon’s AIDS prevention efforts leave a gaping hole that risks the well being of our children.
Many Oregon districts, thankfully, have beat back the groups who insist the schools teach "abstinence only" sex education curriculum. Indeed, it is irresponsible to not teach kids about safe sexual practices, since a good percentage of them will almost certainly be sexually active, despite so-called "abstinence" training.
Denying kids access to good information and the tools to practice safe sex - birth control and disease prevention - will save many unwanted pregnancies -- and many cases of sexually transmitted disease.
This entails teaching kids about the emotional and health risks – as well as the pleasures – of sex. Schools rightly offer non-judgmental counseling for students considering becoming sexually active or considering an abortion, as well as frank classroom discussion about human sexuality and sexual practices. And yes, schools make available condoms.
Denying that kids will be sexually active, or pretending that abstinence-only education will prevent them from doing so, is a head-in-the-sand attempt by a small segment of society to impose its values on everyone else. It does so at the expense of unwanted children, and preventable disease. Ruined lives.
But these AIDS prevention efforts only go halfway. We know for a fact that the vast majority of AIDS infections come from two high risk behaviors, not just one: unprotected sex and shared-needle intravenous drug use.
Educators have shown the political toughness to ignore the "abstinence only" crowd and teach safe sex, but they cling slavishly to an "abstinence-only" (Just Say No!) drug education policy.
They do so at the tragic cost of the spread of preventable AIDS cases.
It is indisputable that a good percentage of kids will experiment with drugs, even with the school telling them to abstain. Pretending we can keep them from doing so is as much a head-in-the-sand approach with drugs as it is with sex.
Denying kids access to good information and the tools to use drugs as safely as possible will save lives, prevent future addictions, and minimize the spread of AIDS from needles.
Yes, as with sex education, this entails teaching kids about various drugs, appropriate dosages, and the effects, the risks –and the pleasures - involved with drug use. As with sex education the schools should offer non-judgmental counseling for students considering using drugs. There should be frank classroom discussion about drug use, and schools should distribute sterile needles for those students who choose to use intravenous drugs.
Why do school officials think they can dissuade kids from taking drugs but not from having sex? Perhaps they just lack the courage - or the intellectual honesty - to apply to drug education the same reasoning they apply to sex.
Or vice versa.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Does it help the environment if I consume more resources than necessary to avail myself of a product? Of course not - the whole point of conservation is to use the minimum amount of resources possible.
So explain to me why it is considered "earth friendly," or "green" to install hugely cost ineffecient wind or solar systems to produce energy for my home?
The cost of any product reflects the amount of resources that went into producing it. So if an alternative energy system costs more than the energy I can get from the power grid, that means I have HARMED the environment (since I've intentionally used more resources than necessary to produce my electricity) rather than helped it.
Why don't people get this? Do people really not understand economics?
The Oregonian today has a front page article about the trend toward wind and solar systems in homes. They interview homeowners who have installed the systems and even give some thumbnail cost/savings examples.
Of course the entire premise of the more-than-a-full page spread is that installing alternative electricity production systems is environment friendly, and the people who do it are doing their part to save the earth.
Guess what? The exact opposite is true.
Would you invest $23,000 to get $618 per year? If so, please contact me. One of the people profiled in the article installed a wind turbine system for that cost and return. Now, of course, she got $12,000 in subsidies, but even after the subsidies it is a marginal economic return.
But it is the unsubsidized cost of the system that is relevant when we consider the impact on the earth. The cost of the system reflects the resources of the planet involved in producing it. In the final analysis, the bulk of what anything costs is the energy it took to make it.
The wind turbines had to be manufactured, the raw materials mined, grown and fabricated. Transportation, installation - a large part of the cost is energy.
So spending $23,000 in energy to save $618 in energy makes no sense at all, even from an environmental viewpoint.
Nowhere in the Oregonian's big article was the point made that even with the huge subsidies in every one of their profiles the alternative energy system was a bad investment. And they certainly didn't make the point that a bad economic investment means it is also a bad environmental investment.
Take a look at the numbers they gave in their examples:
Wind turbine system:
Cost: $23,208
Subsidy: $12,000
Annual savings: $618
This is a 2.6% return. No rational business would make this investment. Especially since it ignores maintenance and replacement costs.
Even after the $12,000 subsidy the return is a paltry 5.5%.
The other systms profiled in the article were similar - solar systems for electricity, water heating and heat all had 5-6% annual returns after the subsidy, ignoring maintenance and replacement costs.
This is not "green."
But it does allow the owners to significantly increase their "smug coefficients," not to mention their "moral preening" multiplier.
This quote fromthe wind turbine owner:
"I've always worried about things like this more than others," he said. "The point is, even before they run out, supplies will be low, and there will be misery all around -- economic, political, environmental.
"Something has to happen. I haven't seen a lot of movement by government. Why not me?"
I gotta get this guys phone number. I have some investments I want to sell him.
So explain to me why it is considered "earth friendly," or "green" to install hugely cost ineffecient wind or solar systems to produce energy for my home?
The cost of any product reflects the amount of resources that went into producing it. So if an alternative energy system costs more than the energy I can get from the power grid, that means I have HARMED the environment (since I've intentionally used more resources than necessary to produce my electricity) rather than helped it.
Why don't people get this? Do people really not understand economics?
The Oregonian today has a front page article about the trend toward wind and solar systems in homes. They interview homeowners who have installed the systems and even give some thumbnail cost/savings examples.
Of course the entire premise of the more-than-a-full page spread is that installing alternative electricity production systems is environment friendly, and the people who do it are doing their part to save the earth.
Guess what? The exact opposite is true.
Would you invest $23,000 to get $618 per year? If so, please contact me. One of the people profiled in the article installed a wind turbine system for that cost and return. Now, of course, she got $12,000 in subsidies, but even after the subsidies it is a marginal economic return.
But it is the unsubsidized cost of the system that is relevant when we consider the impact on the earth. The cost of the system reflects the resources of the planet involved in producing it. In the final analysis, the bulk of what anything costs is the energy it took to make it.
The wind turbines had to be manufactured, the raw materials mined, grown and fabricated. Transportation, installation - a large part of the cost is energy.
So spending $23,000 in energy to save $618 in energy makes no sense at all, even from an environmental viewpoint.
Nowhere in the Oregonian's big article was the point made that even with the huge subsidies in every one of their profiles the alternative energy system was a bad investment. And they certainly didn't make the point that a bad economic investment means it is also a bad environmental investment.
Take a look at the numbers they gave in their examples:
Wind turbine system:
Cost: $23,208
Subsidy: $12,000
Annual savings: $618
This is a 2.6% return. No rational business would make this investment. Especially since it ignores maintenance and replacement costs.
Even after the $12,000 subsidy the return is a paltry 5.5%.
The other systms profiled in the article were similar - solar systems for electricity, water heating and heat all had 5-6% annual returns after the subsidy, ignoring maintenance and replacement costs.
This is not "green."
But it does allow the owners to significantly increase their "smug coefficients," not to mention their "moral preening" multiplier.
This quote fromthe wind turbine owner:
"I've always worried about things like this more than others," he said. "The point is, even before they run out, supplies will be low, and there will be misery all around -- economic, political, environmental.
"Something has to happen. I haven't seen a lot of movement by government. Why not me?"
I gotta get this guys phone number. I have some investments I want to sell him.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The beginning of the end for Fuzzy Math?
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has made an abrupt about face in its recommendations for how math should be taught.
The NCTM, since 1989, has been the nations most influential advocate of "New, New Math," or "Fuzzy Math." If you have kids who have gone through Oregon's public school system, you've seen it. I've written about it here and here.
The philosophy of New New Math is that kids shouldn't be directly taught and drilled in math facts, but rather should strive for higher conceptual understanding of math by figuring stuff out for themselves. This of course sounds stupid to anybody with half a brain, but apparently that excludes most math curriculum experts in the public school system.
This philosphy of math education, which Oregon has totally adopted, results in so-called math "standards," such as this one from Oregon's fifth grade standards:
"Develop and evaluate strategies for computing with decimals and fractions"
What kind of standard is this? Why would we want our fifth graders to be developing strategies for computing with decimals? Don't we already know what the best "strategies" are for adding and subtracting decimals?
I always thought it was the job of the teacher to know what the best strategies are, and to teach these strategies to the kids. But no, not in the world of "New, New math." These days the 10 year olds are perfectly capable of not only developing their own personal strategies for working with decimals, but they can evaluate them as well. This is the kind of nonsense that results from New New Math.
When the NCTM came out with their first "Math Standards" document in 1989, it was welcomed by the math teaching establishment and the education bureaucracy who were on the cusp of the Goals 2000 "standards" movement. It immediately touched off a backlash that became known as the "math wars."
Goals 2000 gave federal money to states to develop standards based on national criteria. The NCTM's standards became the de-facto national criteria, even though the NCTM itself admitted that they had never been tested empirically.
But the recommendations happened to completely jive with the progressive mindset of math educators nationwide (as opposed to college math professors, who roundly rejected the NCTM philosophy.) The math education priesthood proceeded to codify the NCTM philosophy in state math standards and create new curriculum programs based on it.
Most school districts in Oregon use one or another variant of it. Oregon's standards clearly reflect the philosophy.
Now, 15 years later, the NCTM is saying "We were wrong!"
After destroying a generation of math students, my daughter included, I am not too willing to just forgive them and say "welcome to the real world." I suppose it is a good thing that they have seen the error in their ways, but I wonder why they have any credibility in the first place.
Who from the NCTM is going to stand up and take the blame for leading the nation down a 15 year long bunny trail of math failure?
We all know the answer: being in the public education bureaucracy means never having to say you're accountable.
The NCTM, since 1989, has been the nations most influential advocate of "New, New Math," or "Fuzzy Math." If you have kids who have gone through Oregon's public school system, you've seen it. I've written about it here and here.
The philosophy of New New Math is that kids shouldn't be directly taught and drilled in math facts, but rather should strive for higher conceptual understanding of math by figuring stuff out for themselves. This of course sounds stupid to anybody with half a brain, but apparently that excludes most math curriculum experts in the public school system.
This philosphy of math education, which Oregon has totally adopted, results in so-called math "standards," such as this one from Oregon's fifth grade standards:
"Develop and evaluate strategies for computing with decimals and fractions"
What kind of standard is this? Why would we want our fifth graders to be developing strategies for computing with decimals? Don't we already know what the best "strategies" are for adding and subtracting decimals?
I always thought it was the job of the teacher to know what the best strategies are, and to teach these strategies to the kids. But no, not in the world of "New, New math." These days the 10 year olds are perfectly capable of not only developing their own personal strategies for working with decimals, but they can evaluate them as well. This is the kind of nonsense that results from New New Math.
When the NCTM came out with their first "Math Standards" document in 1989, it was welcomed by the math teaching establishment and the education bureaucracy who were on the cusp of the Goals 2000 "standards" movement. It immediately touched off a backlash that became known as the "math wars."
Goals 2000 gave federal money to states to develop standards based on national criteria. The NCTM's standards became the de-facto national criteria, even though the NCTM itself admitted that they had never been tested empirically.
But the recommendations happened to completely jive with the progressive mindset of math educators nationwide (as opposed to college math professors, who roundly rejected the NCTM philosophy.) The math education priesthood proceeded to codify the NCTM philosophy in state math standards and create new curriculum programs based on it.
Most school districts in Oregon use one or another variant of it. Oregon's standards clearly reflect the philosophy.
Now, 15 years later, the NCTM is saying "We were wrong!"
After destroying a generation of math students, my daughter included, I am not too willing to just forgive them and say "welcome to the real world." I suppose it is a good thing that they have seen the error in their ways, but I wonder why they have any credibility in the first place.
Who from the NCTM is going to stand up and take the blame for leading the nation down a 15 year long bunny trail of math failure?
We all know the answer: being in the public education bureaucracy means never having to say you're accountable.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Oregon Department of Education again tries to kill Connections Academy
What do educrats and teachers unions hate more than anything? A successful school they do not control.
That explains why the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) is for the second time trying to kill the Oregon Connections Academy charter school. (ORCA) The Oregonian and others wrote about it yesterday.
Here's the background:
In 2005, I helped the Scio School District establish the first virtual charter school in the state. The program is innovative - it is a home based charter school that is a great option for kids who for whatever reason don't respond well to a traditional classroom-based school.
Before the school could even open, the ODE tried to kill it by sponsoring SB1071 in the 2005 legislature. The bill did two things: 1) It required any virtual charter school to get half its kids from inside the sponsoring school district, which would have killed ORCA immediately; and 2) it gave the ODE $2 million to start its own virtual school!
Well, we barely survived the attack. We couldn't stop the bill, but we got the legislative record to establish that the legislature voted for it with the understanding that ORCA would be grandfathered, since it was approved before the bill passed.
One wonders why the ODE needed $2 million to do what tiny Scio School District was able to do for nothing. Staffers at ODE were never required to answer that simple question - the bill passed only because it became part of the end of session package.
So ORCA opened in the fall of 2005 with 700 students from all over the state. They had so many applications that they closed the enrollment. This school year they opened with 1200 students.
I knew at the time it would only be a matter of time before they tried again to kill ORCA. They simply cannot allow something as large and threatening as a virtual charter school that doesn't use unionized teachers and has an education model dramatically different from the rest of the schools to survive.
Sure enough, last week they made their move. On the day that school was set to begin, ORCA received a letter from the ODE that notified them thet state was freezing their funds because their application process, according to the state, was illegal according to Oregon's charter law.
The state had an advisory letter from the Attorney General's office that took issue with ORCA's requirement that each child have a "Learning Coach," who is responsible for certain oversight functions for the student. The state's position is that this requirement constitutes discrimination, since not all families are "willing or able" to provide the Learning Coach.
This opinion is patently ridiculous, because by the same "logic," a charter school couldn't require a family to provide transportation to the school, because some families would not be "willing and able" to drive long distances to attend. So to comply with the AG's advice, a charter would have to provide transportation to any student in the state who wants to go to the school. Absurd.
All the bureaucrats at the ODE are saying that they are sure this issue can be "worked out," and they are not trying close down ORCA, only make sure it follows the law.
Yeah sure. And I suppose that SB 1071 wasn't really an attempt to close the school either, right? We are supposed to believe that they are operating in good faith when they unilaterally decide that an enrollment criteria that has existed for more than a year is not legal, then they shut off funding the day school starts for 1200 students, with total disregard for the effect their action would have on the kids?
These people are our state education officials! It is simply astounding how little they actually care about the kids they are supposedly in charge of serving.
And I love their objection: ORCA requires parent involvement! I thought they LIKED parent involvement! I guess not if they can use it as a basis to harrass a school they want to kill.
Unbelievable. We will fight this, because we have to send a signal to every bureaucrat that they are not going to get away with pulling this kind of crap.
That explains why the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) is for the second time trying to kill the Oregon Connections Academy charter school. (ORCA) The Oregonian and others wrote about it yesterday.
Here's the background:
In 2005, I helped the Scio School District establish the first virtual charter school in the state. The program is innovative - it is a home based charter school that is a great option for kids who for whatever reason don't respond well to a traditional classroom-based school.
Before the school could even open, the ODE tried to kill it by sponsoring SB1071 in the 2005 legislature. The bill did two things: 1) It required any virtual charter school to get half its kids from inside the sponsoring school district, which would have killed ORCA immediately; and 2) it gave the ODE $2 million to start its own virtual school!
Well, we barely survived the attack. We couldn't stop the bill, but we got the legislative record to establish that the legislature voted for it with the understanding that ORCA would be grandfathered, since it was approved before the bill passed.
One wonders why the ODE needed $2 million to do what tiny Scio School District was able to do for nothing. Staffers at ODE were never required to answer that simple question - the bill passed only because it became part of the end of session package.
So ORCA opened in the fall of 2005 with 700 students from all over the state. They had so many applications that they closed the enrollment. This school year they opened with 1200 students.
I knew at the time it would only be a matter of time before they tried again to kill ORCA. They simply cannot allow something as large and threatening as a virtual charter school that doesn't use unionized teachers and has an education model dramatically different from the rest of the schools to survive.
Sure enough, last week they made their move. On the day that school was set to begin, ORCA received a letter from the ODE that notified them thet state was freezing their funds because their application process, according to the state, was illegal according to Oregon's charter law.
The state had an advisory letter from the Attorney General's office that took issue with ORCA's requirement that each child have a "Learning Coach," who is responsible for certain oversight functions for the student. The state's position is that this requirement constitutes discrimination, since not all families are "willing or able" to provide the Learning Coach.
This opinion is patently ridiculous, because by the same "logic," a charter school couldn't require a family to provide transportation to the school, because some families would not be "willing and able" to drive long distances to attend. So to comply with the AG's advice, a charter would have to provide transportation to any student in the state who wants to go to the school. Absurd.
All the bureaucrats at the ODE are saying that they are sure this issue can be "worked out," and they are not trying close down ORCA, only make sure it follows the law.
Yeah sure. And I suppose that SB 1071 wasn't really an attempt to close the school either, right? We are supposed to believe that they are operating in good faith when they unilaterally decide that an enrollment criteria that has existed for more than a year is not legal, then they shut off funding the day school starts for 1200 students, with total disregard for the effect their action would have on the kids?
These people are our state education officials! It is simply astounding how little they actually care about the kids they are supposedly in charge of serving.
And I love their objection: ORCA requires parent involvement! I thought they LIKED parent involvement! I guess not if they can use it as a basis to harrass a school they want to kill.
Unbelievable. We will fight this, because we have to send a signal to every bureaucrat that they are not going to get away with pulling this kind of crap.
Friday, September 08, 2006
My Daughter, the light of my life
Today is my daughter Jessica's 18th birthday.
All the cliche's about how fast it all goes most certainly apply, but I won't bore anybody with them. Instead, I'll indulge myself by describing her.
She is certainly beautiful. She is also talented. She has a professional quality voice - if you attended either of the last two KXL "Talk Fests" you heard her sing the National Anthem or God Bless America.
She is very smart. She works hard in school and gets good grades.
But to really describe Jessica, I have to talk about her spirit. Anybody who knows her will attest - she has the most incredible inner beauty, warm, loving and caring.
Another cliche of parenthood is the nightmare of bringing up a teenage daughter. No such nightmare in our home. Jessica decided years ago that she was going to make it easy on us.
For that, of course, I am thankful. But mostly I am thankful for the person she is. I've learned so much from her. She thinks of me as her teacher and mentor in many things, but what she doesn't know is how much she has taught me.
She's 18 now, and I am madly in love the adult she has become.
Thanks for indulging me.
All the cliche's about how fast it all goes most certainly apply, but I won't bore anybody with them. Instead, I'll indulge myself by describing her.
She is certainly beautiful. She is also talented. She has a professional quality voice - if you attended either of the last two KXL "Talk Fests" you heard her sing the National Anthem or God Bless America.
She is very smart. She works hard in school and gets good grades.
But to really describe Jessica, I have to talk about her spirit. Anybody who knows her will attest - she has the most incredible inner beauty, warm, loving and caring.
Another cliche of parenthood is the nightmare of bringing up a teenage daughter. No such nightmare in our home. Jessica decided years ago that she was going to make it easy on us.
For that, of course, I am thankful. But mostly I am thankful for the person she is. I've learned so much from her. She thinks of me as her teacher and mentor in many things, but what she doesn't know is how much she has taught me.
She's 18 now, and I am madly in love the adult she has become.
Thanks for indulging me.
Children's Bill of Entitlements
This is my BrainstormNW column this month, just hit the streets:
You may have read the glowing newspaper accounts: “Portland children write own bill of rights.” On the cutting edge again, Portland is “the first major U.S. city to have a children's bill of rights written by the very people it affects.”
But if you look into what this so-called Bill of Rights says, and the way in which it came about, you’d be as disturbed as me.
The effort was led by Portland Mayor Tom Potter’s office. The idea was to assemble a convention of hundreds of school age kids, and lead them through a process in which they would decide what their “rights” were, produce a resolution that spells them out, and have the city council vote to adopt them.
We are apparently supposed to believe that the end product these several hundred kids produced - a manifesto which would make Karl Marx proud – was all their own work, and not influenced by the ideology of the adults who ran the convention.
So, what did the kids decide they had a “right” to? You’ll be shocked to learn that they staked a petulant claim to every nanny-state benefit ever devised:
- “We have the right to access adequate nutrition, and the community should provide for this right.”
- “We have the right to any medical care, nutrition, and fitness deemed necessary for our health.”
- “We have the inherent right to shelter.”
And on and on it goes. Nowhere is the word “parent” mentioned in the document, and the word “family” appears only in passing. In sum, it is simply a demand for cradle-to-grave socialism.
To be expected from children, I suppose. After all, kids want to be taken care of. But there were adults in the room too. Apparently, whatever adults were present didn’t understand the first thing about the definition of “rights.” Most liberals don’t.
The original Bill of Rights were limitations on government power. Each and every one spelled out things the government could not do to an individual. Our founders properly understood the meaning of the word “rights” – those inherent freedoms that government cannot take from you.
But Mayor Tom Potter and his staff, and the entire Portland city council (since they voted unanimously to support the document) turn the meaning of the word “rights” on its head. In their world view, rights are not something the government can’t take from you, but rather are things the government must do for you.
But anything government gives to one person must first be taken from another. If rights are benefits that must be granted, it requires someone else’s rights to be taken away. It’s contradictory. Properly understood, rights cannot be government benefits.
The French enlightenment philosopher De Montesquieu wrote that "The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded."
The concept of individual rights is the central organizing principle of our society and our system of government. It is the foundation of our freedoms. It should be the job of every government entity to protect the meaning of “rights” and be vigilant to defend the decay of that meaning.
But now we have government officials actively involved in promoting that decay, taking hundreds of children by hand and leading them down a path to a conclusion based on a flawed understanding of the most important founding principle of our nation.
Imagine the teachable moment that was missed in this childrens’ “convention.” Imagine had they spent the first few sessions teaching the kids the true meaning of the word “rights.” Imagine had they explained to these impressionable minds that everything they want the government to give them had to be first taken from someone else. Well, then the “Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of the City of Portland and Multnomah County” might not have looked as if it were written by Karl Marx himself.
Of course, that would assume there were real adults in the room.
You may have read the glowing newspaper accounts: “Portland children write own bill of rights.” On the cutting edge again, Portland is “the first major U.S. city to have a children's bill of rights written by the very people it affects.”
But if you look into what this so-called Bill of Rights says, and the way in which it came about, you’d be as disturbed as me.
The effort was led by Portland Mayor Tom Potter’s office. The idea was to assemble a convention of hundreds of school age kids, and lead them through a process in which they would decide what their “rights” were, produce a resolution that spells them out, and have the city council vote to adopt them.
We are apparently supposed to believe that the end product these several hundred kids produced - a manifesto which would make Karl Marx proud – was all their own work, and not influenced by the ideology of the adults who ran the convention.
So, what did the kids decide they had a “right” to? You’ll be shocked to learn that they staked a petulant claim to every nanny-state benefit ever devised:
- “We have the right to access adequate nutrition, and the community should provide for this right.”
- “We have the right to any medical care, nutrition, and fitness deemed necessary for our health.”
- “We have the inherent right to shelter.”
And on and on it goes. Nowhere is the word “parent” mentioned in the document, and the word “family” appears only in passing. In sum, it is simply a demand for cradle-to-grave socialism.
To be expected from children, I suppose. After all, kids want to be taken care of. But there were adults in the room too. Apparently, whatever adults were present didn’t understand the first thing about the definition of “rights.” Most liberals don’t.
The original Bill of Rights were limitations on government power. Each and every one spelled out things the government could not do to an individual. Our founders properly understood the meaning of the word “rights” – those inherent freedoms that government cannot take from you.
But Mayor Tom Potter and his staff, and the entire Portland city council (since they voted unanimously to support the document) turn the meaning of the word “rights” on its head. In their world view, rights are not something the government can’t take from you, but rather are things the government must do for you.
But anything government gives to one person must first be taken from another. If rights are benefits that must be granted, it requires someone else’s rights to be taken away. It’s contradictory. Properly understood, rights cannot be government benefits.
The French enlightenment philosopher De Montesquieu wrote that "The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded."
The concept of individual rights is the central organizing principle of our society and our system of government. It is the foundation of our freedoms. It should be the job of every government entity to protect the meaning of “rights” and be vigilant to defend the decay of that meaning.
But now we have government officials actively involved in promoting that decay, taking hundreds of children by hand and leading them down a path to a conclusion based on a flawed understanding of the most important founding principle of our nation.
Imagine the teachable moment that was missed in this childrens’ “convention.” Imagine had they spent the first few sessions teaching the kids the true meaning of the word “rights.” Imagine had they explained to these impressionable minds that everything they want the government to give them had to be first taken from someone else. Well, then the “Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of the City of Portland and Multnomah County” might not have looked as if it were written by Karl Marx himself.
Of course, that would assume there were real adults in the room.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Saxton on the Kicker
Depsite what you might have read in the Oregonian, Ron Saxton does not support keeping the kicker. Not the personal kicker OR the corporate kicker.
His campaign staff last week erroneously made the statement that the corporate kicker was "on the table" as a way of creating a rainy day fund. That is not Saxton's position.
When I read the quote in the Oregonian last week I was concerned, because I think Ron's route to victory is to constantly point out that Kulongoski is a one trick pony - for every problem, he tries to raise taxes. Five times since he ran for governor saying "I do not define leadership as raising taxes," he has advocated raising taxes.
But I talked with Felix Schein today. Saxton does not support keeping either kicker.
If you are worried about Republicans trying to grab the kicker, a better focus for your angst might be the Republican House leadership, who for months have been hinting behind the scenes that they would support taking the corporate kicker.
But Ron Saxton does not.
His campaign staff last week erroneously made the statement that the corporate kicker was "on the table" as a way of creating a rainy day fund. That is not Saxton's position.
When I read the quote in the Oregonian last week I was concerned, because I think Ron's route to victory is to constantly point out that Kulongoski is a one trick pony - for every problem, he tries to raise taxes. Five times since he ran for governor saying "I do not define leadership as raising taxes," he has advocated raising taxes.
But I talked with Felix Schein today. Saxton does not support keeping either kicker.
If you are worried about Republicans trying to grab the kicker, a better focus for your angst might be the Republican House leadership, who for months have been hinting behind the scenes that they would support taking the corporate kicker.
But Ron Saxton does not.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Miscellaneous
It's been a week or so since I've posted, and have a few unconnected topics to comment upon.
1) Mary Starrett. Her apology to Kelly Clark was backhanded at best. In the text of her apology she basically called him a sexist and accused him of being part of a "mob." Kelly, always gracious, unconditionally accepted her apology. But that doesn't change the fact that she used it to take another swipe at him.
2) Murray Hill Little League at the World Series. I am a big fan of youth baseball. My son went through the Lake Oswego Little League, then the Junior Baseball of Oregon program, and now plays at LO High. Murray Hill0 is L.O.'s arch-rival in the District 4 All-Star tournament.
Most every year, it seems, the 15 or 16 team District 4 tournament comes down to a Murray Hill vs. Lake Oswego final. Most every year Murray Hill wins, and then goes on to win the state tournament, which qualifies them for the regional tournament in San Bernadino.
This year for the first time Murray Hill won the regional to get to the World Series.
Hard as it is to root for your arch-rival, I hope they win the whole thing. They have played great, won by coming back with their backs against the wall - much like the OSU Beavers did in the college world series.
Wouldn't it be something to have both the college and Little League world series champs be right here from Oregon?
Oregon - the new baseball capital of the world!
3) I think it is important to understand the depth of the hatred our terrorist enemies hold for America. The Muslim religious extremists who want death to America are not a fringe group in the middle east. It is more and more a mainstream attitude, fed by their popular culture and their societal institutions such as the schools.
Take a look at this video which shows Nazi-like youth indoctrination camps and tens of thousands of Hezbollah followers chanting "death to America." Then look at this video in which two beautiful, poised and articulate Palestinian 12 year olds explain to a questioner why they love the idea of "Shahada."
This is a clash of civilizations. We have to understand that this isn't just a few radical extemist muslim terrorists who are pissed off at America because we support Israel. Rather, we are at war with a culture that views us as evil and wants to eradicate us. That is a much tougher - and longer - war to win.
4) Judge's decision on the NSA wiretapping. Read Dave Reinhard's column about it in the Oregonian today. The fact that the judge would "forget" to mention a FISA court opinion that spoke directly to this kind of surveillance says it all.
5) School stuff: Clackamas Superintendent Ron Naso is going to get an additional $25,000 "stipend" because he has taken up the slack for the duties of the assistant superintendent who left last year. Apparently he didn't ask for the money, but the district board gave it to him anyway. Kudos to Board member Lee Remmick, who was the only no vote.
This is just outrageous. Naso is near retirement, and that little $25K bump in his salary is going to show up forever in his PERS benefits calculation. Taxpayers get screwed again.
Kudos to Sherwood School District, which has decided to increase its own academic achievement targets because the state's assessments are too easy, especially at the elementary levels. They are discarding the state's "meets standard/exceeds standard" measure because they know the level of test score the state deems sufficient to meet standard is way too low. So they say they want at least 95% of their kids to be at or above the 55th percentile in test score.
This is a REAL learning goal, and one that cannot be faked by low "passing" scores. Good for them.
1) Mary Starrett. Her apology to Kelly Clark was backhanded at best. In the text of her apology she basically called him a sexist and accused him of being part of a "mob." Kelly, always gracious, unconditionally accepted her apology. But that doesn't change the fact that she used it to take another swipe at him.
2) Murray Hill Little League at the World Series. I am a big fan of youth baseball. My son went through the Lake Oswego Little League, then the Junior Baseball of Oregon program, and now plays at LO High. Murray Hill0 is L.O.'s arch-rival in the District 4 All-Star tournament.
Most every year, it seems, the 15 or 16 team District 4 tournament comes down to a Murray Hill vs. Lake Oswego final. Most every year Murray Hill wins, and then goes on to win the state tournament, which qualifies them for the regional tournament in San Bernadino.
This year for the first time Murray Hill won the regional to get to the World Series.
Hard as it is to root for your arch-rival, I hope they win the whole thing. They have played great, won by coming back with their backs against the wall - much like the OSU Beavers did in the college world series.
Wouldn't it be something to have both the college and Little League world series champs be right here from Oregon?
Oregon - the new baseball capital of the world!
3) I think it is important to understand the depth of the hatred our terrorist enemies hold for America. The Muslim religious extremists who want death to America are not a fringe group in the middle east. It is more and more a mainstream attitude, fed by their popular culture and their societal institutions such as the schools.
Take a look at this video which shows Nazi-like youth indoctrination camps and tens of thousands of Hezbollah followers chanting "death to America." Then look at this video in which two beautiful, poised and articulate Palestinian 12 year olds explain to a questioner why they love the idea of "Shahada."
This is a clash of civilizations. We have to understand that this isn't just a few radical extemist muslim terrorists who are pissed off at America because we support Israel. Rather, we are at war with a culture that views us as evil and wants to eradicate us. That is a much tougher - and longer - war to win.
4) Judge's decision on the NSA wiretapping. Read Dave Reinhard's column about it in the Oregonian today. The fact that the judge would "forget" to mention a FISA court opinion that spoke directly to this kind of surveillance says it all.
5) School stuff: Clackamas Superintendent Ron Naso is going to get an additional $25,000 "stipend" because he has taken up the slack for the duties of the assistant superintendent who left last year. Apparently he didn't ask for the money, but the district board gave it to him anyway. Kudos to Board member Lee Remmick, who was the only no vote.
This is just outrageous. Naso is near retirement, and that little $25K bump in his salary is going to show up forever in his PERS benefits calculation. Taxpayers get screwed again.
Kudos to Sherwood School District, which has decided to increase its own academic achievement targets because the state's assessments are too easy, especially at the elementary levels. They are discarding the state's "meets standard/exceeds standard" measure because they know the level of test score the state deems sufficient to meet standard is way too low. So they say they want at least 95% of their kids to be at or above the 55th percentile in test score.
This is a REAL learning goal, and one that cannot be faked by low "passing" scores. Good for them.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Bravo Dwight Jaynes
If you haven't already seen it, you HAVE to go read Dwight Jaynes' column in the Tribune today.
I was going to quote it here and develop some of his points, but really, it wouldn't add a thing.
Just go read it.
I was going to quote it here and develop some of his points, but really, it wouldn't add a thing.
Just go read it.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Great example of anti-growth attitude
Today's lead editorial in the Oregonian gives us a primo example of an attitude common among a good deal of Oregon's socio-cultural "leaders:" an almost hysterical opposition to wealth creation and economic productivity.
The Oregonian editors think they found the poster child they were seeking that would get us to agree with them that Measure 37 would have all sorts of bad consequences. Their example: a guy who owns 157 acres near Bend, inside of the Newberry National Volcanic Monument. He wants to mine some of the pumice on his acreage, build 100 homes and a geothermal power plant. His claim is for $203 million, or just let him develop the land.
The editorial's tone presumes that readers will think this is an outrageous consequence of Measure 37, apparently because his land lies within this national monument, or because of the size of the claim. But I read it and thought: "Wow, $200 million in wealth created because of Measure 37!"
The Oregonian says Measure 37 is a "terrible law" that is simply "triggering a high-stakes development bonanza."
In the Oregonians' universe, a development bonanza is a bad thing. People who want to use natural resources to create wealth are to be viewed with suspicion, as if they are doing something immoral.
The editorial even explains that the landowner's purchase predated when the area was identified as a "monument," and that this fact is what allows him to argue that his rights to develop the property should trump the environmental restrictions that were placed on it.
Well, duh! This is precisely what Measure 37 was intended to do! Apparently the Oregonian thinks it is A-OK for the public to just screw a landowner if it wants to protect "the public's interest in preserving the uniqueness" of his property. Sorry, buddy, your 157 acres are now worthless to you because we really really like looking at your property, and if you develop it, we won't get to enjoy it as much.
The Oregonian frets that "Measure 37 has strengthened his hand, multiplied his price, intensified pressure on the county -- and made it less likely that the public's interest will be served."
"The public's interest." When liberals say these words, you know somebody is gunna get screwed. The issue here is the age old divide in world view that is at core the difference between liberals and conservatives: individual rights vs. collective rights.
For liberals, the collective always trumps the individual. If the collective (the public interest) wants your property, it gets to take it. The assumption is that this "public interest" is some kind of organic, knowable element. In truth, it is simply an expression of political power by whoever currently prevails in the current day political institutions.
For the Oregonian, in this case, the "public interest" is that the Newberry Volcanic Monument be untouched. If that means this landowner is in effect forced to donate his land for this purpose, so be it. It doesn't strike them as unfair that individuals have to pay for something that supposedly benefits the "public."
In fact, it strikes them as horribly unfair that the public should be required to pay for things that are in the "public interest," which is what Measure 37 does. In their world view, this "pays people to obey the community's rules."
In other words, there should be no restraint on the "rules" the "public" (read: the land use planners inside any municipality) can apply to your property. Whatever rules they layer on, you just have to obey. If the rule requires a 200 foot setback from a ditch that means you can't build on your property, tough luck. If the rule is an environmental overlay that prevents you from adding on to your house, tough luck.
The "public" should not be forced to pay for the private cost of the rules. That is unfair to the public.
In the collectivist mind, individuals have no property rights.
Ask a liberal this question: What is more important - property rights or free speech rights?
I guarantee you he will answer "free speech." Interesting.
The Oregonian editors think they found the poster child they were seeking that would get us to agree with them that Measure 37 would have all sorts of bad consequences. Their example: a guy who owns 157 acres near Bend, inside of the Newberry National Volcanic Monument. He wants to mine some of the pumice on his acreage, build 100 homes and a geothermal power plant. His claim is for $203 million, or just let him develop the land.
The editorial's tone presumes that readers will think this is an outrageous consequence of Measure 37, apparently because his land lies within this national monument, or because of the size of the claim. But I read it and thought: "Wow, $200 million in wealth created because of Measure 37!"
The Oregonian says Measure 37 is a "terrible law" that is simply "triggering a high-stakes development bonanza."
In the Oregonians' universe, a development bonanza is a bad thing. People who want to use natural resources to create wealth are to be viewed with suspicion, as if they are doing something immoral.
The editorial even explains that the landowner's purchase predated when the area was identified as a "monument," and that this fact is what allows him to argue that his rights to develop the property should trump the environmental restrictions that were placed on it.
Well, duh! This is precisely what Measure 37 was intended to do! Apparently the Oregonian thinks it is A-OK for the public to just screw a landowner if it wants to protect "the public's interest in preserving the uniqueness" of his property. Sorry, buddy, your 157 acres are now worthless to you because we really really like looking at your property, and if you develop it, we won't get to enjoy it as much.
The Oregonian frets that "Measure 37 has strengthened his hand, multiplied his price, intensified pressure on the county -- and made it less likely that the public's interest will be served."
"The public's interest." When liberals say these words, you know somebody is gunna get screwed. The issue here is the age old divide in world view that is at core the difference between liberals and conservatives: individual rights vs. collective rights.
For liberals, the collective always trumps the individual. If the collective (the public interest) wants your property, it gets to take it. The assumption is that this "public interest" is some kind of organic, knowable element. In truth, it is simply an expression of political power by whoever currently prevails in the current day political institutions.
For the Oregonian, in this case, the "public interest" is that the Newberry Volcanic Monument be untouched. If that means this landowner is in effect forced to donate his land for this purpose, so be it. It doesn't strike them as unfair that individuals have to pay for something that supposedly benefits the "public."
In fact, it strikes them as horribly unfair that the public should be required to pay for things that are in the "public interest," which is what Measure 37 does. In their world view, this "pays people to obey the community's rules."
In other words, there should be no restraint on the "rules" the "public" (read: the land use planners inside any municipality) can apply to your property. Whatever rules they layer on, you just have to obey. If the rule requires a 200 foot setback from a ditch that means you can't build on your property, tough luck. If the rule is an environmental overlay that prevents you from adding on to your house, tough luck.
The "public" should not be forced to pay for the private cost of the rules. That is unfair to the public.
In the collectivist mind, individuals have no property rights.
Ask a liberal this question: What is more important - property rights or free speech rights?
I guarantee you he will answer "free speech." Interesting.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
They say the Oregon rain will get you down
If you are a native Oregonian and my age (46) or older, then you probably remember the song "Oregon" that became a national hit in the mid 1970's.
You will probably also vaguely remember the story behind that song: it was about the longing for home of a young Coos Bay woman who was sentenced to a life term in Turkey for possession of hashish.
The song burned itself into my memory when I was in high school, partly because of its very rhythmic and plaintive tone, and partly because of the compelling story behind it.
The other day for some reason the tune popped into my mind. It was amazing how much of it I could still remember: every word of the very catchy chorus and a good bit of the verses. I got curious: whatever happened to the young Oregon woman?
Was she still rotting in a Turkish prison?
The wonders of Google - I did a search on one phrase from the song that I remembered: "They say the Oregon rain will get you down ..." and immediately found what I was looking for. One of the musicians who wrote and produced the song, a fellow named Bill Coleman who now lives in
Woodburn, has a section of his website devoted to the song and the story.
Turns out the woman, Jo Ann McDaniels, returned to the U.S. in 1980 in a prisoner exchange with Turkey, and was then almost immediately parolled by the U.S., getting her freedom after six years in prison. Just prior to coming back to the states she married Bob Hubbard, who was imprisoned along with her. Coleman saw her in 1980 when she came to thank him.
On his website, Coleman talks about how they wrote and produced the song, never expecting that it would turn into a nationwide hit. Profits from the song they contributed to Jo Ann McDaniel.
I wondered: where is she now? I did some more googling, but could find basically nothing since her return in 1980.
I contacted Mr. Coleman and asked. I got this e-mail in reply:
Rob;
I can't tell you how many emails I've received with almost exactly the same statement ... how the song kept roaming around an individual's mind until they decided to "google" it to find out about poor JoAnn.
Yeah, her where abouts is as much a mystery to me as it is to you. She paid me a visit at my home in 1980 shortly after our initial meeting at the Hindquarter restaurant in Salem. She and Bob Hubbard spoke about maybe settling in Southern Oregon ... purchasing a mobile home with the $10K they received from a publisher as an advance on a book they were to write about their experiences.
I saw nothing of the book, nor did I ever hear from JoAnn again.Frankly, it would not surpise me at all if they returned to Turkey, or somewhere in the middle east.
Their homecoming to America, after spending nine years in a Turkish prison, was fraught with an extreme case of future shock and they didn't seem to be adjusting well to the "America" that had developed since their arrest. You understand, they had never seen an ATM machine; a compact disk; had no clue how to operate a computer; never seen email; never spoke on a cell phone; had no clue of John Travolta and Saturday Night Fever; and missed out on a literally hundreds of other conveniences that we daily take for granted.
In that relatively short span of time the baby boomer generation had all gone from irresponsible "hippies" to family oriented "thirty somethings" ..... all, except for JoAnn and Bob. They still dressed and spoke like "hippies" ... it was as if they has stepped out of a time capsule .... like lost children playing grown up, they wandered through that day with little or nothing in common with the America they had returned to.
They were, in all honesty, like ghosts from the past, and they felt very uncomfortable in this future world. During her visit, she couldn't say enough about how much she loved the middle east and, we discussed at length the very real possibility of their returning to Turkey permanently. Perhaps they did ... it would not surprise me in the least.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps you'll find her one day, and can ask her yourself. When you do, tell her I miss her too.
Sincerely;Bill Coleman
Blackhawk County
PS: Thanks for remembering "Oregon" ... pass it along to your friends.
What an interesting story. Go to the web site and dowload the song - Mr. Coleman encourages it. If you grew up here, I guarantee you that listening to the song will bring memories of the 1970's flooding back.
You will probably also vaguely remember the story behind that song: it was about the longing for home of a young Coos Bay woman who was sentenced to a life term in Turkey for possession of hashish.
The song burned itself into my memory when I was in high school, partly because of its very rhythmic and plaintive tone, and partly because of the compelling story behind it.
The other day for some reason the tune popped into my mind. It was amazing how much of it I could still remember: every word of the very catchy chorus and a good bit of the verses. I got curious: whatever happened to the young Oregon woman?
Was she still rotting in a Turkish prison?
The wonders of Google - I did a search on one phrase from the song that I remembered: "They say the Oregon rain will get you down ..." and immediately found what I was looking for. One of the musicians who wrote and produced the song, a fellow named Bill Coleman who now lives in
Woodburn, has a section of his website devoted to the song and the story.
Turns out the woman, Jo Ann McDaniels, returned to the U.S. in 1980 in a prisoner exchange with Turkey, and was then almost immediately parolled by the U.S., getting her freedom after six years in prison. Just prior to coming back to the states she married Bob Hubbard, who was imprisoned along with her. Coleman saw her in 1980 when she came to thank him.
On his website, Coleman talks about how they wrote and produced the song, never expecting that it would turn into a nationwide hit. Profits from the song they contributed to Jo Ann McDaniel.
I wondered: where is she now? I did some more googling, but could find basically nothing since her return in 1980.
I contacted Mr. Coleman and asked. I got this e-mail in reply:
Rob;
I can't tell you how many emails I've received with almost exactly the same statement ... how the song kept roaming around an individual's mind until they decided to "google" it to find out about poor JoAnn.
Yeah, her where abouts is as much a mystery to me as it is to you. She paid me a visit at my home in 1980 shortly after our initial meeting at the Hindquarter restaurant in Salem. She and Bob Hubbard spoke about maybe settling in Southern Oregon ... purchasing a mobile home with the $10K they received from a publisher as an advance on a book they were to write about their experiences.
I saw nothing of the book, nor did I ever hear from JoAnn again.Frankly, it would not surpise me at all if they returned to Turkey, or somewhere in the middle east.
Their homecoming to America, after spending nine years in a Turkish prison, was fraught with an extreme case of future shock and they didn't seem to be adjusting well to the "America" that had developed since their arrest. You understand, they had never seen an ATM machine; a compact disk; had no clue how to operate a computer; never seen email; never spoke on a cell phone; had no clue of John Travolta and Saturday Night Fever; and missed out on a literally hundreds of other conveniences that we daily take for granted.
In that relatively short span of time the baby boomer generation had all gone from irresponsible "hippies" to family oriented "thirty somethings" ..... all, except for JoAnn and Bob. They still dressed and spoke like "hippies" ... it was as if they has stepped out of a time capsule .... like lost children playing grown up, they wandered through that day with little or nothing in common with the America they had returned to.
They were, in all honesty, like ghosts from the past, and they felt very uncomfortable in this future world. During her visit, she couldn't say enough about how much she loved the middle east and, we discussed at length the very real possibility of their returning to Turkey permanently. Perhaps they did ... it would not surprise me in the least.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps you'll find her one day, and can ask her yourself. When you do, tell her I miss her too.
Sincerely;Bill Coleman
Blackhawk County
PS: Thanks for remembering "Oregon" ... pass it along to your friends.
What an interesting story. Go to the web site and dowload the song - Mr. Coleman encourages it. If you grew up here, I guarantee you that listening to the song will bring memories of the 1970's flooding back.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
News Flash! Oregon's tests are too easy!
For about a decade I have been shouting in the wilderness about the fact that Oregon's statewide tests are being manipulated to show test score growth that isn't really there.
I've written about it in my BrainstormNW column, on this blog, and in the Oregonian. I've commissioned a statistical study done by an OSU economist that showed the elementary math test score increases are phony. I've authored and personally lobbied legislative solutions to the problem. I've spoken about it my radio show time and again. I ran a statewide campaign for Superintendent of Public Instruction with the assessment system as a central issue. I've met with assessment experts all over the nation to discuss it, including Oregon's own assessment "experts."
Every single thing I have done has been opposed by the Oregon Department of Education bureaucrats, and basically ignored by the Oregonian.
Throughout this time, as I repeatedly predicted, Oregon's tests have time and again been proven to be unworkable. They have had to throw out entire years worth of tests because of validity problems. They have been threatened by the federal government because their reliability was not up to snuff.
I've pointed out that the big gains in Oregon's test scores at the elementary level are not validated by Oregon scores on other tests. I've pointed out that despite the rhetoric of Oregon's so-called 21st Century School Act, Oregon SAT test results have lagged the gains of other states.
I've pointed out that it makes no sense at all to allow Oregon bureaucrats to design the tests that measure the effectiveness of the school reform efforts that they are in charge of implementing.
It has fallen on deaf ears.
Today we learn in the Oregonian that the state has set the bar very low for children to "meet standard" at the elementary level, which is why it appears that our elementary schools do very well while our middle schools do poorly. Fifteen years after our genius bureaucrats started cooking up these tests, they finally admit that maybe the roughly 50 percentage point gain in students meeting standard might be caused by lowering the bar.
And now they are going to appoint a panel to review Oregon's test? What a crock of bull.
We don't need another "fact-finding" committee. We need a fact facing committee.
And we need the Oregonian to at long last report this long term story honestly. They have been complicit in the coverup for years. The fact is, the Oregon Department of Education has wasted billions of dollars to perpetrate a fraud on the people of Oregon, and the Oregonian sat idly by and gave them a pass.
There is no excuse. The only question is will they allow it to continue?
I've written about it in my BrainstormNW column, on this blog, and in the Oregonian. I've commissioned a statistical study done by an OSU economist that showed the elementary math test score increases are phony. I've authored and personally lobbied legislative solutions to the problem. I've spoken about it my radio show time and again. I ran a statewide campaign for Superintendent of Public Instruction with the assessment system as a central issue. I've met with assessment experts all over the nation to discuss it, including Oregon's own assessment "experts."
Every single thing I have done has been opposed by the Oregon Department of Education bureaucrats, and basically ignored by the Oregonian.
Throughout this time, as I repeatedly predicted, Oregon's tests have time and again been proven to be unworkable. They have had to throw out entire years worth of tests because of validity problems. They have been threatened by the federal government because their reliability was not up to snuff.
I've pointed out that the big gains in Oregon's test scores at the elementary level are not validated by Oregon scores on other tests. I've pointed out that despite the rhetoric of Oregon's so-called 21st Century School Act, Oregon SAT test results have lagged the gains of other states.
I've pointed out that it makes no sense at all to allow Oregon bureaucrats to design the tests that measure the effectiveness of the school reform efforts that they are in charge of implementing.
It has fallen on deaf ears.
Today we learn in the Oregonian that the state has set the bar very low for children to "meet standard" at the elementary level, which is why it appears that our elementary schools do very well while our middle schools do poorly. Fifteen years after our genius bureaucrats started cooking up these tests, they finally admit that maybe the roughly 50 percentage point gain in students meeting standard might be caused by lowering the bar.
And now they are going to appoint a panel to review Oregon's test? What a crock of bull.
We don't need another "fact-finding" committee. We need a fact facing committee.
And we need the Oregonian to at long last report this long term story honestly. They have been complicit in the coverup for years. The fact is, the Oregon Department of Education has wasted billions of dollars to perpetrate a fraud on the people of Oregon, and the Oregonian sat idly by and gave them a pass.
There is no excuse. The only question is will they allow it to continue?
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
What the governor race is really about
Saxton vs. Kulongoski is a proxy race.
In Larry Huss's latest column he quotes Governor Kulongoski from a speech he gave on July 25 to AFL-CIO, which is dominated by the public employee unions. Kulongoski said: ". . . I've never lost sight of who I represent, and that's you."
There you have it. From the horse's mouth.
The real race is for who will control the state government, and determine in important ways the economic future of the state.
Will the public employee unions be in charge? Or will the private sector set the agenda. Does Oregon want to grow and be a part of the global economy, or does it want to pretend that it can have its own sandbox and just play with toys like light rail, sustainability and smart growth?
That is the big picture. Everything else is just details. Please keep your eye on the ball.
Sure, issues are important, and for most of us certain issues are paramount. No movement conservative wants the Republican candidate to take a powder on his or her pet issue. We all care about things like parental notification, spending limits, gun rights, illegal immigration, school choice, fiscal restraint, low taxes and the host of other hot button issues.
But at the end of the day, this race is about Oregon. Do we want to grow, or not? Do we want to be a part of the economy, create wealth, and have a robust private sector? Or do we want choo-choo trains, trams, bureacrats and unions calling the shots?
I'm sad to say that this is a tossup in Oregon.
I grew up in this great state. I left for ten years to find my fortune in Chicago. When I moved back with my fortune (Their names are Mary, Jessica and Jeffrey) I was stunned at what had happened to Portland and Oregon.
Our political and social institutions were taken over by people with decidedly different values from the Oregon values I grew up with. They took control of the government, grew planning bureaucracies, took property freedoms, handed the budgets over to the unions, and ruined what was a terrific transportation system.
Has this state had enough? Are we going to grow, or die? That is the choice. Every organic organism either grows or dies.
Clark County has chosen. Bend has chosen. Seattle has chosen. They all want to be competitive, and they choose their public policies carefully because they know capital has quick feet.
Portland has made the opposite choice: it doesn't want to compete. It wants eco-roofs and trams. But does Portland speak for the state?
If so, Kulongoski will win, and the unions will control the schools and the government and planning will reign supreme.
If not, Saxton will win, and we have a chance to get the economic train back on the tracks.
In Larry Huss's latest column he quotes Governor Kulongoski from a speech he gave on July 25 to AFL-CIO, which is dominated by the public employee unions. Kulongoski said: ". . . I've never lost sight of who I represent, and that's you."
There you have it. From the horse's mouth.
The real race is for who will control the state government, and determine in important ways the economic future of the state.
Will the public employee unions be in charge? Or will the private sector set the agenda. Does Oregon want to grow and be a part of the global economy, or does it want to pretend that it can have its own sandbox and just play with toys like light rail, sustainability and smart growth?
That is the big picture. Everything else is just details. Please keep your eye on the ball.
Sure, issues are important, and for most of us certain issues are paramount. No movement conservative wants the Republican candidate to take a powder on his or her pet issue. We all care about things like parental notification, spending limits, gun rights, illegal immigration, school choice, fiscal restraint, low taxes and the host of other hot button issues.
But at the end of the day, this race is about Oregon. Do we want to grow, or not? Do we want to be a part of the economy, create wealth, and have a robust private sector? Or do we want choo-choo trains, trams, bureacrats and unions calling the shots?
I'm sad to say that this is a tossup in Oregon.
I grew up in this great state. I left for ten years to find my fortune in Chicago. When I moved back with my fortune (Their names are Mary, Jessica and Jeffrey) I was stunned at what had happened to Portland and Oregon.
Our political and social institutions were taken over by people with decidedly different values from the Oregon values I grew up with. They took control of the government, grew planning bureaucracies, took property freedoms, handed the budgets over to the unions, and ruined what was a terrific transportation system.
Has this state had enough? Are we going to grow, or die? That is the choice. Every organic organism either grows or dies.
Clark County has chosen. Bend has chosen. Seattle has chosen. They all want to be competitive, and they choose their public policies carefully because they know capital has quick feet.
Portland has made the opposite choice: it doesn't want to compete. It wants eco-roofs and trams. But does Portland speak for the state?
If so, Kulongoski will win, and the unions will control the schools and the government and planning will reign supreme.
If not, Saxton will win, and we have a chance to get the economic train back on the tracks.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Ron Saxton and Measure 48
Ron Saxton came out against Measure 48, the state spending limit measure that would establish a rainy day fund in Oregon.
I support this measure, because even if Ron Saxton wins, Oregon won't always have a governor who will be as much as a fiscal hawk as Ron will be. That said, I completely understand why Ron would come out against this measure.
Ron basically said that it is the governor who should be the spending limit, and I agree. Unfortunately, we've now had 24 years of Democrat governors who simply will not exercise any restraint on spending. We've also had enough experience with a Republican legislature to know that they have no penchant to do anything but spend every dime that comes in and support tax increases for yet more spending.
So I like the idea of a hard cap on spending. I simply don't trust the system to do anything but spend it all and then some.
But should Ron Saxton support Measure 48? No. He has his own campaign to run, his own issues to run on. He's been putting this campaign in place for two years, and he cannot allow it to be connected to ANY ballot initiative.
His opposition to M48 does not signal a softening of Ron's position on fiscal restraint. The statement he issued that explained his position was anything but soft on spending. He just knows it is not at all politically smart to allow a very controversial ballot measure to define his candidacy, and I fully support Ron's decision on this question.
Now, to the Oregonian. Their lead editorial today lauded Ron for his position, but it was really dishonest in how it described the measure in question. They repeatedly called it the "TABOR," which is the name of the Colorado spending limit.
Obviously they want to do anything they can to attach M48 to the Colorado spending cap because it fell out of favor and was suspended, but in doing so they are being dishonest about the very substantial differences between M48 and Colorado's TABOR.
First, Colorado's measure applied not just to state spending but to city, county and school budgets as well. Measure 48 is just for state spending. Second, Colorado's measure does not allow a rainy day fund to be created - while M48 would absolutely result in just ahat.
Finally, Colorado's measure prevented tax collections in excess of the spending limit. Measure 48 does not affect tax collections at all - the same amount of money would be collected, but funds in excess of the spending limit (set at the sum of population and inflation) would accumulate in a rainy day fund (unless you want to pretend that the legislature would send it back to the taxpayers - ha!)
Once the fund is established, when revenues are not high enough to fund the popuflation increase, the fund fills in the rest. Further, if and when the legislature wants to use some of the fund for some specific purpose, say, to build a westside bypass, they can pass out a referral to the voters to do so. This puts the people in charge of important spending decisions.
This coming biennium, if M48 passes, the growth in the state all funds budget would be reduced by about $2 billion from the roughly $45 billion it expects to take in in 2007-09. Hardly draconian, especially since this still represents a healthy growth of more than 8%.
I understand why the Oregonian and all the spending lobby hates Measure 48. But it really irritates me when they are so openly dishonest in their portrayal of the measure, to the extent of even giving it a name that the measure's sponsors oppose.
I support this measure, because even if Ron Saxton wins, Oregon won't always have a governor who will be as much as a fiscal hawk as Ron will be. That said, I completely understand why Ron would come out against this measure.
Ron basically said that it is the governor who should be the spending limit, and I agree. Unfortunately, we've now had 24 years of Democrat governors who simply will not exercise any restraint on spending. We've also had enough experience with a Republican legislature to know that they have no penchant to do anything but spend every dime that comes in and support tax increases for yet more spending.
So I like the idea of a hard cap on spending. I simply don't trust the system to do anything but spend it all and then some.
But should Ron Saxton support Measure 48? No. He has his own campaign to run, his own issues to run on. He's been putting this campaign in place for two years, and he cannot allow it to be connected to ANY ballot initiative.
His opposition to M48 does not signal a softening of Ron's position on fiscal restraint. The statement he issued that explained his position was anything but soft on spending. He just knows it is not at all politically smart to allow a very controversial ballot measure to define his candidacy, and I fully support Ron's decision on this question.
Now, to the Oregonian. Their lead editorial today lauded Ron for his position, but it was really dishonest in how it described the measure in question. They repeatedly called it the "TABOR," which is the name of the Colorado spending limit.
Obviously they want to do anything they can to attach M48 to the Colorado spending cap because it fell out of favor and was suspended, but in doing so they are being dishonest about the very substantial differences between M48 and Colorado's TABOR.
First, Colorado's measure applied not just to state spending but to city, county and school budgets as well. Measure 48 is just for state spending. Second, Colorado's measure does not allow a rainy day fund to be created - while M48 would absolutely result in just ahat.
Finally, Colorado's measure prevented tax collections in excess of the spending limit. Measure 48 does not affect tax collections at all - the same amount of money would be collected, but funds in excess of the spending limit (set at the sum of population and inflation) would accumulate in a rainy day fund (unless you want to pretend that the legislature would send it back to the taxpayers - ha!)
Once the fund is established, when revenues are not high enough to fund the popuflation increase, the fund fills in the rest. Further, if and when the legislature wants to use some of the fund for some specific purpose, say, to build a westside bypass, they can pass out a referral to the voters to do so. This puts the people in charge of important spending decisions.
This coming biennium, if M48 passes, the growth in the state all funds budget would be reduced by about $2 billion from the roughly $45 billion it expects to take in in 2007-09. Hardly draconian, especially since this still represents a healthy growth of more than 8%.
I understand why the Oregonian and all the spending lobby hates Measure 48. But it really irritates me when they are so openly dishonest in their portrayal of the measure, to the extent of even giving it a name that the measure's sponsors oppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)