Issues
Don’t let EUC lapse
The need for federal unemployment benefits persists
What would the Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives do if they were forced to live on unemployment insurance and food stamps for six months? And how would they feel if their food stamp allotments were suddenly reduced and their unemployment checks cut off — three days after Christmas?…
The program, called Emergency Unemployment Compensation, was approved by Congress during the Great Recession to extend state-based unemployment insurance programs by using federal dollars to pay benefits to people looking for jobs. Congress has previously extended the program several times.
Unemployment in the United States was under 6 percent before the recession but the national average remains stuck above 7 percent — lower than the 10 percent peak in 2009 but still troublesome — and there are nearly three unemployed workers for every job opening. A report by the White House Council on Economic Advisers and the U.S. Labor Department, released Thursday, said extending the EUC one year would save 240,000 jobs nationwide, including 3,829 jobs in Oregon…
The Eugene Register Guard, December 9, 2014
Our Response & Leave Your Comments
The RG editors didn’t read or chose to ignore a simple economics lesson from an earlier issue of Lane Solutions.
So as much as we hate to repeat ourselves, we’ll count to ten and try again to communicate basic logic and common sense to them.
Here it is: politicians cannot remove money (“taxes”) from the private sector, take a bite out of it to run their beaurocracy, give what’s left to a group they want to vote for them and create more jobs than they first killed by over taxation and more money than they grabbed from the poor saps who worked for it.
If paying people not to work actually creates more jobs and economic growth why don’t we just pay everyone not to work?
And what do these geniuses think we’d do with the money if they didn’t grab it? Bury it? No – we’d invest it or spend it. In either case it would end up back in the economy in the form of economic growth and job creation.
Why don’t these “public servants” concentrate on something where they’re more likely to stumble on
success? Like an anti-gravity machine or a pill that converts water to gasoline.
How to Lose Your Job and Get Another One Fast
Job shift follows complaints
The financially strapped Eugene School District created a new administrative post this month that pays about $160,000 a year in salary and benefits and appointed to the job a high school principal who has recently been investigated by the district for unspecified job performance problems and criticized by parents for poor leadership, newly provided records show.
– Josephine Woolington, The Eugene Register Guard, November 23, 2013
Lane Solutions Responds and Leave Your Comments…
According to the Register Guard, Churchill High principal Kim Finch was replaced after an investigation into her leadership. According to two parents she had created a “toxic atmosphere” and “fearful working environment” for Churchill staff.
Now – Don’t you wish you could create a “toxic atmosphere” and be rewarded with a job specially created for you at a cost of $160,000 paid for, of course, by your neighbors in Eugene? As they say – “Nice gig.”
But you and we know that it ain’t gonna happen. Because your company ain’t gonna pay for it out of their profits.
Some readers, however, will say “corporations do it, too.” Yes, in rare circumstances they do.
But here’s the difference, dear readers: Corporations pay for it themselves. They don’t go out in the community and confiscate random citizens’ hard earned dollars to cover their bad judgment. And if they’re public and do it too much, shareholders will holler. If they’re private they’re covering their screw-ups out of their own pockets. That may be dumb, but it’s their money to waste.
When it’s government creating jobs for people who failed in their last job, always remember – they’re doing it with money you worked for. And remember this the next time you can vote against those who did it.
ODOT Wants You!
Here’s Your Chance to Shape Oregon Transportation Policy
The Oregon Department of Transportation is launching the development of a statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. They are forming a high-level stakeholder group to help guide the development of the plan. To learn more about the Plan and Commission.
The PAC serves in an advisory capacity to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). OTC Commissioner Pat Egan will serve as the chair of the PAC. The Plan will be a state mode plan under the 2006 Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and will be a key element of the state transportation planning program.
Statewide transportation modal plans (e.g. Highway, Rail and Public Transportation) and topic plans (e.g. Freight, Transportation Options) further define and implement the goals, policies and strategies of the OTP
and help to guide the development, investment and management of Oregon’s transportation system.
Development of the Plan will be a closely coordinated activity between ODOT, key stakeholders and the public. Working with a Policy Advisory Committee to guide plan development is an important element of this process and will help to develop a comprehensive, strategic plan for Oregon that:
. refines the vision for the future of biking and walking in Oregon
. serves as the policy basis for bicycle and pedestrian investments within the state; and
. positions Oregon to meet the challenges and opportunities facing
the broader transportation system and its users.
. reflects the ideas and needs of Oregon stakeholders and citizens
It is anticipated that the plan will be developed over about two years and that the Policy Advisory Committee will meet up to 15 times between the fall of 2013 and the fall of 2015. Over the course of the project, the Committee will provide advice and direction on plan content and review key deliverables. The meetings will likely be held in either the Salem or Portland area. In person attendance is preferred; however teleconference options will be made available. Your time will be respected and all efforts will be made to keep meetings and committee responsibilities focused and efficient.
Of College Tuition and Cheeseburgers
College tuition increases for this academic year were small by recent standards. But students and families are nonetheless paying significantly more on average because federal financial aid, including grants and tax credits, failed to keep pace.
– The Oregonian, October 22, 2013
Lane Solutions Responds and Your Comments
There’s an “Iron Rule of Economics” that you probably know but that politicians either don’t know or don’t care about (after all, it’s not their money they’re spending), Here it is: subsidize the cost of anything and demand for it and the price of it will go up. Every time – just like water running downhill and government sticking both hands in your pocket.
Here’s a simple example. A cheeseburger at McDonald’s costs $1.00. If someone stood outside every McDonald’s holding a sign saying “I’ll give you $.50 if you buy a cheeseburger” what would happen?
The line of cheeseburger buyers would lengthen and McDonald’s would raise the price to $1.30.
Each year the Feds pour $30 Billion and 16 tax breaks into helping parents pay tuition. And sure enough – tuition goes up. So do binge drinking and drug use on campus, partially caused by kids lining up for four plus years of financial aid and fun.
What goes down? Not adult illiteracy. And certainly not tuition.
Here’s another iron rule: When politicians create a program that doesn’t work they don’t cancel it. Heck no – they double down. So their answer to rising tuition is always more subsidies, which cause tuition to rise, which calls for more subsidies…
State should make investment in Malheur County
As the hard work of rezoning land in Malheur County to industrial use continues, another, perhaps larger, challenge looms on the horizon. City and county officials are going to have to figure out a way to get sewer, water, electricity and roads out to these properties to serve potentially large-scale industrial developments.
In a visit to the Argus Observer editorial board last week, state Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ore., suggested that preliminary estimates for the cost of these infrastructure improvements in Malheur County are in the neighborhood of $50 million.
The big question in the coming months and years will be how to — and who should — pay that tab.
– The Ontario Argus Observer
– October 20, 2013
Lane Solutions Responds & your comments
We’re not taking sides on who should pay for Malheur County’s infrastructure improvements.
Our beef is with the Observer’s use of the word “investment.” We believe “investment” implies some sort of ownership and reasonable expectation of a return of more money than you invested. And we think there’s a big difference between “investing” and “spending,” which implies giving up money for any other reason.
Calling what we all know is spending “investing” makes the act of relinquishing money to the government sound palatable. This is a pet tactic of liberal (darn – we did it again. But you know we meant “Progressive”) politicians who tell us they’re confiscating our money to “invest” in children, education and so on. Ever hear them say they want to “invest” in a new jet fighter? We didn’t think so.
So let’s call government outlays of our money what they are – “spending.” As for investing, if you want to do that we suggest that you send your money to our son in law the stock broker. He’ll do what you want with it, send it back to you if you tell him to, and won’t send you to jail if you don’t send him more next year.
The Rising Wage Tide
Oregon helps lead the way on raising minimum
California’s recent decision to rocket its minimum wage from $8 an hour to $10 an hour in 2016 makes Oregon’s scheduled 15-cent increase in 2014 look microscopic by comparison…
Since indexing took effect in 2004, the hourly minimum has steadily climbed by $2.05.
The scheduled 15-cent increase will add about $300 to a full-time worker’s compensation…
The raises that these lowest-paid workers receive result in increased consumer demand. Fast-food businesses that complain about minimum wage increases often fail to mention that their own businesses are among those that reap the greatest benefits.
In Oregon, minimum wage increases have been a welcome boost for the state’s economy…
The Register Guard, September 23, 2013
Gosh, These Guys Are Really Smart!
Did you know that here in Eugene we have geniuses who know exactly what people should be paid and what employers should do with their money?
Thinking that paying workers more money results in more money injected into the economy rests on the premise that this money came out of nowhere and that if it hadn’t been plucked out of thin air by employers it wouldn’t have existed.
No – that money is taken from the pockets of owners or shareholders and given to employees.
What do these RG economic giants think would have been done with the money had employers kept it? Burned it?
Anyone with an ounce of economic smarts knows that the money might have been spent on opening a new restaurant (and hiring more people). Or on a new grill (and hiring cooks to grill more burgers). Maybe it would have gone to hiring another reporter.
Here’s the real killer – and it’s at the core of Liberalism (Sorry. We meant “Progressivism”). The editors think they’re so smart that they can decide for everyone the most efficient allocation of financial resources.
Note to RG: Thinking that experts can plan and direct the economy is the mentality that brought Eastern Europe and Cuba to economic ruin.
A Grateful State of Oregon Thanks You!
Washington Candidate Wants $15/Hr. Minimum Wage
Those in Oregon who are tired of hearing about how much better Washington’s business climate is have reason to watch the November election results in Seattle.
Several of the candidates are at least talking about the possibility of raising the minimum wage in the city, even though Washington already has the highest rate in the nation. And at least one City Council candidate — Socialist Kshama Sawant, who finished second in the May primary to qualify for the November ballot — is campaigning hard for a $15-an-hour minimum wage.
– The Oregonian Editorial Board, August 25, 2013
Lane Solutions Responds
We say “Go for it! Why not $30/hr? Do we hear $40?”
We applaud our neighbors to the north’s attaempt to give Oregon a more competitive business environment! And if you’re joining us, keep it a secret that labor is, like anything else anyone buys, a commodity subject to a basic economic principle: lower the price – demand increases. Raise it – demand goes down.
Keep it between us that when the minimum wage goes up a McDonalds that could only afford the cheapest, least experienced labor (teenagers) can now afford to fire them and hire experienced workers.
If you keep these secrets, our buddies up north will keep their big, dark secret about why they really like minimum wage hikes. No, it’s not love of the “Little Guy.” It’s because a lot of union wage contracts are hitched to minimum wages. Raise them and union workers get automatic salary bumps.
Here’s what Socialist Sawant will never, ever tell you: When Washington, D.C. passed a minimum wage law in 1938, hotels immediately fired dozens of (probably black) maids and other low skilled laborers.
Now that we think about the consequences for the real “Little Guys,” your humble editors will be governed by their better angels, face north and scream “Stop! Do you really know what you’re doing?”
Legislators Pick Winners and Mostly Losers – Again
SALEM — The $150 million reincarnation of Oregon’s manufacturing BETC (Business Energy Tax Cuts) — in talks for months and still in flux — appeared for the first time in writing Thursday in the waning days of the legislative session.
Details were spelled out in a 78-page tax bill amendment that shored up several expiring credits. The manufacturing Business Energy Tax Credits would die off, replaced by a $25 million annual pool.
Although green energy companies remain the priority, the move diversifies taxpayers’ portfolio beyond solar manufacturers. High-dollar recipients such as SolarWorld and SoloPower have been pummeled by foreign competition and a tough economy.
Lane Solutions Responds:
Here we go again. Solyndra, Abound Solar, A 123 Energy. What do they have in common? They’re companies the Federal Government picked as winners and dumped over $1 Billion of your tax dollars into – and lost. And there are plenty more, ahem, “problems” where these come from.
This is what happens when government picks winners and losers. Like when the Oregon Dept. of Energy loaned $10 Million to SoloPower, with Portland taxpayers on the hook for half. Most or all of the money’s gone. And they’re not the only one in Oregon.
But our legislators continue to believe that they’re smarter venture capitalists than private venture capitalists. They can’t see that if there were buckets of bucks to be made off “clean energy” some company would jump at the chance with their own dollars. But then our guys and gals in Salem have your dollars to play with. And, like the old saying goes, “There ain’t no end to the good you can do with someone else’s money. – The Oregonian, June 27, 2013
Tell us what you think below in the comment section
Federal Forest Management – Real Solutions for Real Jobs
By Jay Bozieviech
As a vocal supporter of Lane County’s successful public safety levy, I was encouraged to see so many citizens step up to support our local law enforcement and help keep violent offenders in jail.
However, as I testified to the Oregon House of Representatives, the levy doesn’t offer a permanent solution for stable revenues for essential services, nor does it assure a stronger economy in the future.
While voters approved an important but temporary lifeline for public safety programs, it is critical for Congress to provide a comprehensive solution that resolves the annual uncertainty of county timber payments.
I am hopeful that Congress will continue to work on solutions that restore active management to our Federal forestlands, including the unique O&C lands that, in the past, created jobs and a thriving economy for communities and reliable funding for county governments.
The Federal O&C Act of 1937 specifically set aside 2.4 million acres of these Federally-owned forest lands for the economic benefit of 18 Western Oregon counties. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed to keep its promise to O&C counties, and litigation and conflicting regulations have only made the situation worse.
When timber was still being harvested on O&C lands Lane County alone received around $17 million annually. In today’s dollars, this equates to about $30 million per year. To put this in perspective, the recently passed public safety levy will generate less than half that revenue without adding significantly to jobs. The levy, while desperately needed, is only a “Band-Aid” fix to a serious and long-term problem.
Rural Lane County citizens cannot afford to fund public safety without some change in a rural economy devastated by the lack of federal forest management. One result of this devastation is that 80% of students in Mapleton and Oakridge school districts are on free or reduced lunch programs. Poverty and unemployment consume government and rural communities’ resources without adding jobs that could pay to fund essential services.
Lane County has a large population base, a diversified economy and other attributes such as a world-class university. Other O&C counties are not so lucky. Many of these rural communities once thrived with vibrant timber-based economies, but now suffer from higher unemployment and higher poverty levels.
It’s easy to scorn the voters in other counties who recently rejected public safety levies, but criticism of these Oregonians reveals ignorance of the serious challenges of funding services where many people don’t have jobs and can’t afford higher taxes. Though Lane County voters approved the levy, I believe it is wrong to single out and penalize counties that are not as prosperous as we are.
It is a grave mistake to ignore the importance of renewable natural resources that exist in our O&C forests. Sustainable management of these resources will benefit both our economy and local governments. It is heartening that members of Oregon’s Federal delegation understand this and that our Governor is also advocating for changes in Federal policy. It’s great to see they are willing to cross party lines to find a permanent solution.
While the bipartisan Walden/Schrader/DeFazio “O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act” remains on the table, we have also seen Sen. Ron Wyden release a “framework” of possible legislation.
I hope our delegation continues to work together on a bill that helps rural communities across all O&C counties. I believe we have a solution that protects environmentally sensitive lands while allowing more timber harvesting where it is environmentally sustainable. Thanks to an existing Federal law prohibiting the export of raw logs from Federal lands, wood products from O&C lands would be processed and milled by workers here at home, thus creating jobs that pay taxes to fund county services.
By putting people back to work in the woods we can lift more rural communities out of poverty. Creating jobs combined with reliable timber receipts will generate more tax revenues to sustain vital services.
Now that the public safety levy has been approved and Lane County has some short term stability, we need Congress to pass real solutions to help fund these services over the long term.
Jay Bozievich – West Lane County Commissioner
Recruiting for Big Government: Food Stamps Run Amok
Cascade Policy Institute
By Elise Hilton
One in five Oregonians participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal government’s “food stamp” program. Despite indications that the national economy is showing signs of revival, SNAP usage is at an all-time high:
Food-stamp use rose 2.7% in the U.S. in February from a year earlier, with 15% of the U.S. population receiving benefits….One of the federal government’s biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn’t shrinking back alongside the recovery.
Food stamp rolls increased on a year-over-year basis, but were 0.4% lower from the prior month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported. Though annual growth continues, the pace has slowed since the depths of the recession. The number of recipients in the food stamp program…reached 47.6 million, or nearly one in seven Americans.
It seems to be an easy equation: If joblessness is decreasing and the economy is improving, there should be fewer people receiving government assistance, right? Not so. Why? Part of the reason is that the government is actively recruiting people for SNAP, part is America’s ever-increasing dependence on government to solve our problems; and part is crony capitalism. It’s a heady mix of money, entitlement, and big government.
SNAP is symptomatic of America’s current view of the role of government: It is there to take care of our every need. Rather than seeking a way to solve problems of joblessness and hunger, we simply grow the programs once designed to help only in a crisis. Of course, the only way to grow these programs is to increase taxes on those who are working. As Dr. Samuel Gregg points out in his new book Becoming Europe, this creates an atmosphere of conflict, rather than harmony, in society. It means standing behind the food stamp user in line at the grocery store and grumbling about their purchases: In a sense, it is your money they are spending on soda and chips. It also means, according to Gregg, that there is less incentive to be productive on the part of citizens; after all, won’t the government take care of things?
The state of Florida, like many others, actively recruits SNAP recipients. According to The Washington Post, Dillie Nerios, a Florida state employee, has a quota of 150 new SNAP recipients monthly:
[I]t is Nerios’s job to enroll at least 150 seniors for food stamps each month, a quota she usually exceeds. Alleviate hunger, lessen poverty: These are the primary goals of her work. But the job also has a second and more controversial purpose for cash-strapped Florida, where increasing food-stamp enrollment has become a means of economic growth, bringing almost $6 billion each year into the state. The money helps to sustain communities, grocery stores and food producers. It also adds to rising federal entitlement spending and the U.S. debt.
As the name suggests, SNAP is meant to be a “supplemental” program. It has its roots in the Great Depression, when the federal government was faced with a surplus of agricultural goods, and high jobless rates. Food stamps allowed participants to purchase excess items at discount prices. The program vastly expanded in the 1960s, as part of the “Great Society” initiative. No longer were participants limited to purchasing surplus items, and benefits were tied to recipients’ income levels. By 2009, the Obama Administration further eased eligibility requirements, encouraging “states to disregard savings and higher incomes as criteria to disqualify applicants.”
The USDA claims that SNAP lifts people out of poverty, but the sheer numbers of those on SNAP belie that. As with many other issues in America, the attitude of many citizens toward hunger has become, “the government will take care of it.” This approach destroys charity on behalf of others and undercuts the dignity of those receiving handouts. Programs such as SNAP go from being “supplemental” to “lifestyle”: People stay on these programs longer and longer, with no incentive to support themselves, or to respond to the generosity of others by striving to contribute in turn to the common good. While most people would tell you that you can’t get something for nothing, SNAP proves them wrong.
Finally, SNAP is big business, and not in a good way. According to EatDrinkPolitics, the politics of food stamps and the politics of the food industry are deeply entangled in crony capitalism. For instance, Coca-Cola spent over one million dollars in just one quarter of 2011 lobbying the government regarding use of food stamps. Eighty-three percent of SNAP dollars are spent at supermarkets. In Oklahoma alone, Wal-Mart receives over $500 million in SNAP receipts. Because SNAP benefits are now largely utilized via EBT cards, banks benefit financially as well. It’s not just people becoming dependent on food stamps―it’s business. And business has no desire to see the government cut back on programs from which they are making millions.
We cannot suggest that SNAP does no good, or that there is no need for a food safety net in our country. Clearly, though, the astronomical growth of SNAP in the past few years has nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with big government, an entitlement culture, and crony capitalism.
Elise Hilton is a guest contributor for Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. She is the marketing coordinator for the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Reprinted With Permission from Cascade Policy Institute