Issues
Taxing “evil corporations” 100% would only pay 2 months of deficit
by In the news Thursday, July 28. 2011
by Robert Canfield
Spending, not corporate jets, causing US debt problems
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress continue to insist that U.S. corporations need to “pay their fair share” in order to resolve our national debt problems. They want more revenue, a.k.a more TAXES, from those “evil corporations”. And that leads us to the big question: Is our national debt a spending problem or a revenue problem?
Democrats want U.S. companies to pay their “fair share” to close the deficit gap. Ok! Let’s give it the old Democrat try. Let’s really STICK IT to those evil corporations and their Lear jets, tax breaks for the rich, etc. Are you ready? Here we go!
Let’s target the largest U.S. corporations, those with annual gross revenues of over $40 billion per year. There are over 60 of these giant corporations in the U.S. Let’s not beat around the Bush. Let’s go all the way. Let’s tax their annual net profits at 100%. That’s the kind of fair share that any Democrat would be happy with. How much would a 100% tax on the annual net profit of these largest companies raise? A whopping $204.8 BILLION dollars!!!
Wow, you’re thinking. $204.8 billion additional corporate tax dollars every year would shoot down those corporate Lear jets and those tax breaks for the rich! It seems like those new corporate tax dollars would make a big dent in our national debt! That’s what I’d call a fair share, wouldn’t you?
There’s just one little problem. Currently, U.S. Government spending outpaces revenues by $118 BILLION per month. That’s right. The U.S. spends $1.4 TRILLION per year more than it receives in revenue. Even if Congress taxed 100% of the annual net profits of every U.S. company with over $40 billion in annual gross revenue, it would pay for less than TWO MONTHS of our monthly deficit of $118 billion per month. Think about that.
Clearly, we have a spending problem. Obama and the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree. There will never be enough additional “fair share” tax revenue to solve our national debt problems.
Robert Canfield is a communications consultant and former Troutdale City Councilor and budget committee member.
(Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue,http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/full_list/,http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deadline/index.htm )
Source: Taxing “evil corporations” 100% would only pay 2 months of deficit
When does redistricting go into effect? It’s complicated…
by In the news Wednesday, August 10. 2011
by Bill Post
I called the Secretary of State’s office to get the explanation of when the new US Congressional districts go into effect, and when the new state legislative districts (state house & state senate districts) go into effect.
Here’s what I found out.
According to Summer in the SOS Election’s Office, the Congressional Redistricting lines (SB 990) took effect immediately upon passage. That means that the new lines are in effect right now.
However, the Special Election to replace David Wu will not be under those new lines, as “Attorney General John Kroger has advised us that, legally, the election would be to replace a seated Congressman, which means that since Wu was elected under the old lines, those lines are in effect for any special election.”
There you go! The Democratic Attorney General and the Democratic
Secretary of State do NOT want the special election to be under the new lines, especially with a + 2-3% GOP difference from the old lines.
Next year’s 2012 elections, however, will be under the new lines.
As for the state legislative lines (SB 989), due to the passage of Measure 55, the new lines would not go into effect until January 2013. However, the elections of 2012 WILL be under the new lines.
Confused? So am I.
According to Summer again, the county elections’ offices had to wait until August 1st to see if there were any appeals to the redistricting law, and then they could begin updating the voter records and handbooks, etc.
So, if you are Bob and you live in Podunk, Oregon, which is House District 99 and there were an election today, you would vote under the old lines. Next year, you would vote under the new lines and because HD 99 is across the street from you now, you may be in HD 98 so you’ll be voting for a different candidate and that candidate, should he or she win, would technically not represent you until January of 2013.
Got it? Yeah, OK.
Source : When does redistricting go into effect? It’s complicated…
No PERS Member Left Behind
by Larry Huss Wednesday, August 17. 2011
Daniel Re is an attorney in Bend who has undertaken a one-man fight to restore sanity to Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). He has begun a series of lawsuits to demonstrate that the current state of PERS affairs are a direct result of politicians and judges who are direct and substantial beneficiaries of the system that they created, regularly enhance and protect against taxpayers.
Periodically, I turn this column over to Mr. Re for his well researched and documented reports. The following report is stunning in its clarity and its demonstration of a system that is corrupt from top to bottom:
“On August 2, 2011, the Oregon Department of Education issued a news release with the headline “Student Achievement Increases but Fewer Oregon Schools Meet Federal Standards Under New Adequate Yearly Progress Targets”. Those targets were formerly part of the law known as No Child Left Behind. The latest tests fell far below the target, only 54% (645 of 1200) of Oregon schools met the standards, compared to 71% in 2009-10. Those statistics, however, do not tell the real story. The fact that more than half of Oregon’s school met the standards is actually a remarkable achievement because in the 1970’s the Oregon legislature adopted another plan that has been given the state’s top financial priority. That plan, No PERS Member Left Behind, always gets funded first. In financially difficult times, money that could have been used to educate Oregon’s children must instead go to PERS.
“Governor Kitzhaber’s 2011 – 2013 proposed budget shows the consequences of No PERS Member Left Behind. That budget included $7.5 billion for PERS. That represented a $1 billion increase from the prior biennium. That extra billion was needed to make up for the PERS stock market losses in 2008. That same proposed budget allocated $5.5 billion for the K–12 education, approximately the same amount as the prior biennium. The Superintendent of Public Instruction stated that the $5.5 billion was $1 billion less than what was required to maintain the instruction Oregon’s children had received during 2009-2011. Unfortunately, there was nothing the Governor could do about that. No PERS Member Left Behind mandated that $1 billion go to PERS and that meant it was not be used for K-12.
“The objective of No PERS Member Left Behind is simple. It guarantees PERS members that they will receive their retirement benefits, no matter what. If governmental agencies are forced to cannibalize themselves in order to make their PERS payments then that is what they must do. No PERS Member Left Behind made PERS payments their primary function. Providing the services that those agencies were originally created to provide became a secondary function. At the end of 2010, the PERS fund held approximately $56 billion. If every last cent of the $56 billion is lost through bad investments or any other reason, No PERS Member Left Behind requires the people of Oregon to repay it, with interest.
“The No PERS Member Left Behind program was created by Oregon legislators who joined PERS after they were permitted to do so by an Attorney General opinion in 1971. These are a few of the actions taken by those PERS legislators that made No PERS Member Left Behind the successful program that it is today:
“1. In 1975 the PERS legislators gave anyone who had ever served in the legislature the right to retroactively join PERS and then they kept that retroactive right open for the next sixteen years.
“2. In 1979 they created the PERS pickup which allowed PERS members to require non-PERS members to pay their employee PERS contributions for them. Originally, the pickup was intended to last for just two years but by 1981 those PERS legislators enjoyed having other people pay their PERS contributions for them so much that they made it permanent. PERS estimates that during the 2011–2013 biennium, the pickup will cost $874 million.
“3. In 1983, 84 of the 90 legislators were PERS members and they forced Oregon’s judges to become PERS members and they gave the judges a larger PERS Pick Up benefit than any other PERS members. The pickup amount for judges was 7% of salary, while other PERS members received a 6% pickup. In 1994 the people of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 8 which eliminated the PERS pickup. In 1996, the PERS judges on the Oregon Supreme Court decided that the elimination of the PERS pickup was unconstitutional, by a 4 to 3 vote. Since January 1, 1995, the effective date of Ballot Measure 8, billions of dollars have been used to pay pickup contributions rather than to provide services to all Oregonians.
“4. In 1989 they increased the sanctions against public employers who do not pay their PERS assessments on time. This law, the keystone of the No PERS Member Left Behind program, clearly established PERS funding as Oregon highest financial priority.
“No PERS Member Left Behind was created by PERS legislators who have financially benefitted from it. It is a major reason why all Oregon schools have cut school days and have fewer teachers. Multnomah County School District No. 1J’s 2011/12 Budget Overview, page 83, shows that the district will pay PERS almost $5 million more than it did for the 2010/11 school year. In order to pay that extra $5 million, the district must make additional service reductions.
“Oregon’s schools did the best they could during the 2010-11 school year to prepare Oregon’s children for the new Adequate Yearly Progress Targets. While those results were lower than hoped for it is doubtful that anyone could have done better when faced with the insurmountable obstacle of No PERS Member Left Behind. And besides, that’s not the primary objectives of the schools anyway. During 2010-11, the schools fully paid their PERS assessments so it was a good year, a very good year. Oregon’s children and, therefore, its future may have been shortchanged, but no PERS member was left behind.
“Daniel C. Re”
For those wishing to learn more about the work of Dan Re, you can visit his website at Inrethepeople.com/.
Source: No PERS Member Left Behind
Which Oregon School District Teaches No Students?
by Steve Buckstein Monday, August 1. 2011
Oregon’s major teachers union, The Oregon Education Association (OEA), is seen by many observers as the big loser coming out of the recent legislative session in Salem. Why? Because it failed to convince enough legislators to stop some modest school choice bills from passing. It also couldn’t stop Governor John Kitzhaber, whom it endorsed and financially supported, from agreeing to sign these bills as part of a larger education reform package.
The highest profile bill in question was House Bill 2301, known as the virtual public charter school bill. The union has been trying to shut down online public charter schools ever since they started making inroads several years ago. This year it had hoped to cripple these schools, which it sees as competition to the brick-and-mortar schools in which its members teach. Instead, the legislature agreed to let these online schools expand from teaching about one percent of the state’s K-12 students now up to at least three percent of students in any and all school districts around the state.
In 2005 the union backed a bill to create a state-run competitor to these innovative online schools. Known as the Oregon Virtual School District, it has since been funded to the tune of more than seven million dollars. Legislators appropriated the funds with the intention that the district would “provide online courses.” But as Nigel Jaquiss reported in his recent Willamette Week exposé, “…after six years and the appropriation of $7.1 million, including another $1.5 million lawmakers just approved for the current biennium, the Oregon Virtual School District has yet to provide a single ‘course.’”*
This revelation calls into question which online schools are real and which may appear to be real, but are not. Schools like Oregon Connections Academy and Oregon Virtual Academy are real schools with hundreds of real teachers educating thousands of real students across the state.
The state-run Oregon Virtual School District, on the other hand, is truly a virtual district in the not real sense of the term. It has no teachers and no students. The only real part is that it has spent millions of real taxpayer dollars. And for what? It has a nice website and offers some helpful content and tools for teachers. But that’s about it. Somewhere along the line, its mission morphed from providing real online courses to hosting some “academic materials vetted by the Education Department and training for teachers.”
The Oregon Department of Education manager who oversees the Virtual District says that it is not an alternative to online charter school offerings. “We are not set up to compete with them from a financial point of view,” he says.* Real online charter schools, paying real teachers to teach real students, receive on average less than 5,700 public dollars a year for each enrolled student.** A simple calculation tells us that the $7 million allocated to the Virtual District so far could have been used to teach at least 1,200 students for one school year, or 200 students over the six years it has received state funding. But, again, so far the district has taught zero real students.
The teachers union keeps calling for more accountability from Oregon’s real online public charter schools, the ones with real teachers educating real students. It seems far past time for state legislators and taxpayers to call for accountability on the part of the Oregon Virtual School District. What have we gotten for $7 million in this “district”? If the answer is “not much,” then we should close it down and refocus our energy and resources on real schools with real students.
Oregon’s online public charter schools are not virtual; they are real schools where real learning occurs. Just because their teachers may not wear the union label shouldn’t give OEA the right to stop them from competing with the brick-and-mortar schools its members occupy.
Parents and students hold real online public charter schools accountable every day as they freely enroll and disenroll. More school choice will give more parents and students that power over brick-and-mortar schools as well. If OEA wants to keep students in classes taught by its members, it should figure out how to do that without holding the kids hostage. All students and their families deserve the right to choose where they get their education. Anything less is a disservice to them and to the taxpayers.
* “Virtual Combat: Oregon’s teachers union hates online charter schools. But its alternative has little to show for millions of taxpayer dollars,” Nigel Jaquiss, Willamette Week, July 20, 2011, http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17755-virtual_combat.html.
** “Unintended Consequences: an analysis of charter school funding in Oregon”, Vanessa Wilkins, Northwest Center for Educational Options, April 21, 2010http://www.nwceo.org/pdf/NWCEO_Charter_School_Funding_Study_May_2010.pdf.
The average Oregon public charter school received slightly over $5,700 per student in 2008/2009 according to the Oregon Department of Education Financial Database, depending on the district that charters them. Current online charter schools are chartered in districts that pay less than this amount; but if the Oregon Virtual School District were to accept students statewide, it likely would receive closer to the average charter payment per student. Note that the $5,700 average per student charter school funding is approximately half the total public funding of brick-and-mortar public schools in Oregon.
Steve Buckstein is Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Source: Which Oregon School District Teaches No Students?
Oregon loses $35 million a year to college student failure, says American Institutes for Research
Published: Monday, August 22, 2011, 5:25 PM Updated: Monday, August 22, 2011, 6:08 PM
A new report today says the cost of college students who don’t make it to graduation in Oregon is about $35 million a year in lost income and taxes.
About 40 percent of students who enter Oregon’s colleges and universities drop out before earning a degree, and that failure costs the state about $35 million in lost income and taxes, according to a report released today by the American Institutes for Research.
Nationally, the institutes calculated that 493,000 students who started college in 2002 but failed to graduate within six years cost the nation about $3.8 billion in lost income, $566 million in lost federal taxes and $164 million in lost state taxes.
Read More From The Oregonian >>>
Recent K-12 Education Reforms Let Kids Transfer to a Brighter Future
by Christina Martin Monday, July 4. 2011
Public education exists to serve children – period. However, as evidenced by the Oregon Education Association’s (OEA) ongoing actions, some believe public education should serve primarily the adults who work in the system. Thankfully, this legislative session, Oregon’s state leaders concluded otherwise.
After tense negotiations on several education-related bills, Oregon’s legislature passed the most substantial education reforms Oregon has seen in decades, at the governor’s request. The more “controversial” elements of that package will provide students – who find their traditional public schools unsuitable – more educational options from which to choose, including charter and online schools. Such student-focused, choice-based measures were a particular pebble in the OEA’s shoe. Why?
Choice threatens the OEA’s monopolistic hold on public education. That grasp has allowed the OEA (a union) to become Oregon’s most financially powerful special interest group, lobbying for, well, itself. So when something undermines that power – even if that something is beneficial to children – the OEA will stand in the way, as it did this legislative session. Oregon families should be grateful the OEA lost and the governor and legislators led. Now, many children in need of a better education no longer will be held hostage.
For example, last summer, more than 4,700 Oregon kids were on waiting lists for charter schools. Because school districts were not authorizing enough additional charters to keep up with demand, desperate families have been left high and dry. (Currently, only districts and the State Board of Education can sponsor charters.)
Now, if charter school applicants are denied by districts, they can appeal to public colleges for sponsorship, providing a new avenue for charters to grow. Although public colleges will be able to sponsor just one charter each, this should help hundreds of families find the schools for which they are looking.
Many Oregon families also have been waiting for access to virtual, or online, charter schools. Currently, Oregon’s virtual charters are operating under an enrollment cap that has kept many kids from using this innovative option. Online learning is emerging as a cutting-edge way for students to have wider access to courses that otherwise might be unavailable to them. If Oregonians want to enroll their children in such schools, why not let them?
Thanks to state leaders, kids now will be able to access any virtual charter school without having to obtain their local district’s permission – at least until three percent of that district’s students are attending a virtual school. Although still unnecessarily limited, this improvement will be life changing for families who have been denied entry. It also will make it easier for families who have received permission but have had to wade through the same transfer paperwork year after year.
The third choice measure that will benefit Oregon students essentially carries charter schools’ open-enrollment policy over to traditional public schools. Today, it is difficult, if not impossible, for parents to enroll their children in out-of-district public schools because districts often refuse to let kids transfer. Now, parents will be able to enroll their children in any public school, as long as the receiving school district is accepting transfers.
In short, districts no longer will be able to force kids to stay in their local public schools if they’re able to get a public education elsewhere.
The OEA claimed that giving parents such choices creates financial instability for schools (by losing transferees). Other states, which have such policies in place, seem to cope. Why can’t Oregon? Moreover, this begs another question: Does the OEA believe that it and traditional public schools are entitled to students?
If parents choose to leave a school, that suggests something is either wrong with the school or, even if the school is “good,” their children’s needs aren’t being adequately met. In both instances, parents believe they can find a better fit for their kids elsewhere. If the goal of public education is to educate, why deny children access to schools that could do a better job of educating?
Oregon’s lawmakers and governor finally are answering that question. They’ve put partisan politics aside to support reforms for which thousands of Oregon families have been waiting. There still is much work to be done to ensure Oregon’s children – not the OEA – are the true beneficiaries of public education. But this start will show Oregonians that the sky doesn’t fall when choice is incorporated into public education; it gets brighter.
Christina Martin is a policy analyst and the School Choice Project Director at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Source: Recent K-12 Education Reforms Let Kids Transfer to a Brighter Future
Representative Lindsay: Reforming Education in Oregon
by In the news Wednesday, June 22. 2011
by Rep. Shawn Lindsay (R-Hillsboro)
The Bipartisan Education Package
Managing the K-12 education system is one of the most important jobs we have as legislators. It’s a role I take very seriously. As a father of three young girls, I work closely with our public school system to prepare my daughters to be tomorrow’s leaders. The bipartisan votes taken yesterday in the House of Representatives are a signal that the legislature, for the first time in decades, is serious about education reform. Together, these reforms help promote choice, accountability, and innovation in our educational system.
The list below includes some of the education bills voted on yesterday that take these necessary steps forward:
• HB 3681: Allows students to enroll in the school district of their choice, so long as the receiving district grants permission.
• HB 2301: Raises the current enrollment caps on statewide virtual charter schools and replacing them with a limit of no more than three percent of students from any single district.
• HB 3645: Allows a charter school applicant to seek sponsorship from the Board of Education, a local community college, or a public university that chooses to participate, if the applicant was initially rejected by a school district.
The package also gives us the opportunity to direct more funding to education using existing resources. Elements include:
• $25 million to the State School Fund (from the Education Stability Fund).
• $14 million to the State School Fund from savings due to Education Service District (ESD) reform.
• $8.66 million to help rural school districts address unintended cuts from school consolidation.
• $5 million to establish the School District Collaboration Grant Program that provides incentives for teachers to improve student achievement through innovative means.
• $2.9 million to fund statewide Agriculture Extension programs.
Additional bills in the package include:
• SB 248: Allows districts to offer full day kindergarten and provides Average Daily Membership (ADM) funding if they choose to do so.
• SB 250: Allows school districts in four Education Service Districts (ESDs) (Baker, WESD, Multnomah and NWESD) to opt out and receive 90 percent of the funding allotted to the ESD for the share of the children serviced by the ESD.
• SB 253: Establishes new goals on higher education, specifically that at least 40 percent of adult Oregonians have earned a bachelor’s degree, 40 percent have earned an associate’s degree, and that the remaining 20 percent or less of all adult Oregonians have earned a high school diploma by 2025.
• SB 552: Makes the Governor the state’s chief school official and allows the Governor to appoint a Deputy Superintendent.
• SB 909A: Establishes the Oregon Education Investment Board that will oversee the process of recommending strategic outcome-based budgets for public education. Subject to ratification by the Legislature in 2012, the board will oversee all of public education in Oregon from preschool to higher education. The Board will appoint a Chief Education Officer to assist in carrying out the functions of the Board. Authority for the Board sunsets on March 15, 2016.
• HB 3362: Allows districts to join together to form Career and Technical Education charter schools.
• HB 3417: Aligns the budget and accounting system of a school district with their sponsored charter schools.
• HB 3474: Creates a uniform set of performance evaluation measures for teachers.
As a candidate, I campaigned on education reform. I am proud that we forged ahead to break the status quo, and we will continue to do so.
Source: Representative Lindsay: Reforming Education in Oregon
On West Coast, Oregonians most pessimistic about economy
Published: Monday, August 15, 2011, 1:53 PM Updated: Monday, August 15, 2011, 5:26 PM
By Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian
Gallup finds that Oregonians are more pessimistic about the economy than their West Coast neighbors in California and Washington.
The pollster has developed an “economic confidence index” based on answers to questions about the state of the economy and whether things are getting better.
Read More From The Oregonian >>>
Oregon third-worst for percentage of children with unemployed parents
Published: Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 9:17 PM Updated: Thursday, August 18, 2011, 9:48 AM
By Richard Read, The Oregonian
Thirteen percent of Oregon children have at least one unemployed parent, ranking the state third worst nationally in a dynamic that can have lifelong effects on kids.
A study on children released Wednesday by The Annie E. Casey Foundation included the unemployment statistic. Oregon and four other states tied, ranking only slightly better than Rhode Island at 14 percent and Nevada at 16 percent in 2010.
Oregon’s No. 3 ranking seems high, given that the state ranked seventh nationally last year for unemployment, at 10.8 percent. Children’s advocates blame what they see as a lack of government help for parents trying to hold onto jobs while caring for kids. They plan to push the Legislature to expand programs that support working parents.
Read More From The Oregonian>>>
Rep. Matt Wingard Comments on “Extraordinary” 2011 Legislative Session
by In the news Tuesday, August 2. 2011
Legislative Spotlight by Taxpayer Association of Oregon
“Extraordinary.” That’s how Rep. Matt Wingard describes the most recent legislative session that featured a split House and the first ever co-Speaker’s office.
“Republicans were able to prevent tax increases, keep fee increases to a bare minimum, and ensure that we live within our means,” said Wingard. “I’m always pleased when I and my like-minded colleagues can stop tax increases.” Wingard, a vocal proponent of charter schools and public education reform, also expressed satisfaction that the 2011 Legislature approved what he believes are “the most significant education reforms in state history.” Among other things, these reforms support and encourage charter schools and the statewide virtual school, which will expand educational choices for parents and students. And, thanks to educational service district reform, school districts will be free to shop for better, more cost-effective services.
“Oregon needs high-quality public schools. I’m pleased that we took a giant step forward in the right direction this session.”
Despite the session’s success, Wingard expressed disappointment that the Legislature failed to pass key job creation legislation put forward by his Republican colleagues, saying he hopes that changes come February. While Oregon’s 18% real unemployment troubles the lawmaker, more troubling is the fact that Oregon’s per capita income is 9% below the national average.
“In today’s economy, even when Oregonians work, they’re often poor,” said Wingard.
According to the lawmaker, Oregon’s depressed per capita income can’t simply be blamed on a bad regional economy. Washington, whose per capita income was roughly the national average in the 1990s and largely mirrored Oregon’s, now enjoys a per capita income higher than national average. Oregon’s meanwhile has plummeted.
“High taxes, excessive regulation, and onerous land use laws are preventing us from creating an environment conducive to economic growth. We have to confront these issues head on.”
Wingard also said that the current fight in Congress over spending cuts and the debt ceiling makes it even more imperative that Oregon enacts necessary economic reforms.
“The nation’s fiscal problems aren’t going away. The only way for Congress and the President to get our fiscal house in order is to cut spending. In the future, this will mean less federal money for states. All the more reason we need to get Oregon working again.”
Source: Rep. Matt Wingard Comments on “Extraordinary” 2011 Legislative Session