Issues
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
Five Lessons I’ve learned About Government Spending
By Sean VanGordon
In the fall of 2012 Oregonians should ask tough questions of candidates about their policy views. Campaigns in the United States are marketing-driven, heavily scripted and rely on simplistic catchphrases. Good marketing wins elections. But it doesn’t solve problems – because when you govern, it’s the details that matter.
Government spending is a perfect example of this oversimplification of issues. Voters are presented with the false choice of either paying more taxes to support government or cutting government programs. Even at the city level, budgets are more complicated than that. I want to share with you five key lessons I’ve learned about government spending. In doing so I’ll show that you can prioritize spending and protect essential public services.
For the sake of argument, this is a discussion about the management of government finances, not the role of government. In our current economic situation a reduction in spending is a reality, and this is my opinion of how to reduce spending while mitigating cuts to essential services.
Lesson #1: Economic Growth Is King
All budgets are tied together by a single truth, which is that the economy is king. That’s because economic conditions control the flow of revenue to the government. As a household earns more, it pays more in taxes. A worker with a decent manufacturing job pays more taxes than one on unemployment. Jobs will close deficits at all levels of government. Weak economic growth will make deficits worse.
Lesson #2: Reorganization Saves Money While It Protects Services
Elected officials need to constantly question the size and organization of government. By shrinking the size of government you can reduce overlap and save administrative costs. By cutting administration you protect services that the public uses. Here are some local examples:
- The Eugene-Springfield Fire Department merger: This is an ongoing effort to merge two fire departments. In Springfield it has saved approximately $600,000 through reduction of overlaps between the two departments. These savings protected firefighters from layoffs and, more important, safeguarded response times for citizens caught in an emergency.
- The Springfield Public Works and Development Service Departments: For the last twenty years these have been separate departments. Last year Springfield merged them. During the merger the city, determined to improve customer service, carefully reviewed all functions of the two departments. The result? Savings totaling about $300,000.
- The State of Oregon reduced managers: In 2012 the Oregon Legislature required that the State increase the ratio of employees to managers. While the State has had some challenges with implementation, the Legislature’s message was clear: Improve efficiency.
Lesson #3: Don’t Forget to Save
We need to focus on providing consistent services to the voters. The budget situation is tight in every jurisdiction, and we don’t know when it’s going to get better. Saving when you can and protecting your reserves protects the financial health of government. In the 2011-2012 budget cycle the City of Springfield received $500,000 more in property tax revenue than it had budgeted. The Springfield City Council decided to save it for the 2012-2013 budget cycle in order to avoid additional cuts.
In the Oregon Legislature there are numerous proposals to grow a rainy day fund. My personal favorite is the plan to save 3% of all revenue in the General Fund.
Lesson #4: Reduce Overtime
Overtime is expensive, but sometimes unavoidable. It wouldn’t make sense to send police back from a crime scene to punch out or call firefighters home from a fire because their shift was up. However, government needs to reduce non-essential overtime whenever possible. In 2011 the Springfield City Council held a meeting specifically to talk about the $900,000 in overtime we budgeted for the Fire Department. As a result, in 2012 the city reduced its budgeted overtime expenditure by 33% because management and labor worked together to find creative solutions.
Lesson #5: Innovate.
Innovation in government saves taxpayers money and protects services. It allows government to solve structural cost problems with creativity. Here are examples of innovative solutions that are either in use or under consideration:
- The statewide e-permitting system that allows developers to apply for permits on-line;
- The shared lending agreement between local libraries that makes it easier to share books while saving both staff time and spending on materials;
- Springfield is evaluating becoming self-insured for health insurance and workers comp;
- Both the Springfield City Council and Planning Commission now use iPads for public meetings, which saves thousands of dollars on printing costs.
There are plenty of additional examples on the state, county and local levels. As citizens, we need to promote this type of thinking.
Conclusion
The economic environment is tough right now. The country faces hard choices about the size and scope of government. In a campaign year candidates typically present two choices: 1) I will spend more money in government and may raise your taxes. 2) I will cut government spending and may cut your taxes.
Ask for specifics. Ask candidates which services they are going to protect and what the tradeoffs are. At the end of the day we need to elect leaders who can discuss their opinions in detail with you, and make solid decisions about problems we face as a community.
Sean VanGordon is a Springfield City Councilor
Increased Taxes on America’s Small Businesses?
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) recently released a statement responding to President Barack Obama’s call for increased taxes on America’s small businesses.
Senator Portman introduced his statement with these observations:
While President Obama calls for higher taxes on jobs (sic) creators, two new government reports undercut his class warfare argument and the basis for calls for higher taxes…. As the nation careens toward a fiscal cliff, real leadership not more rhetoric and finger pointing, is necessary to reform our tax code and address Washington’s out of control spending.
Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) final report on what caused the January 2001 projection of a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus to turn into an actual $6.1 trillion deficit over that 10-year period (ed. note: a $11.75 trillion dollar swing) shows that:
- Tax policies enacted a decade ago are responsible for just 16% of the swing from surplus to deficit, or $1.9 trillion;
- Given that only about one-fourth of the tax cuts went to upper-income earners (indicative of the reality that there are very few of these), just 4% of the decline from surpluses to deficits resulted from upper-income tax cuts, or $490 billion
- Since CBO ignores any of the positive impact of tax cuts on the economy (this is known as “static analysis,” as opposed to “dynamic analysis,” which estimates growth attributable to tax cuts), savings and economic growth, the percentage was actually even smaller than the 4% estimate (above).
Additional analysis of the factors behind this massive $11.75 trillion swing reveals that new spending, (much of which was due to debt incurred because of the new spending and interest) were responsible for almost half (48%) of the increase in spending.
To sum it up, the $11.75 trillion swing from surplus to deficit was comprised of a $6.1 trillion decrease in revenue (52% of the total swing) caused by tax policies, new spending and interest and a $5.6 trillion increase in spending (48% of the total swing).
Of the total spending and revenue lost over the 10 year period, an astounding 34% ($4 trillion) was due to Obama/Pelosi legislation over the last three years!
Senator Portman concluded:
In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20% of taxpayers paid 94% of the total income tax burden – up from 86 %in 2007, and 81% before the 2001 tax cuts. In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called “Bush tax cuts.”
Editors’ note: Due to rounding, the percentages above may not agree with the dollar amounts. For clarity’s sake the editors decided to round dollar amounts to two decimal points and percentages to just one.
The author is a concerned Lane County resident and business owner.
Death Tax Discussion
Editors’ Note: The following is a message from Common Sense For Oregon.
Healthy Communities Initiative has not taken a position on this issue.
Lane Solutions welcomes readers’ comments and opinions on this or any issue presented in Lane Solutions.
Is It Time to End Oregon’s Death Tax?
Many agriculture, business organizations and citizen activist groups have united in a mission to end Oregon’s death tax. These groups are working to get Initiative Petition 15, the Death Tax Phase-Out Act, on the November 2012 ballot. A little more than 87,000 signatures are required to qualify for the ballot, but to ensure the success of this initiative supporters are preparing to collect 125,000 signatures by the end of June.
Oregon’s estate tax ranges from 10%-16%, with a $1 million deduction. This is separate from and in addition to the federal estate tax. Oregon is one of only three states west of the Mississippi to still have an estate tax; the other two are Washington and Hawaii. Since 2001, 29 states have repealed their death taxes, and the Governor of Indiana recently signed a bill into law to phase out Indiana’s death tax.
We all know this is a burden on family farms, ranches, and businesses. In a family business, where you might be land and equipment rich, but have limited cash at hand, it can be nearly impossible to pay the tax without selling the property or taking out a loan. These taxes also come at the worst time— at the death of a beloved family member.
The Death Tax Phase-Out Act phases out the current Oregon estate tax over the course of three years. Starting January 1, 2013, the current tax would be decreased in 25% increments each year until January 1, 2016, when the tax would be eliminated. Oregon death taxes by any unit of government would be prohibited.
The Death Tax Phase-Out Act would also protect families who are transferring property. Currently, Oregon families are subject to pay the capital gains tax on intra-family property transfers. This tax would also be phased out on the same schedule as Oregon’s death tax.
If you would like to sign the petition, you can go to endoregondeathtax.com, download the e-petition, sign the petition, and mail it in. If you would like to receive a volunteer circulation packet, or volunteer in other ways, please send an email to [email protected], or call 503.480.0523.
Eliminating PERS for Legislators and Judges Takes Away Conflict of Interest
PERS was created in 1945 to provide retirement benefits to Oregon’s public employees. Legislators and judges were not eligible to join PERS. Everyone affected by PERS was fairly represented when PERS laws were made and PERS disputes were decided by neutral judges. That, however, began to change in the 1970’s. By 1984, the legislators had changed the law so that they could retroactively join PERS and judges automatically became PERS members. Thereafter, PERS members have made all of the PERS laws and they have decided every PERS lawsuit. That is the problem with PERS.
Oregon will have $3 billion less to spend in 2011 – 2013 then it had in 2009 – 2011. But laws passed by PERS legislators guarantee that this shortfall will not reduce the money paid to PERS. The PERS budget for 2011 – 2013 has been increased by $1.1 billion, to $7.5 billion. PERS members have also decided that during the 2011 – 2013 biennium the people of Oregon will pay over $870 million to pick up employee PERS contributions for PERS members. That money could have been used to provide services to all Oregonians but instead it will be used for PERS members only. This is what happens when PERS members have total control over the PERS decision making process and it is a serious problem.
The solution to the PERS problem is to remove legislators and judges from PERS. Legislators are the elected representatives of the people, not hired employees, and they should not receive employee benefits. Judges should have their own independent retirement plan, just like they did prior to 1984. These changes would restore the fairness that existed when PERS was established in 1945 and they would end decades of financial abuse that has cost the people of Oregon billions of dollars.
Article written by Daniel Re
Voters Want State Government Reform
Polling in 10 states shows that Americans want politicians to cut spending and reduce public employee benefits before they raise taxes.
Americans believe that bold action to restrict spending is necessary to stabilize the finances of state government.
Last month, in a wide-ranging national survey of 1,000 randomly selected, registered voters, and in 10 polls in individual states each with 400 respondents, my polling company found that voters strongly favor measures to pare the compensation of current and future public employees. They strongly oppose higher taxes.
Specifically, over three-quarters (78%) say their state faced a budget crisis this year, and 68% say that the crisis was resolved with spending cuts. Overwhelmingly they blame politicians for creating and exacerbating the problems: 48% say “elected state officials made careless and self-serving decisions,” while only 6% say “state governments did not tax enough.”
The top priorities for resolving current fiscal issues are to cut government spending (47%) and to ask for greater sacrifice from current public employees, by having them contribute more towards their benefits (31%). By almost two-to-one, they think that current public employees should have to contribute more toward their pension benefits because of budget problems.
Kitzhaber ignores $650M hole in budget; gives unions 3.5% pay increase
by In the news Thursday, August 4. 2011
Oregon Transformation Project – FlashFact
Recent negotiations between Governor Kitzhaber and two public employee union groups, SEIU and AFSCME, produced a win for union members. Between permanent pay raises, healthcare benefits including vision, dental and life insurance, and a continuation of the 6% PERS pickup, these union members are receiving a net pay increase of nearly 3.5%.
So who is responsible for paying these increases? Taxpayers.
Which begs the question: With a $650 million hole in our current 2011-13 state budget, how can we afford such increases?
The current budget was passed with $650 million worth of assumptions; spending cuts and cost savings that have little hope of materializing. With state revenue likely to fall short of expectations and increasing state liabilities, the hope that we can grow our way out of this budget shortfall and maintain our spending levels is unrealistic.
Translation: The legislature put off making the tough decisions on spending, and now the Governor has put even more responsibility on the backs of taxpayers.
According to an estimate from the American Enterprise Institute, Oregon has a nearly $42 billion unfunded pension liability.
Under this estimate, every employed Oregonian is responsible for $28K towards public employee retirement.
The private sector in Oregon, which makes up about 82% of state employment, has seen a loss of over 110,000 jobs in the last four years. Private sector employees pay upwards of 30% for healthcare costs, and with the majority of them holding defined-contribution retirement plans, they have experienced significant retirement fund losses due to the stock-market collapse.
How long can the private sector withstand the burden of propping up benefits received by only 18% of the employed population?
Sources: http://oregoncatalyst.com/10813-kitzhaber-sells-taxpayers-pay-union-backers.html, http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00006781, http://www.oregontransformation.com/2011/07/22/co-chairs-corner-5/
Source: Kitzhaber ignores $650M hole in budget; gives unions 3.5% pay increase
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
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
Representative Richardson: Session ends. Good and bad.
by In the news Friday, July 1. 2011
2011 Legislative Session Adjourns– Sine Die
By State Representative Dennis Richardson
The 2011 Oregon Legislative Session ended, and the House Co-Governance Model negotiated by the House Republicans and Democrats worked remarkably well.
Under Oregon’s 2011 House Co-Governance Model, the 30/30 Republican / Democrat split resulted in equal power sharing in all House capacities including Co-Speakers of the House, Co-Chairs of Ways & Means and all other House committees. In addition to having Co-Chairs, every committee had an equal number of Republican and Democrat members.
All proposed legislation was assigned to a committee by mutual consent of the Co-Speakers, Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) and Arnie Roblan (D-Coos Bay). If the Co-Speakers could not agree on which committee to assign a bill, it was automatically assigned to the Rules Committee.
Once assigned to a committee, no bill could receive a public hearing or a work session unless it was approved by both Co-Chairs of that committee. Since Committee Co-Chairs knew that they might eventually want a public hearing on a bill for one of their own members, most Co-Chairs were quick to allow a public hearing when requested by the other Co-Chairs.
Public hearings alone did not result in a bill becoming law. After a Public Hearing was held, a Committee Work Session was needed for a bill to receive a committee’s vote. During a Work Session, if a majority of committee members voted in favor of a bill, it would either be moved to the Ways & Means Committee for financial considerations or it would move directly to the House floor for debate and a vote by the members of the House of Representatives. Once a bill received a majority vote in the House, it was then transferred to the Senate and the committee process would begin again. Several good House bills languished and died in Senate committees.
In the House, Work Sessions on bills were not allowed unless both committee Co-Chairs agreed that the bill under consideration should go forward and possibly become Oregon law. Thus, Oregon’s Co-Governance Model gave each of the committee Co-Chairs “the power of NO.” As a result of this “power of NO,” most bad bills died in committee.
Some Democrats were of the opinion that tax increases were needed in these times of reduced revenue streams. The Republican Co-Chairs did not agree and the “power of NO” enabled them to ensure many proposed tax increase bills died in committee.
On a more positive note, common ground was found and mutual agreement was apparent in many instances. Committee Co-Chairs often agreed on bipartisan legislation that was enacted for the best interests of Oregon citizens. Thus, much was accomplished in the various House Committees and many important bills were passed by House committees.
As discussed in a previous newsletter, a key issue of contention was whether or not to approve the bonding for the Oregon Sustainability Center (OSC). All of the Legislative Leadership except for Co-Speaker Hanna and myself favored authorizing $37.5 million in long-term bonds for the OSC project. Co-Speaker Hanna and I asked for a presentation on the status of the project and confirmed that inadequate financial and project documentation existed to justify investing millions of dollars at this time. The OSC project was not approved at this time and the bonds required for its construction will not be authorized unless and until detailed questions about the Oregon Sustainability Center’s financial sustainability are answered.
Hopefully, the links above give sufficient information on the bad bills that failed and the good bills that passed during the 2011 legislative session. Oregon citizens can be proud of the professional manner in which both the Republicans and Democrat legislators conducted themselves during this year’s legislative session.
As the House Republican Co-Chair of the Ways & Means Committee I worked hard to promote sound economic principles while compromising again and again in order to reach agreement with the House and Senate Democrat Co-Chairs. A realistic revenue number was used as the starting point for our budget negotiations. A compromise figure of $460 million was left in the “Ending Balance” to provide a cushion in case Oregon’s upcoming economic forecasts are lower than expected.
Looking back on this session, it is worth noting that the first major budget passed was $5.7 billion for K-12 schools. For the first time in more than a decade, the K-12 Budget was passed in April, which enabled school districts to plan accordingly for the next school year. Usually the K-12 budget is held back and used as an end-of-session political pawn.
Now, after moving to Salem nearly six months ago and driving nearly four hours each way to get home for the past 25 week-ends, this legislative session has finally concluded.
Under the circumstances, the session went as well as could be expected. The Co-Governance Model was a success. The budget has been balanced and the work of the Legislature has been completed. It has been an honor to represent you, wherever you live in Oregon, as a State Legislator and one of the Co-Chairs of Ways and Means.
Sincerely,
Dennis Richardson
State Representative
Oregon Transformation: In addition to his service in the Legislature, Dennis Richardson is the Co-Chair of Oregon Transformation, which brings to Oregon citizens information and opportunities to bring about lasting budget and regulatory reforms that will ensure a robust and growing private sector. To find out more, visit the website: www.oregontransformation.com.
Stay informed about Oregon Legislature: To keep up on what is going on at the Oregon Capitol and in District 4, please subscribe to my newsletters by email and YouTube, like my Facebook page, and follow me on Twitter for regular updates.
Source: Representative Richardson: Session ends. Good and bad.