Issues
Stay Focused on Domestic Violence All Year
By Jay Bozievich
Domestic Violence Awareness Month recently ended, but our efforts to stop domestic violence and to end the silence should continue throughout the year. That is why I signed a Declaration of Support for the Lane Domestic Violence Council in October and pledge to end the silence.
It is also why the Board of Commissioners used $78,000 in car rental taxes to provide additional funds for the Human Services Commission, $50,000 specifically to prevent deep cuts to rural service providers like Siuslaw Outreach Services. Supporting organizations like Siuslaw Outreach Services and Womenspace financially or by volunteering are great ways of helping those fleeing abusive relationships and educating the public.
Unfortunately, our local economic conditions are not helping in the fight against domestic violence. Economic stress and domestic violence are interwoven and the economy of western Lane County has created a high degree of stress. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunches in the rural and coastal school districts is far above the more urban districts. Siuslaw has 46.2% of students eligible, Lincoln County has 62.8%, Reedsport has 65.4%, Blachly has 67.5% and Mapleton has 71.2% of their students eligible! This compares to 36.5% eligible in Eugene School District 4j.
Efforts to escape domestic violence can also have devastating economic impacts. Leaving a relationship might mean losing a job, housing, health care, childcare, or access to a partner’s income. Economic hardship reduces options for someone leaving a bad relationship. A person escaping a violent relationship must be able to financially support themselves (sic) and their (sic) children after leaving an abusive partner. Short term housing and assistance are available from agencies like Siuslaw Outreach Services but these are often limited due to funding.
A Michigan study found that 63% of welfare recipients experienced physical abuse while the rate for the general public is closer to 20%. 51% of those Michigan welfare recipients experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes. In Oregon, approximately 80% of people requesting assistance from DHS Self Sufficiency list a history of domestic violence. Economic hardship does not cause domestic violence but economic pressure in homes that experience violence adds to it. It also limits the ability to leave a violent relationship.
A growing economy offers more opportunities to those trying to free themselves from domestic violence and that is why I support efforts to create economic opportunities in Lane County. That support includes projects that would upgrade our freight rail connections that will facilitate redevelopment of the abandoned and underutilized mill sites along the Siuslaw. I have supported efforts to improve Highway 126 that brings tourist and goods to coastal Lane County. In addition, I support efforts to return to active management of our federal forests under a sustained yield model such as proposed by Congressmen DeFazio.
It is also why I supported the Women in Transition program at Lane Community College while I was on the Board of Education. This program helps women access education, training, and employment to become more self-sufficient.
We can all do our part to aid the victims of domestic violence and to help prevent it by contributing to organizations like Siuslaw Outreach Services and other agencies that provide housing, food, legal and other assistance to people impacted by domestic violence as well as education for the public. If you do not have financial resources to help, consider volunteering your time.
One of the simplest things we can do is to recognize that domestic violence is still a problem and promise not to remain silent when you become aware of it. Encourage possible victims and/or abusers to get help. Have them contact Siuslaw Outreach services at 541-997-2816 or Womenspace’s 24-Hour Crisis Line at 541-485-6513 or 800-281-2800 toll free.
Together, we can make Domestic Violence Awareness Month last the entire year and help secure successful pathways out of violence.
Jay Bozievich is a Lane County Commissioner
Reprinted with permission from the Siuslaw News
Leiken: Lane County’s Crumbling Public Safety System
On Thursday, November 29, 2012, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office closed another 35 jail beds resulting in the release of more than 30 inmates from the Lane County Jail. By Friday afternoon two of the released inmates were already back – one arrested for robbing a bank and one for unlawful entry and theft.
The release of these inmates from the Lane County Jail is directly related to the significant reduction in federal funding and is indicative of the lack of active management of the federal forests that make up half our land base. I fully support Sheriff Turner and his dedicated staff during this challenging time. They are sworn to protect us, but have been confined by inadequate resources.
Many voices have called for Lane County to move beyond federal timber revenue sharing, yet we cannot ignore the economic potential of the forests amongst which we live. Lane County Commissioners, even this week, continue to debate the form and function of a property tax measure dedicated to supporting the jail. But to fully rebuild a functioning public safety system (jail, patrol, prosecution, youth services, and treatment and prevention) would take more than a doubling of Lane County’s existing property tax. Residents have never supported tax proposals of that size, and there is no reason to expect they will now even in spite of the dismantled state of our public safety system. A property tax increase at this time throws cold water on our fragile recovery and, under Measure 5, the only options available to voters are temporary solutions. What’s more, those options could actually impinge on the tax revenue of our community’s fire, school, city, and other taxing districts.
Lane County’s partnership with the federal government goes all the way back to 1906, when the first national forests were created and County Commissioners throughout the West lobbied Congress to create a mechanism that would replace tax revenue lost by creating enormous amounts of publicly owned lands. Congress has all but completely walked away from this promise. I thank Congressmen DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader, and Governor Kitzhaber for forcing a dialogue to find a way to ensure both the essential ecosystem and the crucial revenue that provides for the security of Lane County families.
What we’ve seen this week – what we’ve seen as our system has eroded over the last several years – is the result of the reduction of tens of millions of real dollars. It cannot be blamed on uncontrollable cost, bad management, or waste. No single, immediate solution will fix our system. We need a long term solution to a sustainable public safety system that lays out the incremental steps to get there. We are committed to identifying such a cohesive strategy.
Sid Leiken is Chair of the Lane County Board of Commissioners
PERS Members Both Write and Benefit From PERS Laws
Fewer than 9% of the 3,800,000 Oregonians are in Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). But PERS members have total control over PERS laws. No Oregon PERS law can be made or changed without their consent. It wasn’t always this way. When PERS was first created in 1945, PERS members did not control the process. They had to negotiate with state legislators, who at that time were not permitted to join PERS. As a result, both parties involved in PERS – the public employees and the people of Oregon – had independent representation when PERS laws were made.
That procedure remained in place through 1970, and so did PERS retirement benefits. For the first twenty-five years that PERS existed, a retired PERS member received a retirement benefit, after working a full career, of approximately 50% of his or her final average salary. One half of the retirement benefit was funded by the employee and the other half by the people of Oregon.
But in 1971 the Oregon Attorney General ruled that legislators could join PERS. Since then, most have signed up. And why wouldn’t they? Once in PERS, legislators had a personal financial incentive to increase PERS benefits. And that is just what they did. By 1981 they had dramatically increased PERS retirement benefits. During that period PERS legislators also created new benefits. One of these guaranteed that each year their employee PERS accounts would earn a minimum rate of return and that law allowed PERS members to decide what the guaranteed minimum return would be.
Another new law created the PERS Pick Up. The Pick Up gave PERS members two separate benefits. First, it gave them the right to shift the obligation to pay the employee PERS contributions from themselves to the people of Oregon. Second, it increased their employer funded pension by treating the amount picked up as salary in computing their final average salary, although it was not treated as salary for any other purpose.
Once they had substantially increased PERS benefits the PERS legislators made all elected judges PERS members, starting in 1984. For the first thirty-eight years that PERS existed, judges had their own independent retirement plan. That insured they would be impartial when deciding PERS lawsuits. Once judges became PERS members, however, they could not be impartial. Their personal retirement benefits would depend on their decisions.. By forcing judges into PERS, PERS legislators neatly stacked the deck in favor of PERS in every PERS lawsuit.
This move paid off handsomely for PERS members a few years later. In 1994 Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 8, which eliminated three benefits. In 1996 the PERS judges on the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated Ballot Measure 8 and reinstated those PERS benefits.
Today PERS funding is Oregon’s highest financial priority. But it was not elevated to that status by the people of Oregon. This priority was given to PERS funding by the very same PERS legislators who personally benefit from it. As long as legislators can join PERS, PERS members will control PERS laws.
So do not expect any changes to PERS. If you are concerned about this situation, ask your legislators if they are PERS member. Then tell them what you think about legislators making the PERS rules that benefit themselves.
Daniel C. Re
www.inrethepeople.wordpress.com
Daniel C. Re is an attorney practicing in Bend, Oregon
Citizens For A Safer Lane County Political Action Committee
Lane County Public Safety is defined as “The prevention of and protection from events that could endanger the safety of the general public from significant danger, injury/harm, or damage, such as crimes or disasters (natural or man-made).”
Public safety has drastically deteriorated in Lane County since the loss of Timber Receipts. To off-set this, the Federal Government has been providing funds to Lane County’s General Fund. With the work of many (including local citizens and your elected officials), the Federal Government has renewed this funding for several additional years up-to and including 2012. The funding started at approximately 53 million dollars for the year and has been reduced each year. For the 2012 year, the renewal was about 3.5 Million dollars. We believe this 2012 year was a long stretch getting these funds and there are no plans to renew it for 2013.
It is out of great concern for both the safety of the deputies, the citizens of Lane County and the institution of Lane County government that we inform you, our citizens.
In March-August of 2012, the Lane County Sheriff had to eliminate 67 positions in the Sheriff’s Office to meet the budget requirements. This resulted in the loss of several patrol deputies to respond to emergency calls for service and left coverage to only 18 hours each day (Just to be average in Patrol the “Lane County Sheriff’s Office” would need to add 151 more deputies), the loss of additional jail beds leaving only 152 beds for local offenders (just to be average in Oregon the “Lane County Sheriff’s Office” would need to add 474 more jail beds), reduction in services like Mental Health, Alternative Programs and Parole and Probation (which do not supervise any misdemeanor crimes anymore).
Normal county patrol (which covers the entire county) now only has 3 Deputies and a Sergeant assigned to dayshift and 3 Deputies with a Sergeant on Swingshift. This adds risk to the Lane County Deputies responding to any situation when they are needed. Consistently releasing pre-trial offenders back into the community due to lack of funded jail beds enhances the call load and risk to not only the responding deputies, but the citizens as a whole. Line of duty deaths have consistently increased throughout the nation and Oregon is not exempt. In 2009, there were 139 Line of Duty Deaths of Officers. 2010, there were 172 and 2011, there were 173. 2012 is fast approaching.
The Lane County Commissioners have been informed that the public has been put at risk because of their inability to hold dangerous offenders in our County Jail due to inadequate funding. This has been brought to the Board’s attention a number of times in the past by Circuit Court Judges, Police Chiefs, citizens, the District Attorney and Sheriff. The problem is… There just isn’t enough money…
It is the Sheriff’s sworn duty to “Conserve the Peace” which translates to ‘protect the public,’ and it is also his obligation to protect the Sheriff’s Office and Lane County from liability (i.e. your tax dollar). Our Lane County population is at risk, our deputies are at risk, and our economic growth is at risk when people don’t feel safe.
The Board of Commissioners have been advised by nearly all of Lane County’s criminal justice authorities, including those from the treatment community, that we need to open more jail beds to both keep the public safe and to make treatment programs work.
Our Commitment
We are a voluntary non-profit, incorporated, Political Action Committee of persons interested in the public safety issues relating to Lane County and we are not affiliated with any government or political party. The Committee has been created to participate directly and indirectly in the political campaigns of individuals for elective office, educating the citizens of Lane County as well as to participate in legislative proposals which affect Lane County Public Safety.
A website has been published for your information. Visit “CitizensForASaferLaneCounty.com” and follow the issues. Sign up for the newsletter and help us fight the battle of “Public Safety” in Lane County with your donations (your donation may be tax deductable).
Thank you for your time in helping us combat this important issue.
Steve Sieczkowski
President
Citizens For A Safer Lane County
www.CitizensForASaferLaneCounty.com
Ask candidates: ‘Do you support skydiving?’
By Jacob Daniels
As an attorney, I’ve made some general observations: First, attorneys are expensive, and second, prolonged litigation benefits nobody but the attorneys involved.
The City of Creswell is currently fighting a legal battle with Eugene Skydivers on two fronts. First, we are defending a Part 16 Complaint filed with the Federal Aviation Administration. At this point, the City has spent over $100,000.00 of your money to defend this action. Further, at the September City Council meeting we were notified that the Eugene Skydivers have filed a separate lawsuit against the City of Creswell alleging Breach of Contract and demanding $735,000.00 in damages.
You probably already know what this fight is about, but I will break it down for the rest of you.
Basically, Eugene Skydivers want to drop (land) at the airport. On the other hand, the City believes that skydiving at Creswell Airport isn’t safe. Because of the City’s belief that skydiving isn’t safe, the Eugene Skydivers aren’t allowed to drop at the Creswell Airport.
I admit that the thought of skydiving terrifies me and that’s why I’m not a participant.
Nonetheless, skydiving has been carried out in a safe manner at the Creswell Municipal Airport for many years. The skydiving activity is something fun to watch and was a selling point for many who have chosen to move to Creswell.
Further, amidst these tough economic times, I believe that the City of Creswell should be sending a pro-business message rather than an anti-business message. In this case, the City is creating significant roadblocks for a once-profitable small business. After Eugene Skydivers, who is next?
It is my goal for the City to enter discussions with Eugene Skydivers to find common ground and settle this case. I believe that the settlement should contain a provision allowing skydiving activity to resume at the Creswell Airport. But first, we need to elect City leaders willing to support skydiving.
Those who disagree with me will quickly cite the City’s potential liability if somebody were to get hurt skydiving.
Like any other person, I would hate to see an injury and we certainly don’t need another lawsuit. Nonetheless, skydivers sign a waiver before diving and I believe it would be difficult to find the City financially liable if an injury were to occur. Even if the City were found liable the Eugene Skydivers’ Lease Agreement requires them to indemnify the City for any lawsuit.
In my mind we have two options: (1) continue spending tax dollars on lawyers to fight something that most people in Creswell enjoy; or (2) enter a settlement that includes certain safety provisions. So here is my advice to you… the next time a candidate comes to your doorstep ask him/her: “Do you support skydiving at the airport?”
Jacob Daniels is a member of the Creswell City Council. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of any other City Councilor, City Employee, or the City of Creswell.
Reprinted with permission from the Creswell Chronicle
Union Pacific Coal Trains in the Pacific Northwest
Thirty Plus Years Later, Local Governments Suffering From Environmental Decisions
By Larry Huss
Last Saturday’s Oregonian carried a story about another “blue ribbon panel” to be appointed by Gov. John Kitzhaber:
“Gov. John Kitzhaber said he’ll convene a panel of timber industry executives, conservation groups and hard-hit county representatives to figure out how to allow more logging on 2.6 million acres of federal land while protecting key environmental features.”
Mr. Kitzhaber has a long history of appointing blue ribbon panels and then ignoring their advice. It is one of those political gimmicks that makes it look like you are all action when, in fact, you are just all talk.
But that’s not the real story here. The real story is about real economic consequences of a federal government that over reaches “in the name of the greater good.”
“If ultimately approved by Congress, a deal on the O&C [Oregon and California Railroad timber] lands could be the first step in resolving a problem that has bedeviled rural Oregon for decades. The federal government owns 60 percent of the forestland in Oregon but accounts for only 12 percent of the state’s timber harvest each year – a harvest that generations of Oregonians depended on for jobs and funding for schools and county services. [Bracketed words supplied]
The various pieces of environmental legislation adopted by Congress are best described as “target legislation” that define goals and then turns the details over to an army of bureaucrats. And therein lies the problem. The broad authority granted to the bureaucrats allows virtually unlimited actions in furtherance of the goals without regard to consequences in other areas. And the federal courts validated this myopic view of bureaucratic action.
The result has been decades of increasingly intrusive rules, endless studies and consumptive litigation. In each instance, environmental activists recognize that each step involves a delay – and not just a short delay but rather delays that stretch into years – and that such delays result in victory even when the merits would result in defeat. A visible reminder of the effects of delay is the 2002 Biscuit fire in Southern Oregon.
Let’s make sure that we understand the size of the problem. The Biscuit Fire consumed 400,000 acres in the Siskiyou National Forest – an area dominated by conifers and hardwoods. Forty-two percent of the trees were killed by the fire and another eight percent were so damaged as to put them at immediate risk of destruction by insect infestation. The trees killed and damaged represented five billion board feed of timber. That is an amount that is roughly 10 times the total amount of timber harvested on public lands in Oregon in the same year, 2002.
In the immediate aftermath of the fire, it was estimated that half of the timber was salvageable. Of that 2.5 billion board feet of salvageable lumber, less than one per cent was actually be harvested. The remainder will stand like blackened sentinels testifying to the ability of environmental extremists to use the courts to thwart common sense and modern technology. The environmental extremists know that there is a limited time within which you can harvest marketable burned timber and their lawsuits and appeals can run out the clock before the timber can be harvested and the fire-damaged forests replanted. Even in an instance when nature has been ultimately destructive and the intrusion of man will be more beneficial than harmful.
The Biscuit fire is representative a whole series of actions that basically devastated the timber industry in Oregon beginning in the 1980’s. Thousand of good family wage jobs were lost and long time family businesses were forced to close as the ability to harvest timber dried up. Three decades have passed without any significant relief from the effects of these environmental laws and regulations. Twenty-six years of Democrat administrations in Oregon have passed without so much as a peep regarding the economic damage caused by these acts.
But now there is concern. Why at this late date? Because now the economic reality of the collapse of the timber industry is being visited upon government. While the timber industry was devastated from the outset, government was immunized through a series of federal acts that provided “replacement funds” for tax revenues lost from the now quiescent timber industry. As the Oregonian – ever late to the party – noted:
“The decline of logging due to policy changes, endangered species protection, lawsuits, recessions and other forces has greatly reduced timber revenues to a number of Oregon counties.
“Congress supplied replacement funding with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, beginning in 2000. The county timber payments were extended twice, and a last round of emergency checks was delivered this year. In several counties, the payments provided 60 percent or more of total operating budgets.”
Fast forward to the economic collapse in 2008 and four years of record deficits. A federal government, strapped for cash, has ended the federal payments and local governments now feel the same deprivation as the industry upon which they once relied. As the Oregonian noted:
“Some Counties have already reduced sheriff’s patrols, let prisoners out of short-staffed jails and closed departments.”
But then here is Mr. Kitzhaber attempting to redefine the problem for the Oregonian:
“’We can’t ignore what’s going on our there in our rural communities’, the governor said. ‘They want the dignity of being able to bring home a paycheck and take care of their families. That’s the part I’m really concerned about’”
Please governor, give us a break. If you really gave a damn about the dignity of people being able to bring home a paycheck you would have done something about it during your first two terms. But back then the federal dollars were flowing, the fly-fishing was magnificent and all was good in your little world. It is solely and only because government now faces a funding crisis that you are moved to even speak about the issue let alone do anything.
And these are not the only “social engineering” projects that are about to go under because a lack of funding. Wind and solar projects dependent largely on past and future government subsidies are about to crash given the likelihood that federal subsidies, including tax credits, will end. As much as the left loves the electric car, it too is about to end as subsidies are withdrawn. We have learned lately that it costs General Motors $89,000 to produce a Chevy Volt that sells for $47,000. (It was bad enough when we learned that the Chevy Volt was simply a modified Chevy Cruz that sells for $17,000 and will get only 30 miles on an overnight charge.) There is significant chatter in the auto industry that the reason General Motors is pressing for the federal government to sell its remaining 26 percent of the company and that the federal government is resisting is because General Motors wants to dump the Volt along with other government mandates. And finally, the light rail projects loved by Portland’s liberal establishment face future headwinds as transportation funds are scaled back.
And therein lies the point. Uneconomical decisions fail over the long run. Either because the market place moves beyond those decisions or, as in the case of the environmental curtailment of the forest industry the burdens imposed on private industry eventually adversely effect the finances of government.
But before the liberals who dominate Oregon politics go apoplectic over the prospect that an additional tree will be cut in Oregon, or that – God forbid – someone should make a profit from cutting a tree, please remember that Mr. Kitzhaber has a long record of appointing blue ribbon panels and then ignoring their advice. One should expect that the solution to a lack of government funding in Oregon’s timber counties and schools will not be found in producing something but rather in another form of government subsidy. For those of you forced to endure an education in Portland public schools, that means that the state legislature will be asked to subsidize these counties. And that means an additional burden spread across all of the taxpayers in Oregon – or at least that declining percentage of Oregonians who actually pay taxes.
Reprinted with permission from Oregon Catalyst
A Pragmatist Decides How to Vote
By Thomas Michael Stewart
“Pragmatist” has become a negative word in politics. These days, when people say that a politician is a pragmatist, they usually mean someone who has no strong principles and will say or do anything that seems expedient at the time.
The corruption of this word is unfortunate. As originally defined by American philosopher William James (1842-1910), pragmatism meant nothing more than that the worth of every new idea must be measured against the way that idea performs in practice.
I’m about to graduate from college, and I want to know that there’s a job waiting for me when I do. So, come November, I’m not going to vote Democrat or Republican. I’m going to vote for the presidential candidate whom I regard as the closest to being a true pragmatist.
Our most successful presidents have been pragmatists. In recent memory, we can point to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both were pragmatists. Reagan was a committed tax-cutter who was willing to raise taxes when circumstances warranted it. Bill Clinton was a liberal who wanted to expand government, but was willing to turn 180 degrees and proclaim that “The era of big government is over” when the mood of the country changed.
What about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? Mr. Obama came into office facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression – a crisis that, admittedly, was not his fault. To stop the free fall, Mr. Obama pumped $800 billion into the economy. Not all of that money was spent wisely, but I believe that catastrophe was averted. Nevertheless, economic growth remains sluggish.
The pragmatic thing to do, once the results of massive government intervention had proved disappointing, would have been to look for alternatives. Instead, Mr. Obama chose to believe that government could reinvent the American economy and return it to prosperity. So he gave us Obamacare, Solyndra and the Chevy Volt – along with near record-high gasoline prices.
Has Mr. Obama learned from experience? His campaign rhetoric to date suggests that he has not. He’s presided over the weakest economic recovery since World War II, but it’s clear that if he gets another term he intends to continue the same kind of policies that he has pursued so far.
But would Mitt Romney be any better? If Mr. Obama has a mystical faith that federal spending and government regulation will bring prosperity, Mr. Romney seems to be no less devout in his conviction that tax cuts and laissez-faire capitalism will do the same.
So which of the two candidates is closest to being a pragmatist? It’s a tough call, but I’d give Mr. Romney the edge. First, because Mr. Romney’s faith in tax cuts is tempered with reason. He wants to lower tax rates while at the same time eliminating many tax breaks. If he’s sincere in this, the result will be not only lower rates, but a tax code that is closer to being neutral. In other words, he is trying to create a tax code that doesn’t try to manipulate the economy through tax incentives. Why? So that taxpayers will base their investment decisions on their best judgment instead of how much they expect to save at tax time. More neutrality in the tax code has got to be good for the economy.
Second, Mr. Romney was a successful business executive. He knows how the market works and what motivates other executives to make significant capital investments and thereby create jobs. As an intellectual, Mr. Obama lacks this real-world expertise. So he is forced to rely on government solutions because he really doesn’t know what else to do.
Third, Mr. Romney is offering himself to the American people as a practical problem-solver. For example, he’s produced an economic recovery plan that has been endorsed by 400 leading economists, including four Nobel Prize winners. So there’s good reason to believe that a Romney administration would pursue sound, market-tested solutions to the nation’s economic problems.
I doubt that William James would wholly approve of either of our two major candidates for President. But to me, at least, Mitt Romney seems the more pragmatic of the two. That’s why he will get my vote.
Thomas Michael Stewart, a resident of Eugene and former student at Marist and Sheldon High Schools, is currently a senior at Princeton University. He has contributed to Lane Solutions in the past.
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
“YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!”
Individual Initiative & the American Economy
“YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!”
Let’s be fair to President Obama.
The commercial, “These Hands,” a commercial currently being aired by the Romney campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr49t4-2b8),quotes Mr. Obama proclaiming during his July 13th speech in Roanoke, Virginia: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
The quote is accurate, but perhaps taken a bit out of context. The full context is as follows: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have, that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” (emphasis added)
Perhaps the president simply expressed himself poorly. Possibly Mr. Obama’s statement, “you didn’t build that,” was meant to convey that – alone – entrepreneurs did not build the nation’s infrastructure nor create all the conditions necessary for their success. This is a nice thought. However, there is also the possibility that Mr. Obama truly believes what the Romney commercial implies: that those who succeed under our free enterprise system owe their success not to their own brains, guts and grit, but to government largesse.
Consider what Mr. Obama said immediately after the sentence italicized above: “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
But this claim is wildly inaccurate. Government research did not create the Internet, nor was profit an objective of its creation. What the government (which is to say, the American people as taxpayers) did do was provide funding, initially through the Defense Department, and later through legislation sponsored by then-Senator, Al Gore.
No one person or entity invented the Internet, but the research involved was done mainly by universities and private enterprises, notably the Xerox Corporation. The original purpose of the Internet was to link computer research centers. Government research did not create the Internet “so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.” Making money off the Internet was a by-product of the government’s involvement, not the objective; just as the objective of the space program was to put a man on the moon, not to create freeze-dried foods, hand-held cordless vacuums, temper foam mattresses and other consumer products that were spun off from space technology.
It is true that a great deal of the pure research in this country takes place in government laboratories and in university and private research labs with the help of government grants. Mr. Obama had that right. But the government does not identify the commercial possibilities of this research, nor does it make and market successful consumer products; the business community does this. We don’t look to NASA to provide us with temper foam mattresses anymore than we look to the Defense Department to provide us with Facebook.
President Obama’s remarks in Roanoke remind me of an old story about a Scottish minister who arrived to take charge of a new parish. After touring the manse, the minister ventured out into the back yard and was stopped dead in his tracks by the sight of the most beautiful flower garden that he had ever beheld. Rubbing his hands together in sheer joy, he turned to the gardener and exclaimed, “Oh, Davy! Look at what the Lord hath done!”
The gardener snorted and replied, “Aye, Preacher. But ye should have seen this garden last winter, when the Lord had it all to himself!”
The American business community is the gardener in this fable, and President Obama is the well meaning, head-in-the-clouds minister who seems unable to recognize the role of individual initiative, persistence and hard work in the creation of any successful project.
Whether you consider the Romney campaign’s commercial to be fair or not, it has thrown the national spotlight on one of Mr. Obama’s greatest weaknesses – he is an intellectual who has never had to run a business or meet a payroll, and he lacks the practical understanding of how our free enterprise system really works – how individual drive and initiative built the American economy and worked to keep it strong.
Thomas Michael Stewart, a resident of Eugene and former student at Marist and Sheldon High Schools, is currently a senior at Princeton University.