Issues
Re: Why I Am Suing PERS
By Daniel C. Re
On May 13, 2011, I filed a lawsuit against PERS in the Oregon Court of Appeals. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of three PERS administrative rules that are based on the 1996 Oregon Supreme Court decision that invalidated Ballot Measure 8. Oral argument in the case has been set for August 23, 2012. The primary issue is whether judges who are PERS members can decide PERS cases.
PERS was created in 1945. For the first 38 years that PERS existed, Oregon judges had their own independent retirement plan and were not PERS members. During that period, Oregon judges were neutral when they decided PERS cases. But in 1983, the Oregon legislature passed a new law that required the judges to join PERS.
That law took away the judges’ neutrality in PERS cases and deprived Oregonians of their right to independent judges when PERS cases are decided. By making all judges PERS members, the legislature stacked the deck totally in favor of PERS members every time a PERS case goes to court. The invalidation of Ballot Measure 8 in 1996 has required hundreds of millions of dollars every year to go to PERS to make sure most PERS members will never have to pay one cent in PERS contributions. If Ballot Measure 8 had been upheld, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now going to PERS members each year would be available to provide vital services, such as education and public safety, to all Oregonians. But it’s not, it’s just going to PERS members.
Independent judges protect us from governmental abuse. That is a fundamental right. I do not believe the government can take that right away from us. This is a battle that must be fought. And that is why I am suing PERS.
Daniel C. Re, www.inrethepeople.wordpress.com.
Daniel C. Re is an attorney in Bend, Oregon. He will address the Rubicon Society in Eugene on Thursday, August 2 at noon. The meeting is open to the public and there is no charge. Click here for more information: http://www.rubiconsociety.org/events/dan-re-pers/
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.
Bold Leadership Needed to Change Economic Course for Oregon and Lane County
By Christopher Gergen
Over the course of the last several weeks, we have discussed what economic factors will bring more business to Oregon and Lane County. Additionally, we have pulled the curtain off the many half-truths found in the political talking points found on both sides of the aisle concerning what creates economic demand (often-called economic stimulus) for goods and services originating inside the State of Oregon. Specifically, we have discussed:
- The Oregon Legislature has failed to create an environment to entice businesses to move to the state, let alone create sufficient jobs without such migration.
- The reason jobs are not currently being created is due to a lack of demand and a lack of demand doesn’t have anything to do with entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the wealthy creating jobs or taxation scaring investors away from starting businesses.
- Ultimately, it is you—the consumer—through the mechanism of demand that creates jobs and therefore it is you (with the aid of government and business) who possess the ultimate power to create the economic demand in Lane County and in Oregon at large.
- The Oregon Legislature should immediately move to repeal the economically damaging Measures 66 and 67, address the PERS crisis in a meaningful way that produces results, not rhetoric, and reduce government spending on wasteful or pet projects and redirect those funds to public safety and education.
- If businesses in Oregon would like to bend the cost of labor downward, they must make a serious push to enact Right to Work laws for Oregon workers. Additionally, they should enact corporate policies that pay Oregon workers living wages as opposed to minimum wages because doing so increases productivity, lowers overall turnover, and puts more cash into the hands of the people who create demand and drive economic growth.
Oregon has so much going for it—natural resources, deep-water harbors, an educated work force, beautiful universities, and many natural wonders. We have what it takes to move Oregon forward once again into prosperity and the success of Lane County is a major factor to making that happen. We can—we should—lead the nation in economic growth or in the least find ourselves in the top 5 best places to live, to work, to raise a family and to retire. The first step in making this goal a reality is repealing or reversing our slow growth and no growth policies that continually hold us back or worse—destroy the opportunity for new businesses to be planted and blossom in our great state. The time to acknowledge these needed changes has come to a head through the dire situations set before us. In order to change our course the general citizenry of Oregon must put in Salem and Lane County governments leaders who not only understand this but who will boldly act on it.
We can do it—but will we?
Creating Jobs in Oregon – The Role Of Business
By Christopher Gergen
In the last installment of this series we discussed specific steps that Oregon and Lane County governments can take to improve the climate for job creation in Oregon. They are:
- Restructure PERS. As it is currently structured, the funding demanded for fueling PERS is pushing Oregon toward the financial abyss that awaits somewhere between 20 and 31 other states in the not too distant future.
- Lower (or, preferably, eliminate) government spending for non-essential programs and projects and redirect these funds to essential functions such as public safety and education. Sending Public Utility Commissioners on junkets to Armenia and spending $900,000 on unnecessary bike path signs are not a formula for economic growth.
- Repeal Measures 66 & 67. Besides missing their revenue targets by about 50%, these measures have encouraged businesses and tax-payers to either locate elsewhere or leave Oregon.
To read the entire article which is summarized above, follow this link.
Today we’ll continue our discussion on job creation in Oregon by recommending steps that businesses can take to improve the economic climate.
- Enact Right to Work Laws. Right to work laws, governed by the 1947 Taft Hartley Act, prohibit unions and employers from agreeing that a union can require that the employees of a business join that union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. They have been enacted in 23 states.
In a paper published by the Cato Institute on the subject of the effects of unions on economic freedom and prosperity the authors note, “Right-to-work laws also appear to help economic development, as Palomba and Palomba (1971) and Moore and Thomas (1974) note, which can factor into the debate. Calzonetti and Walker (1991) present survey data showing that firms do consider right-to-work laws in their location decisions.”
Currently, Oregon is not a right to work state and as such is subject to the increased labor costs that inevitably coincide with the use of Union labor. If businesses in Oregon are serious about bending the cost curve of labor downward, they must make a serious push to enact Right to Work laws for Oregon workers.
- Achieve profitability that will justify paying wages that are in line with the local cost of living and that attract high quality employees. In times of economic downturn workers are forced to work in jobs for which they are underpaid and overqualified. This is a reality of supply and demand—when the supply of workers far outpaces demand for workers, wages decline or hold steady.
It’s important to note here that businesses can only pay wages that are justified by their profitability. It is my belief that, given the achievement of healthy profits, Oregon businesses will direct an appropriate portion of these funds toward paying competitive wages that will attract the best employees.
Obviously I am not advocating that anyone overpay labor in some feckless attempt at income redistribution. I am advocating that businesses pay competitive wages because, given the profitability that allows it, it is in their best interest to do so.
First and foremost, when businesses can afford to pay what it takes to attract highly productive employees they have a better chance of getting…and keeping them.
A “knock-on effect” is that when workers have more money to spend in the economy it naturally increases demand. And an increase in demand spurs economic growth and increases business revenues.
Again, I am not advocating that businesses forego funding expansion in an effort to “be nice” to employees. Business is not charity. It exists to return profits to its investors. But I am advocating that, given sufficient profits, business pay what is necessary (no more, no less) to attract and hold productive employees. The vast majority of businesses already do just that.
The net effect of increased productivity due to high quality employees and lower turnover is higher profitability. Higher profitability leads to business growth and increased employment…and higher wages.
I have now presented some ideas on the roles that both government and business can (and should) play in order to create job growth in Oregon. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this crucial issue.
In the next issue of “Lane Solutions” I’ll summarize the points I’ve made in this five part series and share some final thoughts on job creation in the Great State of Oregon. Be sure to come back and join the discussion.
1. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-1.pdf (p. 14)
Chris Gergen is a Springfield based financial advisor and is the author of The Quality Paradigm: Why You and Your Business Need it to Succeed. He blogs at Be Epic.Daily. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
Creating Jobs in Oregon
By Christopher Gergen
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein
Solving the grave economic challenges facing Lane County and the State of Oregon cannot be accomplished by mouthing the same tired rhetoric based upon faulty assumptions about the economy. We need fresh, original solutions based in reality.
Over the course of the last two installments (Part 1, Part 2) in this four part series we discovered why the usual suspects of job creation—government, “stimulus spending,” entrepreneurs and small business—do not by themselves create permanent jobs:
- Government does not create jobs by legislating, taxing, and regulating businesses to the point they leave the state or decide not to move their companies to Oregon in the first place.
- “Stimulus spending” on infrastructure projects only creates temporary jobs while the project is in progress. Once it ends, the jobs end with it. Also, “stimulus spending” forces governments to raise taxes on everyone, which in turn drags down consumer spending, further depressing job creation.
- Entrepreneurs and small businesses can’t create permanent jobs absent demand for their products.
- When companies and small business owners invest capital into the marketplace they hire under the assumption that demand will be sufficient to sustain the new jobs. Should demand fail to support the venture, the jobs created are lost—and thus were temporary.
In this installment we’re going to discuss where sustainable jobs really come from. Then in our final installment we’ll examine the proper roles of government, small business, and consumers in creating a healthy economic environment.
Understanding demand is key to understanding how consumers behave and how market forces work. Today we’re going to focus on two types of demand: market demand and consumer demand.
The macro solutions for Oregon’s and Lane County’s economic ills are found in creating market demand for goods and services, which, in turn, is created by consumer demand. To accomplish this, the Oregon Legislature needs to create a healthy economic environment by slashing a burdensome regulation regime.
A 2009 study by Cal State Sacramento economists on the effects of the State Legislature’s over-regulation of the Californian economy (1) found “…that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion, which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product. The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs, which is a tenth of the State’s population.” Oregon faces a similar challenge.
Regulation kills businesses and collaterally kills consumer demand in Oregon because the consumer cannot demand an Oregon product from a producer that does not exist in Oregon. He or she may still demand the product, but it now must come from a more business friendly state.
The Oregon Legislature has the power to erode or even destroy Oregon’s market demand. That destroys existing jobs and discourages creation of new ones. It’s as simple as that. If the market demand for Oregon goods and services is artificially low or non-existent for goods and services in demand elsewhere, it’s most likely because the business environment in Oregon is not advantageous to the producer of that good or service operating profitably. That fact alone means that while demand could potentially be high for a particular good or service, it makes no difference to our economy because Oregon doesn’t produce or offer it—which means these jobs don’t get created.
Market demand, which creates and sustains jobs, is driven by individual (i.e. consumer) demand. A group of consumers all buying the same thing creates market demand. At its optimum, this demand can even shield a company against a severe recession. Apple is a great example.
In January, 2012 Apple posted enormous earnings and revenue for the fourth quarter of 2011. To put into perspective how well Apple performed, the consumer demand for its products and services created more profits ($46.33B) for Apple than Google had in total revenue ($10.8B) (2) (3). It’s worth noting that Apple not only isn’t laying people off; it’s hiring—but not in Oregon.
At the other end of the spectrum is General Motors. In early March, GM announced it was suspending production of its Chevy Volt for five weeks (4). Chris Lee, GM spokesman, cited the reason for the suspension of production was “matching (its) production levels with demand and building to market.” This “matching…production levels with (consumer) demand and building to market (demand)” caused 1,300 people to temporarily lose their jobs. The Chevy Volt has continuously missed its sales (demand) targets because consumers just don’t like the product —resulting in job losses.
Public and private sectors both have a role to play in creating an environment that increases consumer demand. In our last installment we will look at specific things the public and private sectors in Lane County and Oregon can do to increase demand for Oregon goods and services. Specifically, we’ll look at how permanently lowering and reallocating public spending can bring Oregon’s economy out of stagnation. Well also look at the role wages play in this process.
Be sure to join me for this discussion in the next issue of “Lane Solutions.”
Note: For further study on the subject of economics, please click here for a good primer: http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/default.asp#axzz1rwn7hGc4
Chris Gergen is a Springfield based financial advisor and is the author of The Quality Paradigm: Why You and Your Business Need it to Succeed. He blogs at Be Epic.Daily. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
(1) http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/25/study-regulation-costs-california-economy-almost-500-billion/
(3) http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q4_google_earnings.html
(4) http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2012/03/gm_to_stop_chevy_volt_producti.html
Private Sector Job Creation is the Answer to Long Term Stability
By Chris Gergen
Someone once said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Such is the case concerning the economy and how jobs are created. In my last article I discussed the role government does and does not play in creating jobs. The irrefutable fact remains that governments do not create jobs. Rather, through taxation and regulation they create or destroy the ecosystem indispensable for the creation of permanent jobs.
Many believe that entrepreneurs, small business owners, the wealthy and those aspiring to become wealthy are the driving force behind job creation. As with the idea of government creating jobs, this idea of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the wealthy creating permanent jobs is also incorrect.
According to Forbes Magazine[i], Phil Knight, Oregon native, co-founder, and former Chairman of Nike, is the 47th richest man in the world and the 19th richest man in the United States. Surely, if anyone could create permanent jobs it would be Phil Knight and Nike. Few people realize that neither Phil Knight nor Nike created any permanent jobs. Entrepreneurs like Phil Knight invest capital to design, develop, and deploy their ideas, services, and products until the capital runs out. Jobs created by entrepreneurs such as Phil Knight, small business owners and the wealthy are only as secure as the level of initial capitalization of the venture. As I mentioned in my last article, any jobs in Oregon and Lane County would be good jobs, but Oregon and Lane County need to look long term at sustainable, permanent solutions to their persistent unemployment problems.
Let’s look at where these permanent jobs come from.
According to those who argue that entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the wealthy create jobs, a key role of government is simply lowering taxes on “job creators” so they have the capital to invest in creating ideas, services, and products. However, this logic is not supported by the facts. Low tax rates by themselves will not create permanent jobs. During the boom years of the 1990s, the dotcom rage “created” thousands of jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, the boom of the 1990s was really a bubble that burst in March 2000 and sent the economy into a deep economic struggle, forcing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to finish lower than the previous year for the following three consecutive years[ii].
During the 1990s billions of dollars were invested by investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the wealthy in creating thousands upon thousands of jobs in many different sectors. According to the logic of those who argue for lower tax rates so job creators can create jobs, the tax rates should have been low during this period. However, the truth is much different: the high bracket tax rate on “job creators” from 1993 to 2000 was 39.6% and in 2001, the tax rate was only lowered to 39.1%[iii].
The current rate of 35% in 2012 is below the tax rates of the boom years of the 1990s. If the idea of lowering taxes on the wealthy in order to create jobs were valid, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the wealthy would currently be creating jobs hand over fist because our current rates are the lowest they have been in over 20 years[iv]. If you were to look for rates lower than our current rates, you would have to go back to the three year period of 1988 through 1990 when the rate was 28%. Before that, you would have to go back to pre-World War Two era rates of 24% and 25% in the mid-1920s and early 1930s.
During the boom years of the 1990s and into the aftermath of the dotcom collapse, the national unemployment rate hovered between 3.7% (December 1999) and 6.3% (January 2002)[v]—even with tax rates above 36%. The sudden rise in unemployment in the early 2000s was due to a lack of capital to continue funding these companies, which in turn was caused by a lack of consumer demand. As a result, not only did investors take a bath, but most of the thousands of jobs “created” by the boom suddenly disappeared—because they were temporary. Ideas, services, and products that people demanded — not tax rates or the single-handed efforts of “job creators”—caused the jobs boom of the 1990s.
The reason jobs are not currently being created is because of a lack of demand. And a lack of demand doesn’t have anything to do with entrepreneurs, small business owners, and the wealthy creating jobs or taxation scaring investors away from starting businesses. Fixing our economic woes in Oregon and Lane County begins by looking at the real problems.
The economy is bigger than the government, entrepreneurs, small business owners and the wealthy. The economy is comprised of all of us. In order to create demand, a few things have to happen legislatively and in the business sector. Be sure to come back to “Lane Solutions” – because that will be the subject of our next installment.
Chris Gergen is a Springfield based financial advisor and is the author of The Quality Paradigm: Why You and Your Business Need it to Succeed. He blogs at Be Epic.Daily. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
[i] http://www.forbes.com/profile/phil-knight/
[ii]http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html
[iii] http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
[iv] http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
Where Jobs Come From
By Chris Gergen
With all of the discussion about the economy, jobs, taxes, and the business climate in Oregon, I think it wise that we address the one question that keeps coming up in the national media and local debates in Salem—who creates jobs? Generally, debaters of this issue take one of two sides: the government creates jobs or the private sector (specifically, the rich and those trying to get rich) and small business owners—create jobs. Those who advocate one side over the other argue passionately in favor of their position. What’s more, both sides of the argument have legislators and political influencers who, just as passionately, believe their position is correct. Would you believe both of them are ignoring a significant factor in “job creation?” And it’s a factor that is crucial to understanding why Eugene, Lane County, and Oregon lag in job creation.
Let me tell you what they’re missing…
Regardless of who holds power at the state or national level, most (if not all) government economic expansion programs focus on providing tax breaks or subsidies to companies to entice them to move from one state to another. This was a significant factor in the robust job creation from 2000 to 2009 in Texas. 21.6% of these jobs were the result of employers moving in from other states. An additional 23.7% can be attributed to international migration (1). Thus more than one fifth of the jobs created in Texas were the result of jobs lost in other states because Texas offered an environment that was highly attractive to out of state companies.
Here are two other relevant facts:
- Between 2004 and 2007, 61 California companies moved to Austin alone (2). Why? Reasons often cited are low taxes & labor costs, less union control, ease of obtaining permits, and less stifling regulations.
- A survey of U.S. executives revealed that Texas is number one among states in offering a friendly business environment (California, New York and Illinois bring up the rear) (3). Many attribute this to the elements mentioned immediately above. In an era wherein capital and labor are highly mobile, job migration is a factor that states ignore at their peril.
All of us would be happy to have jobs shuffled to Oregon and, especially, to Lane County. And given the length of time the Oregon unemployment rate has been above the national average (25 of the last 30 years leading up to 2008 [4]), I would agree that any job growth would be good job growth. However, I would caution that any jobs created by shuffling jobs to Oregon from somewhere else could be shuffled out of Oregon just as quickly with the passage of anti-business and anti-wealth legislation such as Measures 66 and 67.
Let’s focus on some of the damage, either already caused or anticipated, as a result of Measures 66 & 67:
- According to the Cascade Policy Institute, Measures 66 and 67 will result in the loss of at least 70,000 jobs (5).
- According to Kiplinger, because of the high tax rates imposed by Measures 66 and 67 (for its effect on passive income) Oregon is the fourth most unfriendly state for retirees. For those retirees with taxable income of $250,000 or more, Oregon shares with Hawaii the dubious honor of imposing the highest income tax rate in America. Taken together, these policies have earned Oregon a place on its “do not live here in your second act” list (6).
- The year following the passage of Measures 66 and 67, Oregon dropped six places on the Tax Foundation’s list of states based upon business climate (7).
- Besides damaging both business and consumer climates, Measures 66 & 67 have missed their revenue projections by a staggering 50% (8). The “cure” for Oregon’s budgetary woes has left the State with continuing, huge budgetary challenges.
Clearly, the Oregon Legislature has failed to create an environment that would entice businesses to move to the state, let alone create sufficient jobs without such migration.
Will Oregon and Eugene absorb these lessons? Will they learn that high taxes, stifling regulations and difficulty in obtaining permits here are a formula for job creation – in Texas?
Next month we’ll discuss the role of the rich and small business owners in creating jobs. Be sure to come back – you’ll be very surprised.
Sources:
- http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/
- http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/video/Is-Texas-Stealing-California-Jobs?20120119-ktbcw
- http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2011/09/texas-has-top-business- environment.html
- http://www.bls.gov/. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/assets/pdf/J0131639327.PDF
- http://cascadepolicy.org/projects/more/measures-66-and-67-will-cost-70000-oregonians-their-jobs/
- http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/TaxUnfriendlyStatesRetirees/5.html#top (10 Tax-Unfriendly States For Retirees 2011)
- http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25680.html
- http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/measure_66_tax_revenue_coming/2382/comments-2.html
Chris Gergen is a Springfield based financial advisor and is the author of The Quality Paradigm: Why You and Your Business Need it to Succeed. He blogs at Be Epic.Daily. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
CONSERVATION VICTORIES
To provide protection for Oregon’s old growth and natural treasures the O&C TRUST, CONSERVATION, AND JOBS ACT
Provides legislative protection for old growth on 2.6 million acres of public forests in western Oregon for the first time in history.
Adds nearly 150 miles of Oregon rivers to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including:
- 93 miles of the iconic Rogue River and its tributaries;
- 21 miles of the Molalla River;
- 19 miles of the threatened Chetco River; and
- 15 miles of Wasson and Franklin Creeks, tributaries of the Umpqua River
Protects 90,000 acres of Oregon forests as wilderness, including:
- 58,000 acres to be added to the existing Wild Rogue Wideness
- 32,000 acres of some of the last remaining old growth in Oregon’s Coast Range and permanent protection for Devil’s Staircase
Transfers more than 1,000,000 acres of mature and old growth forests from the Bureau of Land Management to the Forest Service to be managed as National Forest Lands.
Requires thousands of miles of legacy roads and logging roads in disrepair to be brought up to federal and state standards.
Repeals the contentious O&C Act of 1937 that led to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.
Includes management restrictions on O&C Trust lands to protect clean water, terrestrial, and aquatics values, including:
- Prohibition on aerial application of herbicides and pesticides and a requirement for a public process for the development of an integrated Pest Management Plan;
- Long and short timber rotation ages to provide diversification and to encourage the recruitment of complex, early serial habitat; and
- A sustained yield requirement to prevent overcutting
Expedites land exchanges between the federal government, the O&C Trust lands, and private landowners to create larger contiguous blocks of forested land in western Oregon and to improve the conservation values of such lands.
Ensures the scientific community and general public are represented on the O&C Board of Trustees
Maintains federal ownership of all O&C lands and public access privileges.
CERTAINTY FOR COUNTIES
To uphold the federal governments’ commitment to rural and federally forested communities in western Oregon the O&C TRUST, CONSERVATION, AND JOBS ACT provides:
- Forested counties in western Oregon with a sustainable and more predictable level of revenues in perpetuity to support basic county government services like law enforcement, education, health, and transportation.
- Turns around nearly two decades of gridlock on federal forests that will help timber dependent counties in Western Oregon improve their economic and financial outlooks.
- Estimated to create thousands of new jobs in rural communities throughout Oregon and will reduce unacceptably high unemployment levels in the State.
- Moves counties away from an uncertain future of federal payments to a long-tern solution that meets the federal government’s obligation to federally forested communities while bringing jobs back to our communities and health back to our federal forests.
- Ensures legal certainty by establishing a fiduciary trust for the O&C Counties and ensures strong O&C county representation on the Board of Trustees to guarantee the Board’s fiduciary obligation to the 18 O&C Counties.
- Sets a fair standard for the federal government by requiring the Board of Trustees to provide a return from the O&C Trust lands to the American taxpayer and U.S. Treasury.
- Establishes a temporary federal loan to aid O&C Counties during transition to payments from the O&C Trust.
O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act
Oregon’s rural communities cannot afford another 20 years of gridlock in our federal forest. Without a new path forward, mills will continue to disappear, forest jobs will be outsourced, counties will be pushed of the budgetary cliff, and forest health will continue to decline.
A bipartisan plan now before Congress, “O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act” would create thousands of new jobs in Oregon’s forested communities, ensure the health of federal forests for future generations, and provide long-term funding certainty for Oregon’s rural schools, roads and law enforcement agencies.
Federal support payment to rural and forested communities commonly known as “county payments” or “timber payments” that have helped support rural Oregon counties for over a decade expired on September 30, 2011. Lack of revenues from timber harvest from our federal forests or a continuation of timber payments in lieu of timber revenue will have serious consequences for Oregon families and businesses. A recent Oregon State University study found that without timber payments, Oregon’s rural counties will shed between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs. Oregon business sales will drop an estimated $385 million to $400 million. Also, Oregon’s rural counties will lose $250 million to $300 million in revenues.
For counties already near the financial cliff and facing depression-like unemployment, this could be the final blow. In fact, a few counties in southern Oregon may soon call for a public safety emergency and will be forced to eliminate most state-mandated services- including police, jails, courts and services that help the neediest citizens in our communities.
This should alarm all Oregonians, even those who do not live in rural communites. Failing counties will have both budgetary and quality of life consequences for the entire state. Vital county services would be severely restricted or altogether disappear. Counties will continue to release offenders and close jail beds. Pot-holed roads and structurally deficient bridges will be neglected and school funding throughout the state will be reduced.
Given the serious fiscal crisis our counties and schools face, a new approach is necessary to create jobs, help stabilize funding for our schools and communities and better manage our forest. Passage of “O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act” is essential.