Issues
Lane County Board of Commissioners Chair Sid Leiken comments on Governor Kitzhaber’s letter to the Federal Delegation regarding future management of the O and C lands of Western Oregon
I would like to express my thanks to Governor John Kitzhaber for convening a group of Oregon stakeholders to take on the exceedingly tough public policy issue of how to best manage the O and C lands of Western Oregon. He has clearly prioritized this issue. His willingness to put into writing his expectations for our Congressional leaders should be appreciated by all of Lane County’s citizens, especially given the huge amount of federal land that surrounds our communities.
His letter to the Oregon delegation of the United States Congress summarizing the work of his panel could not have come at a better time. Literally today, Lane County received its last check from the federal government with dollars that came as a result of the Secure Rural Schools Act, first passed into law in 2000 under the leadership of Senator Ron Wyden. Notably, that check held back $500,000 of O and C revenue due to an un-expected and un–appreciated maneuver by the Department of the Interior. These are the very dollars that Lane County would be able to use for critical public safety services and their elimination is precisely why the Board of County Commissioners has been discussing putting a modest property tax proposal in front of the voters of Lane County.
The Governor clearly understands the tough road ahead for our federal delegation. These lands are unique to western Oregon, and their fate lies in the hands of the entirety of the US Congress. With Senator Wyden’s historic advocacy for the communities of Western Oregon and the more recent and courageous bi-partisan plan created by House members DeFazio, Walden, and Schrader, Governor Kitzhaber’s recommendations provide a foundation that should quickly lead to collaboration amongst the entirety of the federal delegation. Speaking with one voice united between the House and the Senate is crucially important given the rancourous nature of the current political environment in Washington DC.
It remains my belief that a way forward can only be charted if there is a sense of shared responses from local, state, and federal partners. Governor Kitzhaber states “Oregon state and local governments should share in the responsibility to fill any gap which may remain between timber revenues and the funding level required to keep counties fiscally viable.” I know that both the Governor and our delegation are aware that Lane County is contemplating a local money measure that would fund jail beds and youth services. Our residents also know that this new revenue will not cover the entirety of our public safety structure. I am willing to take the first step to place the shared response the Governor speaks to squarely on our shoulders. In doing so, I am confident that if we are successful there will be even more reason for the state and the federal government to act. Allowing some responsible degree of harvest to return to these forests is an absolute must.
Public safety and sentencing reform: Why overhaul a justice system that’s working?
By Michael D. Schrunk and Rod Underhill
Recently Gov. John Kitzhaber was forced to present a difficult budget proposal. Some members of the current Commission on Public Safety apparently feel this calls for a significant redesign of the criminal justice system, including “comprehensive sentencing reform.” Many members of the law enforcement community, however, are puzzled about the need to redesign one of the most progressive and successful systems in the nation.
Only a quarter of convicted felons in this state go to prison, compared with a national average of 40 percent, producing one of America’s lower incarceration rates. We nonetheless have been a national leader in the reduction of violent crime since the passage of mandatory sentencing for some violent crimes. Oregon was the first state whose laws require evidence-based practices for those on probation and parole. Prisons here have a lower percentage of property and drug offenders than in any other state. We have decided on a policy to reserve prison space for violent offenders while we attempt to help those who commit drug and property offenses turn their lives around. We have dramatically reduced our recidivism rate in the past five years. The list goes on.
Soon the Commission on Public Safety will report on sentencing reform, and the question remains: Why drastically overhaul one of the most successful justice systems in the country? The answer proposed by some is that current sentencing laws will produce “unsustainable” prison growth over the next 10 years — requiring more than 2,000 new prison beds. This is a questionable proposition.
First, prison population forecasting in this state has had an uneven history at best. Every 10-year forecast since 1995 has predicted greater prison growth than actually occurred, with some fully 47 percent high. These past overpredictions are invariably used by critics to advocate for wide-ranging changes in sentencing policy, as is being done now.
Second, none of the currently predicted prison growth is a result of mandatory sentences for violent crimes. Violent crime policy in this state has been so successful that the prison population of offenders serving mandatory sentences is stable.
Third, more than 60 percent of predicted prison growth in the next decade will simply result from state population growth. Additional public services required by population growth are inherently sustainable, because population growth produces proportionally increased tax revenue. Indeed, while the state economist predicts a 16 percent increase in prison beds in the next decade, he also predicts a 48 percent increase in state government revenues in that same period. This should provide a solution in itself.
We understand through experience the need to scrutinize government operations for savings. No one should believe, however, that cutting prison spending, which constitutes only 9 percent of general fund expenditures, can contribute much to other areas.
Indeed, the one negative in the overall bright picture in Oregon’s justice system has come when incarceration has been reduced in several counties. Here in Multnomah County, for example, more than 35 percent of jail beds have been cut since 2001, contributing, we believe, to Portland’s increasing property crime rate. Further, a recent look at county and emergency inmate releases reveals that about 75 percent of released inmates commit new offenses on release. That’s food for thought as we examine what we should do statewide.
That said, we also have ideas about how sentencing policy can be reformed safely to improve current practices. Law enforcement representation on the current commission has proposed comprehensive measures that would save money without sacrificing the integrity and effectiveness of a justice system produced in no small part by voter participation. We hope the commission will take these proposals seriously and not press forward unwisely based on questionable perceptions regarding public safety policy.
Michael D. Schrunk has been Multnomah County district attorney since 1981 and is retiring this month. Rod Underhill is Multnomah County district attorney-elect.
Reprinted with permission from Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance
Could Bigger PERS Payments Mean Fewer Teachers in Lane Co.?
Recently a highly placed official with Eugene 4J Public Schools spoke off the record with a member of Lane Solutions’ editorial staff. He revealed to us the cold, hard facts about the coming mandated increase in Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) payments and their effects on Eugene students.
During the coming biennium, mandated PERS payments by Eugene 4J will increase by 6.55%, or about $4,900,000 per year. By State law this, plus current PERS payments, must be made first. In other words, before 4J hires one more teacher, buys one new textbook, or makes one new computer available to our children, it must pay this additional amount into employee retirement.
So, what will this increase cost our children? Plenty. According to this official, a teacher costs 4J about $95,000 per year. Each one percent increase in PERS payments costs about $750,000 per year. So every one percent increase in PERS payments means that our children lose almost eight teachers!
The cost of a 6.55% PERS increase? The possible loss of nearly 52 teachers! The result – more kids per class and less education.
Should the PERS increase be covered by teacher layoffs, who will lose his or her job? Thanks to union rules seniority trumps teaching ability, performance and results. So the last hired become the first fired. This means that less expensive teachers are the first to go. A first year teacher costs about $32,000 less than a teacher with 20 years seniority, or about $63,000 per year. If all the layoffs come from this group, 4J will have to lay off 78 teachers!
In previous issues of Lane Solutions readers have learned how PERS rules and disputes concerning them are both made and adjudicated by the very State officials who profit from their own decisions, thus stacking the deck against taxpayers.
One result of this stacked deck is that PERS retirees are compensated for Oregon income taxes they must pay on their PERS income – even if they live elsewhere and therefore don’t pay Oregon income taxes. That’s right – a PERS retiree living in Delaware gets money from Oregon taxpayers for the Oregon income taxes he or she doesn’t pay!
The 4J official who revealed for our readers the true cost of PERS increases concluded the interview with some even more disturbing news: The increase in health insurance premiums is even larger than the PERS increase, and so may result in even more teacher layoffs. But more about that in a future issue of Lane Solutions.
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
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