2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Too many people who know too little about economics have waded into this debate, contributing only misleading figures and incorrect calculations. The two economic facts that are of overwhelming importance in this debate are 1) propensity to spending of government versus private sector and 2) the balanced budget requirement in Oregon's Constitution. The very tenor of the debate reflects the selfish ideology and "me first" culture that has come to replace civil discussion of true merits in the public sphere.

In a fiery and polemical rant against 66 & 67, the Oregonian Editorial Board claims "there were, and still are, better ways than Measures 66 and 67" but doesn't even point to these alternatives. A measure to increase taxes is a soft target when the crucial services these dollars would fund are not even mentioned. The message that this is the wrong time for our economy echoes hollow to the critical reader who skims the remainder of the article in the vain hope of finding any arguments whatsoever of an economic nature. Instead one finds a reactionary whine against "class warfare".

The right way to analyze this economically (with respect to job creation) is to estimate the path that these dollars would follow under either alternative. One must find the difference in total employment created in both the public and private sector from both alternatives. It is clear that when refunded to the taxpayer rather than collected in taxes, a portion of this money is saved, that is, not used to create jobs. In contrast - the entire balance collected in taxes will be spent within the biennial budget of the state, thus leading to job creation. Therefore these measures are good for the economy.

The Oregon legislature does not have the option to explore alternatives at this juncture. The balanced budget requirement will force immediate cuts if these measures do not pass. Our state has long struggled with difficulties in stabilizing its revenue, and it is far right business interests like Nelson and Sizemore that have stood in the way of every step of progress, including these ballot measures. It is their organizational allies that have created the funding crisis for our schools. It is their ideological allies that put the wrecking ball to our economy in the first place. Lets make this a referendum against corporate crooks.

A healthy economy in the United States can only come about through a vastly larger Government.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I don't believe the case for abolishing the transfer system has been made adequately.

First - As a caller has already pointed out, it is impossible for every school to offer every opportunity. Attempting to provide "every opportunity at every school" will lead to situations where multiple schools each have a few students interested in a particular program but that program exists at none of them, where under the current system that could be provided at one school and those students could attend there.

Thinking a bit deeper, one sees the self-motivation behind the Education System's desire to end transfers and provide every opportunity at every school. Because we lose the comparative advantage of varied curriculae from school to school, the entire system loses efficiency. The resulting shortages will help to make a case for diverting more funding to Education.

Secondly - It is not difficult to make school funding work under a transfer system - even with the current system of funding. Even as this show's guest speaker talks about how the current system doesn't work, the truth is that no realistic attempt was ever made to make the transfer system work.

All that needs to be done is for more of each school's (proportional) funding to be fixed based on the facility size, meaning less money moves from one school  to another when a student transfers.

This will have two benefits: First, this increases the per student funding at a school that has students moving away from it, thereby allowing the quality of programs to increase at that school. Similarly, the quality of programs at schools that become packed with students will decrease. An equilibrium is created from this shifting, and we will have achieved a natural equalization mechanism that is not subject to political manipulation by the ambitions of State Agencies. Secondly, the transfer between schools provides important, direct evidence of the relative quality of one or another school. This will force the very good schools to admit that they are overfunded. If we want equalization in education it means the nicest schools will have to get crappier, or more money will have to be injected into the system. There is no other alternative. Already I can hear the rich kids moaning. Only a quasi-market approach like what I have suggested here will overcome the politics.

Read more: www.foundationchange.blogspot.com

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context