Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs kids law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater trailblazers unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

The kicker law is a conservative "slight of hand".  The payments are made based on the the economy's ability to generate tax revenues that match economic forecasts made 30 months prior.  If the revenue forecasts are high and collections low, services must be cut (often at a time when there is the most demand).  If forecasts are low and collections high, surplus revenues are returned (at high administrative cost) three weeks before Christmas when it has the highest political impact.  This process tends to ratchet down state service levels without direct legislative action.  It serves the agenda of the politcal forces that want to "make government small enough to drown in a bathtub" as Grover Norquist so elequently put it.

To follow the same logic, we should have an automatic "reverse-kicker" that raises revenues when the economy and tax collections under-perform.  A better plan is to use the best data available to forecast tax collections for the bienium, and put ALL surplus tax collections into a reserve fund to cover the shortages in lean years.  That is how budgeting is done in virtually every other environment.  It should also be done for state government.

posted 1 year, 2 months ago
view in context

There is a critical double standard in play here.  Individuals are typically held to a moral standard that demands that they complete a mortgage contract, regardless of changing economic conditions.  If I default on a mortgage for $200,000 for a house that de-values to $125,000, I am expected to "suck it up" and live with the cosnsequences of a business decision that did not work out.  The shame of the community labels those individuals who default as morally corrupt.

On the other hand, if I am a large business, these decisions are made solely on the potential return to their business interest.  A beautiful case in point is Paul Allen (Vulcan Enterprises, Portland Trailblazers) who signed a "no-early payoff" mortgage with TIAA-CREF (representing the New York Teachers Pension Fund) to build the $250 million plus Rose Garden.  When cheaper money became available, Paul Allen defaulted on the loan, sticking the pension fund with the consequences.  After running the facility for two years, TIAA-CREF sold the property back to Paul Allen at terms that were far more favorable to him.

The test for the Rose Garden default decision was not a moral compass, but how to maximize financial return to the borrower.  Paul Allen is seen as a brilliant business man.  The borrower who makes the same decision on a home is considered a slacker!

Thunderbeast

posted 1 year, 2 months ago
view in context

Compromise is absolutely necessary to leadership in a diverse, messy democracy.  I cringe, however, that the President has once again started from a position of weakness, and conceeded from there.  Honest compromise requires respectful honest brokers from each position.  Sadly, the President has negotiated toward a position that is both fiscally flawed and politically perilous.

The Republicans have been hammering the public with a mantra of Obama's current  deficits, and reducing the national debt.  The tax deal digs the hole even deeper, and results in revenue reductions that were not forseen in the original Republican position.  Not only doe they get the tax cuts that they covet, but they were given the political cover to beat the Democrats senselesss with the consequences in the next election.

In January of 2012, the national election will be in full swing.  The White House and control of the legislative branch will be up for grabs.  The Republicans are already writing the headlines.  While holding the poor and middle class hostage to the continued greed of the "top two percenters", the next election will start with the argument " OBAMA RAISED PAYROLL TAXES TWO PERCENT AND WANTS TO RAISE YOUR INCOME TAXES AGAIN!".  Their involvement (insistence) that these artificial tax events be scheduled willl be forgotten in the debate.

Remember, the "tax crisis" was created by the Republicans eight years ago.  The tax cuts are expiring ONLY because it was the only way to make the new rates appear less destructive to the long-term debt, and facilitate their passage through reconcilliation by a simple majority.

The republicans are using compromise to solidify political advantage, rather than advocate for balanced, responsible governing. It is their guiding principle.  The President has shown weakenss on this issue.  He will pay for it.  So will all of us.

posted 1 year, 5 months ago
view in context

I am one of hunderds of parents or family members in this community who have watched helplessly as our loved ones have been impacted  by a severe mental illness.  The "patient rights" movement, while laudable in it's ideals, misses the main dilema when dealing with the issue.  People suffering from many mental disorders have severe cognitive deiciencies as well as disordered thought processes.  It took years for my children to gain the insights necessary for them to stablize using medications. 

I understand that psychactive drugs are terrible.  They dull the senses, impact libido, cause tremendous weight gain and cause great fatigue.  To many, the thought of trading in the perceived "joy" of a manic episode for the side effects for thes drugs is an easy one.  They chose to go un-medicated and un-treated.  An intervention by the family and the community is required to protect the patient, the family, and the community from the devastation caused by these diseases.

I once heard a mother comment in a support group that she was relieved that her son had been sent to the State Prison in Salem where he could finally get help for his illness and addictions.  Is the criminal justice system really the only way to end the cycle?

Psychiatric patients need the loving support of families and their communities so that they can find a road to recovery.  Civil Commitment is not an effort (as suggested elsewhere in this blog) to get them out of site, but to help them find the stability needed to gain the insight needed to deal with their challenges.  Many who lose the battle with mental illness could have been saved had they been compelled to take medications or seek treatment. 

Every year, we watch sadly as families lose their children to mental illness and "Die with their rights on".  Rights imply competence.  We must consider cognitive capabilies more broadly and compel treatment with a broader view of the term "harm to themselves or others"

Dave

posted 2 years ago
view in context