You know what, Lars asks a legitimate question that even a raging liberal like me wants the school districts to answer in a better way. His numbers are off, of course, because he does include pass throughs and capital expenditures. But he's a political entertainer now, not a reporter like he used to be eons ago, so facts don't stand in his way.

Ramon on the thread makes a great point about benefits, pension and other expenses not being addressed. See his comment at: http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/01/34000_kids_are_.html#c3332618. Jack Bog, who seems to be grumpy as of late (Jack, pull out of it!,)also makes a good comment about urban renewal districts screwing the schools and other public services to favor downtown moneyed interests.

Like Lars, I want to know how much is enough. Someone mentioned on that thread that at small schools it's difficult to hire part-time people. That's true. My son attends first grade at a small PPS school. We raise money annually to fund a part-time librarian position because of district cuts. Last year, we thought we had enough to pay for the librarian, but because of contract requirements, the person who fills that position is entitled to a raise this year. Voila! We have to go back out to beg for more money or face losing our librarian.

Am I saying she shouldn't get a raise? Not necessarily. What I mean is that little costs like this ripple through the entire district until you have a "shortfall" that leads to cuts. And the district does do a poor job describing its costs in any way that's meaningful to someone who doesn't have time to read its 184-page budget from its Website.

Jeff -- I agree with both your points. Lars ain't the guy to try to look at the big picture and come up with solutions. And we do need a good discussion of school funding.

But it is a legitimate question that he asked. How much is enough? Which leads to the bigger question: How can we do this differently?

This is a time I wish they'd dump Steve Goldschmidt and get in an HR person who can work collaboratively with the union. And I wish the union would drop its no surrender reflex when it comes to school funding.

We're in big trouble after the temp. income tax expires if all sides don't move to the middle soon.

What shocks me more than the fact that most Oregonians are hesitant to pay a little more in taxes (or a little less if we added a sales tax on luxury items and lowered our income tax rate, bringing in more capital by opening up our tax structure eliminating the maximum limit that you might pay, and also taxing the hundreds of thousands of tourist that come through town; but that is another discussion altogether) is that we can all agree that not enough money is making it into the classroom, wheter or not the district is getting enough.

Our future is sitting in those classrooms and because of politics these youth aren't getting the same education I was offered 5 years ago...and I witnessed education falling into an abysmal category back than (supposedly these were the glory years of excess spending of the '90s, ask any person that was in public schools during that time and they will tell you otherwise.)

These are our future, folks, and these children don't get a second chance once they are done! I agree a discussion, audits, and changes need to be made to the system as a whole but our children shouldn't be hanging in limbo while we argue over less than a billion dollars over the course of a year. A billions dollars in a country where we waste tens of billions of dollars in every aspect of our federal budgets monthly.

Snarky post on Lars. I love it!

Lars is probably nothing more than a flamer...you may never see him here again.

Yes MarkDaMan, let's tax all luxury items.

Starting with computers. Civilized man has got along without them for thousands of years after all. Just thirty years ago, only the extremely wealthy could afford a computer. If we tax them at 1000%, they will still be more affordable than they were in 1975.

Ask the residents of Dignity Village whether or not having a computer is a luxury. Why do so many smug Americans believe that they are entitled to this luxury without paying exorbitant amounts for it?

Then we can begin taxing skis and lift-tickets 200%. Forty years ago, only the very well off participated in this activity. It was a lavish expense back then, we should make it so once again.

Espresso makers, air conditioners and televisions- tax them!

Face it Mark, taxing "luxuries" is just an invitation rachet up class warfare and INCREASE the division between have's and have-nots. The rich will still by their yachts, they'll just buy them in a place that doesn't tax them so much (they didn't get to be rich by making stupid financial decisions afterall).

Try to resist the impulse to stick it to those who are better off than you. It's a bad model. At the end of the day, you and the rest of the angry mob will just end up defining "luxuries" as anything you currently can't afford.

What Portland, and Oregon, needs, IMHO, is some big corporations and businesses. The difference I note between where I moved from (North Carolina) and here is the lack of major corporations and the associated taxes.

This just can't work on the back of the personal income tax. But letting corporations in is going to require some serious rethinking of our development strategy.

One small suggestion I've heard from multiple parties (one works at Metro, another is a business relocation expert, third is a business person in CCounty): why the heck did Metro force the UGB to expand in Damascus, which no one (developers, businesses, Damascus residents) wanted, while refusing to expand in Hillsboro, which everyone (businesses, developers, Hillsboro city council, Washington County) wanted?

What I hear? Portland City Council and MC Commissioners convinced Metro to hold the line in Washington County in the belief that this will force businesses to locate in Portland.

Just rumor and gossip, would be happy to hear this is wrong.

Prof,

That is an interesting and controversial rumor and gossip.

Well this just shows why the rest of the state might have potential hostilities and disgust with Portland and Multnomah County policies, policymakers and politicians.

Pancho, I don't remember suggesting a set sales tax rate. The fact that you resort to a 2000% tax or even a 200% tax shows me that you are completely disconnected with the reality that a 5% tax on lift tickets isn't going to shut out many people that can currently afford the price of lift tickets. In fact, implementing a small % sales tax and staggering the income tax rate from 3% at the lowest to 9% at it's highest will most likely give additional people at the bottom rung the ability to buy that lift ticket with the extra monies they aren't paying in taxes. On top of all this we also can still grow our currently stagnant revenues.

You said "Try to resist the impulse to stick it to those who are better off than you. It's a bad model"

Any justification to this statement? A recent National Conference of State Legislatures report is headlined “Fiscal Storm Shows Signs of Subsiding,” and notes that revenues in the current fiscal year are meeting or exceeding original forecasts in 34 states. If we model our tax system here similar to those in 34 other states I seriously doubt it will be bad for us in the long run nor do I consider it sticking it to those who are more wealthy. The only thing a sales tax does is open up this states base of taxpayers by requiring those who come into our state to pay money into our coffers. Oregonians already do this when they travel to any one of 45 other states that have this "model of doom".

Pat, weren't you advertised as the quasi-libertarian of the Blue Oregon clan?

Talk about "drinking the kool-aid"?

Although, I didn't say anything about ending the death tax or lowering capital gains, I'll admit that neither of those proposals seems like introducing a new form of class warfare to me.

Not that these issues aren't relevant to the debate, just that you are not owning up to your own position. Embrace taxation fueled by class envy if that is your position, but don't try to foist it on me.

The INTRODUCTION of taxing estates and stock earnings was closer to the mark because each involved double taxation on earnings. Presumably the government has already taxed the company whose stock you own or the earnings generated from an estate you inherit.

A base envy of investors and beneficiaries often fuels the justification for such taxes.

You want the stuff you like (call them "public needs" if it makes you sleep better) to be paid for by others based upon your assessment of their ability to pay. That's what progressive tax policies really come down to.

You can picture yourself as Robin Hood if you like, but please (at least) own up to it.

Mark,

I used hyperbole to demonstrate the effect of a proposed tax more clearly. A 200% tax on lift tickets would certainly shut off skiing as an option for most skiers, but a 5% tax would still reduce the number of people who could afford it. Someone people who can currently afford skiing won't be able to with the tax. Reduced ski lift profits will lead to layoffs among ski lift employees. End of the day, fewer people get to ski, so there is an incremental widening between haves and have-nots.

This is the same dynamic in effect with raising minimum wages. Some people actually argue that it doesn't effect employment levels or consumer choices. As if the price of labor is not a factor in making goods and services. If that was true, then why not raise the minimum wage to $50 per hour?

Janitors would make the same as physicians and the world would live in harmony?

Right?

Didn't work so well for the Soviets.

BTW, I never argued against a sales tax, just a selective tax on "luxury" items.

I'd probably take a state sales tax (if it was applied evenly to all products) in exchange for eliminating income taxes (and keeping the our prop tax limits in place).

Of course that idea wouldn't qualify as "progressive" so it has no hope of gaining broadbased support.

The Mexican standoff on tax reform will endure for years.

B!x,

Imagine for a second that we weren't describing taxes but instead forced servitude (not a giant leap, really, as each results in acquiring the benefits of another's labor without his consent).

An accurate description of your perspective might be:

"Forced servitude is only bad if the rich benefit, when the poor benefit then it's (social) justice."

"...a prerequisite for being a successful politician in the Portland area is a belief that all economic laws can be repealed."

Rob-

Thank God you weren't around to advise President Franklin Roosevelt during the great depression.

However, I am not sure you weren't whispering in President Herbert Hoover's ear......

Pancho,

I'm not calling on anyone to pay more taxes than they currently do. By implementing a sales tax and lowering the income tax people pay, we take home a larger paycheck opening up options for the poor that previously wouldn't have been available. Therfore, you could argue that by implementing a sales tax with subsequent reductions in other taxing areas, it actually encourages more people to spend money on things such as a lift ticket. If you are in a "below middle class" "above lower class" bracket you could see an additional $50 to $75 in your paycheck from tax relief but only pay an additional $2.50 in taxes on the $50 ski ticket. That way YOU the consumer get to have fun while paying your taxes and creating jobs throughout the region through new found spending power.

Pancho, I'd also like to know what you consider luxury goods vs taxing all items...in your world should food on the grocery store shelves be taxed? What about socks and underwear? It seems silly to me to tax the essential products we must purchase in order to barely survive. If someone is able to buy a house, we expect them to pay property tax, but if you rent a home, you aren't expected to incure that tax bill. Isn't this just another example of class warfare arguing that if you can buy a house, you can afford additional taxes? If that is the case than why aren't you leading an effort to eliminate those unfair, class warfare, a doom to overall economic health taxes?

Who has the numbers on public employee benefits in Portland and Oregon - retirement/pension and health care in particular. Chuck Shecketoff? Steve Buckstein?

Every year public managers must cut their operating budgets to fund PERS. The cannibalization of public services must stop! This is not class warfare, it's intergenerational warfare. Today's public officials and unions need to stand down. Guess why people who can afford to are exiting Blue Portland.

Collective bargaining has failed because in Vera Town collectivists are on both sides of the table. It didn't work for United Airlines either.

Where is a Neil Goldschmidt-type now that we need him, to broker a truce? How 'bout Tim Nesbitt?

Randy,

So you think that Rob should have helped out Presidents Cleveland, Wilson, T Roosevelt, Taft and or McKinley.

Whispering in to some of those ears would have been more disastrous than Hoover and FDR.

<h1></h1>

iggi pinned the nail on the nazi: Liars has run away from putting any more comments here. As the Randi Rhodes (KPOJ 620 AM) promo so stabbingly puts it: Portland is done with your I'm-an-angry-white-male, I'm-over-taxed, I'm-a-victim boo-hoo-hoo crybaby tantrums, Liars, kiss it good-bye, you're over.

The obvious reason Liars cannot comment here is that it puts his lies in print. Permanent. People can read them for months and years and see how his seething disrespect for humankind and social relations, (psychological observation sees his anger at and withdrawal from community efforts, as being his maladapted recourse to revenge in order to deal with his feeling that all the grown-ups (community) abandoned him in his adolescence when he needed help to have justice rule on crimes he witnessed and could not arrest by himself -- so anyone's claim he hears of 'responsible adulthood' or 'community caring' he feels as a denial of a deep-seated pain in himself, a denial of his private knowledge and suffering, which he feels yet these years later he is 'living down the stigma of,' from long ago when no one cared which proved to him no one ever cares, in every case, because they didn't care in his case, and if they say they do he intends to belittle and overwhelm them with CELEBRITY VOICE POWER to silence them), his vengeful sociopathology is built of the lies he told to himself and his aching hunger for knowledge to understand what he had suffered. Such psychologic insight is a thousand times clearer in his speech and conversings with people than it is in his writing, and a million times swifter. So he hasn't got much to write, (here in an interactive forum among equals), and whatever he does write can be gone over and over in any self-pitying aspects that appear -- there is no dump button escape.

He is not coming back here to write. He has probably been reading here for several weeks, (since Steve Schopp called him in for reinforcements?), and he may keep on reading. But Liars does not dare write more here for the same reason O'Reilly and Rash Lamebrain don't dare write anything in the MediaMatters.org comments section. Because the more direct involvement, the more likely that the name of the website -- Don't think of Blue Oregon dot com, on your case, Liars -- is going to come out on their air, which would drive visitors to the website where additional information shows Liars and them lie to their audiences, (lying behavior shows disrespect of the listener).

Liars antisocial anger has nothing to do with paying taxes, and changing tax brackets and rates, or talking all day about it, can never heal his hurt.

<h1></h1>

Mark,

Renters do pay property taxes (and without the interest write-off) through their rent. Reducing property taxes will reduce the cost of renting a house, increasing prop taxes will lead to increased rent. So prop taxes are passed along indirectly to renters.

I see an equally applied sales tax as one that does not lend itself to social engineering schemes (favoring X or Y to influence consumer behavior). This is because I trust people to make market choices in their own interests over policies that determine their interests for them. If food is included then make it apply it to all food equally (don't tax foie gras or twinkies differently).

<h1></h1>

In the Republican scorched-Oregon social vindictives of the '90s, the business tax went down 33%, (from 9% parity with individual state income tax rates, to 6%), and property taxes went down on absentee-landlord properties, (e.g., rental units), but business selling prices did not go down and rents did not go down. So claims that if these taxes go up then they drive prices and rents up, is only a scapegoating threat. If nothing is done to taxes, the disciples of Greed-god are going to raise prices and rents anyway. Their self-interest is less blatant if they have tax changes to blame their behavior on. 'Oh me, oh my, tax responstibilities forced me to raise my profit margins, I am a victim of tax legislation that didn't give me any breaks, woe is me.'

Sales taxes are often enacted uniformly, and then by loophole lawmaking exceptions to the sales tax are enacted, in examples like food and medicine. This is bass-ackwards. Make all sales taxes illegal, and then by exception lawmaking enact the list of items that shall be sales taxed -- for example luxuries, defined as any single item transaction for more than five times the average per capita income, let's say, or simply $200,000. If you are going out to buy a private helicopter, or racehorse, or diamond-encrusted doodad -- yup, you are in a different class from average people who cannot afford one. And average people out-number and out-vote disparate rich people. You say 'mob', I say 'majority.' What, you don't want to be 'a victim' boo-hoo-hoo of unfair luxury taxation? No problem, give your money to charity, share your light to the world don't hide your pretty gollum-gollum under a bushel where only you play with it. Bill Gates, Sr., spoke in favor of higher taxes on richer incomes. And locally, Peter Jacobson has said "there really is an amount of income that no person needs any more than, maybe about five million dollars a year." These are people whose opinions are formed with the knowledge of experiencing both sides, rich and poor.

PanchoPdx -- do you support this principle: No one gets seconds until everyone has had firsts.

People, children in Oregon, are going hungry and growing malnourished while a very few rich cravens selfishly waste resources for the perverse personal thrill of it.

<h1></h1>

Tensk,

Your "principle" works great for a family, horrible for a society.

You are not my brother.

I am not going to work harder than I do already, just to help feed you. That job belongs to you first, your family second, and any sympathetic charitable donor last.

Your comments demonstrate that you have no grasp of basic human nature or the fact that the "science" of economics flows from it.

PS - I'll be much more likely to donate to the charity that feeds you when you stop acting like those alms are owed to you.

<h1></h1>

Charity, noun, from Latin caritas, dearness, love.

And in: "likely to donate to the charity (this-or-that)... when you stop acting (thus-and-so)...," read: 'When unilateral conditions are met, then love is felt; and if love never is felt then it is someone else's fault.'

Now I don't know, but I been told It's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other times I heard it said It's just as hard with the weight of lead. . -- Grateful Dead

Know what you know, feel what you feel, say what you say, do what you do. There's no one to judge when we are alone with our conscience in the grave.

<h1></h1>

That's right Tensk, Pancho's love comes with conditions.

To love unconditionally would make love worthless.

You have to do something to qualify: at least demonstrate personal integrity.

I do not love Ward Weaver or Osama bin Laden just because we all share human DNA.

Tensk, I leave you free to drop acid and develop your own philosophy for how to treat others. I won't lobby the government to impose my philosophy upon you (other than just keeping your hands to yourself).

It would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy.

Tenskatawa says, ""The obvious reason Liars cannot comment here is that it puts his lies in print."

Where is the lie? Liar Lars said 11,000.00 Portland is at $12,011 this year, while Reynolds is the lowest at $9,878. The other districts fall between the two.

Tim Mooney says, "Being a product of public schooling, I'd rather find some innovative solutions like that rather than entertain some of the deconstructionist cries of Lars and the like."

I've got a good idea. One that Vera, Randy, the school board and all of their fans will support. Gather together 600 educators, parents, public officials and district staff. Spend a few months, counltess staff hours and numerous meetings crafting a Strategic Plan. Then put it all together, promote it and have the press report the completetion and success.

WAIT. That was already done. Where's the Plan? Sitting on a district shelf collecting central planning dust. All the wasted time, effort and resources are long forgotten and the status quo that caused it is as strong as ever. All lies?

Now that Oregon has been identified as having the lowest graduation standards in the country the even more massive waste CIM/CAM is clearly the mother of all eduacation flops. All lies?

What is the Blue solution to the current recipe for failure? Don't look to close,just demand more money.

Schopp, the problem with Lars or your stuff is that it comes with such venom from a Blue perspective. And by Blue perspective, I mean a sane Blue perspective. I want the schools accountable, but I sure don't trust someone like Lars to find a thoughtful solution in which everyone compromises and buys in. Strategic Plan? Please. I've rarely seen an entity, public or private, that develops a strategic plan and actually implements it.

This is where I wish the union would use some of its resources to improve the system rather than fight old battles. Sizemore is gone, thankfully, and we have a window here with the temporary income tax to adopt some new ways and to really look at how we fund education and spend dollars. That could mean some painful changes, such as closing more schools. It could mean going to merit raises rather than automatic raises. It could mean tax reform (actually, it should mean tax reform).

We need a constitutional convention type group -- each party sends two reps to the table with the autonomy to wheel and deal. Parents, union, nonunion, admin, politicians, residnts with no kids in the system, business, and so on. See what they come up with and then see if they can sell the plan to the community.

Chris,

Nice idea…but before tax reform, I want see tax compliance. This would put more money in the system with out rising taxes and fees, and it would show a better picture of the flaws of tax structure before blindly reforming it.

May I remind you folks that the name of this blog is Blue OREGON? Not Blue Portland. The Salem-Keizer school district faces labor unrest because administrators were given what amounted to a 10% raise (cost of living + 8%) and teachers were offered a lower raise. Should the teachers not have thought if there was money for administrative raises that the district wasn't as short of money as they had been led to believe? How many people on this thread have ever been responsible for a classroom of students?

This is why I think the legislature should discuss administrative salaries. If all the central office managers (Supt. on down) had their work examined as the work of teachers has been examined in recent years, it would be very interesting. But the work of supervisors can't be blamed on unions--do you suppose that's why there hasn't been the appetite for such evaluation?

Oh, and one other thing. In other parts of the country certified administrators have spent time as substitutes in unfamiliar buildings--from the Supt. on down. It gives them an idea of how frontline workers see things (a management principle sometimes used in other businesses, like the fast food owner who pitches in to cook french fries or run a cash register if the place is short staffed for some reason). The administrators might learn something, and there could be cross training for those who take over for half a day or whatever in their absence. It is possible that while someone is on planned leave (maybe travel to a family funeral)an assistant might find someone on the staff has some sort of medical emergency. Which is why I think cross training is a good thing.

That is real life, and debates about taxes in Portland obscure the fact that anyone who works in a school or in a business deals with details and logistics on a daily basis.

Rob made some good points about the rising costs for schools and the need to return to some degree of sustainability. It was smart to cite the need for budgets to stay within the range of reasonable increases.

What he misses is that the main driver of school cost increases is the cost of health insurance for the teachers. Rob's charter schools probably don't offer insurance, or require the teachers to pay large portions of the premiums for poor coverage.

While simple at first glance, the result of such policies can be very burdensome on the individuals, their families and the community. I'm not sure I'd want a teacher who couldn't afford to see a doctor to take care of my kids.

The real question here is how to deal with our broken health care system which is driving up costs, not punishing the teachers in the union.

Oh, and doesn't Bob Pallari, the CEO of Legacy Health Systems (a non-profit!) make over $1.2 million a year? What was Pancho saying about increased labor costs hurting a business?

Jeff says, ,,,," but instead adopt a massive federal program that arrives unfunded. That's the new GOP way: big federal programs, unfunded!"""

What the hell do you think the Oregon School Reform for the 21st Century is? It was unfunded, untested, reckless and irresponsible. How about accountability? You sure srceam for it in DC.

No solutions????????????

Wake up Jeff. The solutions have been raised over and over again. Get the rediculous edu-meddlers out of our classrooms. Slash the ODE budget and lay off have of their workforce. Primarily the ones crafting assesments. Make teachers pay part of their healthcare and force their union to make better arrangments for coverage.

Who lost their job after every math probelm solving test result in the state was thrown out last year. Who is going top be held accoutable for the many years of perpetrating our reform under false pretenses upon every school in the state.

There are plenty of people in the state who can DO the job of running our schools. The problem for you and the status quo is many of those in school administration positions now would be replaced with competant and responsible people. Many of them would work for less. Not minimum wage Randy. But slightly less so classrooms are first in the budget line. Many jobs would be left unfilled. God forbid.

Your problem is you prefer to keep the same people doing the same things because they are BLUE. Just because those running our K-12 school system have all but admitted they cannot do the job with available resources doesn't mean no one else can. But they won't let anyone else who can, do it. Outsiders? No way. Just to make sure no outsider comes in and turns things around you put someone with not a shred of experience in as State Superintendent of Public Instuction. You sing a tired old song Jeff. And it's all about imitation progress.

You also don't care about public education any more than I do. Your pals running the show don't either.

Jenson:

I believe that your FACT #6 is actually a MISCONCEPTION.

Maybe I'm wrong ... but according to my education, business taxation does not tap free money. It is a sleight-of-hand scheme for socializing some of the cost of government among individuals.

Here's how. Businesses are simply collectives of individuals. Any mandated costs to a business are only absorbed by other individuals: shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and community stakeholders. If mandatory costs like taxation cannot be passed along, there is no magic - just failure, whose costs are borne by the same community of individuals.

Business taxation is a clever way for the government to enslave individuals as its tax collectors. It is a "hide the salami" hoax by rulemakers who aren't honest enough to face individuals directly with the amount of tax they have to pay to fund government.

Knowing this, I don't understand why we would we want to do that to ourselves collectively. Or is this all a MISCONCEPTION on my part?

Make teachers pay part of their healthcare--Steve, they do. And just for the record, while I strongly support capping teacher health care costs, their former uncapped health bennie in Portland went along with among the lowest salaries in the Metro area. The latest contract exchanged health care reductions for a modest salary increase. An excellent first step and I hope the union continues to be sensible about this.

I'm building public charter schools that have a far lower cost per student (especially on an all-funds basis) than the district-operated public schools. More importantly, these schools can sustain themselves with 2-3% increases in revenue per year. --Rob, with all due respect, charter schools may be cheap, but they are no panacea either in terms of quality teaching or good outcomes for kids. And do they have to accept every child who walks through their doors, or can they pick and choose?

Ruth,

Charter schools are public schools. They cannot pick and choose. In many cases they draw the problem children from PPS who aren't being served by the system.

You are right about the cheaper part. If they weren't obliged to pay into PERS, they would be A LOT more efficient.

<h1></h1>

Cancelling First Amendment Friday on the high noon after king neo-con's ordination, Liars on-air today asked the FBI Agent 'voice': "Do you believe that removing the JTTF would make Portland less safe?," and 'voice' answered: "Absolutely."

Which is to say the FBI Agent absolutely believes that, not that it absolutely would be. FBI Agent did not say removing JTTF absolutely would make Portland less safe. (For that answer, Liars needs to ask: "Would removing JTTF absolutely make Portland less safe?" He did not ask 'voice' that.)

Later that same day, Liars on-air lied to Don McIntire that "the FBI Agent said, absolutely, removing the JTTF would make Portland less safe."

Now McIntire and Liars' odium audience goes forth lying as stupidly as parrot-talk, and quoting their reliable Liars as their source. Not the FBI Agent.

<h1></h1>

I'm not sure which is funnier:

your clintonian parsing of "absolutely" or the desire to get in the last word on a long dead thread.

<h2>(oops, looks like I'm guilty too).</h2>