If scientists can split an atom, they can lower our Big Biz pals tax bills.

So, what percentage of taxes does Big Biz throw into the Oregon kitty?

15 percent. Less?

You and me throw in the rest.

Now, please define "crocodile tears"?

Answer: Intel suits crying in the newspaper about our uneducated youth... in an op-ed written at 30,000 feet aboard Intel One, their favorite private jet. (I hope there's some more cocktail sauce left!)

Here's the thing I don't get: who decided to make taxation so damn hard to figure? I know there are all kinds of breaks built into the system, most of them as incentives to invest and so on. Taken together, that should be enough sweetener for corporations (even as small businesses get no such kindness and, generally, get eaten alive by exciting permitting fees); so remind me again why the state needs to further sweeten the kitty with further cuts to Intel's tax liability, just to name one example.

The balance of the capitalist equation, the grand "handshake" bargain that holds the whole thing together, is severely out of whack. And, if I can quote myself, this makes ugly reading when you see what's happening with wages, both in Oregon and across the country.

The $101 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the $700 million per year that K-12 employees are compensated above the average state (many which have superior academic results when compared to Oregon).

When they seemed to have a surplus this year they were fighting over how fast to spend it on new projects. Taxpayers will never believe legislators have the discipline to be forward thinking enough to manage a rainy-day fund until it actually happens.

BTW - Intel pays about 15% of the total corporate tax in the state of Oregon these days and has funded a lot of good things around Hillsboro already. Try to be objective before you start slamming them.

We NEED to quit the giveaways to Corporations!!! Each Dollar we give in tax writeoffs to them is passed on to the average Taxpayer(You and Me). At one time it was a unique idea to lure major employers into economically depressed areas, but it has become a means of Multinationals to "Shake Down" local governments into Bribing them to Locate/Stay in an area. The results are obvious- Struggling School Districts, Infrastructures like highways , Sewage systems, not able to keep up with demand!! This type of Incentive needs to be used for what it was originally intended for- Economic development of severely depressed areas!! It should be a Statewide jurisdiction- NOT left to Counties and Cities to Compete! Places like Burns, Pendleton, etc should be Economic Development Zones- Why should ALL State Economic Development be centered In Multnomah/ Washington/Clackamas Counties?????

Is it just me, or is "One Note Bailie" getting a bit... boring?

If teachers are so overpaid, for such an EASY job, why aren't you working in the classroom, Baleful?

Don't answer. You do not have to. We all know why.

Sid, I did not say teaching was an easy job. The teaching profession is very important. I do spend time in the classroom. It has been three months, however, since I was in front of a class of 31. This is not anti-teacher. It is about getting 3,000 to 5,000 additional K-3 teachers in the classrooms of Oregon. How do you justify Oregon's K-12 employees being the 8th highest compensated in the U.S. at the expense of the 4th highest student/teacher ratio, curtailed programs, mediocre graduation rates, 49th worst attendance rates and very average academic results. All of this in a state which has slipped from 25th in "per capita income" in 1990, to 36th ranking in 2004. There is a K-12 funding crisis in Oregon. The allocation of funding for Oregon K-12 has been a disaster for the students of Oregon.

How do you justify Oregon's K-12 employees being the 8th highest compensated in the U.S. at the expense of the 4th highest student/teacher ratio, curtailed programs, mediocre graduation rates, 49th worst attendance rates and very average academic results.

Except as I recall, that is all based on a chart on one website.

Were you down at the capitol during the session trying to get this changed, or is that too much work?

We are not required to believe a certain statistical analysis just because someone posts it on a website.

I don't care if your idea is the greatest idea in the world. Even if all Blue Oregonians agreed with you (which I doubt) that wouldn't change anything. Now if you are serious about your ideas, you will convince a candidate for Gov. or legislature to run on your ideas.

But that means a well thought out proposal to change things (incl. which laws would have to be changed). You would have to do more than just vent anger. Your posts sound like the PERS = ENRON ads of Ron Saxton. I have never heard Saxton state whether he thought the 2003 Macpherson proposal (which got enough votes to pass) or the Richardson proposal (which failed) better suited his outlook. And what about the PERS court decision? Was it perfect, or should parts of it have been changed? And if changed, then which parts, and to what?

Or is asking those questions the equivalent of supporting a system which " Oregon's K-12 employees being the 8th highest compensated in the U.S. at the expense of the 4th highest student/teacher ratio, curtailed programs, mediocre graduation rates, 49th worst attendance rates and very average academic results. "?

Is every teacher in Oregon the 8th highest compensated with the 4th highest student/ teacher ratio, or are you talking about averages? Is the corporate kicker part of that equation? What is your evidence that teacher compensation is the reason for poor attendance and mediocre graduation rates? Do you contemplate opening up contracts before they expire, or are you going to go to individual districts as the contract expire and tell them what they should be paying teachers? Do you count administrator pay in this, or do you believe administrators earn their pay and only teachers are over compensated? Would teachers remain in Oregon if their pay packages were cut to what you propose (do you have a specific proposal for teacher pay packages, or are you just venting?).

Or is asking for such details somehow subversive? Is your pen name the screen name of someone in politics who doesn't want their identity revealed as they float trial balloons?

LT, You seem to support the idea that Oregon K-12 employees should be the 8th highest in compensation. Why? The academic success of Oregon students does not correlate to that level. Why wouldn't it be better to have 3,000 to 5,000 additional teachers (K-3), complete school years, full programs. Oregon could still be well above the average state in individual compensation (15th to 20th in compensation).

Yes, I am talking about all K-12 employees, not just teachers. And yes, I am referring to averages.

This is (should not be) not a red/blue situation. It is to produce the optimum situation for the students of Oregon. The evolution of K-12 funding has brought miserable results over the last 20 years. The allocation of funding has been politically driven, to the detriment of Oregon students. We are now experiencing teachers being terminated, curtailed programs, very average academic results, large class sizes and poor graduation rates. With the $700 million per year that Oregon compensates above the average state in individual compensation, we could solve most of the above problems.

So, are you suggesting that we continue on this same direction? If not, what are your suggestions?

LT, You seem to support the idea that Oregon K-12 employees should be the 8th highest in compensation. Why? The academic success of Oregon students does not correlate to that level. Why wouldn't it be better to have 3,000 to 5,000 additional teachers (K-3), complete school years, full programs. Oregon could still be well above the average state in individual compensation (15th to 20th in compensation)

Because someone disagrees with you they support the status quo and are responsible for fixing it? Because I ask you what specific steps you have taken/ plan to take I support the status quo?

Have you even had a recent face to face discussion with a member of your local school board, as I have? (and no, the topic we discussed was specific to our district and it was not that teachers in this state are being paid too much on average)

You have not said what steps you would take to "Why wouldn't it be better to have 3,000 to 5,000 additional teachers (K-3), complete school years, full programs. Oregon could still be well above the average state in individual compensation (15th to 20th in compensation)", just told us that we are supposed to believe your averages or else we are awful people who support the status quo. Not to mention your assertion that we are supposed to believe your statistics just because you post them here. Is seeking further information on your statistics support of the status quo? Why?

Sorry, such vague people are not worth my time.

LT, Simple question, You seem to support the idea that Oregon K-12 employees should be the 8th highest in compensation. Why? The academic success of Oregon students does not correlate to that level. Why wouldn't it be better to have 3,000 to 5,000 additional teachers (K-3), complete school years, full programs. Oregon could still be well above the average state in individual compensation (15th to 20th in compensation).

What statistics don't you believe? They are directly from NEA, AFT, Oregon Department of Education, the Chalkboard Project and ECONorthwest. I would be interested in any data you might have which would support your contention that Oregon K-12 employees should be the 8th highest individually compensated of all states.

Yes, I know most of our board members personally and admire their effort. They have contributed greatly to my accumulated data.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

also, http://www.osba.org/hotopics/tbenefit/050712.htm

LT, Undisputed data from OSBA:

Based on the above data, the following observations can be made about Oregon’s compensation for K-12 teachers, according to OSBA Associate Executive Director Ron Wilson.

1)The student-teacher ratio, as a proxy for estimating class size, appears to be high in Oregon compared with the rest of the country.

2)Oregon has consistently ranked 13th in the nation in average teacher salary. Over time Oregon has maintained its relative position and kept pace with the national average.

3)Oregon contributes significantly above-average levels of benefits in addition to above average teacher salary, compared with other states. The primary cost drivers in the benefits area appear to be retirement pensions and health insurance premiums.

4)Oregon’s “effort” or use of capacity to support public schools appears to be below the national average.

One last comment. This just came in an email from a friend who I suggested might want to read this debate: You are right. One must be suspect of pure statistics because they can be interpreted in any number of ways...

LT, That was a graceful, thoughtless exit. All I asked was some information to support your discussion, and you bail. I am interested in your reasons (and data) why you think Oregon K-12 employees should be compensated higher than almost all of the other states?

This should be of interest to Democrats as well as Republicans. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Teacher salaries were not the topic of the original post "But since corporate collections exceeded the forecast by more than 2 percent, that combined $101 million goes back to corporate taxpayers"
but hey! why let that get in the way of debating that old chestnut: overpaid teachers.

Not to mention the concept that all Oregon teachers get "average" salaries and there isn't a major difference in teacher salaries in different geographic areas. Someone wanted to hijack this topic to talk about those awful overpaid teachers who were ranked the way the posted comments said they were ranked, and how dare anyone say otherwise.

Never mind that someone from AOI says in today's Oregonian that the corporate kicker should be looked at again, or OPB's Oregon Territory has Sen. Ryan Deckert and author Greg LeRoy debating corporate tax breaks. All that really matters is those vague remarks about how if teachers were compensated differently there would be more money for teachers in the classroom--no specific proposal, just "trust me, this is how Oregon rates and we should know why that is so we can afford more teachers".

A simple Internet search came across some interesting statistics. As much as some want to talk about average teacher pay in Oregon, the last I heard those salaries were decided district by district. If someone is advocating a statewide salary schedule (along with statewide health insurance?) they should say so.

No amount of posting on blogs will get legislation passed to change the system until there is actual public debate about specific proposals. Like this in the last legislative session: SB 766 "Limits amount of salary and benefits that school district,education service district or public charter school may payadministrator at end of contract."

Of course, that is about administrator salaries--mustn't distract from those teacher salaries by discussing the other publicly paid school district employees, though, according to some people. That bill passed the Senate but not the House.

Is the "average " teacher salary devised by taking every certified teacher salary in the state (special ed teacher with a Masters and 10 years of experience averaged in with a first year third grade teacher, and they all make the same regardless of where they teach?) and divided by the total number of salaried teachers? Or some other method? Where would Baker fit into those averages? Why is it the same as urban districts like Portland, Beaverton, Eugene?

http://www.bakercity.com/economic_dev/demographics/education.htm EDUCATION & WORKFORCE TRAINING BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT 5J

Baker School District 5J serves the Baker City, Haines, Keating and Sumpter areas with seven schools including five elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school. The 1998-99 operating budget for the district totaled $18,560,346. Other data on the district includes: Size of district: 1,160 square miles School year: 9 months Total enrollment: 2,319 School transportation: 11 bus routes

Faculty Information: One hundred sixty-one full-time teachers and administrators serve the Baker School District. Thirty-two percent of the teachers have a Masters Degree or higher. The pupil-to-teacher ratio for Baker School District follows state guidelines. at kindergarten, no more than 20; at first and second, no more than 25; and at third through twelfth, no more than 30. Teacher salaries range from $21,108 to $40,844 with an average salary of $29,150.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then there is the question of why those who are not settled long term residents of a community would want to teach in Oregon if they could get a better job in another state:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/15/teacher.poaching.ap/ Tuesday, April 15, 2003 Posted: 2:59 PM EDT (1859 GMT)

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- Over at booth 725, Dallas-area schools recruiter Mark Speck was working the crowd of would-be teachers with the practiced finesse of a car salesman -- slapping backs, handing out souvenir watches and talking up life in a region that will need 8,000 new teachers next year.

Across the cavernous Oregon Convention Center, David Karell, a schools superintendent from California, was dangling potential signing bonuses of up to $7,000 in front of Oregon teachers, many of whom have given up hope of finding or keeping a job in their home state. ``````````````

According to http://www.aft.org/salary/2003/download/2003Table1.pdf Oregon was number 14 in 2003 and Mass. was number 8.

This one has Penn. number 8 and Oregon number 14 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14818

Average Teacher Salary

$56,283 California
$55,367 Connecticut
$54,158 New Jersey
$52,600 New York
$52,043 Massachusetts
$51,424 Pennsylvania
$51,289 Illinois
$51,424 Pennsylvania
$51,076 Rhode Island
$50,772 Delaware
$50,763 District of Col
$49,685 Alaska
$49,677 Maryland
$47,600 Oregon

Look at the Baker numbers--how could they be "average" when their top salary is below the "average" Oregon salary in this chart.

And if someone tries to claim that anyone questioning the OSBA numbers is obligated to explain to the world what their alternative is, tough luck. Blue Oregon is supposed to be a place for policy discussion, although a friend thinks there isn't enough serious policy discussion here. To me that means specific proposals (pros and cons of the PERS court decision for instance, or whether the Macpherson proposal which passed in the 2003 session was better than the Richardson proposal which failed). If a bill passed the Senate and died in the House, that means a specific proposal only passed one chamber. Rhetoric won't change the fact that bills which don't have the votes don't pass. The only way to change that is for politicians to campaign on specific proposals and win. Posting on blogs does not elect anyone, nor put any vague proposal into practice.

Anyone who thinks posting on blogs removes the need for the hard work of lobbying specific proposals in public is not in tune with how policy is changed in this state.

Thanks for your opinion. The most current and accepted data is from NEA (National Education Association)(June 2005)and supported by AFT. It ranks Oregon the 13th highest state in teacher salaries. The Chalkboard Project (and ECONorthwest) (January 2005) states that Oregon K-12 employees have the highest ranking benefits package in the U.S. followed by a distant Wisconsin, 11 percent behind Oregon. The total compensation is the 8th highest in the U.S.

If you have current data which is different, could you please present it. You are trying to make this into an adversarial discussion, which is not intended. Is K-12 education "about the children", or is it about having Oregon K-12 employees among the highest compensated in the U.S.?

Naturally each school district has different numbers. But, our problems are unique to Oregon. The problem is not lack of revenue, but the allocation of revenue Using the numbers you presented from 1998-99 Baker School district, you can see the increase in just the years to 2003-04 in the link below.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/0304smap.pdf

How can you defend the present very high individual compensation when districts are struggling with teacher termination, curtailed programs, large class sizes and mediocre graduation rates? If Oregon K-12 employees were individually compensated between 15th and 20th highest in the U.S., we could hire an additional 3,000 to 5,000 teachers and have full school years and complete programs. What is wrong with the logic? Of course it would take place over years as contracts expire. Not as abruptly as Gov. Kulongoski suggested in January of 2003.

why does this type of discussion [any place, any occupation, average salary being way above national average] always mean that people are paid too much locally? why is this discussion not "let's raise teacher salaries all over the country"? probably because we don't much care about education in south dakota, or vermont, or florida. i'm not saying that we should be working for higher teacher salaries in sd, just trying to frame the argument differently. maybe oregon teachers are not overpaid. maybe all teachers are underpaid!

and i also wonder whatr people might think of these statistics from nea.

Yet Challenges Remain Public School Revenue Raised Is Among the Worst In Nation: Oregon ranks near the bottom of all states--40th out of 50--in the per capita revenue raised for public education. ESR

Public School Spending Has Declined: Public education spending per pupil has declined in Oregon. Since 2000, per pupil spending in constant dollars has declined by 3%. DEF, NRE and ESR

could those have something to do with our too high student - teacher ratio? could those have something to do with our too short school year? could those have something to do with the lack of services? or is it all the overpaid teacher?

and to get back on topic - the kicker should be eliminated. not just for corporations, but for my income taxes too. this state could use some more revenue. i could use some more revenue also, but i'd rather let salem keep a little more and get more from them.

and to get back on topic - the kicker should be eliminated. not just for corporations, but for my income taxes too. this state could use some more revenue. i could use some more revenue also, but i'd rather let salem keep a little more and get more from them.

I totally agree! And I certainly won't support any candidate who complains about something in the budget but says we are not allowed to discuss the kicker, Tax Expenditure Report, etc. as if even discussing such things means the "pro-taxers" win.

Actually if there were people who would say "No new taxes, here is my list of cuts" I would respect any such people. Too many seem to want it both ways--"no new taxes but don't ask for specific proposals".

LT and keyfur,

You say, " i could use some more revenue also, but i'd rather let salem keep a little more and get more from them."

What does that mean? "get more from them". Is your family on the public payroll? That is fine, I have two in my immediate family in education.

keyfur, "Oregon ranks near the bottom of all states--40th out of 50--in the per capita revenue raised for public education."

You have isolated the problem. While Oregon supports education about equal to our state's affluence (we are 36th in "per capita income"), we are compensating K-12 employees the 8th highest in the U.S. This economic relationship easily explains why Oregon has the 4th highest student/teacher ratio in the U.S. Oregon simply cannot afford to pay the 8th highest compensation and hire the necessary number of teachers to lower the ratio, take pressure off full school years and have full programs.

bailie said: You say, " i could use some more revenue also, but i'd rather let salem keep a little more and get more from them."

What does that mean? "get more from them". Is your family on the public payroll? That is fine, I have two in my immediate family in education.

well, actually we are both teachers, but i was not talking of getting more in the payroll department. what i ment by get more from them is the public services that government should provide. public transportation, health care to those who cannot afford it on their own, school funding, well maintianed streets, etc.

bailie also said: You have isolated the problem. While Oregon supports education about equal to our state's affluence (we are 36th in "per capita income"), we are compensating K-12 employees the 8th highest in the U.S.

while i agree that i have isolated the problem, i think that i have isolated it in a different place. i look to the second stat that i quoted saying that oregon has lowered education spending by 3% over the last five years when looking at constant dollars. the problem i think i isolated is the state's disinvestment in education. the state is just not willing to fund education the way it did in the past. how is a school district supposed to survive with less real money? is there anything that has gone down in price in the last 5 years? maybe computers, but not much in my life is less expensive than it was 5 years ago. what does the state think will happen when they spend less money (adjusted for inflation) on education?

i do not think that teacher salaries are the problem. with educators in your family, i am sure you know how demanding the job is and that most teachers earn every penny they get. i think the problem is spending less on education. i think the problem is an unwillingness on the legislature's part to find new funding. (i spent some time trying to figure out what the funding difference would be if we moved from 40th to 36th in per capita education revenue, but could not. i'd be interested to know if anyone finds that information.) the kicker is one place they could find more funding. (the $10 minimum business tax is another, but don't get me started!)

keyfur, Thank you for your comments.

You say, i look to the second stat that i quoted saying that Oregon has lowered education spending by 3% over the last five years when looking at constant dollars. the problem i think i isolated is the state's disinvestment in education."

I have mention this previously, but it seems that everyone choses to ignore a very significant statistic. We are now ranked 36th in "per capita income", down from 25th in 1990. This cannot be taken lightly. We (Oregon) cannot continue our spending as in the past. It is more important than ever that we take a fresh look at how our revenue is spent. When we are compensating the largest part of the Oregon budget at 8th highest of all states, there are significant shortfalls in other parts of the budget. It is very obvious in education and all other public sectors from state police to health care.

Can you look at this situation from a 3rd person view? We have a real problem with the allocation of revenue within education. We are spending $700 million per year above the average state in individual salaries and benefits for Oregon K-12 teachers. Obviously, this logic falls on deaf ears for those vested. It is too bad, because the children/students of Oregon are paying the price. Notice that we are now addicted to gambling (as a state), in an attempt to continue our spending habits.

Corporate taxation is greatly misunderstood. I was a CEO of a small corporation. All taxes of our corporation got passed directly through to the consumer. Our situation was very representative of all business. So who pays? The individual, not the corporations/businesses.

I know teachers work hard and deserve considerable respect. Still it goes back to my original question, "Why should Oregon teachers/K-12 employees be compensated higher than K-12 employees of almost all other states"? Simple question that everyone avoids answering.

You say, "(the $10 minimum business tax is another, but don't get me started!). The $10 minimum tax is only for corporations that lost money (about 60,000 of them). Any corporation making a profit paid above the $10 minimum.

bailie

it's getting late, so i'll try to be brief. but there are a couple of things i wanted to respond to.

We are now ranked 36th in "per capita income", down from 25th in 1990. This cannot be taken lightly.

true. at least i think so. so per capita income is down. that means your income and my income is down. but prices are still rising for the things we buy. the cost of milk still goes up. the cost of gas goes up. we do try to conserve, but we also must find ways to make more money. we take a second job. we do consulting on the side. we do what it takes to bring in more money so we can afford the necessities. why doesn't the state? we make sure our families have the necessities. education is a nesessity. why does the state choose to conserve there? aren't there other places to save money? call me crazy, but won't better educated kids help our economy rebound and help us move in the right direction on that per capita income list?

the fifteen year decline seems to be a big part of your argument. i know that the information we want is not always out there, but if you have some background on that i've got a couple questions. is the decline because oregonians are getting poorer or because 11 other states' citizens got richer? how does that decline look in the last 5 years when real dollars towards education have fallen? i do not know if you have or can find answers to those, but those questions prevent me from seeing that statistic as you do.

The $10 minimum tax is only for corporations that lost money (about 60,000 of them). Any corporation making a profit paid above the $10 minimum.

pge paid $10 last year. when i look at my monthly bills i notice that part of what i am charged for is taxes. it's not much (i shread my bills or else i'd find out the exact amount) but i bet i end up paying around $1/year to pge in those tax charges. i know they serve more than 10 people. if they are collecting the taxes why aren't they paying them? maybe they are the only ones getting away with this, but i have doubts.

and you have a good point about business taxes being passed along to consumers through prices. but what would happen if those taxes were suddenly taken away? how many businesses would lower their prices? very few is my estimate. and the lost revenue would have to come from somewhere. so we pay the same prices and higher taxes.

"Why should Oregon teachers/K-12 employees be compensated higher than K-12 employees of almost all other states"? Simple question that everyone avoids answering.

i'll do my best. teaching is hard work. (no it does not sound better from me than w.) teachers are continually asked to do more with less. schools are no longer places of learning. schools are community centers and day care and social service centers. teachers are dealing with more problems and need more expertise. teachers have put in lots of time (including an unpaid apprenticeship called student teaching) and hard work to get their jobs. we reward doctors for their expertise. why not teachers? teachers routinely work 10 - 12 hour days to get all their work done. teachers are expected (usually at their own expense) to take their vacation time to get more credits and hours to keep their jobs. teachers take money out of their own pockets to buy supplies for their classrooms.

you may say to all that that if teachers would just accept a salary cut, more teachers would be hired and some of those problems would be solved. what guarantee do we have that the savings would be used that way? how can we know it would not go to more prison guards? or more adminstrators? or more floor wax? workers for major airlines were convinced to take salary cuts to save their companies. what happened? ceo's walked off with multi-million dollar bounses. nobody in education (except for goldschmidt maybe) will walk off with a bonus, but there is a real chance that the money will not go where you think it will.

but there is an even more important reason. what are you putting in the hands of teachers? just your child's future. (ok, maybe a bit over dramatic, but at least their safety for 7-ish hours a day.) don't you want the best people possible to take your children monday through friday? for good or bad we live in a capitalist society. people are motivated by personal gain. why is it bad to motivate people to be teachers? if we pay the best, then we can expect the best. no, the results are not the best right now. but the solution is not lower pay and therefore lower quality teachers. sure, quanitity over quality will get some progress at the start, but quality teachers are the best way to improve student achievment. you have to pay for quality teachers or they will choose other jobs.

my last point on this question is the benefits issue. some government (i have heard a republican legislature in 1983) made a stupid deal on pers. the system is still paying for it. a chunk of the "8th highest compensation" is paying retirement benefits. that problem has been solved (or at least attacked a little) and will disappear as some retirees die off. because of that i'd expect the compensation rate to take a hit in the next 5 years. health benefits are also included. those are skyrocketting for everyone, for many more reasons than i have the desire to discuss here.

so maybe you would answer a question or two for me. why should the government give back tax money when we cannot afford to educate our children? why should we allow inflation to outpace education funding?

(so much for being brief.)

Again, thank you for your thoughtful answers. I'm sure that they represent the feelings of many. I'll try to answer as many of your questions as I can from my perspective.

1) You ask, "why should the government give back tax money when we cannot afford to educate our children?" Many who support the "kicker" look at it this way. If you go into WalMart (interesting example, huh?) and buy something that costs $18, do you expect to get $2.00 change, after giving a $20 bill? Or do you tell the WalMart cashier to keep the change and use it for whatever he/she would like? That cashier might have all kinds of needs for that $2.00, including education. But generally, you would probably feel that the $2.00 is your money and you should be the one deciding where the money is spent. Same with other people and businesses when it comes to the "kicker". Whether or not you accept this explanation, I don't know. But that is part of the logic why the "kicker" was so widely accepted in 1979 and again supported in Year 2000 by the voters. There is an overwhelming (perhaps too strong of a word)feeling by many, that our state government has an adequate amount of revenue. It is the way the revenue has been allocated which has decidedly turned Oregonians against (Measures 28 and 30) additional taxes.

2) You ask, why should we allow inflation to out pace education funding?" Good question. It is exactly as I said, our (taxpayers) ability to pay has greatly diminished in the last six years. We have dropped from 26th to 36th in "per capita income in a period of the six years. This is a very significant movement, in an otherwise slow moving measure of a states affluence. While this has been taking place, individual K-12 employee compensation has been out pacing inflation considerably. From a study by AFT (American Federation of Teachers), Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends(Fig. I-3, Page 5), Inflation-Adjusted Average teacher Salary Exceeds 1971-72 level by $4,312.00 in Oregon. This is just in salary. If the #1 rated Oregon benefits package were also included in the data, the disparity would be considerably greater.

3) There is considerable blame for the PERS debacle which is now hurting newly hired public sector personnel. Best recap of the history is from an Oregon State University presentation. It is well worth reading and filing for future reference.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/agen/reports/PERS0210.html

4) I agree with you about the hard work of educators. Not only do I have people involved in my immediate family, but my sister was married to a school district Supt. and have other members with Ed. PhD. I am focusing on where we have gone wrong over the last twenty years and what needs to be changed in the upcoming 20 years. Hundreds of pages of research have converged on the narrow answer of high individual compensation, as the primary limiting factor in Oregon K-12 education. Other states have gone a different route than Oregon with much smaller classes (more teachers/student attention) with average compensation. These states (and there are many) have superior academic results when compared with Oregon. Various parameters such as cost of living and population demographics have been factored in to the data. An interesting piece of information gleaned from the 2005 NEA report, is that, Oregon teachers could have salaries frozen for five consecutive years, and still be compensated above the 25th ranking state. Again, this is just for salaries, if benefits were included the statement would be more interesting. This can be quantified in Oregon to about $700 million per year in compensation above the 25th ranking state.

5) The question, "Why should Oregon teachers/K-12 employees be compensated higher than K-12 employees of almost all other states"? Simple question that everyone avoids answering."

I don't think you answered it. What is unique about Oregon teachers, that teachers in other states don't experience, that would necessitate the 8th highest compensation in the U.S.? Certainly the academic results don't correlate to the high individual compensation. Also, many states have Masters requirements or representation similar to Oregon. I will say that, in my opinion, the Masters requirement is terrible, for many reasons.

6) You ask, is the decline because Oregonians are getting poorer or because 11 other states' citizens got richer?" It is a combination of both.

7) PGE is an isolated case, in which I agree with you. It is not close to representing most corporate situations. It does seem to play well in forums such as this, however.

8) You ask, but what would happen if those taxes were suddenly taken away? how many businesses would lower their prices? It takes the pressure off from raising prices. It also, takes the pressure away from laying people off. In the private sector it comes down to a market place economy. Competition determines the ability to leverage prices. Business, in order to stay in business, will try to maximize return on equity. It is the primary function for the well-being of a business. As opposed to education, where the primary function should be, "what is best for the children".

9) Finally, you ask about our state expenditures, aren't there other places to save money?. We have less Oregon State troopers on the road than twenty years ago. We have a downward spiral in health insured citizens. We have a childhood hunger problem in Oregon that is among the worst. We have had the worst unemployment record among all states for the last five years. And you are basically asking for higher taxes, and demanding more from others, so that Oregon K-12 teachers can maintain the 8th highest compensation in the U.S.? These are the questions that Oregonians are increasingly recognizing (again, Measures 28 and 30).

keyfur, This is a link that answers some of your questions about what has happened to Oregon and our ability to raise revenue. Take a close look at Figures 3 and 4. This also helps explain why it is difficult to compensate K-12 employees the 8th highest, while our state is in economic disarray. The combination of high individual compensation and poor economy, is the reason why K-12 funding is having trouble. Another problem which becomes apparent, is that Oregon financed education, "per student", very well (well above the U.S. average) leading up to this research for Years 2000-2004.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Com2005/June.pdf

Actually Figures 2,3 and 4 are very telling. http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Com2005/June.pdf

should oregon teachers be the 8th highest compensated teachers in the us? maybe not. but why is the problem in oregon and not in 28 states with higher per capita income and lower teacher salaries? i think that 28 states should step up to the plate and compensate their teachers better.

but i do have a couple of things to try to answer your question. states have different teacher licensure requirements. oregon's are some of the toughest. 8th toughest? i don't know. but they sure are not 36th toughest. states have different teaching environments also. oregon is going through a tough phase now. (i know that this leads back to the idea that if teacher salaries were lower then the teaching environment would be better. but that also leads back to the argument that we cannot be sure that any savings in teacher salaries would be spent in the right places to make the environment better.)

and i wonder why that compensation rate means that teachers are overpaid. why aren't secretaries and doctors and ministers and construction workers and custodians and bankers also compensated at the 8th highest rate in the country? then our per capita income would rise . . .. i am too lazy to find oregon's cost of living compared to other states, but maybe people should be compensated based on the cost of living and not the incomes of others.

but i think in the end you and i will agree to disagree on this point.

(i could not get your link to work at the moment, so maybe there is amazing information that would win me over that i am missing right now.)

i did want to get into the explanation of the kicker you gave. i think that is a wonderful way to sell it to the voters, but i think it is misleading. the wal-mart example focuses on the cost of goods and services. the kicker has nothing to do with costs and everything to do with revenue.

let's return to wal-mart. in 2002, let's say, wal-mart forecasted they would earn $50billion in 2004. at the end of 2004 wal-mart realizes that they have really earned $55billion - 10% more than their estimate. now would you expect wal-mart to offer its customers a rebate on goods already purchased? not me. but that is exactly what the state is doing. their economists predicted how much tax money they would receive two years ago. and because their prediction was too low (probably because the economy was worse then and they took that into account when predicting revenue) now they are giving back some money. (i got my kicker info from http://www.ocpp.org/tax/kicker.htm)

and wouldn't many of the problems be helped if the government was not giving back their "excess" revenue?

bailie,

i have no idea wheather or not you support the kicker. i hope that none of my last post looks like i am accusing you of holding beliefs that you do not.

keyfur, 1) You wonder, "why that compensation rate means that teachers are overpaid. why aren't secretaries and doctors and ministers and construction workers and custodians and bankers also compensated at the 8th highest rate in the country?"

Great question! Because their compensation is controlled by market forces. They get paid equivalent to what they are worth in the marketplace. All of the occupations you mentioned (and many,many more) are not the 8th highest in the U.S. Actually, it would be interesting if you could name any occupation represented in Oregon that is compensated as well as K-12 employees in relation to other states. That is exactly my point. Our economy is not close to the 8th highest in the U.S., that is why all of the other occupations are not getting the 8th highest in compensation. That is why it is not sustainable to compensate K-12 employees at this level. It is why many districts are terminating teachers, curtailing programs, sustaining large classes and in turn delivering poor graduation rates and average academic results.

2) You say, "i am too lazy to find Oregon's cost of living compared to other states, but maybe people should be compensated based on the cost of living and not the incomes of others."

From the study by AFT (American Federation of Teachers), Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends(Fig. I-3, Page 13), State Rankings by Average Salary Adjusted by the AFT Interstate Cost-of-Living Index, there were only nine states higher than Oregon. This, again, is just in salary. If the #1 rated Oregon benefits package were also included in the data, the disparity would be considerably greater. There is no state in the U.S. which has a higher deviation than Oregon, between K-12 teacher salaries and "per capita income".(NEA Research 2005 and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2005)

You say, but i think in the end you and i will agree to disagree on this point."

That is too bad, because I think you represent the thinking of most, with a vested interest in PERS and the high salaries. It is only natural, I guess. It also goes to the point that education in Oregon is "not about the children", but about the personal gain for educators. If you can't explain/justify why Oregon teachers should be compensated higher than teachers of almost all of the other states, then who can? That is the reason why Oregon voters continually refuse to compensate higher. Think back, even though teachers are individually compensated very highly in Oregon, still there are bus loads going to the capitol at every opportunity to ask for more.

You ask, and wouldn't many of the problems be helped if the government was not giving back their "excess" revenue?

That "excess" revenue belongs to the individual/business, not the state government. The government will/would spend every penny available given the opportunity. Which is great if you work in the public sector, I guess(?).

There is a great difference between WalMart/private sector and education/public sector. Are you saying that when we have a downturn in the economy that you will accept a downturn in your compensation? By "you", I mean all of the teachers in Oregon.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/agen/reports/PERS0210.html

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Com2005/June.pdf

That "excess" revenue belongs to the individual/business, not the state government.

no it does not. we have a tax rate. you pay your taxes and the government gets to use your money for public works. if you do not like the tax rate in oregon you (not you, but anyone) are free to move to a state where the tax rate is more to your liking. (yes, i am also free to move to a state without a kicker.) just because the state made a bad guess 2 years ago about how much they would get is no reason to give it back. let's use that money do more for all oregonians. let's put those ohp troopers back on patroll. let's combat the childhood hunger problem. let's save for a rainy day. but don't give my tax money back. i'll just blow it on beer and cds.

AHA! The strategy is revealed! The person Sid L. called Baleful has sounded for quite some time as some sort of political activist. Saying excess revenue belongs to the individual and not the government sounds like the folks who worked on McIntire and Sizemore ballot measures. Such a person should run for office, and if elected could block any efforts to repeal 2000's Measure 86, could introduce legislation to change teacher compensation, and all other sorts of things. But that is hard work and involves public speaking, not to mention the need to earn votes form those pesky voters who might ask all sorts of questions. How much easier to just blog under a screen name and try to convince other bloggers of a certain point of view. Nothing will be changed by blogging, but it is a lot easier than actually campaigning to change the system.

LT, You say, "The person Sid L. called Baleful has sounded for quite some time as some sort of political activist."

I am about as far from being a political activist as you can get. My comments on most ideas outside of K-12 funding, are just comments, casual opinions. My comments on what is best for funding Oregon K-12 education, are the result of three years of diligent research. The reason for expressing the data on this forum is to develop dialog about a very important part of the future of Oregon, nothing more. To my surprise, most individuals (including people within education) are very lacking in knowledge about the data. OEA members have been told for the last decade that they are under compensated, and it is natural for them to believe it. Unfortunately, the statement is untrue by almost any measure, as represented by the data from NEA, AFT, Oregon Department of Education, the Chalkboard Project, ECONorthwest, Rand Corporation, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, OSBA and many others.

The evolution of K-12 funding over the last 20 years, has been detrimental to Oregon education. It has led us to our present situation of terminating teacher contracts, curtailed programs, pressure on school years, very average academic results, poor graduation rates and the 4th highest student/teacher ratio in the U.S. For so many in Oregon to accept the status quo in funding as OK, is very disappointing. It is surprising for me to see the lack of interest on this blog for this topic. Most of the discussion is only by people defending their turf, which is natural, I guess.

K-12 funding is the largest part of the Oregon budget, yet very few are interested in the data to support discussion. Or an effort to discredit data to somehow elevate baseless opinions.

Thank you for entering into the discussion, it is important.

IF W SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT THE HURRICANE DESPITE BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH COLOR CABLE IN HIS OFFICE, THEN HOW IS THE STATE ECONOMIST SUPPOSED TO PREDICT REVENUES AND EXPENSES A VERY LONG TWO YEARS FROM NOW?

(Sorry for caps... they were for our C- POTUS and his hoary mother)