Jeff seems to spend a lot of time mulling over the article, and more than that, how it was written. He seems to suggest that we should focus more on how an article was written more than just getting the basic info it supplies. Of course everyone should consider their source, but try looking at a couple other sources so see if they reconcile or contradict. We all know different media sources have different bents and God forbid that they actually get all the info correct in the first place. Everyone looks at the world through a lens of their own beliefs, values, and personal experience and history. Hopefully if we're not too screwed up we'll come up with a sophisticated understanding about an issue and do something with that info...like vote.

I toldly oppose the income-tax since it is another "band-aid approach" without dealing with the 800-lb purple elephant in the corner of the room:

MEASURE 5, 47, and 50

If the Mayor wants to show true leadership on the issue of stable funding--he needs to start talking about reforming those Measures guidelines because they effect all of Metro--since most of the Metro school districts are feeling the pinch.

Furthermore, Commissoner Leonard's statement from the WillieWeek murmurs: "Looks like a new city income tax for Portland schools will go to the May ballot without the unanimous support of the City Council. Commissioner Randy Leonard says he'll oppose the plan being unveiled Thursday by Mayor Tom Potter because it would devote less money per student in east Portland districts like David Douglas and Parkrose. Advocates of dedicating more money per student in Portland Public Schools say that district's needs are greater and that most of the tax would come from residents inside PPS lines. Leonard, the only city commissioner living east of 82nd Avenue, says he doesn't oppose the tax lightly but cannot vote "to give the poorest areas in Portland less money per student than what the wealthiest areas in Portland receive."

This is dead on--this tax "attacks" the low-to-middle class families that are barely making it month to month. As the Oregonian stated on Monday: "School advocates favor the 0.95 percent city income tax, saying it would buy five years of stable funding for city schools. For a family with $50,000 in Oregon taxable income after deductions, a 0.95 percent tax would run $475 a year. "

If a family could survive on $50,000 per year with one kid is very tough and with 2 kids is nearly impossible--if both adults worked full time they would make per hour only $12.50 each; now take out: state/federal/ss/workmens comp taxes(and maybe union dues and benifits); rent(or mortage), food, ulitilies, transportation, clothes--there is no money for error live with additional tax.

Mayor Potter nice "rehashing" of what Chair Linn did 3 years ago---but it is even a good temporary solution.

I didn't see the third comment before I got in here, so won't respond there. I just want to make quick points on the first two.

For Doretta - I view thinking and speaking in frames as the problem. It's reaching a point where the goal is to "trick" the media into playing your game. That's making for the dumb media everyone claims to hate. What's the solution? I'm working on it....

For Anonymous - My post is a navel-gazer to be sure. But the navel-gazing attempted to serve an end. I was attempting to describe how easy it is to assume media hostility to any chosen point of view. I walked back my thinking to show how the reporters' frame actually made sense; if I had to guess the story was basically about how the opposition viewed the new city tax. But, you're second and larger point is one of which I'm very fond: the more you read about anything, and from the more perspectives, the better. Good addition.

Ofcourse the oregon legislature failed to do its job, look who is speaker of the house!

KAREN MINNIS neeed I say more

Does anyone here think that moving to a charter school system or a voucher system might help us? I mean, it's apparent that health care and PERS are choking the funding for our schools. It's equally apparent that nothing can be done on these two fronts without either legislative our structural help. I'd like to see our teachers paid more - much more - than they are, but with PPS's contract with the unions, their fixed costs (buildings, etc.), and the PERS problems, it seems that the only option is to have non-union teachers teaching.

Pay good teachers more, bad teachers get fired, our students get taught. Europe has a great school system, and they spend much less per kid (even adjusting out for health care) because they have school choice.

I know I'm angling for a fight here, but is there any real argument against choice other than the fear that some kids might go to Catholic schools?

Fact:

$6,600 = Amount of money spent on one student-per-year in PPS.

$30,000 = Amount of money spent on one wayward Republican for one year who can't keep his pants on... so they end up in prison... with their pants... down.

Ouch!

I don't feel Tom Potter's new "temporary" I Tax has broken any faith with me...but of course THANKFULLY I won't have to pay this one.

I do feel the entire 3 year Multnomah I Tax did indeed break faith with the voters when...a mere 3 days after passage it was announced that "Oh, by the way, anyone on PERS or other government pension will be exempt from the tax....but all of you receiving private pensions or $1000 a month social security checks had better be ready to pay up each April".

There are 3 significant obstacles to passage of a new I Tax for you Portland folks. 1. The ridiculous exemption of government pensions and the fact that Tom Potter's pension will be exempt from Tom Potter's tax. (what a nice campaign ring that has) 2. Yesterday's revelation in the Oregonian that PPS already has the lowest class room sizes of any public school district in the state with 1500 or more students, and 3. PPS provides BY FAR the richest health care package for any group of teachers in the state and contrary to promises made three years ago, the teachers in PPS have refused to moderate it.

It's going to be an interesting campaign for those I Tax folks....I'm just glad I'm only an observer this time around.

I just went up int the attic and, after some serious searching, found my 8th grade school yearbook from good ol' Kellogg grade school here in Portland. The Oregonian yesterday said the class sizes for Portland Public Schools att he grade school level is sitting around 22 students....which seemed to be the lowest on th chart.

In counting all the bright smiling faces in each of the classed in that 1962 yearbook the class sizes ranged from a low of 28 in Mrs. Snooks 5th grade class to a high of 34 in Miss Bellerby's 1st grade class. Hmmmmmm....other than the unionizing of teachers, what has changed that make 22 students in a class a risk to student achievment?

And YES CHarlie....if it is true that Tom Potter's pension (in excess of $75k a year) will be exempt from his tax plan and my pension will be taxed then my vote is settled before any campaigning. NO WAY! I know ol' Tom will pay the tax on his mayor's salary but my pension is all I have. We both should pay!

Bull man's points are... self defense mechanisims?

Hell yes the reporters are hostile to the tax plan being sold as temporary. As they should be- they are uncovering a shell game of the county handing the ball to the city and both calling it temporary.

Here we sit 16 years on from Measure 5, when the head of Portland Schools stated on KATU's Towne Hall that the day after Measure 5 passes he would have to hand out pink slips. He didn't.

Band Aids work. They have to.

That is how a public monopoly functions, the available funds will be consumed... and then some. The only limiting factor to its growth is the availability of funds. There is always something that can be done better, or faster, or modernized, or creatively, or a fricken wireless headset microphone for Superintendent Britney Spears... err... Vicki L. Phillips (!SUPAHSTAR!)... woah sorry about that.

It is easy to get carried away when there is no limit, in space on these comments, or money to try and help kids with.

Still nothing being done about incompetent teachers. Jefferson has some of the least experienced teachers in the district and that will stay the case regardless of whether they get uniforms, a new tax, or whatever. The more things change the more they stay the same. M.W.

Why would they exempt public pensions from taxation and not exempt private pensions? That seems to constitute an unreasonable taking under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. It certainly is unjust and immoral.

Moreover, it seems like a blatant reach for public employee votes, especially those nearing retirement age (pssst: hey buddy, let's pass a tax increase on somebody else...Don't worry you'll be retired soon and they can't touch your pension). Since the teachers mafia knows that much of the increased funding "for the children" will magically reappear in teacher's salary and benefits, it only seems logical they would support the tax. How about the rest of you Portland: would you like to subsidize a tax free pension to public employees with an increased tax on your pension? Oh, you don't have a pension. So sorry!

They'll tax you and they'll tax me, but I'll get a raise, and when retired, tax free!

Alice asks:

"Why would they exempt public pensions from taxation and not exempt private pensions?"

This begins with Davis v. Michigan in the US Supreme Court in 1988. Continues with Hughes v State of Oregon in 1991, and is dealt with in HB 3349 in the 1995 legislature.

The bottom line is that under state law, I forget the precise statute number right now, PERS pensions (and federal pensions) are exempt from local income taxes, while both are subject to State income taxes. Because no municipality had any income tax when Davis v Michigan came down, and because no municipality had any income tax when Hughes v Oregon came down, and because no municipality had any income tax when HB 3349 was passed, only the state income tax became subject to the court's ruling in Hughes. State statute still leaves the provision that PERS benefits and federal benefits must either both be taxed or neither are taxed. The way current law is written, it would take an amendment of state statutes to subject either group to the Multnomah County I-Tax, or the proposed tax. If there is any proposal before the 2007 legislature, the federal employee and state employee lobbies would be on it faster than you can say "Jack Abramoff".

Just on the subject of teachers' health care costs. . . You might not realize, but Portland Public Schools is paying $100 less a month per teacher for health care coverage this year than it did two years ago. (This at a time when other employers are seeing health care cost increases of 7, 8 or 9 percent a year.)

The teachers' union and school district in bargaining agreed to some plan redesign that cut costs, and teachers are now paying 7 percent of their health care premium. All other employee groups have a health care cap.

Portland Public Schools has made progress in reining in health care costs -- even if most people don't realize it.

Thanks Mr. Fearless47!

If we accept your explanation at face value, then legalized tax discrimination remains a valid argument against the I-Tax, whether collected by the City of Portland or Multnomah County.

If State Law is not amended to subject public pensions to the I-Tax (in advance of implementation), then it should not gather the support of anybody that is receiving a private pension, or plans on residing in PDX if they will receive a private pension in retirement (that would be me).

As a frequent PPS critic I often disagree with Sarah Carlin Ames, but on this we agree--the last contract with the teachers did reduce PPS's health care expenses (no, not the cost of health care in the big picture, that of course is a national crisis).

So much of the criticism of school funding seems to be all about getting the teachers and bashing the union--I am tired of it. I challenge anyone to spend one day, let alone their entire career, in the classroom and see if you still think teachers are "overpaid."

On the I-tax, the fact is Salem DID fail to fix our messed-up tax system and they DID fail to provide adequate funding. That means the Republicans, and the Governor, and the Senate D's. They all faiiled.

We are facing a $57 million shortfall in PPS next year. This translates to 75 school days or 750 teachers. We cannot let our schools go down the drain just to "teach Salem a lesson." This new I-tax will not give our schools everything they need, they will keep them from completely collapsing. We are on the tipping point of having middle/upper income families fleeing for private school and that will be the end. I want to live in a city where most everyone goes to public school.

Also, our property taxes went DOWN last fall with the expiration of school tax levies. I don't know all the specifics of the tax proposal but I expect the costs would about even out.

Hmm...I seem to have stopped receiving my emailed notifications when someone comments...I rely on that dang thing...

Nice additions, subtractions, points about my personal idiocy, the madness of unions and so on. I only want to respond to Progressive Conservative (a friend of mine): it's not a self-defense mechanism. It's thinking about what I'm reading and how my preconceptions and hang-ups almost pre-condition my response.

Anyway, the reporters aren't hostile to the I-Tax - or, more accurately, they provided their reasons for writing the article when I asked them about it. I'll post something later on that subject on My Very Brain.

OK, can't resist now...

For Doretta - that's a fair point (and I'm very impressed you stayed on subject in this thread; no mean feat given how widely it has traveled...and that's not a knock on anyone's comments). It's true the paper does self-correct, but the measures they use are indirect to the point that reacting to them becomes very complicated when considered against a paper's supposed mission - e.g. to provide the "news" in a fair manner. When the use of "frames" excerpts too much pressure - for instance, when a talk-radio host prompts his viewers to flood Media Outlet A with letters and calls, their sample is bogus; the same thing is at work with "concerned parent" groups and the FCC. But that's a detail quibble. Overall, you're right. Papers can be nudged in one direction of the other. My concern/obsession is protecting the paper's core mission - e.g. to inform the public - from over-zealous advocacy. It's possible I read too much into your original.

For Alice et al. on tax discrimination. I've been thinking about taxation on public employees a bit lately and one thing occurs to me. If the government pays your salary and you pay taxes back to the government, isn't that a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul? So long as that circular relationship is acknowledged and part of the calculation (and I question whether it is), I don't see the harm in exempting their taxes. Your thoughts?

Alice comments:

"If State Law is not amended to subject public pensions to the I-Tax (in advance of implementation), then it should not gather the support of anybody that is receiving a private pension, or plans on residing in PDX if they will receive a private pension in retirement (that would be me)."

But keep in mind that even if state law were amended, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that exempting PERS benefits from Oregon income tax was illegal under the US Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v Michigan. HOWEVER, the Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that PERS members had a valid contract and that complying with federal law resulted in a breach of the contract with PERS members. Therefore, the court ordered the Legislature to come up with a remedy for the breach. After 4 years of legal wrangling, the Legislature, unwilling to exempt Federal pensions from Oregon Tax (there are more federal retirees in Oregon than PERS retirees), decided on two things: 1) taxing PERS pensions to comply with the law and 2) providing a tax-offset in the form of additional PERS benefits for work performed before October 1991, which was the effective date of the Hughes v Oregon ruling. The effect is that while PERS benefits are subject to Oregon Income tax, every PERS retiree who performed any work prior to October 1991 receives a benefit increment adjustment ranging from 0% to 9.9% depending on how much work was performed before 10/91 and when the member retired. As I noted before, the law didn't cover local income taxes because none existed and none were contemplated. If Multnomah Country or the City of Portland were to lobby the legislature for a change in state law, both venues would be subject to the same issue that the State of Oregon faced in Hughes and the same type of offset would have to apply to the I-Tax. This would significantly reduce any potential revenue.

There is a long history and a wide range of precedents for exemptions for state and local income taxes for federal employees and the Davis v Michigan case addressed the question of whether a state or municipality could apply different taxing rules to public employee retirees than to federal retirees. The US Supreme Court said that whatever rules apply to one, must apply to the others. There is no legal precedent anywhere for exempting private pensions from income taxation unless the state or municipality doesn't have an income tax for anyone -- Washington comes to mind here.

The discrimination and equal protection won't get far with this issue.

BTW: federal employees pay no social security tax and are only eligible for social security payments for work performed outside the federal government.

I must agree that 5, 47 , and 50 are the culrpits here they don't let us tax those with wealth i.e. property. And I feel are unconstitutional in there limiting our ability to create a government of the people by the people and for the people by restricting and limiting our rights to vote and limiting or freedom of expression by limiting our right to vote our expression. As for those who would damn those with a PERS pension they should observe that those pension benefits where negotiated with the fact that they wouldn't be taxed and in lew of pay raises that would have cost the tax payers even more because for every dollar in raise you also have to pay the taxes on that raise. It would be better to not to pay for taxes on taxes and let public employees apply for any tax benefits and returns and give them a cash refund. As for the health care cost if you took all the money thatis bieng paid to private insurance carriers, to pay for expensive CEO's salaries, and put that money into a public health care system then the costs of providing health care for all would be almost paid for with money already allocated for health care of public employees that are going to private corperations that don't give a damn about anybodies health just weather or not they get their bloated earnings.

Does anyone have any idea what the revenue implications would be if, instead of raising taxes, we took exemptions, credits, deductions, etc. out of our existing tax code? IOW, suppose we expanded the tax base by removing special privileges rather than by adding tax burdens to those who do not receive these privileges?

My larger point is this: why not try putting an initiative before the voters that makes the existing tax code fairer? Wouldn't framing the issue as one of fairness be more likely to succeed than the knee-jerk approach of asking those who are already paying more than their fair share to pay even more?

I doubt anyone's still reading this far, but I wanted to post a link to a follow-up post I did on this. I wrote The Oregonian's reporters to find out why they wrote the piece. Their answers appear, mainly as I segue into an exploration of media bias.

Here's THE LINK.

The fact remains: "Tom Potters Pension is exempt from Tom Potter's ITAX"

The mayor could have proposed a property tax or even more astutely, a local sales tax dedicated solely to the schools. But alas....either of those would have to be paid by government workers and teachers along with the rest of us. I would vote without reservation for either but I will not vote to tax my pension while other's pensions are exempt. Period!

Sarah, please answer Kari's question. I was at Nancy Hamilton's meeting with the Portland Business Alliance and she said that PPS "capped health care" for teachers and that teachers now pay 8%. Even worse though, is that they agreed to increase teacher pay and step increases that really completely mitigated the teachers contribution AND ACTUALLY INCREASED THE DISTRICTS SHORTFALL. Now we all know that there was no cap and the savings evaporated by other measures, but we need to lock down how much they're paying now. Average district contribution is like $5-600 a month, and Portland is still over $1000. Paging Tony Larson, any comment? We need our truth meter! -Michael

At the PBA meeting, Nancy H. stated that recent retirees pensions would be paying the income tax now, but most are still grandfathered. -Michael

Those commenting about the costs of health insurance for teachers should remember to look at total compensation. The data's a little old (2002-03) on the state Department of Education website, but there's a file there with average salary and average years of experience for teachers for every school district in the state. It makes for an interesting comparison with other districts. Portland Public School had a higher average years of service for its teaching staff (compared with other nearby districts) but a much lower average salary than, say, Reynolds or Parkrose, to the tune of $5,000 to $6,000 a year for those two districts. The monthly difference in salary more than makes up for the difference in health insurance costs. Average salary for PPS was about $1,000 higher than David Douglas and Centennial, but PPS average experience was 3 or 4 years more. PPS has now traded a salary increase for lower health insurance expenses, so in effect it looks a little bit more like the other districts.

So if you want to bash high-compensation districts, go ahead, just don't start with Portland. Better yet, don't start.

As an Education Committee member, and longtime PPS CBRC Chair, I attended Nancy's meeting at the Portland Business Alliance as well. I certainly agree, that her presentation was not particularly "artful", but I don't think she was going out of her way to engage in factually loose behavior or plain deception. It was clear, that the thinking was a "work in progress", but totally agree that the message needs a good locking down.

I agree with the need for a "Total Compensation Review" (TCR). A true TCR, necessarily incorporates a "Total Compensation for X Level of Service" analysis.

I will post some data, from the last PPS PAT TCR sometime later today. Final TCR analysis: Portland Public Schools is in the top tier on pay, off the charts on benefits and are still maintaining a work schedule that falls one full day short of other top tier districts.

I believe the current year salary increase increment is 2.75%, through June 30, 2006. This does not include any step increases eligible bargaining unit members were awarded. Please see the PPS/PAT Agreement (p. 72-74), at the site below. Here is the PAT Insurance Article folks are inquiring about:

http://www.patpdx.org/Contract%202004-2006.pdf

Agreement, School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, and Portland Association of Teachers p. 41-42 of the Agreement, and p. 45-46 of the .pdf

Article 14: Insurance Protection A. Health and Welfare Trust 2. Subject to the qualifications stated below, the monthly district contribution to the Trust towards the cost of health insurance benefits, including medical, dental, vision, prescription drug, disability and group term life insurance, and associated administrative costs and Trust reserves for full-time unit members, and their eligible dependents and domestic partners (as defined in a Memorandum of Understanding cited in Appendix G) is as follows:

a. Beginning September 1, 2004, to January 31, 2005, the District shall contribute $874.59 toward the cost of health insurance for full time eligible bargaining unit members, and their eligible dependents and domestic partners. (The District contribution represents ninety-four percent (94%) of the February 1, 2004, to January 31, 2005, PAT composite premium of $930.42.) The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction. b. Beginning September 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, PAT will reduce benefits so that the premium for insurance coverage will be reduced by $75. From September 1, 2005, through July 1, 2005, the District shall contribute $855.55 for full-time eligible bargaining unit members, their eligible dependents and domestic partners. (The District contribution represents ninety-four percent (94%) of the February 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, PAT composite premium of $910.16.) The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction.

c. Beginning July 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, the District shall contribute . From September 1, 2005, through July 1, 2005, the District shall contribute $846.45 for full-time eligible bargaining unit members, their eligible dependents and domestic partners. (The District contribution represents ninety-three percent (93%) of the February 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, PAT composite premium of $910.16.) The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction.

d. Beginning February 1, 2006, PAT will reduce benefits so that the premium for insurance coverage will be reduced by another twenty-five dollars ($25). Beginning February 1, 2006, and every February 1 thereafter, the District will contribute for full-time eligible bargaining unit members, their eligible dependents and domestic partners ninety-three percent (93%) of the PAT composite premium. The bargaining unit member shall pay any remaining amount as a payroll deduction.

-Tony Larson

<h2>Thanks, Tony. So it seems Ms. Ames was off the mark in reporting as she did. Not surprising. If it's not $100 on the day you report it, it's probably best to wait until after Feb. 1st, when it is true, so that more despicable people can't use that to frame the district as perpetuating it's lies. -MB</h2>