No on Mearsure 66 & 67

[bintim]

I think most would agree with you on that. You're forgetting that without government intervention, all of those banks would have had incentive to make safe, secure loans in order to make the most money for themselves.

Perhaps you can start with the CRA (community reinvestment act).





Does that make it sound like MORE government intervention would help?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

I can actually understand that went too damn far. What I don't understand is the adjustable rate for those people and why sell them houses way outside their income means?

 

[ebott]

LMAO this is the oldest argument in the book. Bush lowered taxes on all those people, in turn they made silly investments with the money and dam near bankrupted the country. Now we have record unemployment with the lowest taxes in over 70 years. Where did that get us?

That's some good comedy right there. Thank you.

So you're saying it's not true? Or are you just laughing so you don't cry?

 

[blazerboy30]

So you're saying it's not true? Or are you just laughing so you don't cry?

I'm saying his assertion is stupid in multiple ways:

1) I think it is pretty well accepted that a huge part of this recession is due to the housing market crash. This was because people got into home loans they couldn't afford. I don't think most of the foreclosures and subprime loans can be blamed on the "rich".

2) He seems to be making the assertion that if the government gives people their own money back, they will make "stupid investments". Well, guess what, that isn't for the government to decide. That is part of our freedom. Additionally, poor and middle class are definitely at risk of making "stupid investments" if given their own money back.

Why don't we just give all of our money to the government and let them decide where to invest it? That way the government can protect us from ourselves.

3) There are LOTS of small-business owners that aren't "those people" who are considered the "very rich" receiving Bush's tax cuts. It is ridiculous to think that this tax will only affect those evil, large corporations.

 

[maxiep]

I can actually understand that went too damn far. What I don't understand is the adjustable rate for those people and why sell them houses way outside their income means?

Because the secondary market assumes all the risk and the secondary market for conforming loans are implicitly backed by the US Government because of FNMA and FHLMC. That's why Congress could push the banks; they were playing with the Government's money, not the banks.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Oregon politics is dominated by the public employee unions and while it has had one record breaking spending increase after another, it has not had a tax cut in over twenty years. (The last tax limitation was Measure 5 which represented a tax shift rather than a tax cut.)


More importantly, the massive tax increase sought by the public employee unions under Measures 66 and 67 have nothing to do with funding “social spending programs” or even “educational improvement programs.” The total $733 Million dollar tax increase will be used to fund the additional 2400 public employees hired by Gov. Kulongoski and the gratuitous five percent pay increase over and above the regular salary increases authorized by Kulongoski during his second term in office.

While over 130,000 Oregonians have lost their jobs in the last two years, Gov. Kulongoski, with the approval of the Democrat dominated legislature, has hired 2,400 additional state employees. Almost all of those employees have become members of Oregon’s powerful public employee unions by virtue of collective bargaining agreements executed by Kulongoski that requires employees to be members of the unions or to pay the dues required of union members. The cost of those additional dues paying public employee unions members is $192.5 Million annually or $385Million for the biennium – half of the total proposed tax increase.

And while Oregonians in the private sector were losing jobs, losing hours and absorbing pay decreases, Kulongoski granted the public employee unions a five percent pay increase over and above the bargained for increase and the step increase (the one you get for just showing up for the job each year). Three salary increases in a year. Those salary increases added another $296 Million dollars for the biennium. That brings the total to $681 Million.



I also read that the last argument for voting No on the phamplets you get was written by a pary in favor of 66 & ^7==67. They were crafty enough to know the last submitted argument against 66 & 67 will be the last one the voters will read in the arguments against voting yes. I thoiught that was bullshit.


NO on both 66 & 67

 

[yakbladder]

Oregon politics is dominated by the public employee unions and while it has had one record breaking spending increase after another, it has not had a tax cut in over twenty years. (The last tax limitation was Measure 5 which represented a tax shift rather than a tax cut.)


More importantly, the massive tax increase sought by the public employee unions under Measures 66 and 67 have nothing to do with funding “social spending programs” or even “educational improvement programs.” The total $733 Million dollar tax increase will be used to fund the additional 2400 public employees hired by Gov. Kulongoski and the gratuitous five percent pay increase over and above the regular salary increases authorized by Kulongoski during his second term in office.

While over 130,000 Oregonians have lost their jobs in the last two years, Gov. Kulongoski, with the approval of the Democrat dominated legislature, has hired 2,400 additional state employees. Almost all of those employees have become members of Oregon’s powerful public employee unions by virtue of collective bargaining agreements executed by Kulongoski that requires employees to be members of the unions or to pay the dues required of union members. The cost of those additional dues paying public employee unions members is $192.5 Million annually or $385Million for the biennium – half of the total proposed tax increase.

And while Oregonians in the private sector were losing jobs, losing hours and absorbing pay decreases, Kulongoski granted the public employee unions a five percent pay increase over and above the bargained for increase and the step increase (the one you get for just showing up for the job each year). Three salary increases in a year. Those salary increases added another $296 Million dollars for the biennium. That brings the total to $681 Million.



I also read that the last argument for voting No on the phamplets you get was written by a pary in favor of 66 & ^7==67. They were crafty enough to know the last submitted argument against 66 & 67 will be the last one the voters will read in the arguments against voting yes. I thoiught that was bullshit.


NO on both 66 & 67

Umm..you do remember that state workers had to take several furlough days last year, right?

And I'd like to see the collective bargaining agreements to see what the raises for the state workers were.

 

[yakbladder]

Is the only place for companies to move, or grow in another state? They can't grow in other countries?

The complete fallacy of this argument is that companies already go in droves outside the U.S.

The only way you'll nullify that is to equalize currencies across the world so that some countries don't get an added government benefit.

Once you figure out a bill that will accomplish that, then perhaps you'll gain more traction.

 

[maxiep]

Umm..you do remember that state workers had to take several furlough days last year, right?

And I'd like to see the collective bargaining agreements to see what the raises for the state workers were.

Is every government employee necessary? I think the fact we've had furlough days and the government still runs just fine tells me we should have more of those days, or better yet, start firing employees to lower the tax burden on Oregonians.

 

[oldguy]

Not to tell anyone how to vote, but if you have kids/grandkids in school, this is something to consider:

For Eugene School District 4J, whether these two measures pass will cause an $8.5M swing in their next budget cycle. This is against a budget of about $115M. I don't recall the amount cut last year, but it was bigger than worst case senario this year.

Their administrators and professionals gave up a 3.5% COLA they were due last year. All other employees took furlough days. They used up most of their reserves last year.

It's about the same situation for all school districts, just bigger or smaller numbers, depending on the size of the district.

Go Blazers

 

[maxiep]

Not to tell anyone how to vote, but if you have kids/grandkids in school, this is something to consider:

For Eugene School District 4J, whether these two measures pass will cause an $8.5M swing in their next budget cycle. This is against a budget of about $115M. I don't recall the amount cut last year, but it was bigger than worst case senario this year.

Their administrators and professionals gave up a 3.5% COLA they were due last year. All other employees took furlough days. They used up most of their reserves last year.

It's about the same situation for all school districts, just bigger or smaller numbers, depending on the size of the district.

Go Blazers

There are too many administrators in schools. Fire administrators and put the ones you don't fire in a classroom.

 

[maxiep]

Not to tell anyone how to vote, but if you have kids/grandkids in school, this is something to consider:

For Eugene School District 4J, whether these two measures pass will cause an $8.5M swing in their next budget cycle. This is against a budget of about $115M. I don't recall the amount cut last year, but it was bigger than worst case senario this year.

Their administrators and professionals gave up a 3.5% COLA they were due last year. All other employees took furlough days. They used up most of their reserves last year.

It's about the same situation for all school districts, just bigger or smaller numbers, depending on the size of the district.

Go Blazers

BTW, have you ever noticed that when there's a tax increase on the ballot, it's always schools and prisons that are on the front lines for cuts? Why not the DMV or ODOT or some silly backwater? I'll tell you why: If you can't scare people, they won't vote for the increase.

We all have to do with less these days. Government should be no exception.

 

[blazerboy30]

Not to tell anyone how to vote, but if you have kids/grandkids in school, this is something to consider:

For Eugene School District 4J, whether these two measures pass will cause an $8.5M swing in their next budget cycle. This is against a budget of about $115M. I don't recall the amount cut last year, but it was bigger than worst case senario this year.

Their administrators and professionals gave up a 3.5% COLA they were due last year. All other employees took furlough days. They used up most of their reserves last year.

It's about the same situation for all school districts, just bigger or smaller numbers, depending on the size of the district.

Go Blazers

Uh, we're in a recession. Most people in this country aren't getting COLAs, and many are just happy to have a job. It is a tough argument to convince those citizens who are getting hit hard by the recession to pay more taxes so that state employees can get their 3.5% COLA.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Umm..you do remember that state workers had to take several furlough days last year, right?

And I'd like to see the collective bargaining agreements to see what the raises for the state workers were.

Not a bad gig if you ask me. Most are getting no raises, decrease in pay or losing their jobs. Gov't employees get a raise and then forced furlough. I would happy with more vacation days with no pay . . . if I got an icrease in salary.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If you want an idiotic lending practice, make a loan that you know won't be repaid.

That means one sponsored by ACORN.

 

[bintim]

That means one sponsored by ACORN.

What are you saying? Hookers don't make enough money to pay back their loans?

 

[MARIS61]

Then voting for this bill isn't very smart.



Why would you want to? If the company pays their C(*)Os higher wages, that will come back in personal income tax.

Which this raises on the rich only, so vote yes!

 

[MARIS61]

I think the greater point is that if you want to encourage employment growth in your state, you don't raise taxes on businesses. After all, the more the government takes from the company, the less the company is able to hire.

That theory never pans out. There's nobody else able to pick up the enormous cost and disastrous end results of bribing businesses to locate.

Every business has highly negative impacts on roads, traffic, parking, pollution, communication avenues, police/fire/medical services, regulatory agencies, water supply...pretty much anything taxes pay for will grow in cost due to any new business.

Massive subsidy of businesses simply to attract them is why our entire nations infrastructure has rotted away to third-world condition.

Ideally, all tax revenue would come entirely from business, and individuals would therefore pay only their fair share by consumption of goods.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

That theory never pans out. There's nobody else able to pick up the enormous cost and disastrous end results of bribing businesses to locate.

Every business has highly negative impacts on roads, traffic, parking, pollution, communication avenues, police/fire/medical services, regulatory agencies, water supply...pretty much anything taxes pay for will grow in cost due to any new business.

Massive subsidy of businesses simply to attract them is why our entire nations infrastructure has rotted away to third-world condition.

Ideally, all tax revenue would come entirely from business, and individuals would therefore pay only their fair share by consumption of goods.

Spoken like a true real estate agent.

I think the gov't should get the money from an increase in property taxes.

 

[blazerboy30]

Which this raises on the rich only, so vote yes!

Your lack of comprehension has no bounds. Hey, at least you make everybody around you appear smarter.

 

[maxiep]

That theory never pans out. There's nobody else able to pick up the enormous cost and disastrous end results of bribing businesses to locate.

Every business has highly negative impacts on roads, traffic, parking, pollution, communication avenues, police/fire/medical services, regulatory agencies, water supply...pretty much anything taxes pay for will grow in cost due to any new business.

Massive subsidy of businesses simply to attract them is why our entire nations infrastructure has rotted away to third-world condition.

Ideally, all tax revenue would come entirely from business, and individuals would therefore pay only their fair share by consumption of goods.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I guess. Check tax studies and you'll see that business provide a net positive in terms of taxes while "rooftops" (meaning residential homes) are a net negative.

 

[barfo]

BTW, have you ever noticed that when there's a tax increase on the ballot, it's always schools and prisons that are on the front lines for cuts? Why not the DMV or ODOT or some silly backwater? I'll tell you why: If you can't scare people, they won't vote for the increase.

We all have to do with less these days. Government should be no exception.

Or, it might have something to do with the fact that schools consume about 52% of the general fund, health and human services another 25%, prisons another 17%.

The silly backwaters that make up the entire rest of state government consume 6.6% of the budget. That why people are always talking about cuttings schools and prisons. "Because that's where the money is".

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Or, it might have something to do with the fact that schools consume about 52% of the general fund, health and human services another 25%, prisons another 17%.

The silly backwaters that make up the entire rest of state government consume 6.6% of the budget. That why people are always talking about cuttings schools and prisons. "Because that's where the money is".

barfo

Is it your contention that those areas are run as efficiently as possible? That's a brave stance.

There's no reason to fire teachers or prison guards. Cut administration and back office functions. Reduce health and human service offerings.

 

[oldguy]

There are too many administrators in schools. Fire administrators and put the ones you don't fire in a classroom.

I don't understand how that would work.

The principals and assistant principals are a big part (halfish) of the administrative budget and while they're not in a classroom they are already in the buildings. They could have the principals and VP's teach, but someone would have to step up and deal with personnel issues, discipline and be accountable to the kids and parents.

I guess they could do something like having the bus drivers run the transportation dept.; the cooks administer food services; the custodians hire out and supervise the construction and maintenance of the buildings; the principals do the hiring; and the teachers do systems management and information services. All of the duties listed (and many not listed) HAVE to happen, so in the short term everyone left would have to be trained to do the all of the administrative work of the departed admins and figure out how to divide up the extra work.

Administration runs about 3% of a district's budget state-wide. You can make a case that there should be less administration, but even firing every administrator in the district would still not offset the cuts the district faces if the measures fail. Something over 70% of the district budget is for teachers' salaries. That's why it always comes down to teachers taking a hit when there are big cuts.

The school district faces about $2.2M in cuts if both measures pass. If the measures fail, they face $8M-$15M, depending on how the cuts are distributed to state services. These numbers are not unique to my local district. Districts across the state will all be facing tough cuts.

There are valid reasons to vote against the increases, but dismissing school funding as just too many administrators is mis-leading.

Go Blazers

ps: I should state that I occasionally volunteer for the school district, so I have a dog in the fight, as Lars would say.

 

[oldguy]

Uh, we're in a recession. Most people in this country aren't getting COLAs, and many are just happy to have a job. It is a tough argument to convince those citizens who are getting hit hard by the recession to pay more taxes so that state employees can get their 3.5% COLA.

As I understand it, there was no grumbling about giving the COLA's up, for the very reasons you state. They agreed it was the right thing to do.

Go Blazers

 

[maxiep]

I don't understand how that would work.

The principals and assistant principals are a big part (halfish) of the administrative budget and while they're not in a classroom they are already in the buildings. They could have the principals and VP's teach, but someone would have to step up and deal with personnel issues, discipline and be accountable to the kids and parents.

I guess they could do something like having the bus drivers run the transportation dept.; the cooks administer food services; the custodians hire out and supervise the construction and maintenance of the buildings; the principals do the hiring; and the teachers do systems management and information services. All of the duties listed (and many not listed) HAVE to happen, so in the short term everyone left would have to be trained to do the all of the administrative work of the departed admins and figure out how to divide up the extra work.

Administration runs about 3% of a district's budget state-wide. You can make a case that there should be less administration, but even firing every administrator in the district would still not offset the cuts the district faces if the measures fail. Something over 70% of the district budget is for teachers' salaries. That's why it always comes down to teachers taking a hit when there are big cuts.

The school district faces about $2.2M in cuts if both measures pass. If the measures fail, they face $8M-$15M, depending on how the cuts are distributed to state services. These numbers are not unique to my local district. Districts across the state will all be facing tough cuts.

There are valid reasons to vote against the increases, but dismissing school funding as just too many administrators is mis-leading.

Go Blazers

ps: I should state that I occasionally volunteer for the school district, so I have a dog in the fight, as Lars would say.

A good post. I learned a lot. Repped. The problem I see is that you've bought into the paradigm of what a school should offer and what it should be. Schools need to be reorganized and made more efficient.

Schools need to do less (reading, writing and arithmetic) and do what they do better. Principals should teach half the day. Vice Principals should teach full-time. Counselors should teach part time. Secretarial staff should be slashed. Everyone has to work harder. 60-70 hours a week during the school year isn't unreasonable for these front office people

Tenure needs to be eliminated and parents need to be encouraged to volunteer their time (as you have done), including even teaching. Pay needs to be based on merit and not seniority. The retirement package needs to be completely reworked. If that pisses off the union, so be it. They can go ahead and strike. Get parent volunteers and hire replacements.

My real beef is with the administration not at the schools (although there's plenty of inefficencies as well). There should be a volunteer school board, a superintendent and then little else. In Lake Oswego, there are almost as many employees in the district office and school administrators as there are teachers in the LO school system. In Portland, the district office has a percentage growth larger than the percentage growth of teachers. They found money in their budget to redevelop the district HQ and then four years later purchase new office furniture. I could go on and on and on and on about it, but these people are never held to account.

If you want to raise taxes, do it so everyone has a little skin in the game. Continuing to try to soak the rich will eventually lead to a saturation point.

 

[Eastoff]

I don't understand how that would work.

The principals and assistant principals are a big part (halfish) of the administrative budget and while they're not in a classroom they are already in the buildings. They could have the principals and VP's teach, but someone would have to step up and deal with personnel issues, discipline and be accountable to the kids and parents.

I guess they could do something like having the bus drivers run the transportation dept.; the cooks administer food services; the custodians hire out and supervise the construction and maintenance of the buildings; the principals do the hiring; and the teachers do systems management and information services. All of the duties listed (and many not listed) HAVE to happen, so in the short term everyone left would have to be trained to do the all of the administrative work of the departed admins and figure out how to divide up the extra work.

Administration runs about 3% of a district's budget state-wide. You can make a case that there should be less administration, but even firing every administrator in the district would still not offset the cuts the district faces if the measures fail. Something over 70% of the district budget is for teachers' salaries. That's why it always comes down to teachers taking a hit when there are big cuts.

The school district faces about $2.2M in cuts if both measures pass. If the measures fail, they face $8M-$15M, depending on how the cuts are distributed to state services. These numbers are not unique to my local district. Districts across the state will all be facing tough cuts.

There are valid reasons to vote against the increases, but dismissing school funding as just too many administrators is mis-leading.

Go Blazers

ps: I should state that I occasionally volunteer for the school district, so I have a dog in the fight, as Lars would say.

well said

 

[Eastoff]

. 60-70 hours a week during the school year isn't unreasonable for these front office people

Doesn't oregon law require you to pay people double pay when they work over 60 hours unless they waive it? Who is going to want to waive that sort of thing?

 

[Eastoff]

In Lake Oswego, there are almost as many employees in the district office and school administrators as there are teachers in the LO school system.

This is an awful example. There is a disproportionate amount of stay at home parents in LO because it is much wealthier.

 

[barfo]

Administration runs about 3% of a district's budget state-wide.

In Lake Oswego, there are almost as many employees in the district office and school administrators as there are teachers in the LO school system.

I know nothing whatsoever about the Lake Oswego school district or any other school district, so I'm not taking sides here, but those two statements are pretty hard to reconcile. Does LO have vastly more administrative personnel than other school districts in the state? Do administrative personnel work for less than the minimum wage? The difference between 3% cost and 50% headcount seems striking.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Doesn't oregon law require you to pay people double pay when they work over 60 hours unless they waive it? Who is going to want to waive that sort of thing?

If the law exists, change the law.