Sunday, January 29, 2006
A no-win tax in Portland
Portland schools need local money, but no one needs the risks and costs embedded in Mayor Potter's plan
The Oregonian's editorial board is torn - they want a tax "for schools" just not the one Tom "I've got my nose in everything" Potter is proposing. The underlying message is: "a new tax is needed" (the default position) but proponents have got to be careful now that the public is on to their mendacious ways. The O evidently has a different plan, involving property taxes, which will be easier to pass. So the issue devolves not to substance but to style. Any "different" tax would fulfill the "... promise that the city, county and schools made that a local school income tax would indeed be temporary.
I'm insulted. How about you?
Potter's plan would affect too many already "cranky" voters to have a chance. You know those "cranky" folks who believed Linn and her kin when they proposed the "temporary" MultCo "I-GOUGE". The deceit and ineptitude on the part of its authors and beneficiaries is pretty hard to miss with the advantage of three years of perspective. Here we are and all the same laments are coming from all the same people in the "Government/Education Complex". Even the O perceives that a simple "sleight of hand" move to a city tax won't fool enough people. Give Potter credit, however, for "...spending so much time on the school funding issue." What else has he got to do?
The case for a property tax based approach is probably strategically better since the key demographic in either scenario is renters. While property taxes are in essence "hidden" taxes for renters, income taxes (at least non-withheld income taxes like the ITAX) have a direct impact on these folks - prompting the awakening of tax consciousness - perhaps the only good thing about the ITAX.
There are three categories of renters who are in play here: 1) young, childless (overwhelmingly Democrat) couples among whom the herd mentality dictates SUPPORT SCHOOLS. 2) couples with children in school and single parents who are terrorized with scenarios about huge class sizes, teacher layoffs, school closures, drastically shortened school years. 3) older, childless, non-retired people and people whose children are grown and out of school.
All three of these groups tend to strongly "support schools" in the abstract - who doesn't when it's phrased that way. But having a dollar sign in front of the vague concept tends to "focus the mind wonderfully" (apologies to Mark Twain). Its the "unfocused mind" that the O instinctively senses is most vulnerable - the same way a predator senses prey.
What's missing, as usual, from the editorial is any mention of WHY we're at this impasse again (and again) other than the de rigeur blaming of the legislature. But note that the legislature is always being blamed for not coming up with enough money. The logical inference is that the problem is only lack of money. Try, however, to get ANYONE in the Government/Education Complex to tell you how much money is enough money, and you'll get an answer that begs a question - MORE!
Real accountability in public education is a moving target. Sure, interest groups mouth the platitudes, but, when the rubber meets the road, as limned sharply in the Oregon Trail School District strike, the primary concern of most in the education establishment is, however you spin it, selfish. Sure the "kids" enter into the equation, and sure the vast majority of teachers are "good teachers" - but it's the "equation" that creates school funding problems - not tightwad taxpayers. Even good teachers have to balance their concern for the kids with their allegiance to a system which wilfully fails to reconcile (or even recognize, in some cases) the rights of the taxpayers with their responsibilities as educators.
The system, as it now stands, is dysfunctional. The quality of the product getting delivered to the customer isn't worth the price the customer is being asked (forced) to pay. That's a scenario which could describe any number of failed or failing Socialist and Communist countries. There ARE options (vouchers, charters), but in this state the oppressive ruler (the G/E Complex) tolerates no dissent and has henchmen on the payroll to enforce their will. If that sounds like hyberbole, so be it. You try to broach any sort of market-based alternatives and see how far you get.
Now, however, even in the "City that Works" the apparatchiks are restless and there's revolution in the air.
What a refreshing breeze.
With any luck, it will fan a tiny flame into something that forces real change.
¶ 10:54 AM Portland schools need local money, but no one needs the risks and costs embedded in Mayor Potter's plan
The Oregonian's editorial board is torn - they want a tax "for schools" just not the one Tom "I've got my nose in everything" Potter is proposing. The underlying message is: "a new tax is needed" (the default position) but proponents have got to be careful now that the public is on to their mendacious ways. The O evidently has a different plan, involving property taxes, which will be easier to pass. So the issue devolves not to substance but to style. Any "different" tax would fulfill the "... promise that the city, county and schools made that a local school income tax would indeed be temporary.
I'm insulted. How about you?
Potter's plan would affect too many already "cranky" voters to have a chance. You know those "cranky" folks who believed Linn and her kin when they proposed the "temporary" MultCo "I-GOUGE". The deceit and ineptitude on the part of its authors and beneficiaries is pretty hard to miss with the advantage of three years of perspective. Here we are and all the same laments are coming from all the same people in the "Government/Education Complex". Even the O perceives that a simple "sleight of hand" move to a city tax won't fool enough people. Give Potter credit, however, for "...spending so much time on the school funding issue." What else has he got to do?
The case for a property tax based approach is probably strategically better since the key demographic in either scenario is renters. While property taxes are in essence "hidden" taxes for renters, income taxes (at least non-withheld income taxes like the ITAX) have a direct impact on these folks - prompting the awakening of tax consciousness - perhaps the only good thing about the ITAX.
There are three categories of renters who are in play here: 1) young, childless (overwhelmingly Democrat) couples among whom the herd mentality dictates SUPPORT SCHOOLS. 2) couples with children in school and single parents who are terrorized with scenarios about huge class sizes, teacher layoffs, school closures, drastically shortened school years. 3) older, childless, non-retired people and people whose children are grown and out of school.
All three of these groups tend to strongly "support schools" in the abstract - who doesn't when it's phrased that way. But having a dollar sign in front of the vague concept tends to "focus the mind wonderfully" (apologies to Mark Twain). Its the "unfocused mind" that the O instinctively senses is most vulnerable - the same way a predator senses prey.
What's missing, as usual, from the editorial is any mention of WHY we're at this impasse again (and again) other than the de rigeur blaming of the legislature. But note that the legislature is always being blamed for not coming up with enough money. The logical inference is that the problem is only lack of money. Try, however, to get ANYONE in the Government/Education Complex to tell you how much money is enough money, and you'll get an answer that begs a question - MORE!
Real accountability in public education is a moving target. Sure, interest groups mouth the platitudes, but, when the rubber meets the road, as limned sharply in the Oregon Trail School District strike, the primary concern of most in the education establishment is, however you spin it, selfish. Sure the "kids" enter into the equation, and sure the vast majority of teachers are "good teachers" - but it's the "equation" that creates school funding problems - not tightwad taxpayers. Even good teachers have to balance their concern for the kids with their allegiance to a system which wilfully fails to reconcile (or even recognize, in some cases) the rights of the taxpayers with their responsibilities as educators.
The system, as it now stands, is dysfunctional. The quality of the product getting delivered to the customer isn't worth the price the customer is being asked (forced) to pay. That's a scenario which could describe any number of failed or failing Socialist and Communist countries. There ARE options (vouchers, charters), but in this state the oppressive ruler (the G/E Complex) tolerates no dissent and has henchmen on the payroll to enforce their will. If that sounds like hyberbole, so be it. You try to broach any sort of market-based alternatives and see how far you get.
Now, however, even in the "City that Works" the apparatchiks are restless and there's revolution in the air.
What a refreshing breeze.
With any luck, it will fan a tiny flame into something that forces real change.
