Oregon Legislature Should Make It Easier for Individuals to Enter the Landscaping Business

Below is a letter being distributed to all members of the Oregon House of Representatives prior to their voting on House Bill 3337 in the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session, which would make it easier for individuals to enter into the landscaping business in this state.


April 20, 2017

Floor Letter in support of HB 3337

Cascade Policy Institute supports passage of HB 3337 which creates a limited landscape construction professional license. This bill is in line with the framework for policymakers on occupational licensing issued by the Obama White House in 2015 which found…

“…the current [occupational] licensing regime in the United States…creates substantial costs, and often the requirements for obtaining a license are not in sync with the skills needed for the job. There is evidence that licensing requirements raise the price of goods and services, restrict employment opportunities, and make it more difficult for workers to take their skills across state lines.”  And…

“There is ample evidence that States and other jurisdictions should review current licensing practices with an aim toward rationalizing these regulations and lowering barriers to employment.”

The White House report also argues that reducing barriers to employment is especially helpful for “marginalized persons such as young people, minorities and individuals with felony convictions.” It notes a 2012 report by the Institute for Justice, License to Work, which found that Oregon is the third most broadly and onerously licensed state, placing it in the top tier just below Arizona and California. Oregon licenses 59 of the 102 low-to-moderate-income occupations studied. Surprisingly, only ten states even licensed landscape contractors. Oregon is one of them.

There is growing awareness on both ends of the political spectrum that many state occupational licensing laws actually stifle economic opportunity and make it particularly hard for lower-income people to move their way up the economic ladder and use their entrepreneurial talents for their own benefit and the benefit of all Oregonians. Licensing can also marginalize consumers who suffer the most when goods and services they need cost more by keeping more people from vying for their business.

HB 3337 is a step in the right direction for those Oregonians who want to work and start landscaping businesses without the burden of excessive occupational licensing restrictions. We urge its passage.

Sincerely,
Steve Buckstein, Senior Policy Analyst and Founder, Cascade Policy Institute


Steve Buckstein is Senior Policy Analyst and Founder of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

 

75th Anniversary of Roosevelt Order a Sober Reminder to Defend Constitutional Liberties

By Lydia White

On Monday, government offices were closed in honor of Presidents’ Day. Americans enjoyed a break from work and school, and some championed historic Leaders of the Free World.

But, just one day before, few observed a Day of Remembrance for abominable actions committed by a still-celebrated President.

Seventy-five years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. The order evicted nearly 120,000 citizens and nationals of Japanese descent from Oregon, Washington, and California. Men, women, and children were forced to abandon their homes and businesses simply because of their ethnicity.

Many victims, over half of whom were U.S. citizens, were rounded up and relocated to temporary internment camps. Stables, including Portland’s own Pacific International Livestock Exposition, were converted into living quarters. Most victims were shipped to long-term incarceration camps, where they stayed for four years until the war concluded. All were subjected to bitter hostility, even upon returning home.

During the hysteria of war, racism swept the nation. The duress caused by international tensions led citizens and political leaders alike to choose security over liberty, destroying thousands of innocent lives in the process.

On Presidents’ Day, we should celebrate the achievements of our past leaders. But let us not forget the atrocities committed by Presidents past, and work diligently to prevent present and future leaders from further violating civil liberties.


Lydia White is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Limiting Government: A Goal That’s Always Worthwhile

By Lydia White

As inauguration weekend unfolded, Republicans cheered with a gasp of relief, Democrats protested, and many broke down into tears and even violence.

The extremity of responses from people across the political spectrum reveals a troubling aspect of contemporary politics: Many are terrified the “wrong” party will come into the federal government’s vast powers.

If Americans feel their livelihood depends on one election cycle, the scope of government is far too big.

Since the 1990s, each party held control of the White House and both chambers of Congress for four years. Under their leadership, Republicans ballooned public debt by 32%, Democrats by 45%.

Every new administration, whether Republican or Democratic, brings more spending and less freedom. Yet, for some reason, Americans find this acceptable as long as the spending is on their party’s preferred programs, compensating for the other party’s inane spending. This never-ending cycle sets precedent for every subsequent administration to retaliate and further mushroom public debt.

Instead of continuing this trend of ever-growing government, self-declared limited-government advocates should live by their principles and scale back bureaucracy across the board.

Should they be tempted to engorge themselves by forcing “favorable” big government policies through Congress, conservatives must be ready to face the consequences. The powers amassed may very well land into the “wrong” hands yet again.


Lydia White is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

No Standing in Lines, Just Amazon Go

By Lydia White

Amazon has introduced its new line of physical stores: Amazon Go. Using a smartphone, consumers can swipe into the store, pick up their desired items, and exit—receiving an electronic receipt for their purchases and avoiding dreaded checkout lines. Many hail this new technology as promising and exciting, while others are concerned about the potential for job losses.

Such concerns overlook a fundamental aspect of free market economies: freedom of choice. While many will choose Amazon’s technology for convenience or cost, others may prefer not to out of regard for traditional retail job opportunities or other business or personal reasons. But regardless of these differences, freedom of choice serves everyone.

This holds true across industries. You can buy a BlackBerry or upgrade to an iPhone. You can hail a taxi or download Uber. The economy is not a zero-sum game.

Consumer decisions aren’t made in an ivory tower or executive board meetings, but by each of us in our daily lives. Businesses must cater to our needs to maintain mutually beneficial, voluntary transactions. No one is forced to shop in an Amazon Go store, and traditional shopping experiences will continue to exist as long as consumer demand for them exists.

So, whether or not you are enthusiastic about capitalism’s creative destruction, the choice remains yours.


Lydia White is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Now What?

By Steve Buckstein

Here at Cascade Policy Institute, as a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank we don’t support or oppose political candidates. But we aren’t shy about telling candidates and elected officials what we think about their policies.

Now that this especially contentious election is finally over, you’re probably happy about some of the results and unhappy about others. But even if you got what, or whom, you wanted, you might think about some timeless insights from two discerning historical figures.

The first insight comes from Eric Hoffer, known as the longshoreman philosopher. In his 1951 book The True Believer, Hoffer noted:

“A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”

The second insight comes from American statesman Daniel Webster, who in the early 1800’s said:

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Even if the worst happened on election night in your opinion, remember that America has survived as a free and strong nation since declaring our Independence in 1776. In those 240 years we’ve benefited from some great public servants, and suffered some terrible ones. But we’ve always survived and generally prospered, and odds are that we will this time too.

Power Is the Narcotic of Choice for Politicians

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Oregon’s free-market research center, Cascade Policy Institute, celebrated its 25th anniversary with a gala dinner party on October 20 at the Tualatin County Club. Since its founding in 1991, Cascade has emerged as a leading voice for individual liberty and economic opportunity. Building coalitions with others, Cascade has helped develop innovative policies such as Oregon’s charter school law and the more recently enacted Right-to-Try statute.

Cascade helped Ethiopian immigrants break the Portland taxi cartel and secure a license to operate a new company. The Institute also helped a young Black woman start her hair-braiding business by persuading the legislature to repeal onerous licensing regulations.

And a paper first published by Cascade in 1996 suggesting that 84,000 acres of the Elliott State Forest be sold off helped persuade the State Land Board to do just that; a sale will be approved by the Board in December of this year.

However, such advancements will be tougher to come by in the years ahead, because the culture of Oregon has changed. The permanent political class that now rules the state has little respect for the entrepreneurial spirit.

The 2016 legislative session served as Exhibit A for this change. In the short space of 30 days, the majority party rammed through two major pieces of legislation: (1) a dramatic increase in the minimum wage; and (2) a mandate forcing electric utilities to provide 50% of their retail load from designated “renewable energy” sources.

Each bill only received a few hearings. Vast areas of complexity were brushed aside as unimportant. When hundreds of witnesses showed up pleading for a more incremental approach, they were dismissed. In 35 years of lobbying, I had never seen anything like it.

This was in contrast to Cascade’s early years, when the organization sponsored “Better Government Competitions” in 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. These events solicited good ideas from citizens about how to make government work better. Top officials including Governor John Kitzhaber and Portland Mayor Vera Katz enthusiastically endorsed Cascade’s “citizens’ suggestion box.”

Today, many elected officials openly disdain the public they serve. They don’t want your ideas, just your obedience and your tax dollars. Moreover, if you compromise and give them half of what they want today, they’ll be back for the rest tomorrow.

Nowhere was that more evident than with the so-called “coal to clean” bill in 2016. Why was this topic even being discussed when only nine years ago the legislature passed SB 838, which mandated that large electric utilities procure 25% of their power needs from specified “renewable energy” sources by 2025?

SB 838, passed in 2007, was seen as a visionary achievement. The leading legislative advocates, Senator Brad Avakian and Representative Jackie Dingfelder, were exultant. Oregon was now on a path to renewable energy Nirvana!

Yet by 2016, the “25 by 25” banner was seen as wimpy and out of date. Oregon’s perceived reputation as an international environmental leader had been undercut by legislation elsewhere. So the new (arbitrary) standard became “50% by 2040.”

We can do better than this. Perhaps if Measure 97 fails, legislators will stop looking for quick fixes and work together on tax reform. There are officials in both parties willing to tackle PERS reform and transportation finance, if the Majority party allows it.

Replacing hubris with humility would be a good first step.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. This article originally appeared in the October 2016 edition of the newsletter, “Oregon Transformation: Ideas for Growth and Change.”

Freedom_in_Film

Freedom in Film: To Sir, with Love (1967)

With students everywhere heading to class, we hope you enjoy Part 1 of Cascade’s “virtual” back-to-school School Choice Film Fest.

Nearing the end of his patience, a first-year teacher challenges his scarcely literate students to think seriously about the lives ahead of them. What will happen after high school graduation? One academically indifferent girl supposes she’ll get married, giggling that “everybody gets married.”

Such comfortable assumptions have disappeared since 1967; much else about the lives and troubles of at-risk teenagers hasn’t.

To Sir, with Love stars Sidney Poitier as Mark Thackeray, an engineer who takes a temporary teaching job. The kids are rough, uninterested in school, and oblivious to the possibility that they could become more than they are. The gentlemanly Mr. Thackeray, called “Sir” by his students, is as much a culture shock to them as they are to him.

To Sir, with Love is like a time capsule of the late 1960s: Sentimental optimism contrasts with the grittiness of poverty, illiteracy, teenage rebellion, and rapid social change. There is a sense that Mr. Thackeray’s class is careening wildly toward dead-end or delinquent adulthoods, and he has a few short weeks to reach at least some of his students before they are lost. His greatest asset as a teacher, though, has nothing to do with cutting-edge curriculum or teaching “best practices.”

It is culture. “Sir” is a living example of another world which his students could choose to enter, if only they could see themselves in it. Through him they experience, for the first time, what it is to have dignity. As the teenagers begin to awaken to their own self-worth, they start to grasp why people have manners, respect others, and behave in ways that draw respect in turn. They take interest in the written word and the process of intellectual inquiry.

Education is more than transmission of facts; it’s an invitation to explore the world of the soul, of human creative capacity, and of the physical universe. When students get in touch with their own dignity as human beings, they grasp the meaning of learning. They no longer mark time until school is out; they transform as students and as people.

Great teachers help students discover the grandeur of human existence, potential, and achievement and that they are made for more than superficial pleasures and “easy outs.” To Sir, with Love shows what can happen when the right adult comes into a teenager’s life at the right time―and why that’s so important.

25thAnniversary_ENews_Banner_Block_1

The Everyday Heroes of 9/11, Remembered

“The greatest thing I ever did with my life.”

The largest sea evacuation in history took place on September 11, 2001, when nearly 500,000 civilians were rescued from Manhattan by boat in less than nine hours. By comparison, during World War II, the evacuation after the Battle of Dunkirk saved 339,000 British and French soldiers over the course of nine days.

Many of the rescue boats were private watercraft whose owners volunteered to ferry thousands to safety.

“No training, just people doing what they had to do that day,” said a man who worked on one of the boats.

“Average people, they stepped up when they needed to,” said another.

This video narrated by Tom Hanks tells their unforgettable, moving story.

25thAnniversary_ENews_Banner_Block_1

“The Best Earthly Inheritance” Our Founders Bequeathed

Every July much is said about the blessings of liberty, the meaning of the American Experiment, and the price of freedom. But this year we also mark the 240th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and, on August 10, of the arrival of the news of this world-altering decision in London.

Benjamin Franklin is said to have advised his fellow patriots of the potential consequences of challenging the British Empire and its king: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” While each of the 56 British subjects who affixed their names to the Declaration risked life, fortune, and sacred honor, none may have risked as much as the delegate from Maryland, Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

At the time of the signing, Charles Carroll was the wealthiest man in the American colonies. The risk he took in siding with the cause of independence was acknowledged to be substantial, both in material terms and in his social standing as one of the most prominent citizens of Maryland. In his book, Charles Carroll of Carrollton: Faithful Revolutionary, biographer Scott McDermott recounts that when John Hancock asked Carroll to sign―and Carroll responded, “Most willingly”―a bystander commented, “There go a few millions.”

And just to make sure that everyone, including King George III, knew which of Maryland’s many Charles Carrolls was the signer, he proudly added the words “of Carrollton” (his Frederick County estate). Thus, history remembers him as “Charles Carroll of Carrollton.”

Carroll is unique among the signers for more than just his wealth. He was, in fact, ineligible to vote or to hold public office when he was chosen by the Maryland Convention as a delegate to Congress to approve the Declaration on its behalf. Maryland’s early Toleration Act granting religious freedom had been overturned in 1692, so Catholics could not vote, hold public office, worship in public, or freely educate their children in their faith.

Carroll’s participation in the War of Independence was motivated by his firm belief in natural law and rights, government by consent of the citizens, and freedom of religion. The Catholic minority in the British American colonies recognized in the cause of liberty the path to equality under law.

Carroll strongly supported and collaborated with George Washington during the war, influenced the crafting of the Maryland and the U.S. Constitutions, and served as the first senator from the new state of Maryland. His public life was long, and he was a giant figure through the early decades of the 19th century. Looked up to as an elder statesman and symbol of national unity, at his death in 1832, the Baltimore American called him “the last of the Romans”―a reference to the classical prototype of the generation who built the new but maturing Republic.

Charles Carroll’s brief testament to the America he would leave behind was written on a parchment copy of the Declaration, dated July 4, 1826. He wrote in the style of a man educated in the 18th century, but behind the formality is a stark humility and a simple message intended for today:

“Grateful to Almighty God for the blessing which, through Jesus Christ our Lord, he has conferred upon my beloved country, in her emancipation, and upon myself, in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy,…to survive the fiftieth year of American Independence, and certifying by my present signature my approbation of the Declaration of Independence adopted by Congress…, and of which I am now the last surviving signer, I do hereby recommend to the present and future generations the principles of that important document as the best earthly inheritance their ancestors could bequeath to them, and pray that the civil and religious liberties they have secured to my country may be perpetuated to the remotest posterity and extended to the whole family of man.”

As we celebrate many historic anniversaries of our freedom this year, and the legacy of each of America’s founders, let us also “remember Carroll’s sacred trust…and all [who slumber] with the just.”

Freedom_in_Film

Freedom in Fiction: Ida Elisabeth

Ida Elisabeth had every reason to leave her husband. He was foolish, immature, irresponsible, and unable to change. She couldn’t respect him. She had never really loved him. When he had an affair with another woman, it was her chance to leave and take the children―and no one blamed her.

Nobel Prize-winning novelist Sigrid Undset placed Ida Elisabeth in her own contemporary 1930s Norway, a period of escalating social change prior to the Second World War. People spoke skeptically of the beliefs and assumptions of previous generations, doubting that conventional ethics would outlast their lifetime. Socialist-type welfare policies were becoming popular in noncommunist Western countries. Democratic governments, responding to the demands of the electorate, promised citizens more and more―and supplanted many social roles formerly played by spouses, families, local communities, and private charities. The modern world was unfolding―uneasily.

In a key conversation, Ida’s older mentor muses about the rise of the modern welfare state and Norway’s path to unsustainable public debt:

“…[T]he qualities which put a man in power and those which make him feel responsibility are not necessarily associated, nor do they necessarily exclude each other,” [he said.] “…We had an institution here in Norway in the saga times which was called debt-servitude. When a man had incurred more debts than he was able to pay, he could hand over his children to his creditors, and they had to work as thralls until they had earned enough to cover their father’s indebtedness. I don’t believe children are told anything about this debt-servitude in the schools nowadays. But they’re destined to experience it.”

Ida Elisabeth nodded: “They won’t have a good time, those who come after us.”

“No. And…[w]ill those who come after us be content to bear all the burdens which we still feel it our duty to shoulder? To help all that neither can nor will help themselves?…Especially when the young are aware that the old have taken upon themselves to determine, that they should come into the world, and when they should come, and how many should be put into the world to take over the burdens when they themselves are no longer able to bear them.”

In Ida’s time, the modern welfare state was already detaching individuals from reliance on those around them. While the state-run systems―“almshouses,” etc.—seemed streamlined, efficient, and economical ways of relieving people of the need to personally care for others, the underlying philosophy of utility was already becoming disturbing.

Ida’s friend wonders what will obligate future generations to honor the debts of their forebears, if people no longer believe that other human beings―just like themselves―possess innate and inalienable value? In the modern world, no one needs to be bothered with others any more than they think is reasonable, children come into the world solely at the convenience of adults, and family bonds may be broken at will. Who will decide what price is too high to meet the needs of the elderly, the sick and disabled, and those who cannot “pull their full weight” in society? (By the end of the decade in which Ida Elisabeth was published, these questions had begun to bear bitter fruit in Germany. In the novel, these musings were still largely theoretical.)

As the novel plays out, “big government” (or the welfare state) appears to be a symptom (or symbol) of another, more subtle disease: the human decision to put one’s own needs and desires ahead of the call to serve others, relinquishing individual responsibility to a nameless, faceless state. The genius of Ida Elisabeth is the connection made on the level of the heart between decisions made within personal relationships and a philosophy of self-centeredness that paves the way for far-reaching social change and loss of respect for human beings.

But the novel isn’t about government. It’s a love story of a mother and her children, her husband, and the man “who should have been.” When Ida Elisabeth falls in love with a man who shares her wishes and desires, she is forced to confront a struggle of conscience that is hard for the postmodern reader to accept. Ida tries to reconcile her mind and conscience with cutting herself off forever from family members from whom it once seemed right to separate.

While she is not a religious person and does not base her decisions on what is left of Norway’s conventional morality, Ida cannot fully agree with her secular friends that it is best to abandon those who couldn’t possibly make her feel fulfilled. “We at any rate can’t watch people drowning because they can’t swim, and not care,” she says. Her fundamental choice is between a “happy ending” and the needs of her family. Her choice determines their futures, her character, and her understanding of the meaning of life.

One of the lessons Sigrid Undset teaches so adeptly in her fiction is the step-by-step nature of discernment: Decisions made today may need to be adjusted tomorrow, because mercy has claims as well as justice. Undset deprives the reader of an easy ending because real life is often difficult. Happiness does not always appear in the form for which we wish. Deep human longings, passions, hopes, and personal needs may clash with what we know in our hearts must be done. The mysteries of life can’t be shoehorned into simplistic answers to complex problems. Codependence is not a virtue; “tough love” is a necessary, difficult road. But once Ida Elisabeth decides not to abandon the source of her sorrows to the public almshouse (so to speak), the way begins to become clear―a road of thorns for her at first, but a path of light, understanding, reconciliation, and peace.

Ida Elisabeth is a novel to be pondered with an open mind and heart―and more than a few good tears.

1 2 3