Coalition Releases New ‘Facing Reality’ Budget Report

For Immediate Release

April 8, 2013

 

PORTLAND, Ore. – Americans for Prosperity-Oregon and Cascade Policy Institute have released a new report, Facing Reality 2013, which calls attention to limited government and pro-growth solutions to current Oregon budget problems.

 

“The Legislature continues to give citizens the false choice of either failing our children or increasing taxes,” stated Karla Kay Edwards, Oregon State Director of Americans for Prosperity. “Facing Reality clearly demonstrates that Oregon can invest in our children’s education without negatively impacting our slow economic recovery.”

 

The report is based on a “Reality Based Budgeting” approach, encouraging political leaders to face reality, stop procrastinating, and adopt ideas to lower the cost of government and get the economy going again.

 

“It’s not too late to refocus Oregon government on its core functions, reduce costs and get out of areas it has no business in, such as the distribution of liquor,” said Steve Buckstein, Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute.

 

The report focuses on five public policy areas:

– Privatize Liquor Distribution and Sales

– Reduce Corrections Costs

– Eliminate the PERS Pick-Up

– Align State Employee Compensation with Private Sector Compensation

– Enact Right to Work Legislation

 

With solutions to controversial topics such as PERS reform, the report authors challenge legislative leaders to take effective steps to recharge the state economy.

 

“It is time for the Oregon Legislature to ‘Face Reality,’ as Oregonians have had to do, and adopt these non-partisan recommendations,” said Edwards.

###

Click here to read the report.

An Alternative Analysis of Measure Five’s Impact on State and Local Government

Cascade’s first major research report after its founding in 1991 dealt with the property tax relief measure passed by Oregon voters in 1990. Published in 1992 before the World Wide Web was widely available, it asked the question, “Does Oregon have a tax problem, or a spending problem?”

It is posted online now for the first time:

Focus on Measure 5
An Alternative Analysis of Measure Five’s 
Impact on State and Local Government

By Vernon S. White

Wind Power Can’t Cost-Effectively Be a Large Grid’s Main Source of Electricity

PORTLAND, Oregon—Because of its variable nature, wind energy is not suited to be the lone or primary source of a grid’s total electricity, according to a new Cascade Policy Institute–Reason Foundation study. If used to produce more than 10-20 percent of a system’s electricity, wind power increases operating costs, due to the need for expensive storage facilities or continuously available CO2-emitting backup power generation facilities.

 

In the Pacific Northwest, the backup mostly has been provided by the Columbia River hydro system. However, since hydroelectricity has even less CO2 associated with it than wind power does, displacing hydropower from the electricity grid in favor of wind is actually a step backwards―if reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a policy objective, as it has been for Oregon legislators.

 

The new Cascade Policy Institute–Reason Foundation report uses a full year’s worth of hour-by-hour power grid data from PJM Interconnection, which manages the electrical grid in part of the Eastern United States, to simulate how wind would have supplied the necessary power to customers in 2009. The models show wind power would have failed to supply all the electricity PJM customers needed over 50 percent of the time.

 

Thus, if wind were to produce a large percentage of a grid’s electricity, it would be necessary to build expensive energy storage facilities, or to reserve power generation facilities to supply power, when there is insufficient wind to meet energy demands at any given time and to prevent brownouts and blackouts.

 

“Consumers will have to pay twice for power, since they will be supporting two duplicate generation systems,” said Cascade Policy Institute President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr.

 

The study shows that as more reserve power is needed, the environmental benefits of wind power decrease due to the C02 emissions from those facilities, which rely on fossil fuels and must operate even when not being used, in order to ensure reliability of the electrical grid.

 

In the future, the hydro system will be over-committed due to salmon mitigation requirements; thus, natural gas will have to be the backup for unreliable wind. Since gas-powered generators must be kept running 24 hours per day even if no electricity is required (the so-called “spinning reserve” mode), this practice will dramatically increase total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for the region.

 

The study concludes that, given the costs involved, the practical upper limit for wind power’s contribution to the electricity grid is 10% of the total energy mix. This would result in a 9% reduction in CO2 emissions.

 

The current mania for wind power in Oregon is being driven by two factors: (1) subsidies to producers; and (2) SB 838 Renewable Portfolio Standards, forcing large utilities to procure 25% of their total power from politically designated “green power” sources by 2025. Both policies amount to a multi-billion tax on ratepayers, with net negative benefits for environmental quality.

 

“Very high wind penetrations are not achievable,” said William Korchinski, author of the Cascade Policy Institute–Reason Foundation study. “As wind’s share increases, system reliability will be adversely affected disproportionately—unless adequate reserve power is available. That power reserve is expensive and lowers any possible environmental benefits.”

 

“As this study shows, policies favoring wind power are a mistake,” Charles concluded. “Oregon policy makers should repeal SB 838 and all wind power incentives in 2013.”

 

Full Study Online

 

“The Limits of Wind Power” is available online here.

 

About Reason Foundation

 

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

 

About Cascade Policy Institute

 

Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s premier policy research center. Cascade’s mission is to explore and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity.

To that end, the Institute publishes policy studies, provides public speakers, organizes community forums, and sponsors educational programs. For more information, visit www.cascadepolicy.org.

Press Release: Requiring a Prescription for Cold Medicine Has Not Reduced Meth Use in Oregon

Media Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Steve Buckstein

Senior Policy Analyst
Cascade Policy Institute
Phone: (503) 242-0900

steven@cascadepolicy.org

February 21, 2012

Requiring a Prescription for Cold Medicine Has Not Reduced Meth Use in Oregon

Cascade Study Raises Questions about Real Impact of Oregon’s
Prescription-Only Requirement

PORTLAND, OR — Cascade Policy Institute released a study today which found the 2005 Oregon law which restricts access to medicines containing pseudoephedrine (PSE) has not made the illegal drug methamphetamine harder to get or reduced the number of people using it. The Oregon law makes any medication containing PSE available only via prescription (“Rx-only”).

“This study affirms what we predicted over six years ago: The law would not significantly curb meth use or production, but it would impose a considerable burden on legitimate users of cold and allergy medicines like Claritin-D and Sudafed,” said Steve Buckstein, Cascade’s founder and Senior Policy Analyst. “With other state and federal lawmakers considering following Oregon’s lead on this issue, we thought it was critical to find out what has actually happened here since the law went into effect.”

“The prescription requirement for cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine had no more of an impact on the reduction of meth lab incidents than other measures adopted in neighboring states. In fact, the rate of mobile meth lab reductions in Oregon is nearly identical to that of six neighboring and nearby states that do not have a prescription requirement. Moreover, meth addicts in Oregon can still get access to their drug of choice,” added Buckstein. “Overall, our study raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of Oregon’s law and whether such a prescription mandate—which impacts all consumers in the state—is warranted.”

Key findings of the study:

  • Law enforcement in Oregon report that methamphetamine remains the state’s greatest drug threat, despite the reduction in in-state meth production, and contributes the most towards drug-related crime.
  • Methamphetamine lab incidents in Oregon declined more than 90 percent between 2004 and 2010. Most of this decline occurred before the prescription-only law went into effect in 2006.
  • Six neighboring states including Washington and California experienced similar declines in meth lab reductions without imposing a prescription requirement during the same time frame.
  • The number of methamphetamine admissions to substance abuse centers in Oregon declined about 23 percent from 2006 to 2009, the exact same rate as the rest of the United States. Usage was slightly higher in California at 29 percent and slightly lower in Washington at 20 percent.
  • Legitimate users of pseudoephedrine in Oregon incur additional costs as a result of this law, because it requires a doctor visit to get Sudafed and similar products that are available over-the-counter in 48 other states. Some of these additional costs are also borne by all taxpayers who fund government health care programs.

The first part of the study examines whether the manufacture and availability of methamphetamine in Oregon is substantially different from similar states and similar regions of the country. Part two examines trends in indicators that track methamphetamine production, such as Oregon’s lab incidents compared to other states. Part three examines trends in indicators of methamphetamine use, such as substance abuse-related admissions in Oregon compared to other geographies. And finally, part four explores the costs, financial and otherwise, to consumers.

The report’s findings are consistent with studies conducted by other independent groups, such as Oregon’s High Intensity Drug Area (HIDTA), which reported: Methamphetamine continues to be highly available and widely used throughout the HIDTA region and remains the most serious drug threat to Oregon” (“Threat Assessment & Counter-Drug Strategy,” 2011 Oregon High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Report, Accessed 9/26/11).

Please visit the Cascade Policy Institute website to read the entire study, entitled

Making Cold Medicine Rx-Only Did Not Reduce Meth Use
Analyzing the Impact of Oregon’s Prescription-Only Pseudoephedrine Requirement

The study was conducted by Chris Stomberg, Ph.D., a Partner, and Arun Sharma, a Principal, in the Antitrust and Competition, and Healthcare practices at Bates White, LLC, an economic consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. Primary report author Chris Stomberg can be contacted at chris.stomberg@bateswhite.com or (202) 747-1421.

###

Requiring a Prescription for Cold Medicine Has Not Reduced Meth Use in Oregon

A 2005 law which requires Oregonians to get a doctor’s prescription to use cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine has not significantly reduced meth lab incidents, made the illegal drug methamphetamine harder to get or reduced the number of people using it. What it has done is impose a considerable burden on legitimate users of medicines like Claritin-D and Sudafed. Anyone considering such a law in other states should read this study and avoid Oregon’s mistakes.

The study was conducted by Chris Stomberg, Ph.D., a Partner, and Arun Sharma, a Principal, in the Antitrust and Competition, and Healthcare practices at Bates White, LLC, an economic consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.

Click here to read the full report.
Click here to read the press release summary of the report.

 

Why Oregonians Deserve the Right to Work

The twenty-two states that have not required workers to join a union and pay union dues have enjoyed, as a group, more rapid employment and income growth, better job preservation, and faster recoveries from recession. Oregon is not one of those states, yet. Here, policymakers tried to pull us out of the most recent recession through greater state spending, funded by the Measure 66 and 67 tax increases. Research concluded that those measures actually will make our situation worse. Now, new research confirms that a better approach is for Oregon to remove a key barrier to private sector initiative and job creation by enacting a so-called “right-to-work” law.

Right-to-work laws provide job seekers and current employees the right to work for a company whether or not they choose to join a union. On February 1 Indiana became the twenty-third Right-to-Work state when its Senate approved a bill and Governor Mitch Daniels signed it into law.

A new study from Cascade Policy Institute (Right to Work Is Right for Oregon) examines the economic impacts right-to-work legislation would have on Oregon. The study is consistent with the vast majority of peer-reviewed research in finding that if Oregon were a right-to-work state, we would see improved employment and income growth. For example, enacting right-to-work legislation this year would lead to:

  • 50,000 more people working in five years; 110,000 more working in ten years.
  • $2.7 billion more in wage and salary income in five years; $7.0 billion more in ten years.
  • 14 percent more taxpaying families per year moving into Oregon from non-right-to-work states.

A right-to-work law can be viewed as part of a pro-investment package that encourages firms to locate and expand in the state. In turn, the improved opportunities would have the effect of attracting more taxpaying families to Oregon from other states, while slowing down the number who leave. By examining IRS mobility data, we found that a right-to-work policy here would increase net in-migration from non-right-to-work states by 14 percent from what it otherwise would be. That is a significant number of new families bringing their earning power and their consumer needs with them. Think how our depressed housing market could benefit from such a trend.

Our study breaks new ground by covering 70 years of data and every state and relying on what we believe to be the largest datasets ever used to study the impacts of right-to-work laws. The results demonstrate more than just a correlation between right-to-work policy and economic growth, but point toward a causal link. In other words, we conclude that the right to work actually contributes to more employment, higher incomes, more net in-migration of taxpaying households, and faster economic growth. It is, therefore, a policy we believe Oregon should adopt.

Unlike fiscal policies that must weigh spending against taxes or pit one government program against another, enacting right-to-work legislation will not take a single dime out of state coffers. Indeed, right-to-work legislation is one of the few pro-growth policies that are actually costless to enact.

Oregonians need to recognize that capital and people are mobile. Tax measures 66 and 67 push high-income people and corporations away from the state and likely will lose Oregon up to 70,000 jobs and 80,000 high-income tax filers in the ten years after their passage. Enacting a right-to-work law will put mobility to work in our favor, likely adding 110,000 jobs in ten years and 14 percent more taxpaying families from non-right-to-work states every year.

Even if our research had not shown so clearly that Oregon’s economic prospects would improve as a right-to-work state, we still would support the policy based on the non-economic benefits that the name itself implies. It is unconscionable that workers are denied the right to earn a living simply because they decline to join a union. Basic principles of liberty and justice demand that we defend everyone’s right to work without third-party interference. The right to work is, therefore, a moral as well as an economic imperative.

Click here to read the full report.

Press Release: Cascade Policy Institute Report predicts 110,000 jobs for Oregon with enactment of a Right-to-Work Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 2, 2012

Contact:

Steve Buckstein
Senior Policy Analyst & Co-Founder
Cascade Policy Institute
Office Phone: 503-242-0900
E-Mail: steven@cascadepolicy.org

Cascade Policy Institute Report predicts over 100,000
jobs for Oregon with enactment of a Right-to-Work law

Cascade Policy Institute just released a major economic study, The Right to Work Is Right for Oregon, which concludes that Oregon would see major economic benefits if it became a right-to-work state, where job seekers and employees are not forced to join a union and pay union dues to gain or keep their jobs.

Written by Randall Pozdena and Eric Fruits, the same Oregon economists who analyzed the negative impact of tax measures 66 and 67, the Right-to-Work study concludes that enacting right-to-work legislation this year would lead to:

  • 50,000 more people working here in five years; 110,000 more working here in ten years.
  • $2.7 billion more in wage and salary income in five years; $7.0 billion more in ten years.
  • 14 percent more taxpaying families per year moving into Oregon from non-right-to-work states.

Cascade Senior Policy Analyst and founder Steve Buckstein praised the study for not only finding a correlation between right-to-work policy and economic growth, but for actually pointing to a causal link. In other words, Buckstein stated:

We conclude that the right to work actually contributes to more employment, higher incomes, more net in-migration of taxpaying households and faster economic growth. It is, therefore, a policy we believe Oregon should adopt.

The study breaks new ground by covering 70 years of data, every state, and relying on what the authors believe to be the largest datasets ever used to study the impacts of right-to-work laws.

The study confirms that the twenty-two states that do not require workers to join a union and pay union dues enjoy, as a group, more rapid employment and income growth, better job preservation, and faster recoveries from recession. Oregon is not one of those states, yet. Buckstein argues:

Rather than repeat Oregon’s failed attempt to pull us out of recession by raising taxes on high-income individuals and corporations, a better approach is to remove a key barrier to private sector initiative and job creation by enacting an Oregon right-to-work law.

Buckstein added,

Oregonians need to recognize that capital and people are mobile. Tax measures 66 and 67 push high-income people and corporations away from the state, likely losing us up to 70,000 jobs and 80,000 high-income tax filers in the ten years after their passage. Enacting a right-to-work law will put mobility to work in our favor, likely adding 110,000 jobs in ten years and 14 percent more taxpaying families every year coming from non-right-to-work states.

Buckstein continued,

Unlike fiscal policies that must weigh spending against taxes or pit one government program against another, enacting right-to-work legislation will not take a single dime out of state coffers. Indeed, right-to-work legislation is one of the few pro-growth policies that are actually costless to enact.

Buckstein concludes,

Even if our research had not so clearly shown that Oregon’s economic prospects would improve as a right-to-work state, we still would support the policy based on the non-economic benefits that the name itself implies. Everyone should have the right to work if the employer hires them and they accept the position. No third party should be able to deny individuals the right to work simply because they decline to join a union. Right-to-work is, therefore, a moral as well as an economic imperative.

Click here to download the full report.

###

The Right to Work Is Right for Oregon
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Economic Benefits
from Enacting a Right-to-Work Law
By Randall Pozdena, Ph.D. and Eric Fruits, Ph.D.
Cascade Policy Institute • February 2012
http://cascadepolicy.org/links/43

 

1 2 3 4 5 8