The following "In My Opinion" column ran in the Portland Oregonian newspaper on Saturday, January 22, 2000. It was subsequently published in at least nine other Oregon publications. It is reprinted here with permission of the author, Steve Buckstein, President of Cascade Policy Institute.
A vision that seems stuck in the 20th century
By Steve Buckstein
Oregon has entered the 21st century. We need new ideas to grow and prosper. Unfortunately, the proposals in Gov. Kitzhaber's state-of-the-state speech Friday seem stuck in the last century: "more tax money for this, bigger government for that."
Let's examine three of his major points, and contrast them with other ideas that will both improve Oregonians' lives and save us money at the same time.
First, the Governor wants Oregonians to order the legislature to spend more money on public schools. He's accepted the myth that we aren't spending enough on education. The fundamental problem is a distinctly 20th century one: central control over funding and curriculum.
In this information age, bigger is not better. Big central plans lead to just what we've got, a terrifically expensive school system that's failing to educate more and more kids. In the Portland area alone we've documented that many low-income families are willing to actually have less money spent on their children's education - not more - in exchange for a choice in where they go to school.
Last year, when the Children's Scholarship Fund offered $2 million in four-year partial scholarships to low-income Portland students in kindergarten through the eighth grade, we received 6,639 applications. About 550 scholarships were awarded. The students are enrolled in 92 private schools which have an average tuition of $3,184. That's far less than the $7,000-plus that taxpayers spend today per student in our public school system. How many more families statewide would give up a $7,000-per-year education in return for more control over their children's futures? Shouldn't we find out before taxing Oregonians more to maintain the current system?
Second, the Governor wants to make Oregon the first state in the nation with universal health insurance coverage. The Governor is correct when he says that some people can't afford health insurance, but he ignores a major reason: the 20th century idea that people can't make their own health-care decisions.
This paternalism has resulted in the federal and state governments taking over more and more responsibility for health-care funding. Culminating in the Oregon Health Plan, government now not only funds, but makes the choices for people about which medical services are useful which are not.
The 21st century alternative is to allow even the poor to make more of their own medical choices. Putting consumers back in control of health care decisions through Medicaid vouchers for the poor, and medical savings accounts for the rest of us, will not only save tax dollars, but will empower all of us to take more control and responsibility for our own health care.
Third, the Governor wants a debate over a proposed initiative that could reduce growth in the state general fund budget by $1.6 billion each biennium. Rather than rely on the 20th-century concept that government can only grow, we should look for ways to reduce its burden while at the same time improving services.
Cascade Policy Institute has identified a number of specific ideas that combined can save Oregon taxpayers more than $3 billion per biennium. From education to health care, road and transit finance to prison construction, these alternative solutions are designed not only to save money, but to improve services.
Every idea may not be politically possible today, but they all represent solid proposals that Oregonians should consider before falling back on last century's centralized solutions.
We all want the best for our children, the best education, the best health care, and so forth. But to achieve this vision we need 21st-century solutions that rely more on individual choice and innovation than central government control.
So, let's have our debates over these issues and work toward achieving a better Oregon at a lower cost to taxpayers.
That's a vision we should all be able to get behind.