Last summer, Seattle passed an ordinance raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour. A Portland-area restaurant owner recently explained in The Oregonian how a $15-per-hour minimum wage here would spell lower total wages and less opportunity for his employees.
Lee Spectator wrote: “I start most of my new hires at minimum wage, then, based on their performance, give them a raise within their first 30 to 60 days. I give merit raises based on performance [and] annual performance reviews….With a $15 per hour minimum wage, that would go away. I would have no room to pay them any more, and they would have no incentive to work harder.”
With increased wage expenses also come higher taxes and workers-comp insurance. These would balloon to nearly 48 percent of Spectator’s total business expenses, he says.
So, what would be the likely result if Portland raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour? To start, fewer jobs will be available in small businesses that pay hourly. Fewer employers will want to hire low-skilled workers like teenagers, since they will need more productive and experienced workers to justify paying them a higher wage. Entry-level workers should have the chance to climb the ranks and achieve higher earnings as a consequence of their hard work, not to be stuck at one uniform pay grade or else have no job at all.
Kathryn Hickok is Publications Director and Director of the Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland program at Cascade Policy Institute.
By Darla M. Romfo
Earlier this fall I had the pleasure of attending the awards ceremony for the Broad Prize for Urban Education. In the ensuing days, many bloggers and journalists weighed in with criticism, including one who pointed out that “although recent winners of the Broad Prize show positive results compared to many large urban districts, their scores are largely flat—or worse—over the past several years.”
I am sure this must be both disappointing and frustrating to Mr. and Mrs. Broad who made the fortune they are giving away by innovating, adapting, and always getting better. They wanted this prize to inspire the same kind of actions in public education.
Teddy Forstmann, who, along with John Walton, founded the Children’s Scholarship Fund (CSF) in 1998, was a man cut from the same cloth as Mr. Broad. Ted hoped the demand demonstrated when parents of 1.25 million children applied for 40,000 partial scholarships to escape their assigned public school would get the ball rolling and bring about substantial educational improvement for all children within the four-year window for those first scholarships. In Ted’s experience, demand for a better product and a bit of competition led to an improved product. Ted was certainly frustrated with the snail’s pace of it all.
And by now everyone who has ever uttered the words “education reform” is a little frustrated. More than a decade later, billions more in taxpayer dollars, in addition to the billions heaped on by private philanthropy, has been spent to achieve largely mediocre to poor overall results. There are pockets of hope, and we do have much better data. Now we know there is not only an achievement gap between minorities and whites, but also between all U.S. students and children in other countries.
It’s not clear that if we had full blown school choice, the end of teacher tenure, higher standards, or whatever flavor of education reform you favor, that every child would have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Certainly, one or some combination of those things would help many children; but we would still have kids who live in poverty and very unsettled home situations coming to school every day with needs that are beyond what can be addressed by education reform alone.
One thing I have both experienced through relationships with students I’ve met through CSF and observed in the lives of others is that a caring adult who really invests in an authentic relationship with a child will bring enormous benefits to the child, to say nothing of the rewards to the adult. I know Ted and John both experienced this with children they helped directly apart from their education reform efforts. John once told me on a school visit in Omaha that giving the scholarships and meeting the kids and their parents grounded the whole effort of trying to reform the larger system. He knew no matter what happened with those efforts, he was having a direct impact on the lives of kids today.
We can’t stop trying to get education right in America, but maybe we will get further faster if every adult who can gets involved in the life of a child who has a couple of strikes against them. Whether it is through a mentoring program, a scholarship program, a school-based program, or some other means, it could make the ultimate difference in a child’s life, and you don’t have to be up to speed on the latest education reform idea to do it and make it work. Anyone who is willing to give of themselves to another human being will bring about change in that person and themselves. Isn’t that the real reason we are all here anyway?
Darla M. Romfo is President and COO of Children’s Scholarship Fund, based in New York City. CSF has helped 139,000 low-income children nationwide attend the K-8 schools of their parents’ choice through privately funded scholarships worth $568 million. Cascade Policy Institute runs CSF’s Oregon partner program, Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland.
By Matthew Hayes
Last Friday, Michigan approved Right to Try legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. Colorado, Missouri, and Louisiana all passed similar measures this year, with Arizonans voting on the issue this November. What is Right to Try and why is it gaining steam?
Spearheaded by the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona-based public policy organization, Right to Try legislation allows terminally ill patients access to drugs, biotics, and implants that have completed basic FDA safety testing but are still awaiting further approval.
The FDA offers a similar program, known as Compassionate Use. Unfortunately, the process isn’t easy. Physicians typically face 100 hours of paperwork and research per applicant. The entire process can take several months, a luxury many terminally ill patients don’t have.
These costs are seen in the usage statistics. In 2011, fewer than 1200 patients received expanded access, while more than 1500 people died of cancer each day. Right to Try legislation removes many of these barriers, making the process easier and faster for patients. While it can’t be known how many lives these save, the number is undoubtedly greater than zero.
Since 1997, the Death with Dignity Act gives terminally ill Oregonians the right to end their lives. Bringing Right to Try to Oregon offers these citizens the chance to do more than just hasten death; it offers a chance to beat their illness.
If you have the right to die, shouldn’t you have the right to fight to live?
Matthew Hayes is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
By Jon Egge
Many politicians on the West Coast have fallen in love with untested policies and programs they say will help solve global warming. Many of these policies are mind-bogglingly complicated. What, after all, is a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), or clean fuels program? And how exactly do programs like “cap and trade” work? And, perhaps most importantly, how do these policies impact you, the consumer?
Here’s the dirty little secret the politicians don’t want to talk about: All of these policies are going to make it more costly to produce gasoline and diesel. In fact, that’s the intended purpose of so-called “market-based” schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By making the energy we need and use every day more costly to produce, other energy supplies—like wind, solar, biofuels, and hydrogen fuel cells—will become more competitive. And where these programs have been implemented—such as in California—they are also conveniently generating billions of dollars in new revenue for the state to spend however it pleases. That’s why climate-change policies like cap and trade and LCFS are becoming Trojan horses for hidden taxes. These revenue programs provide limited environmental benefits but generate big political paydays.
California has adopted the nation’s only LCFS, a program energy experts say is infeasible. Forcing manufacturers of gasoline and diesel fuels to meet a standard that can’t currently be met puts the state’s entire fuel supply in a very precarious position.
Now, politicians in Oregon are considering a LCFS that, if implemented, will become a new hidden gasoline tax designed to increase the cost of fuel and decrease the bank accounts of everyday motorists and businesses who rely on transportation. Hidden tax schemes increasing the costs of fuel are also regressive revenue-generating policies that hurt poor and middle-income families the most. These families spend a much larger portion of their income on transportation and fuel than wealthy families do, and hidden gas taxes therefore take a much bigger bite of their budgets. Unlike their wealthier counterparts, working families simply can’t trade their vehicles for expensive hybrids and electric cars. And because these policies aren’t transparent, consumers often have no idea why their fuel costs are rising.
We all want to improve our environment and ensure cleaner air. But punishing motorists by increasing fuel costs through hidden taxes is not the way to do it. Governor John Kitzhaber has made it clear he plans to move forward with a LCFS—even without the support of the state’s elected legislators. Last session, our Legislature, after careful consideration, declined to extend authorization for the LCFS. Under the governor’s unilateral direction, the Department of Environmental Quality is now adopting rules to push the LCFS forward.
The governor and agency bureaucrats need to be reminded, once again, that when gasoline and diesel costs go up, families and small businesses suffer. It’s time to put a stop to the hidden gas tax that is masquerading as climate change policy.
Jon Egge is a plumbing service contractor in Clackamas and serves on the Oregon Advisory Council of the National Federation of Independent Business. He is a board member of Cascade Policy Institute. This article originally appeared in The Oregonian.
Oregon voters are being asked this November to authorize spending more tax dollars to help some students afford an arguably unaffordable higher education. Measure 86 will create a permanent fund to subsidize certain students, which can be financed several ways including through state general obligation bonds. Any bonds issued under the so-called Oregon Opportunity Initiative will have to be paid off over 30 years, primarily by income tax payers, not by students. Only the earnings on bond proceeds and other funds will be available for subsidies.
There are several problems with this proposal:
First, Measure 86 does nothing to reduce the overall cost of higher education in Oregon. In fact, it actually could increase those costs as more taxpayer dollars flow into the system.
Second, even if the measure does help some students afford college, we don’t know if they will be prepared to succeed there, or if they will need costly and time-consuming remedial courses to learn what they should have learned in high school.
Our educational leaders in Salem anticipated the need to prepare students better for college years ago, and they took steps that they hoped would address the issue. In 2007 the state Board of Education adopted The Oregon Diploma, which was intended to ensure that students are prepared to enroll in postsecondary education without the need for remedial courses.
The Oregon Diploma “…requirements are designed to better prepare each student for success in college, work, and citizenship. To earn a diploma, students will need to successfully complete the credit requirements, demonstrate proficiency in the Essential Skills, and meet the personalized learning requirements…A phase-in schedule (2007 – 2014) has been created to allow students, families, schools and teachers to adequately prepare to meet these new requirements.”
Apparently assuming that The Oregon Diploma would get all students college-ready by 2014, Governor John Kitzhaber recommended, and the Legislature adopted in 2011, what has come to be known as Oregon’s 40-40-20 educational attainment goal. By 2025, this state policy aims for 40 percent of Oregonians to have a four-year baccalaureate degree or higher, 40 percent to have an associate’s degree or certificate in a skilled occupation, and the remaining 20 percent to have at least a “college and career-ready” high school diploma or its equivalent.
So, how are we doing in getting to that 40-40-20 goal by 2025? Three national reports issued over the last two months raise serious questions as to whether most Oregon high school graduates are coming anywhere close to being “college and career-ready.”
First we learned that only 30 percent of Oregon’s 2014 high school graduates are deemed “college ready” based on their American College Testing Organization (ACT) college admissions examinations in all four tested subjects of English, Reading, Math, and Science.
Then, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report revealed that “Oregon is one of the very worst states when it comes to preparing students for college and the work force.” It noted that “Oregon ranks in the bottom 10 when it comes to getting students ready for college and careers.” We earned a grade of “D” in Academic Achievement and an “F” in Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness.
Finally, we found out that only 46 percent of Oregon public high school students who took the SAT college entrance tests scored high enough to demonstrate that they are prepared for college.
So, it looks like Oregon has struck out three times when it comes to meeting The Oregon Diploma goal of better preparing each student for “success in college, work, and citizenship” by 2014. We have eleven more years to see if the Governor’s 40-40-20 goal pans out, but it isn’t looking good so far.
Before we encourage more taxpayer spending on higher education through Measure 86, shouldn’t we find ways for our public school system to prepare most college-bound students to actually succeed there?
As I’ve noted before, that won’t take more money, because research shows that spending more money doesn’t lead to better educational outcomes; it just rewards the adults who get paid by the system. Instead, we should take the top-down control away from bureaucrats in Salem and give it to parents and students through a genuine system of school choice. Then watch our college readiness numbers climb. Otherwise, we’re just paying twice for remedial courses to teach college students what they should have learned in high school.
Removing the need for those remedial courses could help more students than Measure 86 ever would, and it should help Oregon taxpayers by reducing the cost and the time it takes to educate college students.
Steve Buckstein is Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
One can imagine that blacksmiths and buggy whip makers didn’t take kindly to the automobile revolution that started in the late 19th century. Those at risk of losing their horse-related jobs likely made the case for resisting the new, glitchy, and dangerous metal machines. We all know how that rivalry turned out.
Today, another revolution is beginning. Just as thousands of years of horse travel were largely replaced within a few decades, one wonders what the future of physical classroom education might be in the face of the online education revolution.
A Portland State University professor of educational leadership recently authored an op-ed making the case that “effective teaching practices such as class discussion, relational learning and other activities of the traditional classroom are hard to offer on a computer screen.” That might be true; face-to-face educational interactions may never go away, but soon they could be greatly supplemented or even overshadowed by online innovation.
The future is always daunting to those at risk of being displaced, but the future is coming and we will find ways to adapt to it and even improve upon it. Buggy whips may be a thing of the past, but there are still plenty of jobs for people who know how to make and care for our modern horseless carriages.
By Jordan Lofthouse, Randy Simmons, and John A. Charles, Jr.
With Oregon’s schools constantly facing budget crises, why are our lawmakers missing out on the opportunity to give more money to our kids?
As part of the Common School Trust Lands, the Elliott State Forest has the constitutional obligation to generate money for Oregon’s schools. In the last few years, however, environmental interests have carefully manipulated the Endangered Species Act so that the Forest costs taxpayers money instead of providing funds for Oregon’s children.
Lately, harvest levels and revenues have been a fraction of their former levels. Despite potential to harvest 40 million board feet in 2013, actual harvest was only 4.5 million board feet. The expected timber harvest for 2014 is similar. This has resulted in a net deficit of $3 million that is covered by your tax dollars.
The Oregon State Land Board is searching for ways to balance the financial responsibilities of the forest with environmental factors hindering the Forest from providing revenue for schools.
Researchers at Utah-based Strata Policy have identified several options for monetizing the Elliott State Forest so it can meet its constitutional responsibility to Oregon’s children. Privatizing the Elliott State Forest is likely the most financially beneficial option. In a report for the Cascade Policy Institute, Eric Fruits of Economics International concluded that selling or leasing Forest assets could provide stable funding for Oregon schools at approximately $40 to $50 million annually.
A second option is a land exchange between the federal government and the state government. The federal government would receive control of the ESF in exchange for federally owned land that could be more easily monetized for Oregon schools. Other states such as Utah, Minnesota, and California have all successfully made land exchanges to increase revenue for schools.
A third but less likely option consists of renewing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with federal agencies. HCPs allow timber to be extracted while also protecting endangered species habitat. The former HCP expired several years ago, meaning that harvestable areas in the Elliott State Forest are severely limited. If state and federal agencies can negotiate a new HCP for the forest, timber harvest and revenue can increase while also protecting critical habitat. However, conflicts between state and federal agencies make HCP renewal a significant challenge.
As we consider ways of providing increased funding for education in Oregon, we should press the State Land Board to pursue options that will allow the ESF to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. We can no longer allow environmental groups and federal regulations to dictate the failure of this trust at the expense of children’s education.
Jordan Lofthouse and Randy Simmons are scholars with Strata Policy, based in Utah. John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute in Portland.
Oregon’s political leaders have the chance to do what they frequently ask of the state legislature: provide more money to Oregon’s schools. So why aren’t they doing it?
The Elliott State Forest on Oregon’s South Coast is an endowment asset for Oregon public schools and is supposed to be making money through timber sales. Unfortunately, due to mismanagement by the Oregon Land Board, timber harvest levels (and associated revenues) have been a fraction of their former levels.
Earlier this year, the Land Board directed the Department of State Lands to develop a new business model for the Elliott in order to turn it from a “net-negative to a net-positive.” In a new report by Cascade Policy Institute, researchers at Utah-based Strata Policy have identified several options for monetizing the Forest so it can meet its constitutional responsibility to Oregon’s children. One option, privatizing the Forest, is likely the most financially beneficial. In a previous Cascade report, economist Eric Fruits concluded that selling or leasing Forest assets could provide stable funding for Oregon schools at approximately $40 to $50 million annually.
The State Land Board will make preliminary decisions on the “new business model” on December 9. Environmental advocates are pushing strongly to eliminate all timber harvesting from the Elliott, but the Board must turn the Forest into an income-producing asset to fulfill its fiduciary obligations to the schools.
By Ken Ivory
In 1976, Congress changed its “policy” regarding our public lands (Federal Lands Policy Management Act, or FLPMA). This “policy” change sought to retain public lands in federal ownership―ignoring the 200-year-old obligation of Congress to transfer title to our public lands.
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. OHA, unanimously declared that Congress does not have the authority to unilaterally change the “uniquely sovereign character of [a state’s] admission,” particularly where “virtually all of a state’s public lands are at stake.” This “policy” change has failed Western communities and schools, forest health, wildlife preservation, watershed management, and jobs and the economy―locally and nationally. The Supreme Court has also called these statehood Enabling Acts promises “solemn bilateral compacts between each State and the Federal Government” where both parties have rights, duties, and remedies for breach―even against the federal government if it fails to perform its duties, including its duty to transfer title of the public lands.
However, because Congress changed its “policy” regarding our public lands:
- Western communities are dying;
- Western communities have as little as 10% taxable lands to generate revenues for schools, roads, public safety, and public services for the sick and the poor;
- Western communities are prevented from creating jobs through the responsible use of their abundant natural resources, which further diminishes tax revenues;
- Western communities are prevented from harvesting even sick and dead trees (let alone our great renewable forest resources), which would create healthier forests less susceptible to catastrophic fires that kill millions of animals, destroy watershed for decades, and harm life and private property;
- The FBI is now warning that our forests are weapons for al Qaeda jihad efforts instead of renewable resources for creating wealth, funding schools, and providing for healthier forests;
- Hunters, fishers, campers, recreationists, and others are denied access to public lands as federal agencies arbitrarily close thousands of roads throughout the West;
- Western states and local governments are dangerously dependent for funding on a broke federal government that is cutting promised funding, robbing revenues derived from Western lands, and even clawing back SRS monies already paid;
- Western states get between 30-50% of their total revenues from this same broke federal government;
- Eastern states are paying nearly $9 billion a year to inflict this harm on Western states;
- As a nation, we are dependent on China for 95% of the rare earth minerals that are essential for national defense technology and modern electronics (including renewable energy technologies), even though an abundance of rare earth minerals is locked up in federally controlled Western lands;
- As a nation, we are dependent on foreign sources of oil, gas, and minerals, despite having more than $150 trillion in oil, gas, and minerals (and tens of thousands of jobs) locked up in federally controlled lands.
We have the opportunity of our generation to leverage our voices, through local and state representatives, to compel Congress to change its failed “policy” that is killing Western communities, siphoning funds out of Western schools, closing off Western lands, destroying Western forests, locking up Western resources―and in the process destroying Western and national jobs, economic activity, and tax revenues.
It’s been done before. Did you know that the federal government controlled for decades as much as ninety percent of the lands in of Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida? Those states simply refused to be silent or take “no” for an answer. They banded together and leveraged their individual, community, and state voices and persistently called upon Congress to honor its obligation to transfer title of their public lands.
There is a solution big enough for the pressing problems of Western states, including Oregon. Congress must change its failed, community-killing “policy.” County and state representatives and their constituents should refuse to be silent or take “no” for an answer until it does. Jobs, school funding, better care for and access to our lands, and our economic future depend on it.
Ken Ivory is president of the American Lands Council and a member of the Utah House of Representatives. He has been a guest speaker on this issue for Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market think tank. See, A Legal Overview of Utah’s H.B. 148 – Transfer of Public Lands Act by Professor Donald Kochan, http://americanlandscouncil.org/downloads/Kochan%20Utah%20Public%20Lands%20WP.pdf
Redder or Bluer?
Same bathrooms for the top 2?
Drivers licenses for alien judges in digital camo?
Time for the postmortem! Postpartum?
Let’s hear from the band
Eric Winters, Lindsay Berschauer, and Gregg Clapper
singing their a cappella hit single
Oregon Election 2014
Please join us for Cascade’s monthly Policy Picnic led by founder and senior policy analyst Steve Buckstein on October 22, at noon.
There are seven statewide ballot measures on Oregon’s General Election ballot. Cascade has taken positions on two of them: Yes on Measure 91 to decriminalize marijuana, and No on Measure 86 to direct more tax money into subsidizing certain higher education students. Come join us in a conversation about the latest election-related issues – we’d love to hear your opinion!
Admission is free. Please bring your own lunch. Coffee and cookies will be served. Space is limited to sixteen guests on a first come, first served basis, so sign up early.
Today, the Cascade Policy Institute released a report analyzing the range of policy options for turning the Elliott State Forest from a liability into an asset for Oregon’s Common School Fund.
The Elliott State Forest (ESF), located on Oregon’s South Coast, is part of a portfolio of lands known as “Common School Trust Lands.” These lands are an endowment for the Oregon public school system and must be managed by the State Land Board to maximize income over the long term. Unfortunately, due to environmental litigation, income from the Elliott’s net timber harvest receipts has been steadily declining over the past two decades. In 2013, the ESF cost Oregon taxpayers $3 million, which was a drain on the Common School Fund.
“The State Land Board has been watching the financial returns from the Elliott State Forest steadily decline for over 20 years, while doing essentially nothing,” said Cascade Policy Institute President John A. Charles, Jr.
“The Elliott is now a liability instead of the $800 million asset it was in 1995. Oregon schools deserve better,” said Charles. “The State Land Board has a fiduciary obligation to take decisive action, and the analysis by Strata Policy helps provide a road map for Board decision-making.”
The Land Board in 2014 directed the Oregon Department of State Lands to develop a “new business model” for the ESF. The Cascade report, prepared on contract by Strata Policy, a Utah-based consulting firm, provides a critical review of various options for accomplishing this goal.
The report divides the known options into three categories: viable options, potentially viable options, and individually unviable options.The top three recommendations – the only ones considered “viable” – are full privatization, a land exchange with the federal government, and completion of a Habitat Conservation Plan that would allow logging in habitat currently used by protected species.
The full privatization option was analyzed at length for Cascade Policy Institute by economist Eric Fruits and published as a separate paper in March. Selling or leasing the forest clearly would result in the greatest financial returns to Trust Land beneficiaries over the long term.
A land exchange with the federal government also could result in healthy financial returns to the Common Schools if any lands could be identified for such an exchange, but that is doubtful given the litigious nature of federal forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Moreover, it would take Congressional approval, which likely would take a decade or more to execute. Such delays appear to be a violation of the fiduciary trust responsibilities held by the Land Board.
Development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) would face the same bureaucratic challenges. Oregon attempted to develop an HCP in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and spent $3 million over a 10-year period without gaining federal approval. Before reviving this effort, there needs to be some reassurance from the federal government that an HCP is actually possible.
The Land Board is scheduled to take public testimony regarding ESF management in Coos Bay on October 8, and will discuss options for a “new business model” at its December meeting in Salem.
Last week Portland City Commissioner Steve Novick suggested that the City Council approve $7 million in General Fund dollars to help pay for street maintenance. The City expects to have a surplus of some $9 million this fall, allowing new discretionary requests from individual bureaus.
Such a transfer would be far preferable to enacting a street tax, which has been widely opposed. Continuing to push the tax would be divisive and a huge waste of time for the hundreds of city residents who would show up to oppose it. Street maintenance is one of the most basic responsibilities for any municipality. Therefore, it is appropriate to use property tax dollars from the General Fund to maintain the road network.
Moreover, the City Council has an abysmal track record of managing dedicated transportation user fees. This was highlighted in a report issued last year by the Portland City Auditor, showing that dedicated transportation revenues had been going up over the last decade, while actual spending on road maintenance had dropped. This conclusion makes any proposed tax increase a non-starter.
The unexpected budget surplus gives the Council a graceful way to put the street tax proposal to bed. They should take the opportunity and move on.