I puruse the blogsophere looking for a little back and forth. Came across one worth sharing over at Olson Online.
See, Terry Olson was all insensed that Rob Kremer would consider using the public's natural resources to help fund education. What's better, $50 million just isn't enough to worry about.
Here's his original post:
Great idea, Kremer: Sell a state forest to fund education!
Yesterday I wrote that I had problems with the charter school approach to educational reform.
Here's what I mean, courtesy of Rob Kremer's latest Brainstrom NW column [not online], "Forests for Schools", in which he praises Ron Saxton as an educational innovator, and his main opponent, Ted Kulongoski, as a champion of "the education establishment" --meaning the teachers' union: "The public employee unions will almost certainly contribute huge sums to his campaign... . That won't come for free. Expect the governor to tack toward the union position on PERS, privatization and other core union issues."
Kremer's advice for his guy Saxton? Sell a state forest:
"In this campaign, Ron Saxton should ask Gov. Kulongoski why he wants to increase taxes to raise money for schools rather than just managing the state's assets more efficiently."And when Saxton wins, he should immediately move to sell the Elliot State Forest."
Kremer manages to include all the correct buzz words -- taxes, efficiency, privatization, management-- the heart of the corporate/business model of school governance. And, of course, union, union, union! The message is cear. Government is inept, bungling and inefficient. The private sector is sleek, focused, and skilled at running big organizations. Who do we want running our schools?
Like all privatization schemes, selling off government "assets" sounds attractive until you look at the numbers. The $50 million Kremer says the Common School Fund "might" realize annually from liquidating the Elliot State Forest --an optimistic number-- amounts to less than 1% of the $5.2 billion state K-12 schools budget. Let me repeat that: the $50 million that the sale of the state forest may yield would add less than 1% to the annual state education budget.
Kremer may truly believe we can fund our schools adequately without raising taxes, but he's wrong. When it comes to vital public services, there is no free lunch!
Then there is my comment to his post:
Terry-
Correct me if I'm wrong. The state of Oregon's education budget is friggin huge. For tax payers (currently paying into the statewide schools budget via $5 per every $1000 of assessed property value) this would be a significant chunk to contribute another 1%.
1% is alot. Your pessimism that 1% isn't worth any development is way off base as that $50 million could provide alot more into the local programs who are the most needy for athletics, art, music, and a whole host of others. This money is also alot less than say what could be realized immediately if Portland stopped issueing TIF bonds to pay for boondogles like the street car and aerial tram.
Argue instead that forests provide more to Oregon and the world as they currently stand unharvested. Tourism and clean air are worth alot and real Tom McCall style arguments can be made for that.
Your argument that "unless its a major winfall its isn't worth it" is weak - thought I'd let you know it.
Then Terry responds:
Do the math, Dare.
With a total enrollment of about 560,000 students, an addtional $50 million would provide each Oregon K-12 student a whopping $89. Of course the real return on the proceeds from the sale of the Elliot State Forest would probably amount to far less than Kremer's anticipated $50 million.
Gus, get a copy of Brainstorm NW. Rob Kremer's advice to Ron Saxton is clearly stated: "SELL the Elliot State Forest."
And then Terry resonds to Rob Kramer's comment on his blog:
Assuming you can turn your $20 million, based on an 8% return, into $50 million, based on what? -- a 20% annual yield? -- that still amounts to $89 per enrolled Oregon K-12 student. Maybe not chump change, but nothing to get too excited about either.
The bigger objection is to selling off public property to keep taxes low -- a step toward the libertarian utopian vision of privatizing everything owned by the government. Who's going to end up owning the Elliot State Forest? What will become of it once it's in the hands of some corporate entity?
You, Rob, may sincerely believe that market forces can solve all our problems. I say that the market is only adept at making the wealthy even wealthier, and to hell with the 'common good'.
And then my final rebutal that I felt was worth posting:
Oregon's economy has seen sector's of the economy grow and compound at above 8% consistently. Specifically in depressed areas where a little bit of wealth goes along way and spurs other investments (who could have imagined Bend fifteen years ago). 7% compounding annually will build forward and will offer gains and growth far behind timber. Property values and the compound effect of other commerce grow way faster than any single investment. You're turning timber into a future for many of Oregon's rural residents. Especially when you consider the hard to measure skills and education acquired in the rural and more efficient school districts.
Also, the public's money is never chump change unless your a chump. Be it $0.01 or $100,000,000 its worth giving examination to. The unwillingness to address the smaller financial issues is the reason fiscal crisis seems to always dog Oregon's political areana coincidentally ran by some of the nations most liberal democrats.
Harvesting the public's resources be it as timber or tourism is not a libertarian idea. Allowing limited entry to harvest or thin forest timber land done in a sustainable fashion is extremely "progressive" anywhere but Oregon (including Washington and all through Canada).
Furthermore allowing the state to sell forest land to privately held companies under our land use system would guarantee that they stay as forest land. From everything I've read or seen the privately held timber lands fare much better than state and federal held land throughout the pacific Northwest.
You can't get a much better example than the privately held lands adjacent to state lands around Mt. St Helens. Intensive management and study of the habitat and wildlife. Immediate response to prepare for fire season. Immediate and consistent response to beattle kill trees. Continual and consistent yield of a varieties of timber both old-growth and young growth. Additionally these privtely held timber stocks offer another reason for state lands to not develop other old-growth timber for at least a decade. Magically the market mechanism enables an incentive to manage timber.
As for the market only making the wealthy wealthier and being at fault for your "common good." I don't see how you can sit on your computer a creation of wealth, living at the top of the world's standard of living, and pretend that you don't share in any of this wealth. I agree you might not see the oppulence of many in the top 1% of the economy but I guarantee your talents fall far shorter.
You seem consistently bitter. You don't trust humanity (therefore you don't trust anyone's ability to make a dollar without stealing it) but yet you magically have all this faith in government. Government has an amazing ability to do good but unfortunately from what I've seen rarely is this the case. Though many public employees are dedicated and work hard consistently I hear first hand stories of special interest politics trumping the mission of an agency. Look at schools (a favorite subject of yours) unions siphon off as much as possible for $800 a month health plans and guaranteed retirement returns.
Any time a standard of achievement is proposed it is vigorously attacked and the only willing yardstick allowed is money spent. If you see a shortcoming its obviously the money spent's fault. If you see a shortcoming its obviously the money spent's fault. Never is managment ever allowed to provide a reoranization plan, a yard-stick to manage by, or a system of accountability. The only answer ever seen is MORE MONEY.
How can you live in Neil Goldscmidt's Oregon, under the shadow of the aerial tram, the recent SUN battle at Multnomah County, seeing PERS a playground for the well connected to get wealthier off your retirement behind closed doors all while the tax payers pick up the tab for the below market returns and not question your logic? You are surrounded in Portland by "progressive" subsidized million dollar condos, oppulent neighborhoods flying up all paid for by taking from school portion of the property tax assesment and still you have absolute faith in government. What really amazes me to is how lately all the "mass-transit" infrastructure has been built exclusively for the wealthiest neighborhoods in Oregon and the uber-liberals are going nuts rooting for this crap.
Markets aren't perfect but neither is any government I've seen. I trust both in the right proportions. It's not liberatarian but American.
Read more ...
Summary only ...
and her benign thug organization Our Oregon, for making a false claim against the RainyDay Amendment folks. We knew all along that what the union thugs were trying to do in Oregon was use State resources to hinder the circulation of a citizen petition. 
Well the Union brothers to Our Oregon in Nebraska just got busted. In Nebraska a federal court held that the cities' past attempts to disallow petition circulators was a violation of the First Amendment.
Wentz crying wolf and making false accusations against petitioners in Oregon. Then you get Tim Nesbitt to call a press conference in the offices of Our Oregon laying out a bunch more false charges. Then you get the public employee union backed Secretary of State and his front man John Lindback who jump when Nesbitt gives the order.
Posts
