Where's David?

Another Thursday, and another conspicuous absence of a column from Reinhard in today's Oregonian. What gives?

I don't want to sound as if I'm complaining here. I mean, it's nice to be able to read the editorial page of The Oregonian and not feel your brain rot from Reinhard's blowhard rhetoric. But still, the fact that he now earns his income writing one column per week really just grinds my gears....

Demonization of Teachers (Cont'd.)

Drat. He's back.

It's been a disappointing week from Reinhard. He had no column in Thursday's Oregonian, and this week's Sunday column is basically a re-hash of the same column from three weeks ago. To quote Napolean Dynamite: "Gosh." Two columns a week shouldn't be that hard right? That's all Dave has to do to earn his hefty salary- and he can't even do that?

Seems kind of hypocritical for him to write columns saying that teachers are overpaid, isn't it?

I'm tempted to copy & paste my response from three weeks ago (I mean, if he can do it, why can't I?), but let's examine Dave's latest:

He begins by acknowledging his column from a few weeks ago in which he cited an article in the Portland Tribune (!!!) that compared school districts in Austin, Texas and Portland, two similar cities, and pointed out that Austin schools spend less money per student, yet have a lower student-teacher ratio and longer school year. He also addresses the reaction to that column: readers pointing out that Austin has a lower standard-of-living than Portland's; others cheering Dave for bringing the subject up; and others 'not caring' about the numbers he writes about. Funny. Dave glossed over the points I raised in my response to him a few weeks back: that Portland's teachers earn the national average salary for master's degree holders; that Portland's spending-per-student fall in line with the national average for cities of comparable sizes; and Portland's funding-per-student is nearly $2500 less what Cleveland spends on its students, although Cleveland's population is 75,000 people smaller than Portland's.

No. Austin's funding-per-student rate is lower, therefore Portland tax-payers are getting screwed!

Dave's inisistence on relying on 'averages' is a cheap way to hide behind 'fuzzy math.' As I pointed out in my earlier response, Portland public schools pay less per student than the national average. An anonymous commenter points out the fallacy of relying on averages:

He might think for a moment about how misleading averages can be unless supplemented by additional info. If Paul Allen and Dave were in the same room, for example, their average net worth would be in the zillions of dollars, but I don't think Dave could then quit his job and live off his wealth.

Could it be that some of Portland's wealthier schools actually end up skewing the district's over-all average? If we were to remove those schools, would Portland's funding-per-student come to a closer match with Austin's?

There is no individual per- school funding provided by schoolmatters.com (just districts as a whole) so that information is not available, but what if this supposition were correct? Middle-class families and neighborhoods have proved, historically, to fight to protect 'their' school and deny any cuts in funding, programs, or services for the schools that best provide for their middle-classiness. That means if cuts, or closures, are to be made, they will be made at the expense of schools in lower-class neighborhoods that are traditionally neglected in the first place.

How fair. How democratic.

Dave and his ilk would argue that a more democratic solution would be for teachers to take across-the-board cuts in salary and benefits, a solution he offers in his column. This is where the demonization of teachers continues. Again, Portland's school teachers get paid the national average of master degree earners. And we need to ensure that teachers in our community are financially secure- if you were to be served by your child's teacher behind the counter at Plaid Pantry duing the weekend or in an evening, wouldn't you wonder about the quality of your child's education? Besides, in the past few years, teachers in Portland have agreed to a pay cut, a reduction in benefits, schools being closed or combined, and were willing to work ten days for free to make up for budget shortfalls. (Which flies in the face of the traditional conservative ethic that you 'get paid the value of your work.')

Obviously, to Dave that's not enough. He seems determined to see just how much blood is possible to get from these stones...

And the most galling aspect of Dave's rhetoric is his insistence in referring to it as a "crisis." As if a $57 billion shortfall and 11 possible closures are anything but. I know it's oft-repeated, but healthy schools are essential for healthy neighborhoods. People, that is middle-class families, aren't going to want to buy houses and spend their incomes in neighborhoods that have overburdened, deteriorating schools. This explains the "demographic change" the Oregonian made mention of in an unsigned editorial that reduced enrollment of Portland's public schools from a high of 80,000 to a stabilized 46,000. Obviously, school closures are necessary when the enrollment is cut in half, and Portland may be full of "hip, edgy" childless twenty-and-thirtysomethings currently. However, as my "hip & edgy" friends marry, buy houses, and settle down, they're increasingly doing it outside of Portland, as Portland is looking like a less attractive place to raise a family.

By Dave referring to it as a "crisis", the concerns of middle-class families are ignored in favor of divisive rhetoric, and the actual crisis continues unabated.

As Dave's erstwhile colleague David Sarasohn pointed out in his column last week, even though the states of Oregon and Washington may share a border, they couldn't be further apart when it comes to funding schools. As Oregon is besot by the (easy) demonization of teachers, and a do-nothing legislature willing, it appears, to watch the state's only urban school district fail, Washington's legislature just put $30 million into a program to help high school students meet graduation requirements.

Thanks to Dave and other pessimistic nay-sayers scoffing at Portland public school's "crisis", it may appear that the best place to have your kids go to school in Portland is Vancouver.

The editorial page gods be praised!

So I walked into my local Plaid and picked up today's Oregonian, dreading the stomach-churning bile, the teeth-gnashing, and the mix of utter confusion and despair caused by Reinhard's columns that await me each Thursday.

However, lo and behold!, upon opening to the editorial page there was nary any evidence of a self-righteous conservative blowhard to be found! Rather, in his typically reserved space, was Maureen Dowd's latest. Saints be praised!

So, what is the meaning of this? I've gotten used to such a routine that when there is a break, I'm flabbergasted. Did Dave suddenly wake up and realize the citizens of Portland would benefit from a (hopefully permanent) hiatus? Could it be that this blog is actually (gasp!) accomplishing its mission statement?

If anyone has this and can provide some sort of scoop on why Dave's missing a column this week, please send info my way....

Viewing the Iraq War with Red State Spex!

First off, I have to give props to Bill McDonald over at Portland Freelancer for scooping Karl Rove's memo to Reinhard explaining Dave's latest column defending the Iraq War three years later. It explains, in detail, the mechanics of a Republican-apologist columnist. Kudos.

Secondly, is it just me or did Dave, in this column, reveal himself to be a Tom Tomorrow-like caricature, viewing the current situation in Iraq with Red State Spex? I mean, seriously, Dave uses 732 words to come to a conclusion that we all ready knew: he supports this war. (No shit!)

Ultimately, the most disgusting aspect of Dave's column is the ending, in which he describes the Iraq war as being "noble and winnable." With this choice of words, Dave betrays himself as being unfamiliar with war. Wars are never noble. Necessary, perhaps. Unavoidable, sure. But never "noble." Especially not a war that was rushed into on faulty information (or lies, if you will) with little public debate. Not a war that was used for political gain by Republicans, at the expense of over 2,300 lives of our bravest troops. If there was ever a definition of a "noble" war, this current debacle in Iraq is far from it.

What's also ridiculous is Dave's contention that the events in Iraq aren't a "true civil war." As Terry Crawford points out in a letter in Monday's Oregonian, a definition of "civil war" is: "1. A war between factions or regions of the same country, 2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization . " That is present-day Iraq in a nutshell. Perhaps Dave doesn't think this is a "true civil war" because it doesn't compare to the American Civil War, fought 140 years ago. However, as the Bush administration has repeatedly compared the 'global war on terror' (which, in their arguments, Iraq is the main battlefield of) to the Civil War and World War II, it appears Dave is on the opposites of the administration in that regard.

As I write this, the main headline on Yahoo! News is "Insurgents storm jail, 28 killed." Each day this past week, Yahoo! News has reported an average of at least 30 Iraqis being killed. Some at the hands of insurgents, some at the hands of secterian-aligned militias, and others at the hands of U.S. troops. (Perhaps the worst result of this botched experiment in 'exporting democracy' is that the pain and suffering currently happening in Iraq isn't the fault of Saddam Hussein, but rather is the fault of the U.S.'s presence there.) One must truly be blinded by ideology not to come to the conclusion that such a high daily number of fatalities represents a symptom of civil war.

Of course, Dave would have an easy answer in regards to this fact: the 'underreporting' of positive stories by the media. For example, he cites Ralph Peters, who wrote a column at RealClearPolitics.com and voices the opinion that the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra ushered in the birth of the Iraqi army. "They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian," Peters wrote. "And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success." Funny, Peters seems to be the only one who states this opinion, as for nearly every other account of events after the mosque bombing indicated the inability of the Iraqi army to intercede in the murderous secterian rampages throughout the country, bequeathing poer to religious militias. Indeed, the army stood idly by as Iraqis, from different factions in the same country, slaughtered each other in the street. But remember- this isn't a "true civil war."

But what do I know? I'm not in Iraq. I write this in Portland, thousands of miles from these events. Besides Peters, who Dave points out 'has been there', notorious liar Victor Davis Hanson is also cited- again he 'has been there.' Perhaps I should heed the opinions of these two men, as they provide a perspective that I can't share? Or perhaps I could take the word of former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who on the same day that Reinhard's column was printed, was quoted by the BBC as saying: "It is unfortunate that we are in a civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knws what civil war is."

Poor Dave. Talk about bad timing. His column was obviously timed to coincide with 10,000 anti-war demonstrators marching through the streets of Portland. But along comes Allawi to discredit his rhetoric.

In the end, I am a staunch supporter of a free and democratic Iraq. Heck, if the entire world was free and democratic, you'd find no complaints from me. But I am also a staunch supporter of competency, strategy, and a realistic plan to accomplish possible goals. Using the lives of American soldiers for political gain and making statements that they'd be greeted with "flowers and sweets" smacked with just as much of disingenuosness three years ago as Dave's tired rhetoric does today.

Talkin' 'Bout Russ's Resolution

I see Dave got his Karl Rove-approved marching orders.

Dave's latest column mocks Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush. As The New York Times pointed out on its front page- "Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry To Bush's Base"- its obvious that Dave, forever the loyal soldier, is giving his two cent's worth.

The funny thing is that I agree with the headline that accompanies Dave's column- "Stop cowering and vote on Feingold's resolution." And this is what Republican strategists are counting on. I mean, when you go American Research Group you find that 70% of registered Democrats agree with passing a resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing wiretaps without obtaining court orders. Yet, as Premptive Karma points out, only four Democratic Senators have signed on in support of Feingold's resolution: Kerry, Boxer, Harkin, and Menendez. I know I'm going to sound like I'm parroting Reinhard here, but: nice leadership here, guys.

Democrats, especially those in high profile leadership roles, have been consistently knocked around for failing to take a stand on their principles. Whether its the triangulating Hillary Clinton or the 'nuanced' John Kerry, they seem unable to make their points and stances as clear and resounding as the Republicans do: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. And has been shown by the past five years, once Republicans take a stand on an issue, they stick to their guns. It can be spelled out for them repeatedly just how wrong-headed their stances are, but that doesn't stop them from standing by them.

Now a Democratic Senator is taking a principled stance- that the President broke the law and should face the consequences- and is finding scarce support from other Democratic Senators. This, in turn, creates a field day for Dave and other conservative pundits.

Dave states that other Senate Democrats aren't backing Feingold's resolution because "it reflects his party's views of the National Security Program." That's what he would like you to believe. Feingold's resolution doesn't deal with the program, as Republicans and Democrats alike agree any efforts to intercept communication by al Qaida is essential. Instead, the resolution deals with the fact that the President considers himself above the law- something that Republicans worked themsleves in a tizzy about a decade ago. The law requires that the administration needed to go to the FISA court to obtain warrants for wiretapping; the administration felt that the law didn't apply to them. In short, the administration thumbed their noses at the rule of law. That's what Feingold's resolution is about- that the President simply can't openly and knowingly break laws.

For simplicity's sake, Senator Feingold should break it down similar to a math formula: 'If failure to getting a warrant is against the law, and the President failed to get a warrant, then the President broke the law."

Dave and his conservative ilk argue in favor of a 'unitary executive' theory- a President unimpeded by laws. However, by allowing this, or any, President unchecked powers opens the door of unrestrained government growth and influence on the individual. This argument is a radical departure from the core tenet of Reaganism, which he made plain in his farewell speech in 1989: "Man is not free unless government is limited."

Presidents that flaunt laws are the opposite of this sentiment. Call it anti-Reaganism, which Dave, who I'm sure was a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite twenty years ago, now argues in favor of.

Dave states that Democrats don't support Feingold's reolution as "it highlights its weakness on war-on-terror issues." Funny, cause when you glance at the results over at pollingreport.com, you'll find that Republicans are currently at a low point on terror issues in the public's eye, only five points above the Democrats, who are at a high. For some confounding reason, considering that they were running the show during 9/11, Republicans have used war-on-terror issues as a suit of armor to hide behind and prod a cowed populace for support. Now, after years of increased carnage in Iraq, the extraordinary damage inflicted on a mjaor metro area by Hurricane Katrina, and a proposed sale of key ports to Middle Eastern "allies", its almost as if a wise young child has opened the eyes of the populace to point out that the Republicans suit of armor is, indeed, invisible.

The fact remains that this is the perfect time to introduce a resolution to censure the President. Bush's approval ratings are in the tank (the latest Pew results have him with a 33% approval rating), his political capital is shot, and is left on the defense, looking for support from an increasingly shrinking echo chamber. Although I don't expect Feingold's resolution to go far, there is one accomplishment that Dave himself is aiding the Senator in: and that is getting people rto talk about censuring the President. There has been an 'Impeach Bush' campaign around for awhile, but it has been in the hands of former attorney general Ramsey Clark, who, and I'm speaking as a liberal, is nuttier than a jar of Planter's. Feingold's resolution gives any discussion of censure an air of legitimacy. The more its mentioned in the media, the more the average non-politically aware person will ask: "Resolution for what? What does 'censure the President' mean?" Not good questions to be asked if the President is only polling a favorable majority in three states.

The conservatives want to use this resolution as a means to rally their base. In that Times article, there is a mention of an email that Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, sent out to Republicans: "Impeachment. Coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now."

Aren't the Democrats aware of this and using similar tactics? Regardless of how far Feingold's resolution goes, with a minority status in the House and the Senate they have no chance at either censuring or impeaching Dubya. However, if the Democrats can create the idea of how events would be diffferent if they were in control, then their base will be just as frothed up going into the mid-terms. But that's not going to happen with Feingold getting such lackluster support from lackluster 'leaders.'

So let's keep talking about Russ's resolution. And please help the Senator's resolution for censure.

An actual, practical kicker compromise

Well at least he used the word "compromise."

In his new column Dave takes on Oregon's "kicker"- the state constitutional amendment that redistributes unpredicted revenue to corporations & individuals that generated the revenue- and tries to find a solution that appeases both kicker opponents and pro-kicker supporters.

Before we analyze Dave's column further, I'd like to explain the kicker for those readers who may be unfamiliar. Imagine this following scenario: a family of four wants to plan on taking a vacation in two years. After looking at their budget, they come to the conclusion that the funds they'd have saved will only allow them to spend a weekend in Astoria. However, two years go by and in the meantime, Dad gets a promotion, Mom gets a better-paying job, Little Billy gets a paper route, and teen-ager Suzie becomes assistant manager at McDonald's. If their increased money were to be pooled together, they'd be able to take a week-long vacation to Disneyland, plus get the braces needed for Billy and pay Suzie's community-college tuition. But as the decision was made two years ago to go to Astoria, Dad sticks to his guns, with funds to be distributed piece-meal between family members to purchase souvenoirs, the children's needs be damned.

Replace Astoria with "predicted revenue," the family with "state's economist", and Dad with the "kicker amendment" and you have a close approximation of what this stupid law does to Oregon's finances. I don't have a good analogy for the corporate interests that will receive $200 million from the state's kicker, but in the end Oregonians will receive a check for $150. While that is great, it is impossible to purchase pothole-free roads or healthy schools for $150. Similar to Billy and Suzie, needs will be ignored that could be fixed by pooling or earmarking unexpected revenue instead of being "kicked back" piece-meal to individuals.

In the end, the kicker is nonsense. It is the only kind of law in the country, which has been on Oregon's books since 1979, and provides a selfish "me-first" sentiment rather than a coomon-sense "rainy day fund" for unexpected revenues that every other state has. In his column, Dave sates that Oregon is a "state prone to boom-and bust revenue cycles." There couldn't be a more simpler explanantion as to why the kicker should be repealed. It prevents Oregon from conserving funds to prepare for the future, allowing the state to be extremely susceptible to economic setbacks, as the disastrous 2001 recesion proved.

But Dave, a fan of the kicker as that means an extra dinner for two at McCormick & Schmick's this year, wants to talk "compromise." His idea? Allow the Legislature to have access to the $200 million being kicked back to corporations (two-thirds of which will leave the state) in return for slashing the state's capital gains tax and distributing the corporate kicker into a general rainy day fund. When you think about Dave's proposal for more than two seconds, you realize, as a compromise, it doesn't make sense.

First, capital gains taxes have no connection with the unexpected revenues being distributed through the kicker. None. Its just been on Dave's mind this week, so he connects the two together in his 'compromise.' As I've all ready pointed out, capital gains tax cuts benefit the investor class, with the occasional household earning less than $100,000 making an average of $14 through these cuts. It's a hand-out to those who don't need one, and the tax cut alone won't cover all the revenue lost. And any revenue generated would pale in comparison to the amount needed to fund the gaps currently plaguing the state, which raises the concern of insisting that the corporate tax kicker be deposited into a rainy day fund. Why insist that the money should be saved for the future while ignoring the problems of the present? A rainy day fund makes sense, but we need to make sure school districts are healthy and there are no glaring holes in local government's budgets.

'You just want to increase government spending!' the pro-kicker critics will respond. That is not what I want. Government spending should not sprawl, un-checked. At the same time, if our state and local governments can't provide essential needs and services, then what's the point of continuing to slash budgets? For example, consider the decreasing number of state troopers in Oregon as the methamphetamine crisis escalates. To aruge that more money, if its available, shouldn't be made available for State troopers is patently ridiculous.

So Dave's 'compromise' has been exposed for what it is: a sop to the wealthy investing class while tying ordinary Oregonians' hands from being able to fix funding problems that plague them on an everyday basis. Here's an actual practical compromise that could be applied to the kicker:

Keep the kicker in the constitution. As much as I hate it, I must admit I enjoy the occasional check in the mail. I'm a few DVDs short in my Cuba Gooding Jr. collection. However, amend the kicker law and make it so that if there are any funding shortages for key government budgets- such as school districts and the Department for Human and Health Services- those shortages should be filled from the unexpected revenue before anything is kicked back. Also, increase the amount that revenues need to exceed projected amounts to three percent. And earmark five-percent of returns to a rainy day fund. With this compromise, the infrastructure used by both individuals and corporations to generate such returns will be kept healthy, and ensure the generation of future revenue. Plus, everyone would get a check back, though it may be for $135 instead of $150. But money coming in the mail is always a good thing, regardless of the amount. Especially if its unexpected.

I mean, Dave could still have dinner for two at McCormick's for $135. He just may not be able to order the special.

Dave & The Capital Gains Tax Cuts: Premature Congratulations

During his confirmation hearing new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said, "It's unusual for a tax cut to completely offset the revenue loss." But here we have Dave with the headline of his new column reading "The 2003 capital gains tax cut has paid for itself."

Indeed, Dave gleefully points out the fact that the capital gains tax has deposited $47 million unforseen revenue into the government's coffers. How did this happen, exactly? Well, when you consider the fact that the capital gains tax cut overwhelmingly is titled in favor for the wealthy- only 6.6% of households making less than $100,000 earn any capital gains income- it could be summed up very simply: when rich people pay less taxes they have more money available, either to spend or to invest.

In a letter to the Senate Finance Commitee last Feburary, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote: "[I]ncreases [in capital gain realizations] might suggest a large behavioral response to the tax rate cut - except that realizations also increased by 45 percent in 1996, before the rate cut. Thus changes in realizations are not necessarily the result of changes in taxes; other factors matter as well." So investors did take advantage of the lowered capital gains tax cut to sell some assets and buy others looking to make a return, but that's what the investing class does. Any stimulation in activity would naturally follow such a tax decrease. However, considering that, according to the IRS, of the 92 million tax returns for individuals earning less than $50,000 in 2003 (representing 70 percent of total returns), only 15 percent filed a return with dividend income. The share of the total tax benefit given to these individuals was 7.8 percent and the average tax cut was $14. That means that the capital gains tax cut means diddley-squat to the average reader of The Oregonian.

Anyways, $47 million in the US Treasury is good. At least we're seeing something in return for Bush's economic policies. Considering that these policies have reduced government revenue by $870 million since 2001, you might think that $47 million is a nice start, but Dave shouldn't be patting himself on the back just yet.

Dave's column is a retort to tax cut critics. He's attempting to state: "See? Tax cuts do stimulate the economy." However, any qualitative connection between capital gains tax cuts and economic improvements are tenuous at best.

Just as are the examples and the illustrations Dave uses to make his argument. The jobs situation, for example. Dave practically crows about the "2 million [jobs created] in the last year alone." Never mind that last year's job creation represents a gain of 1.5%, which is absolutely horrible. This rate is less than half the 3.5% job-creation rate of similar business cycles. The standard job-creation rate would've brought the U.S. 4.6 million jobs. But as Dave seems to actively welcome low standards, I can see why he'd settle for 2 million instead. Dave points out that 200,000 jobs were created in January, the same month that saw the lowest number of employed American workers since last May, which was the last time the unemployment rate was over five percent.

Now, I'm not stating that the job situation in the United States is particualrly bleak: we still have Bush's ever-expanding federal government to provide worthwhile employment opportunities. Let's examine the sluggish private-sector growth under Bush: in the fiscal years from 2001 to 2006, two million jobs were created in the private sector, but 1.495 million of those were due to increased defense spending. Non-defense discretionary spending created 1.325 million jobs, and mandatory spending created even more jobs. How would our country's employment numbers look without the Defense Department's budget being continually jacked up? For all the hand-wringing conservatives do over the "socialistic" policies enacted by Franklin Roosevelt in creating jobs sixty years ago, they are now conspicuously silent on a similar course of action being taken by the Bush administration.

And isn't it fabulous that Dave is citing Oregon's honourable Senator, Gordon Smith, as the bearer of such good news regarding the capital gains tax-cuts? The same Senator whose idea of a bold stand is that he's against hate crimes? Dave quotes Senator Smith as saying, "Freedom works, and it's even filling government coffers." As it turns out, Senator Smith has been taking extracurricular trips down to the Virgin Islands in an attempt to protect a millionaire's tax dodge (and netting himself a cool $47,000 in the process), which I'm sure is a high priority for the Senate Finance Committee.

Looking to Gordon Smith for sound tax policy advice is like taking quail-hunting lessons from Dick Cheney- it just doesn't make sense. If there's an Oregon Senator who should be listened to in regards to sound tax policy, it should be Ron Wyden, who's even been heralded in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal for his "fair & flat tax" proposal.

Dave can gloat about the "hard numbers" in regards to justifying the capital gains tax cut all he wants, citing the Congressional Budget Office in doing so. However, he better ignore the other hard numbers from the CBO: that if Bush's tax cuts are declared permanent, it would cost the government $3.4 trillion in revenue over the next ten years.

Dirty, Rotten Teachers

In his latest column, Dave tackles the issue of student funding in Portland and comes to the conclusion that we spend too much on students. At $7,921 per-student in Portland, Dave believes that is far too much, and that we should just knock it off.

*Of course*, the reason why our spending per student is so "high" is because of teachers. Those dirty, rotten teachers. With their salaries that fit with the national average of master's degree earners and benefits packages bargained for in lieu of pay raises- all adding to the misery of spending $8000/student in Portland.

I don't understand Republicans. It seems the concept of public school teachers being able to live comfortable, middle-class lifestyles is "quaint" and "old-fashioned." It hearkens back to a by-gone era, like the 1950s. Which is, of course, where Republicans would prefer to lead us with all their other policies and legislation. Just not for teachers' salaries. For that they'd prefer if teachers lived with the homeless at Dignity Village. Of course, that would be granting teachers too much dignity.

Republicans base their perspectives in ideology and, like all ideologues, they find that these perspectives fail to compute when applied to the real world. 'Market-based' solutions are sought in situations in which they don't apply. If you read between the lines, its clear Dave is calling for one in regards to Portland Public Schools. Perhaps something similar to what was posted on over at NW Republican:

What if... before the end of the current contract, the board of PPS was approached by a group of accredited non-union teachers (just, say, as equally qualified as those they've got now, large enough to replace all current union teachers) who said: "We'll work for 15% less in total compensation."
Call it a "bid" for the contract.

Although that creates an interesting hypothetical situation, we should acknowledge the realities of school funding, and the lack of it. And that is the community as a whole suffers when funding per student is decreased.

For the sake of full disclosure, I must admit that my father was a public teacher. Although that may explain partly why I'm not sympathetic to Reinhard's point (its mostly because he's a blowhard and a lousy writer that I disagree with him) I also bring a personal perspective to this issue. Some fifteen years ago or so my father had to take a second-job to make bills meet during the recession that occurred under the first Bush administration. After a day of teaching high school, he worked behind the counter at a convenience store. Besides having no time available to be a father and commit to family life, he also was unable to concentrate on creating lesson plans and grading homework. Working another job while teaching full-time was a detriment to not only his children, but also to the children of the community he taught in. Think about that, and think if we want a similar fate to befall Portland's teachers.

Another thing: although Dave makes an issue of the 'alarming' amount paid per school in Portland, I went to schoolmatters.com and looked around for a little bit. Yes, Portland spends more than other cities with a similar size, but most of these cities- from Nashville to New Orleans to Sacramento- spend an amount per student within the $7,000 to $8,000 range, with Portland finding itself near the top of that range ($7,921). And these cities pale in comparison to the amount spent by Cleveland per student ($10,200)- with 75,000 fewer residents. Even if Portland wanted to spend the average national amount per student, it would have to increase its funding $1,200 to $9,136. And as this column is about decreasing Portland Public School's funds, you know that's not going to be proposed by Dave.

Dave can make a stink about how Portland spends too much money due to greedy teachers all he wants. But if nine percent of Oregon's $666 million tax "kicker" was earmarked to Portland's schools then the $57 million funding gap would be covered and the topic would be moot. And besides- is the amount of funding per student even an issue? Is any amount "too much" for our kids? Wouldn't it be a mark of pride to point out that we spend more on our children's education then other communities? And a mark of shame if we spent less?

Just askin'.

How about making the Trailblazers Portland's?

In his latest column on the Blazers seeking public money, Dave sounds suspiciously like the letter I sent to John Carzano a couple months back. John warned Marlins management to not leave their cars while in Portland to get a pulse of whether Portland wants major-league baseball or not. In response I wrote to John:

Obviously, it appears, they shouldn't read the Sports section of The Oregonian, either. They just might get the feeling that their prospective interest in bringing their business to our city- and the number of jobs and revenue that would accompany a relocated major league sports franchise- is not wanted.

Dave wrote something similar to this in his column. But that is where me and him part ways.

I'm not sure what point Dave is attempting to make in this column. Is he against the Blazers seeking public funding, or does he support it? As it's typical for Reinhard to take the "rock-the-boat" stance in the editorial pages of the biggest newspaper in blue-state Oregon, what stance is he going to take in regards to billionaire Paul Allen approaching the community with his hat in hand? Perhaps Dave took the temperature of the blogosphere first. As various entries from the lefty side make it clear that they'd have no qualms saying "Sayonara" to the Blazers, well then, Dave couldn't take that stance could he? So he comes out in favor of public support for the cash-strapped Trailblazers.

And is that really surprising? My "spider sense" started tingling when hestarted a paragraph by saying "As a free-marketeer..." What, exactly, does that mean? It seems the current-day's interpretation of "free market" means public subsidies of corporations, legislation titlting favorably for business interests, the minimization of regulations that protect the community and decreases the influence of labor. In short, selling out every resource and every person of the community in support of the dollar and to maximize the profit line of a company based, usually, either in another state or in another country. I mean, as Dave points out: "The city no longer boasts a Fortune 500 company..."

Sorry, Dave, but a true free-marketeer would come to the conclusion that the Blazers are done. Kaput. Put a fork in them. If they're bleeding millions due to mismanagement, then the market dictates the franchise either folds or moves to another locale. The only way a "free-marketeer" would support the local subsidization of an organization consistenly in the red is if they're one of these new-fangled George W. Bush apologists for incompetence and insist that the public bail out dying industries to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

But what about the jobs? Didn't I make that point to Carzano regarding the Marlins? If the Blazers leave town, the economic hit on Portland will be huge, and there is no denying that. However, I find it highly ironic that Dave writes his column illustrating the economic benefits of the Blazers, and how it would be in Portland's best interests to keep them in town, on the same day that the main headline of the Oregonian read: "Oregon gets kicker shock". It turns out that $666 million of tax profits reaped by the state, a huge windfall by any standards and is more than enough to fill any gaping holes of any unfunded budgets (like, oh I don't know, school districts struggling to keep their heads above water), are going to be sent back to indivudal tax-payers and out-of-state corporations. So I don't need for Dave to counsel me on economic "benefits" of the Blazers' presence- obviously our state, and Portland by default, is doing plenty enough right. I have a $150 check headed my way, and there is a hammock that I've been eyein'. Screw you, PPS!

Look, call me old-fashioned but I believe that private money should support private interests, and public money should support public interests. They may be called the Portland Trailblazers, but everyone knows who the owner is. It's not Portland, it's Paul Allen, the seventh richest man alive. But perhaps, just maybe, the opposite could be true. Maybe the city of Portland could own the Trailblazers.

I know it's an idea that could be dismissed as radical, as it's rooted in history and pragmatism, but imagine if the Trailblzers were a publicly owned, non-profit corporation, that had shares available to purchase by stockholders (citizens of Portland and outlying areas). Imagine if a favorable lease at the Rose Quarter could be re-negotiated, and limits were in place as to the number of shares of the team any one holder could have. A consortium of wealthy Oregon businessmen could provide the financial backing to get the dead weight of the Blazers off Paul Allen's hands (so he could go buy the Sonics), and after the IPO, serve as the club's board of directors. With a direct interest, minus any divdends as any profit would be split between the team and the local community, Blazers fans would be compelled to go to home games, fill the rafters, and be committed to the franchise playing in one of the west coast's smaller media markets.

Sounds pretty fanciful, pie-in-the-sky stuff? Hardly. I'm simply applying the business model used by the Green Bay Packers, who are publicly owned and are one of the most storied and respected franchises in all of football- even perhaps out of all team sports. The Packers play each season in a small town of a population of 100,000, yet consistently sell out each home date due to their regional interest and appeal.

The Packers' formula for success found its roots in the populist and progressive mind-set of 1920s America, when small communities gathered resources and worked together to find solutions to problems. The Packers' model allows benefits for all- a profit for the team, and professional football excitement for the fan/stockholder. The Packers' formula flies in the face of the mind-set of the modern-day "free marketeer", in which communities are held hostage to bail out private, millionaire investments that go sour.

Still, imagine if a similar model could be adopted in this situation- we'd actually be able to have the Portland Trailblazers.