 * “I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; And because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.”
—Helen Keller
Welcome to the May 1 edition of Do What You Can Do.
Have you checked out Capitolizing? It's the weekly podcast where Senator Shemia Fagan and I answer two questions every week: What do we do here in the Capitol, and Why the hell should you care?
Find Capitolizing on iTunes and other podcast networks.
Student Success/New Tax Revenue:
The big news this week is the movement of the long awaited “Student Success” package towards final decisions. If passed, HB 3427 will cap off more than a year of assessing how Oregon’s public schools can move towards solid excellence, and how to pay for what’s needed.
Under this bill about $1 billion/year will be dedicated to a new Student Success Fund from a corporate activities tax (CAT) of about half a percent on every business transaction. The tax would apply only to firms grossing more than $1 million/year, which means about 420,000 of Oregon’s 460,000 businesses won’t be included. The tax won't apply to groceries, fuel and most medical services, and the package will return several hundred million dollars to Oregonians through reduced income tax rates.
A lot of work went into deciding how to spend this money. What I especially like is the serious investment we’ll make in pre-kindergarten and “wrap-around” services that go to the roots of the problems so many school kids experience, resulting in lower graduation rates than we want and expect. We’ve long known that unless we get “upstream” and address basic human needs, we’ll continue to spend lots of public dollars without improving much of anything. This legislation offers a chance to change that and materially improve the prospects of Oregon children.
Photo courtesy of ODOT
What I don’t like, and I mean really don’t like, is a provision deep in the bill that prevents local governments from establishing a local CAT in the future, a concession to larger Oregon businesses who might otherwise have killed the bill. This pre-emption grandfathers in a recent Portland measure that imposes a small CAT on businesses grossing over $1 billion/year, and doing more than $500,000 of business within Portland. This is the right kind of approach for tapping into the one sector that continues to profit handsomely off our communities while shouldering little of the tax burden: Fortune 500 companies whose only Oregon presence (with a few exceptions) is retail outlets.
I’m not interested in future measures that ask more from the 99% (+/-) of Oregon businesses under that $1 billion level, who are contributing to our communities and working hard to create and sustain good jobs. But many of our cities are struggling mightily to provide basic human services, and some are falling further behind every year. Their toolboxes for raising more funds are almost empty. If in years to come the people of Medford, or any other town with big box stores, decide that it’s time for Walmart,Target, Starbucks, McDonalds, Best Buy or Chase Bank to pitch in a little more to support their communities, why should state government be able to block them?
More and more, our economic divide seems to have the biggest, most profitable corporations on one side and nearly everyone else—working and dependent Oregonians and almost all Oregon-based businesses—on the other. After supporting HB 3427 when it comes to the Senate floor, I’ll be looking with like-minded colleagues to find ways to remove the new fiscal shackle it puts on our cities and towns.
PERS:
In the last newsletter I wrote at length about the Governor's in-progress plan to start reducing the unfunded PERS liability that's blowing holes in many school and general government budgets. I won't reprint that now; any details I list will almost certainly change, as the debate is just gaining speed. Leaders in the House and Senate are huddling now to produce an alternative proposal; I'll share it when it's released. For now, just two comments:
- My mail since the Governor kicked off the conversation bears out what I wrote last time: "While pretty much everyone wants bold actions to bring down the PERS debt, every proposed step to do that draws fury."
- This issue is connected at the hip to the Student Success tax proposal (above). Some legislators--enough, maybe, to determine what taxes do or don't become law--want solid assurances that PERS will be confronted in a serious way before they push the "yes" button. I think a lot of Oregon taxpayers want that, too.
 Photo courtesy of OLCC
Limiting Marijuana Grows:
The week brought the first time in my short senate career that I’ve changed my vote. SB 218B gives the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which is charged with regulating the recreational marijuana industry, authority to stop issuing grow licenses for two years. I voted no on an earlier version (without the two-year limit) when it first came to the floor a month ago. The opposition argument on the floor—that it arbitrarily cut off competition and would likely funnel would-be growers of this now-legal crop to the black market--made sense to me.
When a revised version came back to the floor this week, I gladly voted yes. More important than my earlier qualms is my strong belief that this new legal industry, which could easily rise to the same importance as wine in the Oregon economy, should benefit relatively small Oregon growers who tend to care about our communities and environment, not huge transnational corporations that turned our way when recreational pot was legalized. Because federal law prevents selling any of Oregon’s bountiful harvests out-of-state, we now have an estimated 6+ years of supply sitting on shelves. That glut has pushed prices so low that some local growers are closing down and putting their property on the market. If we let the glut continue, SB 218 supporters say, major corporations (like tobacco companies) that can afford years of red ink will likely buy off vast tracts of prime acreage, wait for prices to stabilize, and permanently dominate Oregon cannabis, vacuuming profits out of the state. That’s happening in too many economic sectors already. I switched to a “yes” on SB 218 in hopes for something better.
 |
Photo courtesy of Jackson County
Capital Punishment:
While Oregon is still one of 30 states that have capital punishment on the books, just two people have been executed here in the last 50 years, both at their own request. Governor Brown has maintained the moratorium on executions that Governor Kitzhaber established years ago.
Surveys show Oregonians deeply divided on the death penalty, and there is no legislative effort to abolish it. But three weeks ago the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 1013, which reduces to three the list of crimes that qualify for capital punishment:
- Terrorism, defined as “premeditated, intentional homicide of two or more persons that is committed with the intent to either intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government through destruction of property, murder, kidnapping or aircraft piracy”
- “Murder by a defendant in custody, after the defendant was previously convicted in any jurisdiction of any homicide that would constitute the crime of aggravated murder or murder in the first degree,” and
- “Premeditated intentional murder against a person under 14 years of age.”
Different legislators offer different reasons for supporting this bill: moral principles, equity concerns (both the high over-representation of people of color on Death Row, and increasing evidence that innocent people are sometimes condemned to die) and economic arguments (generally capital punishment costs far more than life in prison).
What I'd like to know is...
If you have views on capital punishment, moral, economic or otherwise, I'd like to have them soon. Write sen.jeffgolden@oregonlegislature.gov.
In the last newsletter I described what I'd learned about subsidies of passenger train travel in Oregon. Because freight traffic and other challenges have thwarted efforts to build ridership, every passenger ticket from Eugene to Portland (and often to Seattle) is supported by about $100 in public funds. Even at a time when we very much want to expand public transportation options, some people say it's time to throw in the towel on passenger train travel in out state. I asked you what you thought about it.
Most of you wrote back supporting not just current service but even more investment in passenger rail service. Many expressed caution, though, that without greater investment in our passenger rail system, the program might have to be cut. Here's a what a few of you had to say on the issue.
- "Trains? Go big or go home."
- "Without any significant upgrades to the service I don't think people will be taking the train. Without the ridership, the $100 subsidy is probably a waste of money."
- "We have to reduce/eliminate fossil fuel use over the next 10 years or fry the planet. Electrified trains, not necessarily high-speed ones, could play a huge part in achieving that goal."
Thanks to everyone who wrote in with high quality food for thought.
 Photo courtesy of ODOT
Do you know other people in the Rogue Valley who might want to know about the issues we’ll be tackling this session, including climate, wildfires and smoke, affordable housing, education (pre-K through higher ed), health care, economic fairness and campaign finance reform? Please invite them to sign up for this newsletter at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/golden. We will not share contact information with anyone else for any reason.
Our best to you for now. Please remember to do what you can do.
Senator Jeff Golden
Chair, Campaign Finance Committee
Senate District 3 (Rogue Valley)
| 
