Jeff the Great Votes No on 66 & 67

I recently asked my LinkedIn network a thought provoking question. I asked: “When you attempt to solve problems, are you reacting to symptoms or addressing the root cause?”

Let’s put this question into a real life scenario. Say you have a new teenage driver in your household, driving a car you own. They have fallen into a driving style where they accelerate as quickly as possible when a light turns green, only to slam on their brakes up ahead at a red light. This style of driving leads to you having to service the brakes on your car well before the average life of brake pads. When you discover the root of the problem (your teenagers driving habits), do you continue to service the brakes more frequently than you should (addressing the symptom) or do you teach your teenager how to drive more prudently and tell them they will pay for any unnecessary brake service (addressing the root of the problem)? I am guessing you would do the latter.

Oregon has a special election this January where we will vote on proposed tax increases for some individuals (measure 66) as well as changes to the state tax code for most businesses (measure 67). I am voting “No” on both of these because, in part, I believe they treat the symptoms and fail to address the problem.

I am against both measures but I really despise measure 67, the tax increase aimed at businesses. Let’s review the facts and you’ll see why I am so adamantly opposed.

First, don’t believe the television ads that want you to think big corporations only pay the $10 minimum tax. If an Oregon corporation is profitable, it is paying substantial income taxes in Oregon. Nike, Les Schwab Tire Centers, Precision Cast Parts, Columbia Sportswear….these companies ARE NOT paying just the minimum. Companies paying the minimum are those that do not turn a profit. Your locally owned sandwich shop or dry cleaners may not have turned a profit in 2009. Many small businesses don’t. These businesses don’t pay an income tax but they are still paying things like a payroll tax and property tax. These businesses are essentially paying for the opportunity to run a business that is not yet profitable. Measure 67 will make they pay even more for this right.

In addition to increasing the minimum tax on unprofitable companies, measure 67 does more damage. It changes the tax code and taxes some businesses based on sales, not profits. It increases the profit tax on Oregon’s largest employers by 1.3 percentage points. It is retroactive back 13 months. It increases many business paperwork filing fees…some will be doubled; some will be more than tripled.

Do any of these changes address the root cause of the problem or do they simply address the symptoms? I believe that the real problem is Oregon spending money irresponsibly, often spending more than it has. The symptoms are state agencies running out of money sooner than they should and the inability to run in the inefficient ways they are used to.

I read a story today that is a great analogy of what the Oregon legislature is asking us to do. It was about a women that upgraded to a more expensive apartment and leased a new car. Four months later she couldn’t afford the payments and asked her boss for a raise so she could meet the financial obligations she created. She was fired on the spot (from 48 Days to the Work You Love by Dan Miller).

Oregon voters are the boss and the legislature is the lady in over her head financially. Are we going to do what she asks or say no to her selfish demand?

I’ll close with one last anecdote. Recently I was debating these measures with another Oregon voter and he said something interesting. He stated something to the effect of “if the legislature would bring me (the voter) solutions to our problems without increasing taxes, I’d vote in favor of them.” I told him that he needs to tell his legislators to do just that. Something tells me that on January 26th he’ll mark “Yes” on his ballot for 66 & 67 but he won’t follow through with telling his legislators what he expects from them. Me, my “No” vote will be part of my message to Salem.

Jeff the Great votes 'Yes' on 60

If you are an Oregonian you should know that there is a ballot measure in this years election that proposes the end of seniority based pay in favor of performance based pay for teachers in the Oregon public school system. It's called ballot measure 60.

I'm voting yes on this ballot measure because I have a sister who is a phenomenal teacher and I think she should be paid for her outstanding performance. Why should she, as a 3 year veteran, be paid less than a 15 year vet with a 'tenure' attitude towards their work?

Unfortunately, the various teachers unions are brainwashing my sister and her fellow teachers. They are lying to them by saying the ballot measure requires pay based on student test scores. They act as if they have my sisters best interest at heart, when in reality they are for nothing but the status-quo.

Instead of arguing with the teachers unions and pointing out their lies, I'll just let you read the full text of the ballot measure and let you decide for yourself:

Section 1. Teacher pay raises and job security shall be based on job performance.

(a) After the effective date of this 2008 Act, pay raises for public school teachers shall be based upon each teacher’s classroom performance and not related or connected to his or her seniority. If a school district reduces its teaching staff, the district shall retain the teachers who are most qualified to teach the specific subjects, which they will be assigned to teach. A determination as to which teacher is most qualified shall be based upon each teacher’s past classroom experience successfully teaching the specific subject(s) or class, as well his or her as academic training in the relevant subject matter.

(b) This 2008 Act shall be called the “Kids First Act” and shall supersede any previously existing law, rule, or policy with which it conflicts. This Act shall not be implemented in a manner so as to violate or impair the obligation of any contract in existence as of the effective date of this Act, but shall govern later extensions to those contracts and new contracts entered into after the effective date of this Act.

Anywhere in there does it say test scores? In fact, it doesn't even define what performance is. Some say that's bad, I argue its a great thing. This way principals and superintendents get to decide what good performance is.

You know, kinda like how your company and boss does for you if you don't work in the unionized public sector.

I challenged my sister this. I said that if she is okay with seniority based pay, a structure that her union pays millions to defend, then she should have seniority based grading in her classroom.

Older kids get "A's" since they've been around longer and the youngest kids get "F's." Just as fair as their teachers salary.

-Jeff the Great

P.S. Barack Obama supports performance based pay for public school teachers...I'm just say'n.