by Dan Lucas

Final quarterly revenue forecast is in for 2011-2013 budget cycle – up $174.3 million from June 2011 close of session (COS)

The 8th and final quarterly revenue forecast for the current biennial budget cycle, 2011-13, was released this week. It showed a $174 million favorable change from the June 2011 close of session (COS) forecast. The COS forecast was $15.14 billion and this week’s forecast was $15.31 billion for the General and Lottery funds.

The revenue forecasts for the current budget cycle have been a bit of a roller coaster ride – with a steep decline down to -$341 million (change from COS) in the first three quarters to a finish of +$174 million this week. As the Oregonian’s Harry Esteve notes, “The numbers are moving targets, however. They are revised and refined every three months based on the latest economic projections.” This week’s revenue forecast was only the second of the eight to be higher than the COS – six of the eight were in the red.

Throughout the eight quarters of the current biennial budget cycle, the budget cushion, or reserve, spearheaded by Rep. Dennis Richardson (R-Central Point), along with his two Democratic Co-Chairs, has protected Oregon against these revenue forecast swings.

Media reports of a “$271 million windfall” are referring to the combination of the increased revenue projections for the current budget cycle (2011-13) as well as the increased revenue projections for the upcoming budget cycle (2013-15).

But as Harry Esteve noted, “numbers are moving targets.” Below is a chart from the State of Oregon showing what the state has been forecasting the General Fund & Lottery Fund revenue would be for the 2013-15 budget cycle. The first forecast in the chart was made in December 2010, and over the time since then the forecasts for the 2013-15 budget cycle have been as high as $17.4 billion and as low as $16.4 billion. The forecast released this week is $16.9 billion (General Fund & Lottery Fund).

by Roger O. McClellan

WASHINGTON and Oregon are in the middle of an intense debate about whether to expand facilities to ship coal to Asia.

As a former resident of Washington state and one who has family that lives in the area, I have followed this issue with interest. As a scientist who spent my career in toxicology evaluating human health risks, what I am seeing in this debate concerns me.

What I find most troublesome is how anecdotal evidence and opinions of a handful of people, rather than scientific evidence, are being used in an attempt to sway the public on the export terminals.

A coalition of environmental groups recently put coal companies and BNSF Railway on notice that they intend to bring a lawsuit over coal dust from uncovered railway cars. They claim the dust is causing damage to land and rivers along rail lines, and are mounting this campaign under a provision of the Clean Water Act, which gives companies 60 days to respond before the suit is filed in federal court.

Coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is currently being shipped by rail to ports in Washington state and Oregon. Some groups opposed to expanding ports in the Northwest claim the trains leave coal dust along the rail lines that skirt the Columbia River and Puget Sound.

We are told, for example, someone saw something fall off a train. Or someone else found a chunk of coal in a river. This is not the kind of science-based approach needed to inform public-policy decisions on this important issue. In the campaign to block expansion of export terminals, some important facts are being left out of the debate.

For starters, claiming that finding a piece of coal on the ground or in the water leads in a direct line to a health or environmental risk violates one of the basic tenets of toxicology and risk assessment — the mere presence of a substance does not indicate harm. There are other factors that need to be taken into account, the main one being exposure.

Just because a piece of coal is found in the water or coal dust is found near a rail track does not mean humans are exposed to it. Coal is not a substance that breaks down easily. Coal is relatively innocuous. Simply moving it by trains or trucks or barges does not equate to a risk to the environment or human health.

Coal continues to play an important role in meeting energy needs around the world, with steady improvements made in its transport and use. Coal has been transported through the Northwest by rail for decades and there has never been any evidence of harm associated with this rail transport.

There needs to be robust and open debate on the merits of expanding the export terminals. These terminals, which serve as a gateway to Asia, have been an important part of the regional economy for more than a century. Debate over the terminals should be grounded in scientific facts and analysis. Well-established scientific approaches should be used to evaluate any potential environmental and human-health impacts.

Scientific assessments such as the one being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers should provide clarity and context for decisions by public officials. Science-based assessments should also identify any constraints needed to assure protection of the environment and public health. The public at large should encourage and, indeed, demand such assessments.

Until such assessments are completed, it is plainly irresponsible to release exaggerated claims and mislead the public and regulators about the impact of transporting coal through the Northwest. Over the long run, pseudoscience and alarmist claims serve no one in this debate. Regulators and the public need an honest assessment on any potential risks based on sound science and clearheaded reasoning.

Roger O. McClellan, an expert on toxicology and human health-risk analysis, is former chairman of the National Research Council Committee on Toxicology, past Chairman of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and a member of the Institute of Medicine.

This oped originally published in The Seattle Times on May 9, 2013

h/t Townhall.com on Facebook

President Obama is coming under increasing criticism – not just for the increasing number of scandals in his administration but for being clueless about them – for learning about them when we the public learn about them – from the news and not from his own administration!

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart had a segment on it this week:

The Associated Press reports today that President Obama is trying to work on his clueless image, “Faced with a trio of controversies, President Barack Obama is trying to halt a perception spreading among both White House opponents and allies that he has been passive and disengaged as unexpected developments consume his second term.”

Today’s AP article also contains a quote from Republican National Committee spokesman Kirsten Kukowski, “If Obama really learned about the latest IRS and AP secret subpoena scandals in the news, who exactly is running the ship at the White House?”

The 2013 Legislature may end up without a terrible tax increase — and lawmakers should keep pressing for this as we are so close to the end. The $260 million business tax failed miserably helping to discourage the next idea. The rational for a tax increase has been absent in light of the fact that the state is getting $1.7 billion in projected new revenue (taxpayers are already doing their part). Furthermore, the $14 billion government pension PERS crisis is now obvious to everyone and savings are within reach, not just avoid painful taxes but to keep our public pension system from exploding every Session.

This week Governor Kitzhaber has added to the mix by calling for more PERS reform and only $200 million in new revenue. Finding $200 million in savings and cutting government waste is attainable without the need for divisive and economy threatening higher taxes. Message to lawmakers: There is no need for higher taxes on families or small business — end this Session like other state legislatures do by living with the ($1.7 billion) increased revenue taxpayers have delivered. No new taxes.

Senate Republican Office & House Republican Office

Salem, OR – Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) and House Republican Leader Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte) issued the following statement in response to Governor Kitzhaber’s (D) Wednesday press conference:

“Republicans share the Governor’s desire for a bi-partisan solution to Oregon’s broken PERS system and a balanced state budget. Republicans have worked hard since day one of session to facilitate a bi-partisan process that can lead to a compromise proposal with Democrats. These conversations have been productive and continue to occur.”

“We appreciate the Governor putting a plan on the table.  There are parts we like.  Giving tax relief to low income Oregonians and small businesses are important steps in getting Oregon’s economy back on track.  However, while the Governor has offered additional PERS reform measures, they still do not solve the problem for schools, fire departments and local governments.  As advocated by the Oregon School Board Association, Stand for Children and many others, we must fix PERS to protect the services on which we all depend.  If we are going to invest the time and effort to tackle the PERS issue, we cannot settle for partial solutions.  We must solve the problem.”

“We look forward to continuing to work with Governor to reach an agreement which helps move Oregon forward.”

Right From the Start

Last week my wife asked whether I believed there was evil in the world.  In just a short while we have experienced the Newtown shooting of grade school children, the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon, the lurid and graphic trial of Jodie Arias, the equally graphic and horrifying trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, and the discovery of serial kidnapper and rapist Ariel Castro.  Of course evil exists in the world.

Amongst all of these I would argue that the most evil is Kermit Gosnell. The descriptions of the filth of his clinics, the cavalier treatment of his patients, the proliferation of drugs by untrained personnel, and most importantly the routine execution of children born alive during illegal late term abortion procedures places Mr. Gosnell among the most vile creatures on earth.

Mr. Gosnell was charged with four instances of murder and convicted of three of them.  Left for us to contemplate is the number of other babies that Mr. Gosnell executed in precisely the same way – using scissors or a scalpel to sever the spinal column – over a nearly forty year career as an abortionist.  And he did it for the money – not for some charitable concern, and not for some political belief in a woman’s right to choose – it was for the money.  The testimony in the case described a person indifferent to his patient, mechanical in his procedures and demanding of his employees.

His conviction of over two hundred felony and misdemeanor counts, including the murder of the three infants, ensure his imprisonment for the rest of his life and puts him at risk for the death penalty.  He is a monster.  He will meet other monsters in prison and he will dwell for eternity with other monsters before him.

But evil has a corrosive effect and draws others into its malevolence.  And that is true with the case of Mr. Gosnell.  First, there is a mainstream media that declined to report the story initially because it drew attention to the ugly side of abortion.  Abortion is the litmus test for liberalism which in turn dominates the Democratic Party and the mainstream media.  The bias of the press is more apparent in what it chooses not to report than what it does report.  To be fair, it was former Democratic strategist and Daily Beast columnist, Kirsten Powers that embarrassed her colleagues in the liberal media into eventually reporting the latter part of Mr. Gosnell’s House of Horrors.

And then there is former Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA) who decided unilaterally to stop inspections of abortion clinics – a decision that would have revealed the criminal activities of Mr. Gosnell more than a decade before his arrest, trial and conviction of murder and criminal abortion practices.  Mr. Ridge is a pro-abortion Republican who chose to ignore the law in furtherance of his own political career.  He will live – not in prison – but with burden of responsibility for failing to prevent this butchery.

Add to that Planned Parenthood who had received repeated reports of the abusive practices of Mr. Gosnell and also chose to remain silent.  But then Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider and advocate in the nation.  Criticism of abortion practices is simply not in its lexicon.

And finally, there is President Barack Obama who was the single vote opposing a bill in the Illinois legislature that makes precisely the practices of Mr. Gosnell illegal in Illinois.  Despite Mr. Obama’s latter day protestations, equivocations and prevarications to the contrary, Mr. Obama voted not once, not twice but four times in opposition to a bill that would have provided protection to children born during a botched abortion.  Someday he may well have to explain to his children why he sided with the butchery of practitioners like Mr. Gosnell over the well being of innocent children.

Yes, there is evil in the world.  It not only manifests itself in the actions of criminals like Mr. Gosnell, but it ensnares those who equivocate about human life in the name of political correctness.

Despite all of this – maybe, in fact, because of all of this, I still oppose the death penalty.  Once the public safety has been secured by imprisoning people like Mr. Gosnell for life, the death penalty becomes more like revenge than like justice.

by Dan Lucas

People who are granted extensive power over our lives need to understand that power and they need to understand the equally extensive responsibilities that come with that power. Abuses of that power must be met with swift and harsh discipline.

The Obama administration has shown a dangerous ignorance of the power they have been granted by the American people, and an equally dangerous willingness to abuse that power for petty political pursuits.

It literally took my breath away when the White House introduced flag@whitehouse.gov back in 2009. What a chilling effect on the public discourse, and what an astonishing abuse of power. For me, it brought back memories of what I’d seen the former East Germans and Soviets do to keep their populaces in line.

The most recent examples of abuses of power are very disturbing and represent threats to some very fundamental cornerstones of what keeps us a free society.

• Editing Benghazi CIA talking points
• IRS targeting conservative groups
• Justice Department secretly obtaining AP phone records

These abuses should be thoroughly investigated and anyone involved should be disciplined to the fullest extent of the law. Additionally, new safeguards need to be put in place to prevent these types of abuses in the future. These are serious, dangerous abuses of power.

by Dennis Linthicum

The Klamath County Budget Committee is getting plenty of feedback with regard to Meals on Wheels and the Senior Center.  The committee is not struggling with the validity or need for the Meals on Wheels program. The issue, given the local stagnant economy and declining county revenue, is whether it would be fiscally prudent to fund these programs at current levels.

Public commentary is mixed but there is a sense that as long as the program passes the “compassion” threshold, then it should be funded.

One perspective supposedly has “compassion” and the other doesn’t. Long-term fiscal responsibility appears to show a cold-hearted mathematical meanness rather than a real heart-felt compassion for the public good.

Government Doesn’t Represent Compassion

Government expenditures are not compassionate. Within welfare service programs the government only engages in financial transactions. Their function entails gathering resources then providing a mix of services or resources back to certain segments of the population. There is no heart in this effort, per se, it’s a job that gets accomplished.

If the money happens to be used by a public service organization then those service employees may have compassion. However. those individuals are not compassionate because they received government money. Those individuals show compassion because they are morally capable human beings.

Your dog, or the neighbor’s cat, is not morally capable of compassion. Neither is government. Remember, government represents nothing more than the shear legal authority and self-justified power to collect tax-payer funds for its own partisan advantage.

George Washington made the claim, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”   This phrase might well be apocryphal according to Fred Shapiro, editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, but its meaning is clear.

Where Does “Compassion” Come From?

Real compassion stems from individuals. It is the result of individual action not collective action.  Certainly, as a group joins in a common effort they can exhibit better results – better prices, quantity discounts, more people served, etc. But, again, this is because the caring individuals have voluntarily joined in a community to positively impact their neighborhoods. This is real community. This is real compassion. Accept no substitutes.

An Illustration

In Klamath County, here is a simple illustration of what is required to collect any amount of taxes:

1. The County’s Assessor office assesses the value of property within the county’s boundary, along with any and all improvements, annually.

Question: When the Assessor’s staff assigns value to land or improvements are they being “compassionate” or are they adhering to Oregon’s Revised Statues (ORS’s)?

2. The County Tax Collector’s office sends Tax Statements to property owners based upon assessed value, collects taxes paid and pursues the collection of delinquent accounts, fines, and penalties, annually.

Question: When the Tax Collector’s office pursues these interests are they exhibiting “compassion” or compliance with any and all appropriate ORS chapters?

3. Property owners pay taxes for county services – the administration of justice,  public safety, public health, zoning, planning, public works, animal control, schools, et. al., annually.

Question: When the property owner pays these taxes is he exhibiting “compassion” or compliance with the law?

4. Everyday during the year, County employees process all of this paperwork (according to rule and statute) and then outside Auditors verify that everything was accomplished according to the appropriate set of formalized procedures.

Question: When these actions were being performed was anyone exhibiting “compassion” or were they only displaying a keen fondness for following the rules that govern their employment?

At this point, we have added more costs and overhead ¹ to the equation than “compassion” or “benevolence”. Where would a committee’s “compassion” come from? Here are two choices:

1. If the Committee were to encourage productive and sincere involvement from individuals, neighbors, churches and friends, would the committee be exhibiting “compassion”, or not?
2. If the Committee were to provide short-term funding at the expense of long-term fiscal responsibility, would the Committee be praised for their “compassion”? If the Committee were to allocate scarce financial resources away from mandated county services, would the committee be more “compassionate”, or not?

“True compassion is a bulwark of strong families and communities, of liberty and self-reliance, while the false compassion of the second usage is fraught with great danger and dubious results.

True compassion is people helping people out of a genuine sense of caring and brotherhood. It is not asking your legislator or congressman to do it for you. True compassion comes from your heart, not from the state or federal treasury. True compassion is a deeply personal thing…” ²

Dennis Linthicum is a member of the Klamath County Board of Commissioners

Oregon Senate Republican Office

Oregon Democrats extend tax break for big business – but they vote down tax relief for small businesses

Salem, OR – Providing a stark contrast in priorities, Democrats handily passed a bill Monday morning that extends millions in tax breaks for big shipping corporations while defeating a Republican proposal to give property tax relief to small Oregon businesses.

“Democrats continue to give nothing but lip-service and symbolic gestures to Oregon small businesses,” said Senator Tim Knopp (R-Bend). “This was an opportunity to do something for small employers and the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians they employ. Unfortunately, Democrats are becoming known around here as the party of ‘no’ and today proved to be no exception.”

Republicans used a procedural move known as a “minority report” to bring a modest small business tax relief proposal to the Senate floor. The proposal would have increased the amount of total assessed value of taxable personal property that can be exempted from property taxation from $16,000 to $25,000. The proposal mirrors Senate Bill 670, a bill Republicans have been unable to get a hearing on in committee. Democrats defeated the proposal on a party line vote, 14 to 15.

Later in the morning, Democrats pushed House Bill 2904 through the Senate, a bill that extends the sunset for property tax exemption for cargo containers.

“House Bill 2904 may be decent policy, but the benefits of a property tax exemption should be made available to small businesses as well as big shipping corporations,” said Senator Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day). “If we are going to move beyond a slow and sluggish recovery into a period of robust growth, we have to start taking proactive steps to nurture, support and encourage Oregon small businesses.”

Senate Republicans have proposed a laundry list of bills that could aid small businesses in Oregon and spur economic growth. They have also organized an Oregon Jobs Caucus to work in a bi-partisan way on jobs bills.