Oregon has one chance of fixing the budget. This tax is DOA, unless the legislature cuts PERS, size of government, and employee health care to make up half of the deficit, and new taxes for the other half, this biennium and in all future ones. Also all new taxes have to have four features to be passed; justifiable amount, ear mark exactly how the extra revenue will me used, annual accounting//oversight/report/review board, and sunset. These are the components for a tax increase of the future. Too bad government squandered the goodwill of the public to just trust them. Based on the above, I am voting for Lane County jail levy, which wisely has those features.
lol
05/04/2017
When measure 97 was up for discussion, Schill made clear he and ergo UO were squarely in the pockets of our rich corporate trustees, despite tax measures having direct benefits on UO’s budget. Then he has the stones to fire a bunch of nttf because of budget woes instead of taking a paycut.
honest Uncle Bernie
05/04/2017
How did Schill do this? I thought he tried to be scrupulously neutral, which I think was the right posture for a public employee to take on an electoral matter.
lol
05/04/2017
Schill and UO rarely remain neutral, and never on legislative matters that impact the University. UO’s direct lobbying is usually fairly discreet, but a good example of their influence was when other UO groups were jockying for required seats on the Board. If you get on the donor or season football mailing lists you’ll regularly get asked to go to Salem or sign a petition on UO’s behalf.
hustlers
05/04/2017
UO and their lobbyists twisted arms as hard as they could in Salem to cut loose from the State, with promises they could self fund without all that pesky State oversight. The State kept up its end of that bargain, and now UO is broke and private. UO has some nerve to come back to the State begging for handouts, especially after throwing millions of extra dollars on a new football coach we couldn’t afford.
Dog
05/04/2017
Once Again, Patrick Phillips and others will argue that these are all separate pots of money. While I agree that is technically true, the impression that I think exists on the part of the public, including legislators, is that UO can not manage its “private money” in an academically productive way. I could be wrong, but since it never managed its State money in an academically productive way, I am probably not barking up a totally wrong tree …
Athletics Emeritus
05/04/2017
They are seperate pots of money when you’re on the academic side. Schill would never let football money go towards classes. Whenever we wanted to hire or buy something on the athletics side sky was the limit. Usually the foundation but sometimes admin would direct pay or funnel the difference, and then just tax the depts more. Those atb cuts happening right now? Taggart says thanks a million!
Fishwrapper
05/04/2017
Good start, but a very shaky middle. Still, you brought it back to reality for the close.
jackmccoy
05/04/2017
If they were private, dealing with PERS costs wouldn’t be so much trouble…
Oregon has one chance of fixing the budget. This tax is DOA, unless the legislature cuts PERS, size of government, and employee health care to make up half of the deficit, and new taxes for the other half, this biennium and in all future ones. Also all new taxes have to have four features to be passed; justifiable amount, ear mark exactly how the extra revenue will me used, annual accounting//oversight/report/review board, and sunset. These are the components for a tax increase of the future. Too bad government squandered the goodwill of the public to just trust them. Based on the above, I am voting for Lane County jail levy, which wisely has those features.
When measure 97 was up for discussion, Schill made clear he and ergo UO were squarely in the pockets of our rich corporate trustees, despite tax measures having direct benefits on UO’s budget. Then he has the stones to fire a bunch of nttf because of budget woes instead of taking a paycut.
How did Schill do this? I thought he tried to be scrupulously neutral, which I think was the right posture for a public employee to take on an electoral matter.
Schill and UO rarely remain neutral, and never on legislative matters that impact the University. UO’s direct lobbying is usually fairly discreet, but a good example of their influence was when other UO groups were jockying for required seats on the Board. If you get on the donor or season football mailing lists you’ll regularly get asked to go to Salem or sign a petition on UO’s behalf.
UO and their lobbyists twisted arms as hard as they could in Salem to cut loose from the State, with promises they could self fund without all that pesky State oversight. The State kept up its end of that bargain, and now UO is broke and private. UO has some nerve to come back to the State begging for handouts, especially after throwing millions of extra dollars on a new football coach we couldn’t afford.
Once Again, Patrick Phillips and others will argue that these are all separate pots of money. While I agree that is technically true, the impression that I think exists on the part of the public, including legislators, is that UO can not manage its “private money” in an academically productive way. I could be wrong, but since it never managed its State money in an academically productive way, I am probably not barking up a totally wrong tree …
They are seperate pots of money when you’re on the academic side. Schill would never let football money go towards classes. Whenever we wanted to hire or buy something on the athletics side sky was the limit. Usually the foundation but sometimes admin would direct pay or funnel the difference, and then just tax the depts more. Those atb cuts happening right now? Taggart says thanks a million!
Good start, but a very shaky middle. Still, you brought it back to reality for the close.
If they were private, dealing with PERS costs wouldn’t be so much trouble…