It is much more than "just a budget".......

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 09:14 AM

While it is very easy to say "it is just a budget", the reality is that cutting the budget effects real people with real problems.

And, like it or not, society as a whole will ultimately pay the price beyond the suffering and misery of individuals.

Some human consequences of budget cuts........

roadsend · 10-12-2003, 09:50 AM

While the need exists for drug companies to make a reasonable return on their investment to continue research on better medications, so also is it neccessary that the needy in our society have access to essential medications.
You would think that a state which can afford to risk (read:committ) millions of dollars to facilitate a professional sports team could take care of medications for the neediest of its folks.
The article is correct. It will cost us more money in the long run. It will also cost us more of our humanity.

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 10:09 AM

It's not quite that simple. It is now possible to literally keeps a severed human head alive, but at an unbelievably huge cost. The technology of health care is such that there is no way to afford the kind of technology that it is possible to deliver. No way. So you gotta cut somewhere. The Oregon Health Plan is the first plan nationwide to recognize the limitations of cost vs. technology and make a few hard decisions.

Think about it. I have heart disease. I take prescription drugs costing about $1,000 a month. Without them I am but a memory.

A new heart would fix me right up. But if everyone who has heart disease gets a new heart, or everyone with liver cirrhosis gets a new liver, or everyone who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease gets a couple of new lungs, we'd all be quite healthy and equally broke.

Anyone who has health insurance or pays federal taxes now guarantees a pretty good level of health care to those who walk into a hospital emergency room with no funds or insurance. We all subsidize those folks.

There are no easy answers. The toughest question of all hasn't, for the most part, yet been answered (or even asked). For those who receive their health care from the "contributions" of the rest of us, who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Hmmm?

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Think about it. I have heart disease. I take prescription drugs costing about $1,000 a month. Without them I am but a memory.

And if you were in a position to have to rely on public assistance, you would likely welcome the subsidized drugs, would you not?

Quote:

A New heart would fix me right up. But if everyone who has heart disease gets a new heart, or everyone with liver cirrhosis gets a new liver, or everyone who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease gets a couple of new lungs, we'd all be quite healthy and equally broke.

Therefore, while still very expensive, it is likely less so in the long run to subsidize drugs rather than transplants.

Quote:

The toughest question of all hasn't, for the most part, yet been answered (or even asked). For those who receive their health care from the "contributions" of the rest of us, who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Hmmm?

Exactly. And, to take it a step further, once it is decided who dies, who pays for dealing with the dead and dying????

[ 10-12-2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 10:38 AM

A little perspective. In the 1999-2001 biennium the Oregon Health Plan spent $2.5 billion to deliver health care to 12% of the Oregon population. In the 2001-2003 biennium Oregon taxpayers are spending $3.2 billion for the care of 13% of the Oregon population. That is a $700,000,000 increase, or about $230 greater cost per Oregonian. (July 2003 Health Care Issues, Portland City Club briefing notes)

Not exactly a spending cut. But again it is expressed as a "budget cut" by those who would take every nickle of your money as taxes and then complain that it is still not enough.

Interesting, eh?

[ 10-12-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 10:45 AM

It has to be looked at as a per capita cost.

Our population as well as the number of people with health problems have grown and will continue to as we boomers age and more and more retirees move to the state.

Further, thanks to large increases in substance abuse, the needs of younger people is increasing greatly as well.

Nothing silly about it if you consider all of the factors, not look at it as "just a budget", in my opinion.

[ 10-12-2003, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 10:53 AM

Straydog. You stun me at times with your logic.

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 12:04 PM

1. Picture a budget providing services for 1,000 people at $1,000.

2. Picture those needing the services of said budget raising from 1000 to 1,200. One would expect the budget to raise proportionatly.

3. Budget does not raise proportionatly.
The amount of budget available to provide increased services relative to increased demand is not there. Budget for services has been reduced when looked at in the big, per capita picture.

If all else remained static and the budget was increased, you would then have a per capita increase. When all else does not remain static and the monies available for same services but to larger population are not there, you have a reduced per capita budget.

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 12:28 PM

Aha. Thank you Straydog.

So since Oregon Health Plan spending will definitely increase by 28% per biennium (from $2.5 billion in 2001 to $3.2 billion in 2003, according to the State's own numbers), that same spending increase --- which you are calling a budget CUT --- will double the expenditures to $6.4 billion in 2.7 biennial periods, or about 5 years (rule of 72). By 2008 Oregonians will be paying $6.4 billion, by 2013 $12.8 billion, by 2018 $25.2 billion. Lessee now, by 2018 that means that the average Oregonian, corrected for population increases per actual history, will be paying $6,000 in annual taxes to provide funding for the Oregon Health Plan.

Mind you, that is not spending per household. It is per person. With the average household of about 4 persons, spending on this tax will be $24,000 per year.

And you will still be crying about "budget cuts". Do you see any flaw in this approach to taxation?

[ 10-12-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 12:46 PM

Thumper,

For the record, I am not crying nor have I been crying about budget cuts.

Your example relies on that which can not be relied upon.

Do we know that the need for care will continue to rise as it has the last decade? No.

Do we know that the costs of medicine, health insurance and other healthcare related services will continue to rise as they have in recent history? No.

Do we know that unemployment and the budget strains it brings will continue to rise? No.

It is interesting that some would lable liberals as "doom and gloomers" yet your conservative view of the future of health care budgets is flat scarey!?!?!?!!!
:smile:

[ 10-12-2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 12:49 PM

Yeah, ain't it. And that is what scares me about the tax and spend folks.

There is not enough money in Oregon, now or in the future, to satisfy some.

[ 10-12-2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 01:02 PM

Regardless of who is right or wrong in this discussion, the question remains, what is the most cost effective, viable way to deal with the people in need, whether they be so by choice or otherwise?

Shall we be what you lable "tax and spend" people or should we be, as we have heard from the conservatives in the Oregon Legislature, the "borrow and spend" people? Bottom line is, no once could come up with cuts that the public would accept to balance the budget.

If we are to simply cut them off, as I am guessing is your view,(you've offerd no alternatives, anyway) it take us back to the question you proposed earlier, "who decides who lives and who dies"?

[ 10-12-2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 01:07 PM

And that is the fundamental, unanswered question. And nobody knows the answer.

One thing I do know. Throwing money at health care, or any other class of expenditures, is not the answer. We need to move beyond tax and spend to find new, responsible ways to care for the less fortunate.

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 01:12 PM

The bottom line is also, caring for them is going to cost money. You can call it "throwing money at the problem", or you can call it "tax and spend", or you can call it "borrow and spend" or you can call it "charitable contributions".

The bottom line remains the same, it costs money to provide services, regardless of who is managing the system.

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 01:44 PM

Or some people just don't get covered. :depressed: Currently The Oregon Health Plan covers 558 of 736 diseases or infirmities. It does not cover the other 178 diseases or disorders. Those are the folks you read about.

One way to control spending is to just keep decreasing the number of covered disorders, gradually leaving more people out in the cold without coverage. That may be the only solution short of economic ruin for the state.

Everything we have been saying about the Oregon Health Plan is true in spades (add a zero or two) for the nation. The problem with the original failed Clinton single payer system is that technology leaps faster than the ability of Americans to pay the bill.

It is gonna be a interesting century.

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thumper:

Everything we have been saying about the Oregon Health Plan is true in spades (add a zero or two) for the nation. The problem with the original failed Clinton single payer system is that technology leaps faster than the ability of Americans to pay the bill.

It is gonna be a interesting century.

I strongly agree with you here! :smile:

BrionLutz · 10-12-2003, 08:38 PM

Thumper,

Quote:

In the 2001-2003 biennium Oregon taxpayers are spending $3.2 billion for the care of 13% of the Oregon population.

I don't see those numbers in the budget.
The budget numbers show $3.5B total but that's for all of Human Services not just Oregon Health plan and close to $2B of that is Federal money. Remember OHP is a Medicare program.
Oregon Health and Human Services Budget

It is confusing though, perhaps you have a link to other numbers. And of course the numbers are always changing.

Brion

Straydog · 10-12-2003, 11:05 PM

Interesting reply.

I have noticed that Lars talks of being stunned every few minutes on his talk show. (If one were to take him literally, you would think he is in a stunned daze most of the time!! [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] Good thing we can believe so little of what he says......

)

Maybe there is a correlation between those that are so often stunned and their seeming inability to look at or grasp the big picture of reality.

Maybe there is a need for a study of "Stunned Ultra-conservatives" and their issues as they relate to civilized society. I bet we could get a State angency started to fund a study for us!!

:grin:

[ 10-12-2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

lost_sailor · 10-12-2003, 11:13 PM

Bottom line: 50,000,000 Iraqi citizens are free to enjoy militarily-imposed American democracy. Everything else is secondary.

I'm sure if Thumper was in a position to require public assistance, he would sooner die than be a burden on his fellow citizens.

I know, I would!

[ 10-12-2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

Thumper · 10-12-2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Maybe there is a correlation between those that are so often stunned and their seeming inability to look at or grasp the big picture of reality.

Please do indeed enlighten me about the big picture. Tell me how an increase of 700 million dollars in two years; i.e., an increase of 28%, is considered a "budget cut." I would love to hear that rationale.

Cool Texan · 10-13-2003, 06:16 AM

Its unfortunate to read of people who are struggling and/or suffering due to the cuts. Hopefully some day our good people in Salem will figure out how to get Oregon back on track. However, that will probably be a long way off due to spending habits that apparently are not changing. Instead of reworking the budgets, they are simply cutting services such as education and these health related areas. Its a shame, but those are the Salem based decisions we must live with. When it comes time to vote on the tax increase, I will still vote NO though. Drop the current budget, and rebuild it from the bottom up. Scale back areas, remove redundant functions/processes, look for automation, etc. If none of that works...you can always close hatcheries if you really want to be able to divert spending for the sake of people such as those in the article. Point being, budgets are about making tough decisions. Salem made their decisions, and now the fallout begins. Raising taxes is not the answer in my opinion.

Question...does anyone know the last time the Oregon budget went through an independent, external, audit? It would be interesting to review all of the line item details to see where the spending really happens, on what, etc.

pdxkevin · 10-13-2003, 06:26 AM

The reality, also, is not cutting the budget effects real people, too.

Straydog · 10-13-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
If none of that works...you can always close hatcheries if you really want to be able to divert spending for the sake of people such as those in the article.

Or raise tarrifs on imported luxury status symbols.

Why pick on anglers that support hatcheries with license fees? Does you drivers license fee go towards supporting foreign auto production?

[ 10-13-2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Cool Texan · 10-13-2003, 06:37 AM

Leave it to you to take personal shots at people Stray.

Who was picking on anglers? I threw it out as an option, if people really cared that much about the problem addressed in the article, since this is an anglers board. My primary focus was that the Oregon budget needs to be reworked.

Straydog · 10-13-2003, 06:56 AM

Let's see.......... a person that makes his living in part via the tackle industry puts up a post concerning state budget shortfalls.

A known and admited rival and antagoniser of said poster puts up a post suggesting the closure of hatcheries to offest budget defecits.

Who made this personal? [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

I admit fault for taking your bait but please, you are not nearly as obscure nor clever as you seemingly think.

Who was picking on anglers? YOU were. You chose one of the few budget items that are user funded and chose (just by chance..... yea right.)to suggest that one be pilfered.

Spare me your "higher road" malarky. I am not in the market for any of your nonsense and rhetoric.

[ 10-13-2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Pete · 10-13-2003, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Question...does anyone know the last time the Oregon budget went through an independent, external, audit? It would be interesting to review all of the line item details to see where the spending really happens, on what, etc

All states are required by federal law to publish an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report which complies with the GAAP guidelines. Oregon does comply with that law. The Secretary of State has responsibility for producing the report. Certainly, the SoS is a state employee, but because the document is public, is reviewed extensively by citizens and federal accountants, is the basis for bonding-meaning that the private bankers on Wall Street review the document and if any of them found that it didn't comply with GAAP there would be a major uproar.

You can read more about it HERE.

lost_sailor · 10-13-2003, 07:18 AM

Ironically, I would guess we can't afford an independent audit. Every agency? A huge task.

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 10:07 AM

Cool Texan,

Quote:

Point being, budgets are about making tough decisions. Salem made their decisions, and now the fallout begins. Raising taxes is not the answer in my opinion.

Raising taxes is the hard decision. Cutting taxes is the "soft" solution. Anyone can demagogue with vague ideas on "waste, fraud and abuse" but it takes some guts to belly up to the bar pay for it.

As an historical (recent) note, in 1993 we raised taxes, this cut the deficit and the result was greater economic growth, jobs growth, budget surplus and the first pay down in the debt since 1972.

Brion
PS On the "making it personal" issue you raise. Straydog questioned the spending cut ideas you brought up, you questioned Straydog. Keep it focused on the ideas, not the people.

PPS Pete...thanks for the link to the budget figures source.

El Shaddai · 10-13-2003, 12:25 PM

Increase taxes....didn't they try that in California?

Let's see....since last May when President Bush signed his last tax cut in to law the Dow is up 18% and the Nasdaq is up 21%....that is equal to adding a trillion dollars in net worth to individuals....the economy is growing at a healthy rate...there was new job growth in September despite productivity gains....

Now if we could only get spending under control we would make another couple of rounds of tax cuts without running a deficit....

Lower taxes + lower spending = prosperity

Higher taxes + higher spending = California

You decide.....

Cool Texan · 10-13-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by El Shaddai:

Lower taxes + lower spending = prosperity

Higher taxes + higher spending = California

You decide.....

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

id. painter · 10-13-2003, 01:00 PM

Elshaddai. Thank you for stating it so simply.
I dont understand why that is such a tough concept to grip. id. painter

C-lice · 10-13-2003, 01:53 PM

A very large part of the OHP cost problem is that the cost of managed care (read: HMOs) is increasing at an incredible rate. This holds true for government-subsidized programs as well as private insurance.

There were two key components to OHP when it became law 1.) Get universal coverage to all Oregonians who a.) have income less than or equal to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and b.) have no other insurance. 2.) Enroll all OHP recipients into managed care so the state can get the most "bang for its buck".

Let's look @ #1. When OHP came along there were very few criteria. Basically, if one had less than the FPL in the month in which he applied, and had no other health insurance, he got OHP for 6 months. This meant OHP wound up covering people like, say, ranchers or commercial fishermen who made a lot of income one month and then no income the next month. Then rules requiring a 3-month income averaging step were passed so people, in theory, who made more than the FPL most of the time but less some of the time couldn't qualify. THEN there was a resource limit of $10,000.00 imposed so people with a lot of money in the bank but little income couldn't qualify. THEN there was a monthly premium imposed. THEN the list of covered diagnoses was shortened. THEN certain drugs were not covered. And now it is what it is today, a more expensive, less comprehensive shell of what Kitzhaber intended it to be.

Looking @ #2, the budget analysts realized HMOs were going to be crucial to providing this sort of care. What they didn't realize was how much capitation payment costs would increase (I don't have current figures, but it's a lot). For OHP clients, the state makes a monthly "capitation payment" to an HMO for each OHP recipient. When the patient's doctor performs a procedure, he bills the HMO. The HMOs make money by gambling that your capitation payments will total more than the doctors bills, over time. Therefore you get cheap drugs, long waits, and mothers going home 8 hours after childbirth with HMOs.

By the way Brion, OHP is not a Medicare program. Medicare recipients cannot get OHP. Medicare is strictly a Social Security program. Medicare recipients who received Medicaid benefits were put on managed care in 1995-96 in a program foolisly entitled "OHP Phase II". Medicare recipients cannot receive OHP because Medicare is other insurance, and OHP recipients can't have other insurance.

IMHO, OHP was the main plank in Kitzhaber's platform when he ran for governor. Democrats were really beating the healthcare drum in the early 90's--remember Hillary? OHP got Kitzhaber elected, and immediately began experiencing cuts so it wouldn't become cost prohibitive.

OHP, even in its current form, is better insurance for poor, otherwise uninsured people than is available in most states. What Kitzhaber banked on, and what is being contested today, is the philosophical struggle between Oregon's tradition of "taking care of its own" and Oregonians wanting to rein in spending. The folderol in Salem is the result of us, as a state, trying to decide which is more important. If we want to provide above average medical care to the poor, it's going to cost us. If we want to have lower taxes, it's going to come, at least in part, at the expense of the poor's health.

DanS · 10-13-2003, 02:04 PM

Informative post, C-lice. Thanks.

Cool Texan · 10-13-2003, 02:14 PM

I second that...very informative post.

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 05:46 PM

Cool Texan,

Quote:

If an audit were commenced to review the spending and structure of the government in Oregon, and all results were positive, or most of them, then I'd agree that a tax increase may be what is needed.

Pete gave you the link for the audit which is done every time we do a budget. According to what you say above, since it is audited and has been gone over in great detail by everyone in the legislature and executive branch, you will be voting to retain the current audited budget.

Quote:

For the record, my post was neither personal nor directed at SD.

Dude! Come'on now, look at your comment below. You definitely went personal on the Dog when he commented on your idea on cutting hatchery funding. He suggested a luxury tax on imports. That's a legit revenue idea.

Quote:

Leave it to you to take personal shots at people Stray

Your comment below would have been an example of going for the idea vs. the person.

Quote:

Hatcheries were used only because this is a fishing board, and is thus the most applicable.

Brion

Straydog · 10-13-2003, 05:57 PM

CLice,

Very informative, thanks.

------------------------------------------------

Quote:

or even addressing him anymore than I have to.

Under what circumstance does anyone "have" to address anyone else on this forum? :whazzup:

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 05:58 PM

C-Lice,

Quote:

By the way Brion, OHP is not a Medicare program.

Scusa...Medicaid not Medicare, point was that close to 50% is Federally funded. Oregon received a special waiver from Medicaid rules for Federal funding for being innovative in providing health care.

An interesting consideration is that for each dollar we spend on OHP, we receive a dollar from the Feds.

<a href="http://www.dhs.state.or.us/healthplan/app_benefits/whatsohp2.html" target="_blank">When the Oregon Health Plan was introduced in 1994, it offered one benefit package for all members, regardless of age or income. It was a way of offering Medicaid benefits to more Oregonians.

In order to help control costs, and to make the Oregon Health Plan available to more people, the Oregon Legislature in 2001 approved a change in the Medicaid part of the Oregon Health Plan </a>

Brion

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 06:46 PM

El Shaddai,

Quote:

Lower taxes + lower spending = prosperity
Higher taxes + higher spending = California

You decide.....

History decided. 1993 Tax increase, lower deficits, huge GDP and job growth, first pay down of the Debt in 30 years.

1981 tax cuts, huge deficits, 1980's were the lowest GDP growth decade in post WWII era, record Deficts, record Debt.

2001 tax cuts, huge deficits, low GDP growth, huge job loss, record debt.

The numbers are inexorable, one of those "perceptions" vs. reality things <grin>.

For those interested in lowering Federal spending, keep in mind the Reagan/Bush Sr debt increased Federally spending by 7% just to pay the interest on the new Debt.

Bush Jr is adding another $1T in Debt and another 3% in total Federal Spending to pay just the interest on the new Debt he has run up.

The biggest increase in Federal spending has been to pay for the interest on the Reagan/Bush Sr/Bush Jr increases in National Debt.

Had we stuck with the Clintonomics, we would be running surpluses, paying down the debt and decreasing Federal spending by 5%. That's where we need to go.

Same applies to Oregon. By not having a sensible budget (the one just passed) we risk losing jobs over cuts in education, police, infrastructure, redevelopment, bond ratings etc.

Sometimes we have to substitute common sense for rhetoric.

Brion

10-13-2003, 06:46 PM

Brion,

That link was to the Health budget. My comment on the audit was in regards to the state budget. As is, from that link, I found nothing referring to audits, or who performed it. If I am missing it, let me know...I did a search for "audit" and "audited" and found nothing.

As for the personal thing...go back and re-read it. This is iFish....emphasis on FISH. We have one common thread, fishing. Thus my example that there are areas we COULD cut if we really wanted to, in order to fund other areas. No way would I want to shut down hatcheries so as to fund the OHP. Scale back other gub'ment areas, yes....then divert that money for education and health care. There was nothing personal about my post, and it was not aimed at any specific person.

[ 10-13-2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Texass ]

Fshklr · 10-13-2003, 06:55 PM

Hmmm,
Is cool texan and texass the same person? inquireing ifisher just curious. :grin:
let the debate continue... [img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

10-13-2003, 06:56 PM

Yes....one is home, one is work. Apparently I got logged out at home, and dont know the log in info. If I do the email function it doesnt come here. :grin:

freespool · 10-13-2003, 07:18 PM

So are Brion Lutz and Freespool the same person?

Straydog · 10-13-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freespool:
So are Brion Lutz and Freespool the same person?

The plot thickens..................! :shocked:

El Shaddai · 10-13-2003, 08:15 PM

Brion...you crack me up....take that rhetoric and head for the kiddy court....

Fact #1- The economy was in a recession the quarter prior to Bush becoming president.

Fact #2- The economy is now out of recession because of aggressive tax cuts (good) and increased government spending (not so good).

Fact #3- Look to California for your Clintonomics model.

I was still in grade school during the Reagan era, but economic history seems to contradict your statements. It seems as if he turned an ailing economy around.....true, he ran deficits, which I oppose, but there is not a clear model that taxation equals prosperity.....

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 08:26 PM

Texass,

Quote:

That link was to the Health budget. My comment on the audit was in regards to the state budget.

The link to the audited state budget is in Pete's message further up the this message thread. Oh..what the hey.

Oregon's fiscal year begins July 1 and ends on June 30 of each year. The State of Oregon's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report has won the Government Finance Officer's Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting each year since 1992. That distinction notes the credibility of the information being provided based on financial accounting and reporting standards.

Quote:

Thus my example that there are areas we COULD cut if we really wanted to, in order to fund other areas.

I don't see you posting any previous messages so your reference above is a bit confusing. If you want to cut the ODFW budget, feel free to post the cuts you would like to see after you've read the budget.

Quote:

No way would I want to shut down hatcheries so as to fund the OHP. Scale back other gub'ment areas, yes.

Oops...the slippery slope begins...don't cut my stuff, cut the other guy's "waste, fraud and abuse".

Brion

Straydog · 10-13-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by El Shaddai:

Fact #2- The economy is now out of recession because of aggressive tax cuts (good) and increased government spending (not so good).

Some analysts are still disputing this opinion.

Remember, Bush told us the war was over too........

freespool · 10-13-2003, 08:31 PM

ElShaddai,here's a thumb nail of Reagonomics. It was referred to as reverse Robin Hood. Very
clever of you to blame the present economic down turn on Clinton. I'am sure the voting public will grasp that concept quite nicely.

10-13-2003, 08:38 PM

Brion, there is no slip to the slope. Read my original posts...I was commenting on the fundamental natures of trade off's that budgets in tight times. My comment was that if people cared enough about the OHP that they could vote to cut other programs to fund it, such as hatcheries (since this is a fishing board). I read the article, and while I feel for those folks, there's not much that can be done until Salem changes things one way or another. So no, I am not willing to vote for hatchery closures, nor did I ever indicate that I was. Hope that clears things up.

El Shaddai · 10-13-2003, 08:46 PM

Freespool- Reread my post more closely...I simply stated that the economy was in recession prior to Bush taking office...you assume I am blaming Clinton for that specific fact.

Straydog- You are incorrect regarding President Bush. Contrary to your belief, the President reiterated again today that the war on terror continues. He declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq...and that is true in a military sense. Agree or disagree with the Iraq situation but come correct with your facts.

As for the analysts you are referring to...are they disputing we are out of recession or that the methods I stated are the reason? Facts are facts...look at all economic growth factors...reread my previous post...reality is we are out of the recession by definition and as a matter of practical fact.

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 09:10 PM

El Shaddai,

Quote:

Fact #1- The economy was in a recession the quarter prior to Bush becoming president.

Fact #2- The economy is now out of recession because of aggressive tax cuts (good) and increased government spending (not so good).

Fact #3- Look to California for your Clintonomics model.

You'll note no facts, figures or sources in your "facts". The numbers I provided, showing the huge increase in Federal spending just to pay for the Reagan/Bush Sr/Jr debt, were from US Statistical Abstract, what the Hobbits call Reagan's Bane <grin>. The facts and figures on GDP growth, Deficit, Debt, job creation are so inexorably against Reagan/Bush Sr/Bush Jr.

In reverse order, California suffers from Bush Jr. tax cuts which cut all state income taxes due to the linkage in calculation of taxes. That cost CA about $12B in tax revenue. In addition, the Bush Jr/Enron attack cost CA about $28B in fraudulent "energy" costs. That's what has hurt CA. Had Bush Jr simply stopped the Enron attack on CA, CA would be doing pretty good. Now if I was a conspiracy theory guy...let's see Bush Jr, Cheney and Enron cook up phony scheme to enrich Enron and Bush financial contributor while hurting CA governor who is a Democrat.

As far as Bush Jr's tax cuts "working", not according to Bush Jr. You may remember that he promised the even with the recession, the massive tax breaks for folks like me and you would not, repeat NOT cause a Deficit. Clearly by Bush Jr standards his economic policy has failed by staggering proportions, adding $1T to the Debt per Bush Jr. OMB projections.

It is fascinating that Republicans will not hold this guy accountable for his failures even on his terms, lying about his tax cut, lying to get the US into a war.

Quote:

I was still in grade school during the Reagan era, but economic history seems to contradict your statements.

Well. for what it's worth, while you were in grade school I was in Bagdhad with Rummy earning my company export awards from Sec. of Commerce Baldridge. Making history in my own little way. I understand my projects are still working in Kirkuk. I'll tell you some stories next time we are fishing, just don't tell Novak.

However, neither of our historical memories are as relevant as the actual historical facts in the US Statistical Abstract, one of my favorite documents. Better than the fisherman's de-liar.

Brion

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 09:14 PM

Texass,

Quote:

Read my original posts.

Hmmm..there are no "original posts" by you.

Quote:

My comment was that if people cared enough about the OHP that they could vote to cut other programs to fund it, such as hatcheries (since this is a fishing board).

Or we could vote to fund it or lobby, as many of us did, to increase our license fees to fund it.

Been there, done that. We've been through it all and the best compromise everyone could come up with is the current budget.

Time to belly up to bar and act like adults and pay the bill.

Brion

El Shaddai · 10-13-2003, 09:22 PM

Brion...you are guy anyone can love...do you really want the sources for commonly known facts regarding the economy...off the wall facts or theories need some validation....common facts do not...I will get them if it will put your mind at ease....

For the umpteenth time...I do not support Bush Jr's appetite for spending...I disagree with the Farm bill and many other pork projects meant to enhance his electability.as for tac cuts..they work.better yet, move to a flat tax so everyone can belly up......

C-lice · 10-13-2003, 10:02 PM

The original post dealt with OREGON's budget. I am grateful that we have a forum of this kind where informed people can freely exchange ideas while maintaining a common interest (that would be fishing).

We need to take advantage of the fact that we live in a country and a state where elected representatives, for whatever reason, seem to value what is said if enough constituents say it. Maybe we should look at the state's budget and suggest areas to be cut, rather than deciding who has run up the biggest defecit since Ramses II was in the White House or who cost us the most jobs since King Saul was Speaker of the House.

Why don't we research and find out that, for example, the state has separate commissions for (as an example) Highland Bentgrass, Alfalfa, and Orchardgrass seed. My thinking is that this could be a single commission without the state as a whole suffering dire consequences. Hell, we could even consolidate the Wheat Commission with the Grains Commission. If we're really feeling our oats (Please, stop me! Get off of the grain humor!) we could lump the Raspberry/Blackberry, Blueberry, and Sweet Cherry Commissions into a single entity.

Granted, these commissions being split apart is a miniscule cost when compared to OHP. But, who knows what other government agencies/commissions can be merged, downsized, or done away with? Let's offer solutions, especially to our representatives, instead of whining about cuts or ranting about high taxes.

Not that any ifishers were either whining or ranting...

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

So are Brion Lutz and Freespool the same person?

So who gets the Willie and who gets the Boulton?

BrionLutz · 10-13-2003, 10:29 PM

El Shaddai,

Quote:

...do you really want the sources for commonly known facts regarding the economy.

Yes please. So many times "common facts" turn out to be contradicted by the common facts in the US Statistical Abstract.

Brion

Cool Texan · 10-13-2003, 11:20 PM

Brion, I agree about the hard and soft solutions. If an audit were commenced to review the spending and structure of the government in Oregon, and all results were positive, or most of them, then I'd agree that a tax increase may be what is needed....or some form of redevelopment of the Oregon economic structure.

For the record, my post was neither personal nor directed at SD. I was merely commenting on the issue at hand, problems/solutions, etc. In doing so I merely tried to communicate that in my opinion there are always areas that could be impacted for the benefit of others, if the motivations were there. Hatcheries were used only because this is a fishing board, and is thus the most applicable. I would not support closing them...merely stating that there are other programs which could be impacted to preserve others...the trade off theory. From there, SD chose to post about "status symbols" out of left field, thus attempting to provoke based on an age old discussion thread. I have no interest in attacking SD, or even addressing him anymore than I have to. I agree with you 100%...threads should be focused on the topic at hand and not on personal issues. SD, for the record, I had no idea what you do for a living, so there is no way that any of my thread was aimed at you or anyone else, but was merely tied to the focus of iFish....anglers.

Anyway...back to the topic... I still submit that it would be quite interesting to see the full guts and glory of the state budget, not just the portions that are available online. Anyone on here part of the process within the state government? If so, what is the process for resource deployment, utilization and synchronization? Curious how it works in a state government organization.

lingslayer · 10-14-2003, 08:37 AM

Brion your data is so wrong it's nearly laughable.

The Census' statistics are gathered by household phone surveys and are projected from there, based on a 1-2% sampling. These figures are rarely/never used by by anyone with a prediction to make when there is $$ on the line.

If you want real data go to the bls.gov website and do some math. Their data is compiled from employment depts. in all 50 states. This is the data used by economists when their reputation for predictions are at stake.

Reagan's GDP growth averaged 7.82% per qtr. over his 2 terms.

Clinton's GDP growth averaged only 5.3% per qtr. over his 2 terms.

Add in the 3 years, 1979-1981, of double digit (10.1-11.3) inflation rate that Reagan inherited and curbed, and you not only realize a greater gain in pecentage of employment but an overall increase in the value of worker's dollars.

The economy was indeed in the grips of this recession before Bush Jr. was elected. If you do a little more digging and look at ALL of the indicators you will find the facts.

Considering the Yen collapsed during Clinton's presidency it shows real ineptitude that he couldn't keep things growing. When your biggest competitor is going broke and you can't/don't/won't capitalize on it you are either foolish or inept.

Clinton's inability to continue to build the industrial sectors of the workforce was his downfall. Investors got burned in his top down schemes to "build" the economy based on service industries. Greenspan warned him and his advisors and they ignored it.

Willie's house of cards was falling apart before the 2000 election was even held.

Good day,
Jamie

[ 10-14-2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: lingslayer ]

BrionLutz · 10-14-2003, 10:34 AM

Lingslayer,

Quote:

Brion your data is so wrong it's nearly laughable. The Census' statistics are gathered by household phone surveys and are projected from there, based on a 1-2% sampling.

You are incorrect. The GDP, Debt, Deficits, Federal spending etc are not based on a "census" of households.

Quote:

Reagan's GDP growth averaged 7.82% per qtr. over his 2 terms.

Clinton's GDP growth averaged only 5.3% per qtr. over his 2 terms.

You are incorrect again.

Here are the actual numbers from the US Statistical Abstract, 2001, Table 640, Page 417.

Your error might have been in the your math or in not looking at "chained" (aka constant dollars) which filter out for inflationary differences.

GDP Growth
1980 - $4.9T
1988 - $6.4T
Growth 30.6%

1992 - $6.8T
2000 - $9.3T
Growth 35.4%

Brion

lingslayer · 10-14-2003, 12:16 PM

No Brion you are incorrect because you failed to read ALL of the info. Page 414, explains why using the "chained data" table on pg. 417 is inaccurate for yeas prior to 1987. Also, if you notice, in years prior to 1987 key information is listed as N/A or Not Available. Using the instructions from the text one must use the "index form" of the table(s).

Using this table supplied by your reference the GDP increase for:

1980-1988 is 82.7%

1992-2000 is 57.6%

Leaving out key data is the only reason for your skewed estimates on the "chained dollars" table.

If you did read further in the text you would find out that much of the data used by the Census Bureau is indeed acquired from household surveys Brion. Have a look at the last paragraphs on page 414 for how it is acquired.

Then go to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics for the details on where and why Willie's plan went so wrong and s*****d us over so badly.

You can't hurt the manufacturing sector of this country that badly without feeling the effects for years,... Willie did that, and now we have to fix it.
Jamie

DanS · 10-14-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

You can't hurt the manufacturing sector of this country that badly without feeling the effects for years,... Willie did that, and now we have to fix it.

Amazing how NAFTA was passed with no GOP support, isn't it?