Summer Office Hours
Mon - Fri 3 PM to 7 PM
Saturday 10 AM to 2 PM
Closed Sundays
Come Check Us Out
and Volunteer
Phone# 541-323-2771
709 NW Wall Street
(Downtown Bend)
(Corner of Wall
and Louisiana,
next to Library)
Welcome to the New Updated Deschutes Democrats Website
Deschutes County Chair Craig Wilhelm and Vice Chair
Debra McFarland meet with Democratic National Chair Tim Kaine at the DPO Convention Dinner June 26th
The Case for $320,000 Kindergarten Teachers
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 29, 2010 - 6:06amFrom: an article at The New York Times By DAVID LEONHARDT
How much do your kindergarten teacher and classmates affect the rest of your life?
Economists have generally thought that the answer was not much. Great teachers and early childhood programs can have a big short-term effect. But the impact tends to fade. By junior high and high school, children who had excellent early schooling do little better on tests than similar children who did not — which raises the demoralizing question of how much of a difference schools and teachers can make.
There has always been one major caveat, however, to the research on the fade-out effect. It was based mainly on test scores, not on a broader set of measures, like a child’s health or eventual earnings. As Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist, says: “We don’t really care about test scores. We care about adult outcomes.”
Early this year, Mr. Chetty and five other researchers set out to fill this void. They examined the life paths of almost 12,000 children who had been part of a well-known education experiment in Tennessee in the 1980s. The children are now about 30, well started on their adult lives.
On Tuesday, Mr. Chetty presented the findings — not yet peer-reviewed — at an academic conference in Cambridge, Mass. They’re fairly explosive.
Just as in other studies, the Tennessee experiment found that some teachers were able to help students learn vastly more than other teachers. And just as in other studies, the effect largely disappeared by junior high, based on test scores. Yet when Mr. Chetty and his colleagues took another look at the students in adulthood, they discovered that the legacy of kindergarten had re-emerged.
Students who had learned much more in kindergarten were more likely to go to college than students with otherwise similar backgrounds. Students who learned more were also less likely to become single parents. As adults, they were more likely to be saving for retirement. Perhaps most striking, they were earning more.
All else equal, they were making about an extra $100 a year at age 27 for every percentile they had moved up the test-score distribution over the course of kindergarten. A student who went from average to the 60th percentile — a typical jump for a 5-year-old with a good teacher — could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.
Go read the whole article at The New York Times
The Many Myths on Measures 66 & 67 Erroneously Accepted as Fact
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 27, 2010 - 8:22am
Steve Novick at Blues Oregon has written several articles on Measures 66 and 67. Here is a few excerpts to help those working at Deschutes County Fair booth counter the right wing distortions:
From the the Federation of State Tax Administrators’ web site , there are 27 other states that have higher top corporate profits tax rates than Oregon does. In 19 states the flat rate is higher than our 6.6%; in 8 other states there are graduated rates with the “top tier” being above 6.6. There are 18 states that have higher rates than the 7.6% new permanent profits tax rate on profits above $10 million. We will be tied for 18th (and 19th and 20th) with two other states, Idaho and New Mexico.
Another is the affect the Measures will have on small business owners:
The myth that Measure 66 targets “small business owners.” Now, I have previously explained that according to the Legislative Revenue Office, 93% of the state’s small business owners are not affected by Measure 66. Another 5% are affected but do not make most of their money from a small business. They would include, for example, Jeld-Wen executives who own rental properties and report the income from the rental property as “business income.” This leaves 2% of small business owners that (a) are affected by Measure 66 and (b) actually make their living from a ‘small business.’ And that is using a definition of ‘small business’ which includes all partnerships, S-corps and LLCs – including, for example the Stoel Rives law firm.
And
The claim that taxing incomes of $250,000 or more is an attack on “small business owners” is exactly the claim that John McCain made against Barack Obama for endorsing higher taxes on – again – families making over $250,000 a year. That claim wasn’t just debunked by the Obama campaign, or Citizens for Tax Justice. It was thoroughly debunked by a pretty mainstream source – CNNMoney.com.
Here’s what CNNMoney.com had to say on October 17, 2008:
In speech after speech, presidential candidate John McCain hammers on the claim that his rival Barack Obama will raise taxes on many small businesses …
But there are three main problems with McCain's charge …
First, it relies on a broad definition of what counts as a small business, including everyone who files a Schedule C, E and F.
But most people who file those forms don't run a business for a living: Those forms are also used to report income from freelance and consulting work, real-estate rentals, and most other non-salary sources.
A more realistic definition of small businesses turns up far fewer firms ...
Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise … Out of 34.7 million filers …98.6% … would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.
Find: More articles by Steve Novick a Blue Oregon
And I also suggest you check out articles by Chuck Secketoff at Blue Oregon Executive Director and a founder of the Oregon Center for Public Policy
Strengthen Social Security Don't Cut It!
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 22, 2010 - 2:23pmGo to Strengthen Social Security to find out more.
Frame the Energy Debate
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 16, 2010 - 6:07amFrom: Common Dreams
Double Dividend: Make Money by Saving Nature
Saving nature is the central issue. Carbon fuels destroy nature. The Gulf Death Gusher is the most visible sign. But signs are everywhere. Overall global warming increases hurricanes and floods, destroys habitats for plants, fish, birds, and ground animals, spreads deserts, causes deadly waves, and destroys glaciers and our polar ice caps. The use of carbon fuels has been destroying nature. Our job now is to save it.
Interestingly, there is a short, 39-page bill before the Senate that would allow us to save nature and get paid substantially for doing it. It is the CLEAR bill, first suggested by Peter Barnes, and introduced by Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME). It is simple, it works, and it pays you!
The principle behind it is this: We US citizens own the air over the US equally. Carbon-fuel sellers are dumping pollution in our air, not just poisoning the air, but destroying nature. At least they should pay for permits to dump, poison, and destroy, and should be forced year-by-year to stop. Who should the sellers pay for permits? All of us, the citizens who live here, should be paid handsomely. And there should be predictably fewer permits every year, till the practice ends or reaches tolerable levels.
Here’s how cap-and-cash works. Carbon-fuel profiteers introduce polluting fuels at only 2,000 distribution points in the US. The EPA already monitors how much polluting fuel each seller distributes. The CLEAR Act requires sellers to compete at auction each year to buy pollution-permits to sell their poisonous fuel, with a minimum and maximum price per permit set each year. Every year, for 40 years, the number of permits is reduced, until the 80% of the carbon pollution has been eliminated.
Who gets the permit money? You do. The money goes into a trust. Twenty-five percent goes to developing nonpolluting fuels and mitigating existing environmental disasters. Most of it — seventy-five percent — is distributed equally to all citizen-residents every month via electronic bank transfers. A family of four, the first year would get between $1,000 and $1,500, and the amount would go up each year. Why? The law of supply and demand. As there are fewer permits to sell fuel, and as the air gets cleaner, the price rises and you get more cash.
We all get a double dividend: cleaner air while saving nature and a significant cash dividend for owning the air. The hundreds of billions of dollars going to citizens will be spent all over the country and will create jobs. Everyone wins except the polluting fuels companies — the BP’s of the world.
The Criteria for Success
Administratively Simple: It eliminates bureaucracy, and it brings credibility and transparency. It just requires computer programs. It can be publicly checked to see if it is working. There are no hidden deals or details.
Market-driven without government: The trust will be outside of government. Market mechanisms will determine the value of the permits and, hence, the money paid to citizens.
Gradual Transition: There would be no short-term market disruption. The transition would be gradual.
Market-driven and convenient: Businesses that use carbon fuels will not have to monitor their pollution. They will have a market-based incentive to switch gradually to non-polluting fuels.
Predictable: Business leaders will be able to plan for the future with no huge rush.
Encourages Entrepreneurship: It will create incentives for innovation and new energy industries.
Job-Creating: The cash going into new energy industries and being spent all over the country will create jobs.
Republican Obstructionist Chaingang
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 15, 2010 - 8:30amFrom: the Puget Sound Business Journal
CHART OF THE DAY
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 5, 2010 - 2:16pmFrom: Business Insider Clusterstcok
Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault
Gregory White and Kamelia Angelova
President Obama's administration has been blamed for reckless spending that has put America into its debt hole. But in reality, much of that spending emanates from policies of President Bush, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The chart presents the ugly truth.
Corporate Election Machine Fires Up
Submitted by phastphil40 on July 2, 2010 - 8:08amFrom: Reader Supported News
James Clay Fuller nails it:
"The billionaire corporation officers couldn't come up with serious reductions in automotive fuel consumption for 40 years. Corporate bigwigs have yet to figure out how to make banks profitable without creating periodic worldwide economic disasters, and have failed over almost 40 years to make any progress whatever in preventing and/or cleaning up major oil spills. People who pay themselves well upward of a million dollars a year say they simply can't find a way to seriously reduce their pollution of our environment.
But it took only about four months to design and set up an efficient system for taking over the American electoral system at all levels, from municipal to national.
On January 21, 2010, the day the Supreme (now Extreme) Court under John Roberts declared that corporations and the very rich had a right to speak louder than the rest of us during campaigns, it was immediately clear that representative democracy in this country would be a thing of the past. The rich, already enormously powerful, were going to own the system outright.""
Go read the whole article: Corporate Election Machine Fires Up
The work in health care reform is just beginning
Submitted by phastphil40 on June 6, 2010 - 7:33amFrom: the Berkley Blog
Steve Shortell, dean of the School of Public Health
The news of health care reform has settled down, but the work in making it work has not. There are some serious challenges ahead. The new law promises to bring more people into the U.S. healthcare system, so it’s even more important to find better ways to keep people healthier, deliver higher quality medical care, and curb the growth in health care costs. We’re going to see changes in the health care market and a greater focus on value.