I'm Susan Castillo's Communications Director. We've asked AP for a correction. My statement should have read Democrats AND REPUBLICANS. That's more accurate. Thanks!

Gene: Well, isn't that an unfortunate screwup. Got caught criticising Democrats. I'll bet Kate Brown was on the phone to Suzie right away, and the water ran downhill to you.

It's not really a "correction" you are asking the AP for.... that implies it was their mistake. Sounds more like statement you made to the AP put the blame was put where it belongs.

But it is way off script. It can't the the Democrats who don't cave to the wish list of the school funding lobby. That's the Republicans. How can an experienced hired pop gun like you miss the target this badly?

Nobody "missed the target" -- Our criticism was intended to be bipartisan. Here's what I got from Associated Press (Chuck Beggs) this morning re: my request to fix the error -- "Gene, Point taken, but this inflated number is the figure the Senate Dems have all along said was their goal. I understand Castillo is painting them all. CB"

Seeing as how the Governor's office released a report saying that $7.1B was needed to provide an excellent education for everyone in K-12, which nobody has disputed, and that the Dems started somewhere around $6.1B, which they backed off until they got to a line in the sand of $5.4B, only to finally agree to $5.24B -- a pittance above the $5.1B the Republicans wanted in the first place, I'd have to say that Karen Minnis won big and Oregon students and their parents lost big and the Democrats in Salem are a bunch of pu...nks.

it is good for schools to finally have a number, but this number is pitifully low. brian makes great reference to the $7.1 billion needed to truly fund schools in oregon. i think a lot of this blame has to go to governor k. if i remember correctly, in may some dems called out gov k for leaving them with little back-up in this budget fight. how are they supposed to push for adequate fuding when the gov cannot be bothered to be a part of the process at all? i sure hope that the dems have someone better to put on the ballot in 2006. someone who will actually stand up for democratic policies.

i sure hope that the dems have someone better to put on the ballot in 2006. someone who will actually stand up for democratic policies. Remember there are 2 parts to that: "standing up for democratic policies" AND getting elected.

My sense of the electorate is that it is less partisan than it is about getting things done, and that it is "preserve us from a Mannix vs. Kulongoski rerun!".

There is a bumper sticker "For a Goldschmidt free Oregon". Just who does that win over who didn't vote for Mannix in 2002? What does that say about school funding, public safety, or a whole lot of other issues?

But someone who can get things done and get elected: that means someone with more general appeal than the above 2 or Saxton or Sorenson--perhaps someone from a county that is not entirely urban. Perhaps someone who is known for speaking at public gatherings and answering questions from the general public.

But who fits that profile?

I'm wondering how much the recent Oregonian hatchet-job on teacher retirement effected the final compromise number. It seems controlling the Senate and Governor's office should have slid things more toward the Dems. Then again....

So, is Portland still gonna send about $150,000,000 downstate to towns that are so small and poor they can't afford one of life's most basic needs -- schools?

The Republicans always say government should be run like a business. Okay, so why is Portland PROPPING UP towns like Condon, Spray, Lakeview and Coos Bay at the expense of Portland, aka "the straw that stirs the drink" here in the Beaver State?

Maybe now Susan Castillo will get serious about eliminating CIM and CAM, and all the related costs associated with that failed initiative, and maybe the schools will find that they won't have to lay off so many teachers.

Leslie:

You wrote: We are subsidizing smaller communities across the state, all of whom deserve public schools, but not at Portland's expense.

I'm uncomfortable with that idea. It's not far from this: sure, poor people should have food and shelter, but not at the expense of our richest citizens.

The truth is, without timber receipts, small communities can't pay for their own schools. Educating Oregonians is the responsibility of all Oregonians. We're one state.

It's frustrating to feel that education has been hamstrung by rural voters who elect "starve government" Republicans, but I don't like a solution that hurts small towns. Once the schools are gone, the community dies.

Bert is, of course, correct. Education is a state responsibility. The wealthy have a responsibility to help educate children in less wealthy areas.

Leslie's irritation is also understandable. The wealthy Portland area is represented by Democrats who want to spend enough on public education to have quality schools. They have been twarted by Republicans representing, for the most part, suburban and rural areas. Because of higher costs in urban areas, equalized funding means Portland has a harder time educating kids than rural districts. So Portland is paying for the kind of budget elsewhere that it cannot afford for its own schools. Who would not be irritated in such a situation?

Longterm, this situation will erode support for public education in Portland. The wealthy will send their kids to private schools, and poor kids, both urban and rural, will suffer. This is status quo in many states. The remedy: Democratic control of the legislature, soon.

So Minnis, with her usual shamelessness, says "it's a responsible budget"... yeah, it's "responsible" all right--it will be "responsible" for Oregon continuing with substandard education, health care, housing, and other public services that we all need.

A TRULY "responsible" Legislature (and Governor) would have increased the pathetic $10 taxes on corporations... would NOT have voted in $400 million in tax giveaways for the wealthy...and would recognize that for everyone in our state and our economy to thrive, we all have to pay our fair share. Starving the public sector is driving us all down the tubes.

As for the teachers, it's sickening that the O. piled onto the Larswagon with the canard that their retirement benefits are too high and are causing the funding crisis. It's so convenient to make teachers scapegoats (right out of the GOP playbook) rather than face the fact that we can't get quality education --including the highly skilled and highly overworked teachers required-- without paying them reasonably well--either raise salaries and reduce retirement, or honor their present contract. I like the point made in recent LTEs--for all those who think teaching is a get-rich scam; just sign up to be a teacher!

this link talks about an oregonian article from a while ago on the reshuffling of school funding. like the poster says, i think the idea is a sound one. good education in condon, spray, et al benefits the whole state, including portland. the size of the subsidies is staggering. i think money needs to be redistributed, but that much?

Bert Lowry said "Once the schools are gone, the community dies".

That's exactly what the PAT and 3,300 PPS teachers have been saying for more than a decade of slashed and burned budgets for the largest school district between San Francisco and Canada.

No offense to the rural folks, but if Spray "died" this afternoon it'd take days, maybe weeks before anyone in Salem noticed.

Oregon would still be a great state without little bitty Spray, but without Portland, Oregon is Wyoming, without the coal, without the Dick and without a future.

"Okay, so why is Portland PROPPING UP towns like Condon, Spray, Lakeview and Coos Bay at the expense of Portland, aka "the straw that stirs the drink" here in the Beaver State?"

One strong reason is that the Portland Metro Area would not enjoy the property tax base it has without all those rural towns in Oregon that ship their products to market via Portland and receive goods via Portland. As the shipping, storage, banking, legal, entertainment and medical services center for the state of Oregon, the Portland area has commercial, medical, entertainment and educational facilities as well as jobs that would not exist without the commerce they derive from the human and natural resources in rural Oregon.

Howard:

<h2>Very well said. We're more connected than people might think. Portland needs rural Oregon as much as rural Oregon needs Portland.</h2>