Chuck, just to emphasize Sid's point, the key of ETC for Oregon is direct plus indirect plus environmental effects. All of these are positive, but you only cite the direct jobs. The real indirect impact of BETC and RETC for energy efficiency is that they reduce the fossil fuel energy bills for Oregonians. A million dollars of revenue for the electric and natural gas sector produces 1.5 jobs. A million dollars of revenue in the rest of the Oregon economy produces 7.4 jobs. There is probably few better job-generating investments than reducing Oregon's consumption of fossil fuels, all of which are imported.

Chuck -

Something you didn't mention but I think is worth mentioning is that health care is the one sector in the monthly state jobs report that continues to GROW jobs in Oregon's economy right now. The report released this week showed it was the one sector that is still actually creating jobs, not shedding jobs (+1,200 jobs last month). Also, these jobs disproportionately go to women, many of them working moms! Not only is this sector labor intensive but close to two-thirds the funds going to wages are federal jobs which are pure stimulus to Oregon's economy.

Investing in taking care of our seniors is not only the right thing to do, it is good economics RIGHT NOW in Oregon's economy. Thank you for pointing this issue is not just a human needs/quality of life issue but a powerful economic sector creating jobs in our economy.

MB

During his legislative tenure, Deckert was known as the "Senator from Nike" for good reason.

I don't know enough about the economic impact of Energy Tax Credits to judge their efficacy, but I do know that investment in social services always pays long term dividends, both in jobs and in the well-being of the citizenry.

Beyond that, it is indeed the "right thing to do."

Jim, the econorthwest study looked at both direct and indirect job creation of the credit. Sorry but from an economist's point of view, Chuck is dead on, a dollar spent on Medicaid services for seniors will do much more for jobs and the economy than a dollar of tax credits under betc and retc. This isn't opinion but the results from an economic model called implan that measures both direct and in-direct economic impacts.

Although Chuck's post mischaracterizes Ryan's statement, it does provide an opportunity to make a good point.

Ryan was asked by the moderator - about "one of OBA's initiatives this session is to fund the Oregon Innovation Agenda" - which is a collaboration of university research centers focused on Oregon's unique leadership in sustainability, nano-science, wave technology and drug discovery.

ONAMI, Oregon's first signature research center (funded in 2003) successfully leveraged $10 - for every $1 of state investment and already commercialized 7 new start up companies. In the last U.S. federal budget, two university centers were given a line item for distinction in nanotechnology research - MIT and ONAMI (in Corvallis).

Now to Chuck's statement... what Ryan said was that these are really difficult choices - investing in long-term economic development initiatives that grow income and revenue for individuals and the state vs. funding immediate obligations to our citizens (which are the right thing to do - and agreed will leverage federal dollars).

Ryan also pointed out that the three state representatives don't have the luxury of the federal government - they must make the choices today and balance the state budget.

Not sure why Chuck picked OBA as his protagonist in this narrative. Take a look at OBA's Legislative Agenda.

Name another business group in the country lobbying to increase state revenue (raising the corporate minimum and eliminating the "Kicker" - again) to fund critical investments in education, health care and a sustainable transportation package.

OBA is a organization dedicated solely to making Oregon a great place to live and work - that means a strong economy and balanced public policy. There is no arguing with that and there is no arguing that tough choices are going to be made in Salem during this economic downturn.

Government 101 Meets Economics 101

Chuck, As you point out in your comments, it is always far easier to "spend" money in the revenue committee vs. the ways and means committee. What I mean is that tax credits and tax expenditures rarely get the scrutiny that line item budgets get in the ways and means committee.

You are correct, absolutely no state programs would ever be allowed to grow at the rate the BETC program is growing if it were a direct expenditure as opposed to a tax expenditure.

The other dirty little secret of this program is that many of the tax credits are being bought and sold to banks and other wealthy individuals basically like an unregulated commodity. Most developers and investors already have incentives to build/buy energy efficient buildings because they have lower long term operating costs. The tax credit (or the ability to sell the tax credit) is just a little bonus, kind of like a cherry on top. It is not driving green building practices, Lower on-going energy and operating costs is driving green building not the BETC tax credit program.

Chuck and Ross,

Thanks both for misquoting me; I did expect better here.

If you read my real citation, I was not referring to BETC for renewable projects - that is not up for expansion this year. I was referring to BETC/RETC for energy efficiency which is up for expansion this year. But Chuck in his off-topic tirade did not mention one energy efficiency example. Oh well.

And, back to my point, spending money on reducing energy consumption does provide more jobs than buying wind power generated in Oregon, which again does provide more jobs than importing fuel from out-of-state or overseas. I have not seen any direct comparison that spending state money on energy efficiency provides less or more jobs, direct + indirect, than spending on social services.