So where, exactly, does Kitzhaber get additional funding for education, and how much is it?

I'm sure that's in his public plan, and I just missed it, amongst all the talk about "transforming", "innovation" and "flexibility".

Precise numbers, please.

For bonus points, show us the legislation he had introduced to avoid this funding crisis while he was Governor (HB# or SB#, please).

Cut public employees, their bloated retirement plans. Let Oregonians access natural resources so our unemployed can find a job and feed their family's.

What does Bill have to do to get a fair shake around here? He shouldn't be subject to consecutive posts beating him down just because he isn't a Mandate Media client. It's a sad state of affairs when an entire community seemingly falls in line behind whoever is paying Kari.

I'm not suggesting Steve or TA are foot soldiers. But surely there are supporters of Bill who could rebut some of what they argue. All we're seeing now is a thinly veiled attempt to keep the gravy train rolling.

Ding! Ding! T.A., you get the gold star for facetiously dismissing any dissent as irrelevant.

Bob gets the point. You're re-hashing an attack on Bradbury already beaten to death last week by Novick, and ignoring the responses to Novick's column. You are also blithely ignoring that the candidate you prefer, Kitzhaber, has no education plan, and has no realistic proposal to fund education in Oregon.

If you're into handing out "first place" prizes, just curious: how would a public school teacher evaluate your failure to do the homework, and your one-sided argument that fails to acknowledge the glaring weakness of your own position? A C- would be generous.

Until you take ownership of Kitzhaber's poor record on education, attacking the other guy's plan as "passing the buck" is pure hypocrisy.

Jack Roberts provided an answer to Bob's last query above in an op-ed in the Oregonian last year. Roberts and the Republicans who controlled the legislature while Kitzhaber was governor had to routinely INCREASE education spending above what Kitzhaber proposed in his budgets.

Kitzhaber's call for a sales tax is a non-starter, and everyone knows it.

Further, Kitzhaber appointed the QEM commission as governor, and at least rhetorically called upon the legislature to fund QEM. Now, Kitzhaber says the education model is broken, and that we must re-map government in a post-partisan group hug.

So, T.A., your guy has abandoned his own education model, hasn't formulated a new one, and has no realistic proposal to fund education. Not exactly ready for an initial public offering.

Why not get that house in order before re-hashing last week's rhetoric and attacking Bradbury?

I respectfully think I've found part of the problem. you democrats are absolutely horrible at anything to do with numbers. 5% of $30 billion is $1.5 billion. When I got my High School diploma, missing your goal by 25% ($2 billion - $1.5 billion = $.5 billion) was nowhere near, "getting close to $2 billion a year".

However, I have a suggestion of where to kick start the efforts by $2.3 million - Belotti's alleged severance pay for a voluntary resignation.

Increasing public education funding is a hard sell in a state where cost per student tends to run on the high side with seemingly less than stellar results. Your most reliable source of funding, the middle to upper class taxpayers are becoming increasingly disgruntled when the only proposed solutions are taking a bigger slice of their pie. Also sense a growing displeasure with those who procreate prolifically while having limited means to support their offspring. Lets throw out some hypothetical numbers. Is it costing us at least 7k annually to educate one pupil? If so, shouldn't the median income earner be contributing roughly that amount into the system per child? Much as I believe in public education I can also understand the beef of those who pay for the schooling of others while some parents contribute next to nothing. Might not be popular on a progressive blog but it's the 2000 pound elephant in the room not many on the left wish to acknowledge.

T.A.,

I heard Bradbury give two specific examples at OEA and at the Multnomah County Dems which I guess you were at as well.

The Foreign Controlled Income Credit ($30 million) and interest deduction for vacation homes (which can't be determined exactly because the current Tax Expenditure Report doesn't break them out but the State Department of Revenue estimates it is in the tens of millions. Does that add to $2 Billion? No. But it is an example of where we can start.

You seem to be missing the entire point of Bill's proposal. The reason you go to the people in the first place is because 1) as you saw with Measures 66 and 67 opponents are going to refer it anyway and 2) A bill passed by the people will give the Legislature cover to make the tough choices (and they will be tough).

Oh and criticizing him for "passing the buck" to the Legislature when it is the Legislature who are the ones who will have to implement any effort to increase funding for education is just plain stupid.

Finally, as others have said on here as well: he who lives in glass houses is best not to throw bricks. Your in a very thin glass house T.A. You support a candidate who has produced over 200 pages of white paper nonsense that is devoid of a single shred of specifics. His greatest campaign accomplishment to date is re-producing is 1994 bumper sticker.

And you have the gall to criticize his opponent who is at least stepping up and placing ideas on the table that isn't a sales tax (the most regressive form of taxation out there).

Right now you are Bill Bradbury's biggest asset.

I was going to post something appropriately snarky, but Jeff covered the bases.

Seems that immediately coming back with, effectively, "well, what would your candidate do" is called political debate, not missing the point. Unless it was a lecture/sermon.

"You seem to be missing the entire point of Bill's proposal. The reason you go to the people in the first place is because 1) as you saw with Measures 66 and 67 opponents are going to refer it anyway and 2) A bill passed by the people will give the Legislature cover to make the tough choices (and they will be tough). "

The question still is there: who besides Bradbury supports this idea?

And does "taking it to the people" always have predictable results?

I'm not actively engaged in either Gov. primary campaign, but I will say what I have said about kicker reform.

It seems to me that we can have an intelligent discussion (who supports the idea, how exactly will it be worded, etc., is every tax expenditure on the table, would this be a legislative referral--if so, who sponsors the Joint Resolution in the legislature) without talking about which candidate the discussion favors.

It was my impression that the Revenue Comm. was in the process of setting up sunset debates on all tax expenditures. Rather than bashing a candidate, perhaps someone could talk to members of Revenue, or LRO, or whoever and find out if that is the case.

If that is not the case, this is a revolutionary idea to start that process in motion. But if that is the case, it would strengthen Bradbury's proposal by including that in speeches---something like "Revenue committee has already begun a process I support, but I would add to it by...".

After the primary, there will be a general election. And at that point, "But Kitzhaber...." or "But Bradbury..." will be moot points.

A good idea is a good idea, but logistics are important. Using the name of the opposing candidate does not change that.

I think what disappoints me most on a Monday here at blueoregon is that there was news regarding the Democratic primary for governor this weekend.

The Bus Project folks heard from both Bradbury and Kitzhaber this weekend in Bend. Then those progressives -- some with ties to Kitzhaber -- took a straw poll and voted for Bradbury by a large margin.

That's news, and definitely worthy of discussion here.

But there's not a blip about it on blueoregon today, though this is the progressive water cooler of Oregon.

[just flip over to Jeff Mapes's blog to get the story...if it matters to progressive Democrats at blueoregon, it's in the....Oregonian?]

Instead, checking blueoregon today, we get another column attacking Bradbury -- one that repeats criticism that's been forwarded in three other columns in the last couple of weeks, criticism that's been responded to. Not news.

What gives?

One might observe that a pattern is emerging here: Bradbury wins some endorsements (like OEA), or wins a straw poll, and very shortly thereafter gets attacked here at blueoregon to change the subject and re-direct the dialogue about this race to something negative about Bradbury.

I have seen 5 columns posted here recently by supporters of Kitzhaber that attack Bradbury. These columns do not make a positive case for why Democrats should vote for Kitzhaber.

There have been 3 columns posted by Bradbury supporters here recently, and they focus on positive attributes of Bradbury and why he would be a good governor. Little if anything was said in those columns that was negative about Kitzhaber.

I strongly suspect this race is tightening up, and if you're wondering why, that's it in a nutshell.

Bradbury's for something, and making a positive case for a better Oregon. Kitzhaber's last name is "Kitzhaber" and.....

Mr. Read, the electorate is larger than the folks who went to Rebooting.

I am still waiting to hear what policy idea won the Policy Contest, which one came in second.

Why don't you look at the Guest Opinion guidelines? Maybe you could write a column about Rebooting: what happened with the straw poll, what happened with the policy contests, which speaker impressed you the most and why.

I liked what TA said, "if Bradbury cannot answer that question, it's not my fault. and it has nothing to do with Kitz' stand on the issues. it has to do with him not taking responsibility for cuts he says are possible. i say he needs to prove, just like Kitz has to prove his proposals (eg, moving the Superintendent of Public Ed into the Gov's office) are viable. feel free to call bs; Bradbury still has yet to say where the cuts will come from. and he is avoiding making that decision himself."

Let's see who can answer the question first:

Bill, who actually supports the Bank of Oregon and/or the tax expenditures to pay for education--which groups, which politicians, not to mention people who might be involved in implementation.

John, who actually supports putting the St. Supt. in the Gov. office? Castillo? Maurer? Chairs of legislative Education Committees? Chalkboard Project? COSA? OSBA? unions?

And I'd like each to answer the question about administrative pay (both at the state level and at the school district level): Who should have oversight over top management salaries? Who evaluates performance and pay packages? Before we hear one more word about those over paid, under worked unionized teachers, could we please hear if anyone has checked to see how many of such folks who are paid over $100,000 also have a car allowance? If so, what is the justification?

As has been said before in other years, everyone at BO could agree that a particular primary candidate is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that would likely have little if any effect on the actual primary vote.

OK, I'll connect the dots more clearly, for TA's benefit.

Bradbury's plan lacks key specifics, and can be criticized for pushing details to the leg and ballot measures. But it is, at least, the outline of a plan: reduce tax expenditures to fund education, at a $2B level.

Kitz's plan is...? As far as I can tell, it's leveraging synergies to achieve flexibility. Or something.

Beyond which, Kitz, unlike Bradbury, has eight years of history in the job. I can accept his proposals not having been adopted by a R leg, but his proposals, or lack thereof, are his record.

FTR: while my union endorsed Bradbury, I'm personally uncommitted and underwhelmed. But for education, Bradbury is above Kitz, at this point.

TA, OTOH, is a Kitz partisan, and as such his "just criticize Bradbury; ignore Kitz" demand for the thread can't be taken at face value.