Who has Been Bankrolled by Stimson Lumber?
Jon Isaacs
About one week after I brought light to the fact that Chris Dudley's largest contributor, Stimson Lumber, had been fined for clean water and air violations, Willamette Week's Nigel Jaquiss reported that Stimson dumped (no pun intended) another $100k into Dudley's campaign. That brought the Stimson total to a staggering $385k for Dudley. Somehow I doubt it will be hard for Stimson to get Dudley on the phone.
Update: I missed the fact that Phil Knight decided that he'd like to be the #1 donor to Dudley and gave another $200k yesterday. Stimson Lumber is now #2 with $385K.
This morning, the Portland Tribune's Christian Gaston reports that Stimson as put an even more staggering total of $557,000 into campaigns - almost entirely to GOP candidates and committees. One of the exceptions was a $5,000 contribution made to Metro President candidate Tom Hughes. As the article points out, this makes sense since Stimson also spent $495,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Measure 49, which reinstated Oregon's land use system in 2007. Bob Stacey, Hughes' opponent, was the chief spokesperson for the successful Yes on 49 campaign.
If feelings could be measured by the size of political contributions, I think it would be fair to say that Stimson absolutely hates the fact that Oregon has land use planning and an urban growth boundary.
Since many Oregonians have yet to turn in their ballots, this is important information to have in the final days.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:59 a.m.
Oct 28, '10
Jon, do you know if Stinson is owned by one person or a close family or an extended family? I would be really pissed if I was a small shareholder and the company was spending 1/2 million dollars on political campaigns. It may work as personal funds, but it is pretty clearly an abuse of shareholder funds.
2:15 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
It's an old and private company. The charitable view, and mine, is that they want an economically healthier Oregon.
7:04 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
Uh, if they wanted Oregon to be economically healthier they would support our land use and environmental laws. Their contributions indicate the only thing they want healthier is their own bottom line--screw the rest of us.
12:53 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
Jon, let's look on the bright side-at least they aren't anonymous donors.
1:43 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
If feelings could be measured by the size of political contributions, I think it would be fair to say that Phil Knight hated Measures 66/67.
2:47 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
Indeed. He wanted to be able to keep the few thousand more he now has to contribute toward schools and seniors so he could bankroll candidates who want to give him a big tax cut.
3:53 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
Phil Knight has done a mighty lot for this state, don't you think?
7:03 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
Uh, if by "mighty lot" you mean contributed obscene amounts to conservative candidates and regressive ballot measures (and opposing progressives), then, yes, I'd have to agree. Oh, and he's donated buckets of more cash to college sports--personally I think he'd have done a lot more for the state in that area if he had donated instead to college studies (scholarships, financial aid, etc.). But seeing as he has a vested interest in promoting the hero-worship of sports celebrities and their power to generate revenue for Nike, it of course makes sense. For Phil Knight, which is all it seems he's really concerned with.
7:33 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
You've got a lot to learn about Phil Knight.
5:34 a.m.
Oct 29, '10
Who cares what Phil Knight thinks? The guy is going to hell anyway for exploiting child labor and being such a self-righteous duchebag.
Maybe you can take a class on his "feelings" after he ducks his taxes long enough so he can satisfy his precious ego by buying the UO outright and renaming it Knight University.
11:48 a.m.
Oct 29, '10
"Self-righteous douchebag"
Appropriate phrase.
7:39 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
I guess you'd be happier if he had moved out of state like he threatened to.
Actually -- so would I.
4:57 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
I keep wanting to ask, Jon, what "few thousand more" does Phil Knight have post-passage of M. 66/67? This doesn't make sense.
10:22 p.m.
Oct 28, '10
Evil timber. Evil Corporations.
7:47 a.m.
Oct 29, '10
I really want to think you're joking.
I'm really afraid you're not.
10:19 a.m.
Oct 29, '10
Don't worry Sally, he's joking.
Too bad the joke will be on both of you, and everyone else who believes that if only we let the corporations do whatever the hell they want to generate the most profits, the world will turn into this magical land of opportunity where anyone who isn't lazy can achieve anything they want without the terrible socialist chains of government to hold them down.
After all, life was so much better during the industrial revolution (think child labor, 80 hour work weeks, slave wages) and the Great Republican Depression (soup lines, no jobs, and US Citizens "deported" to Mexico for the crime of being brown).
11:45 a.m.
Oct 29, '10
Does the phrase "false dichotomy" mean anything to you?
1:09 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
I'm curious, what's your point here?
Based on the donation history of Stimson that is well documented in this post and their clean water/air regulation violations, Stimson has an agenda that doesn't appear economically or environmentally friendly.
One of the big reasons Oregon is so attractive is our strong enviro ethos and natural scenic beauty. Stimson certainly has a right to run their business--but it sure looks like they're trying to stack the deck to gain a change in the rules protecting Oregon, or at least loosen up enforcement.
1:17 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Carla, I think Sally's "point" here is that if we just let companies like Stimson do whatever they want, as long as we're good little subjects they might reward our compliance with the "opportunity" to work in the woods for a few years, before an occupational injury leaves us on our own with nothing to show for it, or they run out of trees, whichever comes first. After all, since they are the ones who "create jobs," they know best, right?
1:26 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Sarcasm doesn't work any better than strident ideological screeds.
10:18 a.m.
Oct 30, '10
I don't think Jay was being sarcastic, he was being realistic.
Remember, timber employment went down in the 80s, even as logging increased to record levels. The economic crisis in timber communities has nothing to do with environmentalists and everything to do with mechanization, shipping raw logs overseas, and overcutting depleting the supply.
11:25 a.m.
Oct 30, '10
The economic crisis in what used to be timber communities has most to do with federal forest policy, environmentalist organizations and lawsuits. Timber is a renewable resource that can be harvested on a sustainable basis. Currently, private lands (at least in Southern Oregon) are vastly better managed than federal lands. The BLM is restricted from even managing about 80 percents of its lands in Jackson County. They're growing 2000 times more timber than can be harvested. There's more timber in the forests than at any time since 1937.
I heard two reports on the radio a couple of weeks ago (one AM radio; one NPR) about a large field trip that took two busloads of people (a lot of officials, politicians, etc.) into the site of a notorious Biscuit fire here. Federal lands sit side by side with private lands.
Ask Mark Wisnovsky, Democrat candidate for county commissioner (or anyone else on the tour) which lands are better managed. The difference is Night. And. Day.
At any rate, not all forests are on the same land with the same trees and growing conditions and one management policy does not fit all.
Management policy seems to be dictated by environmentalist groups.
12:55 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
Oh, come on, Sally.
Have you ever heard of the town of Valsetz? It was closed down in 1984, before lawsuits to protect the spotted owl.
"Timber is a renewable resource that can be harvested on a sustainable basis."
True. The trouble is that it hasn't been. The history of timber companies is that the overcut, then move on. They continue to do that.
Do you really want public forest management dictated by those whose only interest is in extracting as much money as possible from the forests?
2:02 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
What the people who toured our forests in Southern Oregon saw was that private companies manage their lands well exactly so they can keep using them for timber growing. The public lands are a mess. Not every forest or town is the same forest or town. I don't know the story of Valsetz. I do know something about our forests here. I don't want public forest management dictated by those whose only interest is in preserving their well-funded environmental organizations with out-of-state monies with no regard for the health of those forests OR our local economy. There is a fabulous amount of misinformation about who operates in whose interest.
I bet if you had been at the public forum I attended where a Democratic candidate spoke about it, it would have gotten your attention also.
2:48 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit_Fire_publication_controversy
Yes, it may well be true that the public forest is in worse shape, since there was a Republican administration in charge at the time of the fire and for six years after, and their policies of logging the fire likely made things worse.
8:45 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Sir, you could not be more wrong. It wasn't logged. By the time lawsuits stopping salvage logging were dispensed with, the trees were too rotted to be of any use. Side by side this is where you can see the difference between private and public forest management or lack thereof.
I hope you're not sitting at a wooden desk in a house built of wood writing this.
Do note, regarding party politics, the Clinton Plan that environmentalist groups agreed to fared no better in the political wars.
10:35 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
It depends on your goals: managing forests as a tree-farm will create predictable harvest levels, but also create areas subject to even more catastrophic wildfires in the future, while managing forests in the ways that will recreate a balanced, healthy ecosystem in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years will not maximize timber company profits and reduce the size and scope of wildfires to what they were before we started messing everything up.
3:58 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Wow. No I do not agree that the lack of management of forestlands creates a greater danger of catastrophic wildfire. We continually hear of the danger of catastrophic wildfires owing to the lack of federal land management.
One thing I am sure of: politics is the dominant force in this debate.
4:28 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Funny, because when studied scientifically, salvage logging (euphemistically called "management" by the timber industry) turns out to decrease forest health and increase the chance of catastrophic fires, vs. letting the forest heal itself.
http://www.timberlinemag.com/articledatabase/view.asp?articleID=2026
“Our data show that post-fire logging, by removing naturally seeded conifers and increasing surface fuel loads, can be counter-productive to goals of forest regeneration and fuel reduction.”
Of course, funded-by-the-timber-industry OSU disagreed with the conclusions of the study, and tried to suppress it.
Can't have scientists not paying attention to who pays the bills!
6:43 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
"Funded by the timber industry OSU" was who put out that extremely controversial and imo discredited Donato report.
We could play "link this" all day.
I wonder if you'd like the Oregon Historical Society research.
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/narratives/subtopic.cfm?subtopic_ID=579%3E
12:06 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
I guess if you think science doesn't count, the Donato report is discredited.
That's quite a rich fantasy life you're going with, Sally.
1:39 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
I could accuse you, Karla, of being disingenuous or dishonest. That was pitiful "science" in the Donato report.
11:56 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Are you seriously saying that the post Biscuit fire region wasn't logged? That's flatly untrue.
One study was done in the Biscuit region comparing areas logged and those that regenerated without logging:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Jan06/regeneration.htm
This research was the subject of a huge controversy at Oregon State, in which the Dean of Forestry barely survived with his job intact--for attempting to interfere with a student's work whose results were counter to what the forest products industry wants the public to see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit_Fire_publication_controversy
Subsequent scientific findings have partially substantiated the findings of the student, fyi.
12:47 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
I believe about 4 percent of what could have been salvage looged was. I further believe that the research of those OSU students was shallow, quick, and is not widely well regarded except politically.
2:51 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Actually, the attacks on the research was political.
Again, you're starting from a false premise, that jobs in the timber industry disappeared because of environmentalism.
They've been lost because of three things:
Mechanization reduced the need for labor.
Shipping of raw logs overseas sent jobs overseas as well.
Cutting at unsustainable levels meant that cutting had to be drastically reduced.
3:56 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
The research was attacked because it was founded on poor science.
The industry had declined due to national recession and the other factors you mentioned. But it was still a vital industry until the tap of federal timber (federal lands comprise more than half our state) was brutally shut off with the endangered species act's protection of the spotted owl.
It's been politics ever since -- and the near decimation of the timber industry.
2:20 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Sorry Sally, you're flat wrong here. I was working in a forest products/forestry field at the time this report was released. The attempts to shut it down by key figures in the forest products industry (and a couple of key politicians) was shameful. Hal Salwasser barely kept his job after his role in trying to scuttle this research was exposed.
The science of this report has in a number of key places been affirmed. Either you don't know the facts around this issue or you're being dishonest.
6:40 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
We disagree about the "facts."
I am not being dishonest and I believe you are wrong, not I.
5:36 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
Sally, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Can you back up your facts with anything? Anything?
7:52 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
You'll love this.
http://evergreenmagazine.com/magazine/article/The_Donato_Law_Fiasco_Mixing_Politics_and_Science_Alchemy_at_OSU.html
There's a lot of meat on those bones.
12:05 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Cuz an opinion piece on a rightwing site that doesn't actually address the factual information does what, exactly?
C'mon Sally...you'll need to do better than this.
1:47 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
I'm sorry, that very lengthy analysis is worth more than a quick dismissal. It's full of factual information. Dismissing it because you think you don't like the source is a logical fallacy.
It was a politically-motivated small-scale, abbreviated time frame study that tried to draw conclusions way way past its questionable findings.
5:27 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Oh, yes, an organization made up entirely of timber-industry people is SUCH an unbiased source.
6:51 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Argumentum ad hominem. You reject the argument on the basis of nothing more than the source.
Here's another not directly about the Donato study, but to the same points. This woman knows forests. She was a Jackson County Commissioner for 16 years (longest ever here, I believe.) She is a Democrat.
http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/UploadedFiles/testimony/2005/suekupillas.pdf
I guess you could try another ad hominem: Oh, but she's not our Democrat.
I'm a bit surprised, frankly, that this weakly constructed Donato report is held here with near Biblical reverence.
That's faith, not science.
Bye, Michael. Perhape one thing we can agree on is that after tonight there will be many more discussions of much more fervent interest than this one!
12:01 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Facts are facts, whether you like them or not, Sally. The research by Donato and subsequent affirmation are done and available. Cherry-picking what you like and don't like won't change that.
4:14 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Sh30CtsPDSgJ:ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/14773/1/em8544.pdf+oregon+timber+employment+history&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShE2qvpnq5bKllZobSJ7l4mdt0xHPJbzdkbfBUklIqyzZNALoRIJ5YvM8oq0tLrkrE_awRdFOuo4Kg7ScFZsyUv9_9SId5yqJw9SzX4k-xU6MXoskBrat2izlG2qKEjPzp4W1WH&sig=AHIEtbT6uYYOGC5waDQHiuJ2gJ5eUSqJOw
Sally, notice that the harvest rates in the late 80s were as high or higher than in the late 70s, yet timber industry employment was much lower.
Stop basing your views on what you think you know, and start looking at what actually happened.
5:53 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
There used to be a party with this in its platform:
"We are opposed to further grants of the public lands to corporations and monopolies, and demand that the national domain be set apart for free homes for the people."
That party was the G.O.P. My, how it has changed. Now it's of, by, and for the corporations.
8:30 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
The public lands known as O&C (Oregon & California) lands in Southern Oregon were set aside for the express & total purpose of timber harvesting for the revenue benefit of the counties they were in.
10:40 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Yes, at the turn of the LAST century.
Fortunately, both the will of the people who own the lands (to not clear-cut the rest of the West) AND our understanding of the importance of and requirements for healthy forest ecosystems have changed substantially over the last 100 years!
11:08 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. 1937 (when the O&C Act was adopted) was not turn of the last century. And 1-1/2 times more timber is growing on those lands now than it was then; and the legal mandate of the Act -- to compense counties via timber production for revenue lost as tax base because the lands were federally owned -- has not changed.
4:38 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
The O&C Act put a "solution" on a problem that exisited since well before the turn of the last century. The lands have been in uncontested federal ownership since 1915:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_and_California_Railroad#President_Roosevelt_intervenes
But the point remains that the O&C Act is a woefully outdated and unsustainable approach to funding timber-dependent counties and managing forest ecosystems.
6:38 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
No it isn't.
1:39 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
Here's a picture that demonstrates the unsustainable practices of the timber companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valsetz,_Oregon_May_10_2009.jpg
11:48 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
The economic crisis in timber communities comes in great part from the companies themselves. During the 80s when there was a bit of a lull in harvesting--companies outside of Oregon upgraded their harvesting and milling technology. Oregon companies generally failed to do this.
When harvesting resumed at a more robust pace, Oregon was at a distinct disadvantage. To throw this at the feet of conservation advocates is simply ignoring a huge piece of the puzzle.
What does "better managed" mean, exactly? Which land is generating more board feet of timber? Which will recover better post-fire? Which is providing benefits such as habitat, watershed, etc? That's a pretty broad term you're tossing around.
12:49 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
The BLM is not able to even attempt management of 80 percent of their lands. That was the point of the tour they gave here locally about a month ago, to show the difference between the much healthier private for forest service lands and theirs (which are supposed to "ours" in one sense and specifically for our benefit in another.
2:16 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Perhaps so, and I'm sure we might find agreement that the BLM needs more latitude for forest management.
That said, laying the blame for the unraveling of Oregon's forest products industry there simply ignores other key factors--such as the industry's own failures, which were enormous.
1:36 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
My point would be to question the knee-jerk negativity toward any successful company. There is an underlying and overarching conviction, it seems, constantly on BlueOregon, that any successful company is out only to do harm to the state and its citizens. That is a terrible presumption to turn into such a self-righteous conviction.
Personally, I would be inclined to find out first something more about the history and practices of Stimson Lumber. It's been around a long time. What's working?
I know it is widely felt in Southern Oregon where I live that the one-size-fits-all land-use planning conceived in the Willamette Valley doesn't work well here.
Neither does the forest lock-up (in Southern Oregon 2,000 times more timber is grown now than is harvested) but that's really a whole 'nother discussion.
3:36 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Nice generalization: "the knee-jerk negativity toward any successful company."
In fact, what's here (if you'd actually both to read what people have written) is concern about a specific company's environmental record, and their use of corporate profits to oppose policies (higher corporate taxes, land use and environmental laws) that many of us here think are good for Oregon. Their pursuit of their own self-interest, to the detriment of the public interest, and the use of campaign contributions in that pursuit, is what's being questioned here.
5:02 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Then explain the same hostility toward Stimson (about which I know little) and Phil Knight (about whom I know more). And can anybody explain anything without ideological rhetoric? Most of what I have "bothered to read" is not much more than that. Am I wrong?
6:19 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Both have contributed to candidates and ballot measures that I and others here oppose, and opposed measures many of us have favored.
Add to that basic difference of opinion the fact that both have taken political stances which are obviously self-serving (Phil Knight opposing higher marginal personal income tax rates, for example) which (if Measures 66 and 67 had been defeated, as Knight wanted) would have created great hardship a huge number of Oregonians with far less means than Knight.
Both have exhibited other behaviors which I and others oppose. Nike sells expensive shoes to kids dreaming of a one in a million chance of sports super-stardom, made by children earning less than a dollar a day. Stimson clear-cuts forests in unsustainable ways and has been fined numerous times for violating existing environmental laws.
So in both cases, you have companies that have done arguably "bad" things, who then inject lots of money into the political process in support of arguably "bad" candidates and policies.
I have honestly tried to explain "without ideological rhetoric." You and anyone is certainly entitled to disagree with the judgments about both company's corporate behaviors and policy positions.
But if a company spent lots of money supporting candidates you disagreed with (and against measures you supported), AND took actions as corporations which you thought were wrong, wouldn't you feel a little "hostility"?
8:41 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Full credit for a reasonable defense; thank you. I don't have time right now to disagree at any length. Briefly, (1) I don't know that Stimson's forest practices are unsustainable; and (2) I strongly believe that the maligning Phil Knight for "unfair labor practices" is old, tired, cheap, easy, out-of-context and short-sighted, and I strongly believe his tremendous contributions to the state of Oregon are sadly under appreciated on a number of fronts while he is cult figure on others. I respect him and I appreciate his tremendous contributions to Oregon.
I apologize for being a fly in the ointment here at Blue Oregon the last week or two. I was brought in by my accidental involvement in a local (Southern Oregon) campaign. BlueOregon & I would probably both be happier would I find a more congenial environment to discuss politics. I happen along here only in a hot political season; I'll soon be gone. :)
10:22 a.m.
Oct 30, '10
"the maligning Phil Knight for 'unfair labor practices' is old, tired, cheap, easy, out-of-context and short-sighted."
Then why did he cut contributions to his beloved U of O when they dared to support a group that would independently monitor labor conditions overseas?
11:03 a.m.
Oct 30, '10
Because he was tired of it, too.
12:45 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
He was tired of being held accountable? Oh, poor baby!
1:56 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
He was tired of being badgered by know-nothing do-nothings. Like the fellow said a few posts up, "self-righteoud douchebags.
4:17 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Yeah, democracy's a bitch, ain't it? I mean, every Joe on the street gets to have an opinion. I'm sure Phil would prefer it if only the rich who've "accomplished" things got to have their opinions counted. If the political leaders only listened to those with enough wealth to make their points of view known far and wide. If a big bank account was a prerequisite for getting government's attention and getting access when it really matters.
Oh, wait a minute...
6:30 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Ideological screed alert!
It's not because Phil Knight is rich that he should be given a fair hearing. It's because he has done great things for this state: created thousands of jobs here and tens of thousands elsewhere, produced goods people want, built a successful company, given millions of dollars away, created a lot of infrastructure at one public university and donated to at least one other.
It's takes punky college kids a decade or two to figure out that they didn't know everything, doesn't it?
Doesn't it?
It was in a philosophy of law class in college that I was taught to give everything a charitable hearing before I dismissed it out of hand.
That is called the principle of charity. It could use a bit more passing around.
2:25 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Doing "great things" doesn't wipe out all of the negative things-as much as you'd like it to.
The Catholic Church does a lot of charitable good works. But it doesn't absolve them of allowing their priests to diddle little boys.
6:57 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Wipe out what negatives? Political positions that you don't like? That's not quite comparable to the Catholic Church, I wouldn't think.
6:24 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Lots of people do lots of great things. Phil Knight has an the impact he does on the political process because of the money he has and can throw around. If he had done just as many "great things" but had zero dollars, he'd have zero influence. If he had done zero great things, but buckets of dollars, he'd have buckets of influence.
6:56 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
You've gotten things backwards. He doesn't do "great things" because he has money; he has money because he has done great things (to then go on & do others). Is there any respect for good successful business here?
9:12 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Uh, so his wealth is proof of his having done "great things" and/or that we should listen too him/respect him?
My point was, it wouldn't matter, under our current political system, that someone had done great things, if they didn't also have money. And if someone has money, the political system couldn't care less whether or not they have in fact done "great things." (Unless they are so capital-focused that they value only wealth, so that the more money someone has, the more virtuous they are!)
I evaluate a person's contribution to society quite independently from the wealth they have extracted from it. Usually (but not always), they are closer to inversely proportional.
5:12 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
"Wealth they have extracted?" Try this: wealth they have created.
Created.
8:44 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
Wrong-oh. Workers create wealth in society. The wealthly extract it. With a decent tax structure, society gets some of that back, and everybody wins.
How many shoes could Phil actually make and sell without middle-class marketing employers in Beaverton and slave-wage factory employees in China?
If he paid everyone a living wage, he could still sell shoes, only he might make 40 times the average worker instead of 400 times.
10:46 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
Paging Karl Marx to the courtesy phone.
Without the Phil Knights of the world, there wouldn't be any "workers." Or "wealth."
12:08 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
LOL..you know you've lost the argument when you are forced to invoke Karl Marx, Sally.
Jeez.
1:37 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Nice try. What else does one respond with to this dialectic?
"Wrong-oh. Workers create wealth in society. The wealthly extract it."
At least I read Das Kapital. (Well, Volume I, anyway.)
By and large my contributions here have been relatively jargon-free.
12:12 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Other way around, I'm afraid, other way around.
11:58 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Knee-jerk is cutting both ways in this comment thread, I'm afraid. You're very eager to defend a company that is quite obviously shoving money at candidates that are more likely to loosen environmental rules.
Let's all just be honest about what this is, please.
12:45 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Please reread. I wasn't defending Stimson; I have said more than once I know next to nothing about that company.
2:24 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
It sure seems like you are defending them. And it seems like you're doing so rather vehemently.
It's clear that Stimson is dumping large amounts of cash toward candidates that will be more friendly to loosening enviro rules and regulations. That's the point of Isaac's post--and it sure seems like he's laid the case out pretty well. Most all of your comments have been an attempt to push back on that--which is in fact a defense of Stimson.
If this isn't what you're trying to do..well..then...you're failing spectacularly.
6:45 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
I "fail spectacularly" at every discussion I attempt here. At some point I'm not sure that's all ...... me.
9:07 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Come on, Sally, you're also up in arms about salvage logging and spotted owl protection and if only we had let Stimson et. al. clear-cut as much as they had wanted we've still be living in resource-extraction nirvana down here in Southern Oregon only those no-good liberals from Portland and the Sierra Club won't leave us alone--Why DO they hate our freedoms so much???
That's the picture you've painted. None of us have done that for you.
5:10 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
Would you please stop putting words in my mouth? It is not something you do well.
5:37 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
Sally, Jay has painted an accurate picture of your behavior here.
7:56 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
No he hasn't. But you are very good at reinforcing what "everyone knows" here. Looks to me like anyone not toeing your party line is instantly heaped into the enemy camp territory wherein all manner of assumptions and presumptions are taken as fact and tossed back and forth among the brigade.
1:12 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Meaning what, that dismantling everything that created a middle class won't somehow damage the middle class? Reagan started doing that, and, guess what, Virginia, the middle class really IS being destroyed, and the distribution of wealth and income has never been more skewed. Coincidence? I don't think so.
As far as the policies of the GOP are concerned, a thriving middle class is an aberration brought on by Democratic policies, and the sooner they can snuff it out, the better. Of course, they won't say that, but that's been the effect of their policies over the last 30 years, and they are advocating more of the same.
1:29 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
The middle class in Oregon is not thriving nor is its government. So your "aberration" isn't working too well here, is it?
3:31 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
"The middle class in Oregon is not thriving nor is its government."
Do you think the 30-year Republican-led war against both might have anything to do with that?
4:56 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
For purposes of this discussion, no.
6:35 p.m.
Oct 29, '10
Then you are sadly misinformed:
Reagan's Budget Director: GOP Policies "Have Crippled Our Economy" | The Nation http://bit.ly/ckdDcW
Grover Norquist, prominent conservative activist: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
11:29 a.m.
Oct 30, '10
If GOP policies have crippled our economy, do you think current Democratic policies are rescuing it? How's that going?
At any rate, in the State of Oregon let's look at what's happening with every agency budget. What I read is that the percentage of every agency budget that is being consumed by PERS and other benefits is shooting up to 18 and 24 percent. Wowza.
Can you keep blaming Grover Norquist for this? (I actually heard some intelligent comments from him a month or two ago .... I know, I could hardly believe it either. He really isn't a total fool ..... um, neither is everyone in Oregon, I hope!)
12:35 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
If GOP policies have crippled our economy, do you think current Democratic policies are rescuing it? How's that going?
Uh, 2 years in after 30 years of destruction (with some easing during the Clinton years, but while also advancing the GOP/DLC pro-corporate/anti-middle class agenday; NAFTA, deregulation, etc.) I think it is a little early to judge.
But if you look at the Democratic policies that got us out of the Great Depression (and that Republicans until Reagan were afraid to try and remove, head on), I'd say we did just fine, thank you.
This graph shows how high marginal income tax rates reduced income disparity, and, not at all coincidentally, created “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/income-gap-and-marginal-tax-rate-1917-2006/
So, history gives us a pretty good idea of what will work (Democratic/Liberal economic policies), and what won't (GOP/"Conservative" policies).
2:05 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
Every last one of Obama's economic advisors has left has left except for Geithner, who in my view should not been brought in in the first place.
Count me in the disgruntled independent voter group.
9:46 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
I agree with you 100% that Obama's biggest failing has been his fear of offending Wall Street and his willingness to accept advice from those who advocated for the deregulation that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm glad they are mostly gone and wish Geithner would get tossed, too. I was very proud of Pete Defazio for calling for Geithner to step down. (He also voted against the stimulus because he thought it was too small.) Hopefully the President will realize that Wall Street and the banksters are not working in the best interests of the American people or the American economy, and will appoint people like Paul Krugman who really understand what's going on.
7:00 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Just to note, I do not agree that the what was wrong with the "stimulus package" was that it was not large enough.
9:32 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
At least two Nobel Prize-winners and other leading economists disagree with you:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/18/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_on_obamas
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/
http://www.alternet.org/economy/76166/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/what_went_wrong_with_stimulus.html
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200903060025
5:23 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
And there are just as many or more against it.
5:39 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
Name them, please.
7:49 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
How about I name some, since you either think EVERYONE believes the SAME THING, or you have never met most people's best friend, Google.
Bruce Bartlett, Philip Levy, Alberto Alesina, Robert Barro, Gary Becker, John Cochrane, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Sargent, Harald Uhlig, and Luigi Zingales.
If you recall, after Joe Biden claimed that everyone did share only one opinion, an ad in the New York Times listed 200 economists including three Nobel winners who did not agree.
9:36 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Besides being not large enough, it also over emphasized tax cuts instead of spending, which provides a much better return on investment:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/11354/
12:37 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
And, as far as the State's budget problems are concerned, I still can't understand the frantic desire to yank public-sector benefits down to the level that the private sector has sunk.
Race to the Bottom, anyone?
2:07 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
I am so tired of that cliche. But can YOU tell me why Oregon should be the ONLY state where state employees pay NOTHING toward their medical benefits? And tell me how putting that all of the private sector is equitable? How can "we" in the private sector keep paying more for ours and all of yours as well? How can those numbers work?
9:38 p.m.
Oct 30, '10
Simple. If by "we" in the private sector, you mean workers, then we pay too much for our benefits, and get too little. Complain and you're told, "There's the door!" That's not how you build a middle class!
If we taxed the highest incomes and corporations at the rates we did in the 1950s and 60s, we might start to rebuild living standards for the rest of us to where they were then.
The thing is, it's not a zero-sum game. ("If public sector workers have more, private sector workers must get less.") The oligarchs would love us to fight each other instead of them, now wouldn't they? Given how they've been able to use their massive wealth to inflame some people's justifiable discontent with the economy into flights of tea-bagger absurdidty, it seems they're doing a pretty good job of it, too!
8:51 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
The thing is, it's not a zero-sum game. ("If public sector workers have more, private sector workers must get less.")
Seems to me it is a zero-sum game when the state economy is down a rathole and a hugely increasing percentage of state agency budgets go to benefits packages that public-sector employees pay no part of.
How is "tax the rich" going to bring back business activity and the 150,000+ private sector jobs lost in this Great Recession, of which Oregon has fared far worse than most states?
10:29 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Well, I don't have time for an economics history lesson, but the short answer is, the same way it got us out of the Republican Great Depression. It worked great in the 30s, 40, 50s and 60s--the longest period of economic prosperity in US history. (And, not coincidentally, the largest growth of the middle class, least amount of income disparity AND the highest marginal tax rates on corporations and the wealthy.)
It works. Trickle-down doesn't. That's what got us IN to this mess.
It is only a zero-sum game if taxing the middle class of the private sector (or cutting services) is the only option "on the table" if you want to balance the budget (aside from cutting back on public sector pay and benefits, which is where we get back to the old race to the bottom thing). But history shows us that's not how you do it, if you want a prosperous middle class. For that, do what FDR, Truman and Eisenhower did.
11:00 a.m.
Oct 31, '10
Didn't I just argue that Oregon is well ahead of the pack if not in first place in the "race to the bottom?" Why, in 49 states, do public sector employees contribute to their benefit packages and in Oregon they don't?
I predict the politics of this will turn just as the economics of it have. Good grief, even Kulongowski (years late and millions of dollars short) said as much, leaving all of "the doing" to his successor.
You keep talking grand scale theories (and economics is a soft, not a hard, "science") and I'm seeing Oregon in the bottom of the piles in every regard ..... except for its fabulously funded state employment salary, benefit and retirement packages.
12:34 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Hmmm, the Tax Foundation just rated Oregon the 14th most favorable for business in the country. So, perhaps, having a "favorable" tax climate is counter productive.
4:01 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
Since the state just dropped eight steps down, perhaps it means that the Tax Foundation rankings don't mean much in reality. Because our economy sucked when it was #8.
4:12 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
More likely it means that blaming all of our problems on too much taxation and too much government spending doesn't, er, add up.
6:36 p.m.
Oct 31, '10
I was thinking earlier, if your sources of blame (Reagan, Bush, Grover Norquist, Republicans, increasing disparity of wealth, et al) are the problems, what are you going to do in the meantime? Can you rectify all the problems at all what you allege are their source-points to ensure that everyone in Oregon has all their medical and retirement benefits paid in full?
And until then, why should the private working-class sector in Oregon, which ranks well below the national average income, be paying for all the salaries and benefits for a public sector that ranks well above?
Will you grant me any point at all? Ever?
6:31 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
The solution to the partial destruction of the middle class is not to destroy it the rest of the way.
As an aside, I have granted you points (agreeing with you that Geithner and the other banksters on Obama's economic team being a huge failure is one). But I am firm that the rest of the middle class needs to be lifted up, rather than the public employees dragged down, and that the way to both adequately fund state government AND restore the middle class is to return to the tax (and trade, though that's a different question) policies that built the middle class in the first place.
6:33 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Dang this is getting hard to read!
6:59 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Well we finally found something we can agree on.
Still waiting to here why Oregon should be the ONLY STATE where public employees contribute NOTHING to their benefit packages.
9:15 p.m.
Nov 1, '10
Because, as I've said many times, destroying the rest of the middle class is not a good strategy for rebuilding it.
It's like that scene in the Poseidon Adventure: "You're going the wrong way!"
5:19 a.m.
Nov 2, '10
OK, I get it now. If public employees in Oregon paid any part of their benefit packages, it would destroy "the rest" of the middle class.
Good luck carrying that weight around.
10:34 p.m.
Nov 2, '10
Sally, I've got to give you credit for going toe-to-toe with the Portland area progressives regarding logging in general and the Biscuit Fire in specific. It shows the huge divide between urban Portland and the rest of Oregon.
They will never admit that their theories of how the rest of Oregon should be might just be wrong. Those of us who lived in the shadows of the plume know what practices and policies led to the Biscuit Fire and the loss of hundreds of millions of board feet of timber.
7:29 a.m.
Nov 3, '10
Thank you, Kurt Chapman. This must be my first positive response on BlueOregon. :)
You made an important point: the urban/rural divide is unfortunately alive and important. It often comes up or is felt in Southern Oregon. "We" know "they" don't care what we think -- or want. Or even what is reality elsewhere. We have to think about them -- but that's a one-way superhighway south to north. The consideration has no southbound lane.