OlsonOnline

Ex- Gov takes on Willy Week in defense of Obama

In a recent Blue Oregon post, former Governor Barbara Roberts calls Willamette Week's editorial linking Barack Obama to Bill Sizemore's teacher pay-for-performance ballot measure "woefully misleading".  Obama does not support "merit pay" for teachers, says Roberts, certainly not in any way compatible with Sizemore's Measure 60.

Since I linked to Beth Slovic's WWeek piece in a post yesterday, I feel obligated to weigh in.  Here's the issue in a nutshell:  

Slovic implied that Obama lends support to Bill Sizemore's Measure 60 by using the phrase "pay for performance".  Roberts claims that's entirely untrue.  Obama's educational platform, she says, is "incompatible" with M60.

So who's right?  While it's true that Obama has mentioned  "merit pay" favorably on occasion (I wrote about it here), he doesn't use the phrase at all in the video accompanying Slovic's piece.  Nor does he use the term anywhere in his educational platform. 

In fact, Obama has softened his stance on teacher accountability considerably.  His website specifically says that that he'll promote "new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them."  That doesn't sound much like Sizemore's approach, nor the tactics of accountability freaks like Washington DC superintendent --excuse me, chancellor-- of schools, Michelle Rhee.  

Obama  even evidences some awareness of how school reform actually works.  He proposes, for example, "common planning time so [teachers] can collaborate to share best practices."

Then again he supports charter schools, which teachers don't like and I don't like. Even so, Obama has "nuanced" his approach to charters:

"An Obama-Biden administration will provide this expanded charter school funding only to states that improve accountability for charter schools, allow for interventions in struggling charter schools and have a clear process for closing down chronically underperforming charter schools. An Obama-Biden administration will also prioritize supporting states that help the most successful charter schools to expand to serve more students."

So what's the verdict in the Roberts - Slovic spat?  Call it a draw.  Sorry Bill Sizemore, but I really don't think that Obama, if he were an Oregon voter, would endorse Measure 60. 

Worth reading --Sonja Henning must go!

That's Portland Public Schools board member Sonja Henning, who according  to Steve Rawley, refuses to talk to the press about her support of Bill Sizemore's teacher pay-for-performance ballot measure.

More specifically, Henning refuses to talk to Willamette Week's Beth Slovic, who has been warned not to approach Director Henning at school board meetings.  Slovic is the only reporter in Portland who seems to take local school politics seriously.

Rawley thinks that Henning ought to resign her school board position now, not because of her support of Measure 60, but because of her attempt "to place herself and her policy positions above public scrutiny."  It's indefensible that she refuses to talk to the press about her dissent from the school board's resolution to oppose M60.  

That said, Henning's term is up in June.  So maybe it wouldn't be a good idea for her to resign now.  Her position would most likely be filled by the remaining six board members with another shill for the district's disastrous school choice and transfer policies.  And incumbents, as you know, always have a leg up in elections.

The board needs an entirely new perspective.  In May, the public has the opportunity to elect three new members to the PPS board.  Activist and former board member Steve Buel is already campaigning for Martin Gonzales' Zone 4 seat.

Now what's needed are for a few good people who believe in school equity to step up in Zones 5 and 6.  Check the map to see if YOU qualify.

Progressive versus liberal, redux

Blue Oregon's Kari Chisholm has written a provocative post on the vital connection between  progressives and labor.  The title of his piece says it all: 

"You can't be a progressive unless you're pro-labor."

Down the comment thread, it's suggested that perhaps progressive should be clearly defined  --and differentiated from the "catch all" term, liberal. 

Two years ago I did just that.  Here's what I wrote:

Progressive versus liberal

I've been asked on more than one occasion why I refer to myself as a progressive rather than simply a liberal, the implication being that the two terms are pretty much synonymous.  So let me set the record straight:

They're not.  Synonymous, that is. 

What's the difference?  In a word, taxes! 

Progressives like me believe in fully funding  vital government services   --education, health care, environmental protection, public safety, the regulation of private industry-- through a fair system of taxation.  And by "fair" I mean based on the ability to pay.  The more money you have, the more you should pay in taxes.  That's the foundation of the graduated --or progressive-- income tax.   Even Adam Smith, as I've written, accepted that notion of tax fairness.  As taxes become flatter --the top marginal income tax rate, once 91% under Eisenhower, is now 36%-- fairness suffers.

Most prominent "liberals" have a different view.  Let me give you an example.  Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, a staunch liberal, is pushing what he calls a "fair flat tax", the operative word being "flat", not progressive.  On the other hand, candidate for Multnomah County Commission Xander Patterson, a true progressive whom I endorsed, proposed a graduated county income tax to fund programs the county doesn't have the money for.  None of his "liberal" primary opponents did. 

Liberals tend to coddle corporations.  Why?  Politics is one reason.  Even the most liberal members of Congress, like John Kerry, rely on corporate money to fund their campaigns.  But ideology also plays a role.  All liberals believe in the magic of the free market, and many, especially "neoliberals", believe in the deregulation of private industry.  Very few, therefore,  are outspoken on the need to raise the corporate share of the overall tax burden. 

Nor are there many liberals sincerely beating the drums for national health care, perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, let alone anyone calling for an adequate national retirement system.  As David Sirota points out, liberals like Senator Barack Obama often propose half measures to ease health care burdens on industry.  Obama's "health care to hybrids" proposal is little more than a bribe to the auto industry.

National health care is a "big" idea requiring a "big" investment of taxpayer money, and liberals aren't inclined to think big.  Progressives are.  Or at least this progressive is.  I've written on more than one occasion that relieving the private  sector of its health and pension obligations for employees would be a boon for business.  And a boon for public education, where health care costs are spiraling out of control. 

The trade-off, of course, is a higher tax burden.  And "tax" is a dirty word in American politics.  That's true for conservatives and for liberals.

*******************************

Since I wrote that, we've seen "progressive" Oregon candidate for the Senate, Jeff Merkley, attack his primary opponent, Steve Novick, as "pro-tax."   Merkley's latest proposal, to counter Republican Gordon Smith's accusation that Merkley himself is "pro-tax", is for an additional tax cut for the upper middle class.

Blue Oregon recently posted this by Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy debunking the Republican claim that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The effective corporate tax rate, he points out, is a far different matter. 

Progressives in Oregon have long clamored for corporations to pay their fair share of  income taxes.  Corporate income taxes have shrunk from about 17% of the total collected in Oregon to about 6%.  Individual taxpayers have made up the difference. 

Back to Merkley.  Instead of proposing a slight increase in the top marginal rate for taxpayers who benefited from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or an increase in corporate taxes, to fund children's health care in Oregon, he and the Oregon legislature referred a cigarette tax to the voters.  

It was soundly defeated.  Not just by Big Tobacco, but by those who were offended that a small nicotine-addicted segment of Oregon's citizenry should bear the total cost of an otherwise worthy health care plan.

For me anyway, the bottom line is that "liberals" when running for office shy away from not only the "L" word, but also the "T" word.  Even IN office, most liberals are loath to propose either higher broad-based taxes or tax reform. 

True progressives aren't so squeamish.

I've been asked on more than one occasion why I refer to myself as a progressive rather than simply a liberal, the implication being that the two terms are pretty much synonymous.  So let me set the record straight:

They're not.  Synonymous, that is. 

What's the difference?  In a word, taxes! 

Progressives like me believe in fully funding  vital government services   --education, health care, environmental protection, public safety, the regulation of private industry-- through a fair system of taxation.  And by "fair" I mean based on the ability to pay.  The more money you have, the more you should pay in taxes.  That's the foundation of the graduated --or progressive-- income tax.   Even Adam Smith, as I've written, accepted that notion of tax fairness.  As taxes become flatter --the top marginal income tax rate, once 91% under Eisenhower, is now 36%-- fairness suffers.

Most prominent "liberals" have a different view.  Let me give you an example.  Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, a staunch liberal, is pushing what he calls a "fair flat tax", the operative word being "flat", not progressive.  On the other hand, candidate for Multnomah County Commission Xander Patterson, a true progressive whom I endorsed, proposed a graduated county income tax to fund programs the county doesn't have the money for.  None of his "liberal" primary opponents did. 

Liberals tend to coddle corporations.  Why?  Politics is one reason.  Even the most liberal members of Congress, like John Kerry, rely on corporate money to fund their campaigns.  But ideology also plays a role.  All liberals believe in the magic of the free market, and many, especially "neoliberals", believe in the deregulation of private industry.  Very few, therefore,  are outspoken on the need to raise the corporate share of the overall tax burden. 

Nor are there many liberals sincerely beating the drums for national health care, perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, let alone anyone calling for an adequate national retirement system.  As David Sirota points out, liberals like Senator Barack Obama often propose half measures to ease health care burdens on industry.  Obama's "health care to hybrids" proposal is little more than a bribe to the auto industry.

National health care is a "big" idea requiring a "big" investment of taxpayer money, and liberals aren't inclined to think big.  Progressives are.  Or at least this progressive is.  I've written on more than one occasion that relieving the private  sector of its health and pension obligations for employees would be a boon for business.  And a boon for public education, where health care costs are spiraling out of control. 

The trade-off, of course, is a higher tax burden.  And "tax" is a dirty word in American politics.  That's true for conservatives and for liberals.

*******************************

Since I wrote that, we've seen "progressive" Oregon candidate for the Senate, Jeff Merkley, attack his primary opponent, Steve Novick, as "pro-tax."   Merkley's latest proposal, to counter Republican Gordon Smith's accusation that Merkley himself is "pro-tax", is for an additional tax cut for the upper middle class.

Blue Oregon recently posted this by Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy debunking the Republican claim that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The effective corporate tax rate, he points out, is a far different matter. 

Progressives in Oregon have long clamored for corporations to pay their fair share of  income taxes.  Corporate income taxes have shrunk from about 17% of the total collected in Oregon to about 6%.  Individual taxpayers have made up the difference. 

Back to Merkley.  Instead of proposing a slight increase in the top marginal rate for taxpayers who benefited from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or an increase in corporate taxes, to fund children's health care in Oregon, he and the Oregon legislature referred a cigarette tax to the voters.  

It was soundly defeated.  Not just by Big Tobacco, but by those who were offended that a small nicotine-addicted segment of Oregon's citizenry should bear the total cost of an otherwise worthy health care plan.

For me anyway, the bottom line is that "liberals" when running for office shy away from not only the "L" word, but also the "T" word.  Even IN office, most liberals are loath to propose either higher broad-based taxes or tax reform. 

True progressives aren't so squeamish.

Chomsky and Zinn: Vote Obama!

Two of the more progressive voices in American politics, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, have advocated a vote for Barack Obama.  With reservations.

Chomsky:

"Chomsky says while it's true that the two parties are essentially like factions of one party - the party of business - the differences do matter to ordinary people. If you are living in a swing state, there is nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils."

Zinn:

"So even though Obama doesn't represent any fundamental change he creates an opening for a possibility of change. That is why I am voting for Obama. That is why I suggest to people that they vote for him. But I also suggest that Obama will not fulfill that potential for change unless he is enveloped by a social movement, which is angry enough, powerful enough, insistent enough, that he fills his abstract phrases about change with some real content."

Until the polls indicate otherwise, Oregon is not a swing state.  So, progressive Oregon voters, you decide whether to cast your vote for the first American black president or for the man who's right on the issues that matter to you.

And down ballot, vote third party!

************************
It may interest local school activists to know that when Howard Zinn taught at Spelman College, one of his prize students was Marian Wright.  Marian Wright later became Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund and mother of my neighbor, Jonah Edelman.  He in turn founded Stand for Children.

Small world. 

Reading, writing, 'rithmetic

As a teacher, I read with interest Michael Copperman's op-ed piece in Saturday's Oregonian.  The central message of the article was the potential influence of Obama's candidacy on poor black kids living in the Mississippi Delta.  But what caught my eye was the math "word" problem Copperman, as a teacher in the Delta, had his students tackle.

The problem was this:  How many donuts would be left over after a baker boxed up 234 of them by the dozen?  It prompted this question:

"Mr. Copperman, what a dozen is?"

That brought to mind the time I randomly asked some seventh graders if they knew what a "hog" was.  None of the students I asked,  including a few Hispanics fluent in English, knew that a hog was a pig. 

None.

Literacy is a slippery subject.  We often wrongly assume that students have a grasp of commonly used words, words like "dozen" or "hog".  That's especially true in math "story" problems.  A wrong answer may have less to do with arithmetic skills than with simple literacy.  If a student doesn't understand the "story", she'll never solve the problem.

At the time I randomly polled those seventh graders, I was also fiercely advocating integrated instruction, even teaching reading in math classes.  Some teachers would complain, "I teach math, not reading."  But that's simply not true.  Math teachers don't speak in numbers.  They use words.  They have every opportunity, as Michael Copperman did, to expand a child's vocabulary.  Teaching math, like any other discrete subject, depends on words, on the use of language.  

In fact, all the subjects traditionally taught in schools, rely on an understanding of language.  Even P.E. teachers, typically the group most resistant to the idea of integrated instruction, teach concepts like health, physiology, and movement.  And they often give written tests on the concepts they cover.

Like math, science and social studies teachers, P.E. teachers are already in the business of teaching valuable reading skills.

***********************

On a related note, the "word" problem Copperman presented to his students required the use of long division to come up with the correct answer.  But it can also be solved with some mental math tricks that are too often overlooked in the age of the classroom calculator. 

For example, instead of dividing 234 by twelve --something that I didn't want to do (nobody likes long division), I simply multiplied 12 by 10, and then added another 10x12 --that's 20 twelves, or dozen, to come up with a number near 234.  That came out to 240, which meant that the baker could only pack 19 boxes with twelve donuts each, with six donuts left over. 

All students should be taught to multiply by ten by simply adding a zero to the number multiplied.  Any student should be able to do that in her head.

I checked my answer on a calculator, by the way.  It came out 19.5.  Unless a kid can translate that .5 into 1/2, and then calculate that 1/2 of 12 is 6, even the calulator would be of little use in solving Copperman's problem.

Worth reading

Over at Blue Oregon, I recommend reading the lively discussion of Measure 65, the "top two" open primary initiative backed by former Secretary of State Phil Keisling.  The post itself argues that the measure actually strengthens minor parties, giving them the clout to become "kingmakers" in the general election.

That's a dubious contention.  More interesting are the comments to the post by Dan Meek, an Independent Party of Oregon member, and by Paul Gronke.  Both oppose the measure.

As a proponent of non-partisan elections, Gronke's assertion that party affiliation largely  determines how people vote is of special interest to me.  Here's how he put it:

"The three main sources of political cues for voters are a) political parties, b) interest groups, and c) the mass media."

Cues are "shortcuts" voters use to make sense of the ballot.  Without the first cue --party affiliation-- interest groups become the prime electoral mover:

"You know where they end up looking? Interest groups. Yep. Those same powerful monied interests that people are so worried about." ...

"You may hope by removing (a) from the equation that you suddenly will transform the electorate into reflective, well-informed, 'independent' voters. Oregon may be so special and unique that we can buck the trend."

If Gronke is right, he undermines my argument that elections should be decided on the issues, not by the initial after the candidate's name.  It's a simple matter for me to read the voters pamphlet, or the candidates' websites, to determine what each candidate stands for.  But perhaps that's not true for all voters.

That's one reason why I was --and still am-- a strong proponent of limitations on campaign donations.  That's why I voted yes on Measures 46 and 47 the last go around, measures opposed by powerful interest groups and by the two major political parties.  M47 passed.  It's constitutional enabler, M46, did not.

It would be nice to have elections decided not by a barrage of 30 second media spots, but by a thoughtful discussion of the issues between all qualified candidates.  That of course would necessitate removing most of the money from politics,  and opening up the airwaves, free of charge, to give equal exposure to the views of those candidates.

(Don't they do that in the United Kingdom?)

The city of Portland has taken a step toward such reforms with publicly financed elections.  The next two steps, as I see it, are to limit private expenditures, and then to force the electronic media --radio and TV-- to give free air time, as a condition of permission to use the public airwaves, to those who seek public office.

The courts --and the ACLU-- have ruled that money equals speech.  That must change if real campaign finance reform is ever to be realized.  That's why the defeat of Measure 46 was a real blow to the effort to rid politics of excessive spending.

The guts of the reform, Measure 47, did win approval, however, despite entrenched opposition.  So there's hope for the future.

"More than a two person race"

I recently wrote in support of qualified third party candidates in local elections.  In many Oregon races, from state representative to Secretary of State, candidates other than the major party nominees deserve another look.  And they deserve much greater media attention  than they typically get.

The title of this post comes from a FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) article accusing the "corporate" mainstream media of ignoring qualified candidates for President not named Obama or McCain:

"While the corporate press has apparently decided that the differences between Obama and McCain are more or less the only political opinions worth exploring this election season, the third-party and independent candidates take positions on issues like drug war policy, Israel-Palestine, civil liberties and military intervention that differ markedly from the views of either major-party candidate."

The media has silenced the voices of those other "substantial" candidates. 

The blackout of the third party candidates has also been evident in the Presidential debates, which since 1988 have been sponsored by the two major parties and funded by large corporations, notably Anheuser-Busch.  The Center for Public Integrity calls the Commission on Presidential Debates

"...a largely secretive tax-exempt organization, created and run by former chairmen of the two major parties, funded by a small group of unidentified major donors, and designed, it seems, to exclude nearly all third-party candidates."

In fact, the Commission prohibits third party candidates from even attending the debates.

The FAIR article reminds us that third party candidates (usually the progressive ones) have come up with some pretty good ideas that warrant discussion as elections are hashed out:

"Socialist Eugene Debs, for example, promoted the idea of Social Security in his repeated runs for the presidency in the early 20th century, and Progressive Henry Wallace advocated desegregation in his 1948 race."

One issue that hasn't been much discussed, either in the media coverage of the campaign or in the debates, is global warming, or climate change.  Climate change is THE most pressing issue the next president will face.

Watching PBS' Frontline last night did nothing to reassure me that either Obama or McCain is up to the task.  Although both acknowledge the reality of climate change, both pander to swing state voters with appeals to "clean coal technology".  (Most of the swing states are also, not surprisingly, coal producing states.)

But here's the thing.  Despite the barrage of advertising from the coal industry, clean coal technology doesn't exist.  In fact, such technology may never exist, and may in fact be impossible to achieve.  

Perhaps one of the third party candidates has some good ideas about dealing with climate change that haven't yet reached the public's ears.

Naomi Klein faults Obama on war, the economy, the environment

Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein criticizes "progressive" front groups for their uncritical backing of Barack Obama in this interview with The Real News Network.

Despite the backing of anti-war groups like MoveOn.org, Klein says Obama "does not have a real plan for getting us out of Iraq.  What he has is a plan to downsize the occupation of Iraq, not to end it."

She goes on to say that the "progressive infrastructure...is pretty much part of the Obama machine and it's suspended a fair bit of their critical thinking.  They're kind of in war mode, in crisis mode... :

"We have to keep McCain out and if we have to sacrifice some of our honesty and integrity to do it, then so be it.  We'll deal with it after the vote."

But can "it be dealt with after the vote"?   Doubtful.  It's never a good thing to sacrifice "honor and integrity" on behalf of a political candidate, no matter how badly you want him to win.  I want him to win, too.  (Got two signs out front.) 

But that doesn't prevent me from criticizing Obama on the issues.

Here's the interview.

Vote third party!

After you've voted no! on all of Bill Sizemore's initiatives, both on substance and for Sizemore's willingness to make a living --his only living, apparently-- from direct democracy, turn your attention to Measure 65, the so-called open primary ballot measure. 

Vote NO! on that, too.  Measure 65 advertises itself as the way to remove partisanship from Oregon's primary elections.  If that's so, why not take a more direct route to truly open primaries by making all of Oregon's elective positions, from governor on down, non-partisan contests?  Let the pols run on issues rather than party affiliation.

Opponents of Measure 65, Dan Meek in particular, say that the top-two scheme would effectively eliminate third parties in Oregon politics.  That's probably true. 

Those of you who are sick of the political duopoly in Oregon and the nation should vote for a qualified third party candidate whenever possible.  Here are my suggestions, from the bottom up:

• State Representative, 42nd District -- Chris Extine, Pacific Green Party.   Chris is a teacher, well-educated, and right on all the issues that count.

• Attorney General -- Either J. Ashlee Albies, Working Families Party, or Walt Brown, Pacific Green Party.  Both oppose mandatory sentencing.  The candidate of the other two major parties, John Kroger, doesn't.

• Secretary of State -- Seth Alan Woolley, Pacific Green Party.  Another well-educated progressive who supports campaign finance reform, instant runoff voting, and easy access to the ballot for independent candidates.  His Democratic opponent, Kate Brown, stands for the Democratic Party.

• Congress, 5th District -- Alex Polikoff, Pacific Green Party.  A UC Berkeley-educated engineer and true progressive.  His Democratic opponent, Kurt Schrader, has all the makings of another Blue Dog Dem.

• Congress, 3rd District -- Michael Meo, Pacific Green Party.  A graduate of Cal Tech and teacher at Benson High School, Meo is a great alternative to the cautious career pol, Earl Blumenauer.  Blumenauer is a shoo-in anyway, so why not?

• Congress, 1st District -- Chris Henry, Pacific Green Party.  Bue collar peace candidate.  His Democratic opponent, David Wu?  This statement from the voter's pamphlet says it all:

"David Wu has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning while always supporting our troops."

• President of the United States -- Ralph Nader, Peace Party.  Oregon is NOT a swing state.  Not this year. 

One last recommendation.  I'm inclined to vote NO on both the mandatory sentencing measures, 57 and 61 (definitely NO on 61.)  M57 is supposedly the more "humane" sentencing initiative with it's treatment options.  But both would increase prison populations and both would cost the state hundreds of millions it doesn't have.  I think judges should have the latitude to impose appropriate sentences.

But here's the catch.  The measure with the higher vote total will become law.  So a vote against 57 is in essence a vote FOR 61.

Too bad the state legislature felt compelled to refer a competing measure instead of putting money and clout behind an anti-M61 campaign. 

Walk + Bike to School Day clashes with district 'choice' policy

Sure, all Portland Public School children should have the option of walking or biking to their local schools.  Unfortunately, the reality is that many don't have that option, and you can blame that on the district's stubborn adherence to school choice. 

Take Creston Elementary, for example, just up the road from my old high school, Cleveland.  Only 47% of it's neighborhood students attend the school.  The other 53% go to schools outside the neighborhood, mostly to Portland's highly acclaimed focus options.  

I would guess that most of those schools are not within easy walking or biking distance.

Then there's nearby Grout, where I went to kindergarten.  Only 60% of its enrollment comes from the 'hood.  The remaining 40% go elsewhere, and probably not on foot. 

Without crunching all the numbers, I'd estimate that the average capture rate for Portland's neighborhood schools --meaning the number of kids living in the surrounding attendance area who enroll in the local school--  isn't much greater than 60%.  Generally speaking, the poorer the school, the lower the capture rate. 

Even Rosa Parks, the brand new community "partnership" school featured in the PPS article, loses 27% of its enrollment to other neighborhood schools, focus options, or  charters. 

New "pro-choice" school board member, Martin Gonzales, is quoted in the article as saying

“It’s important that youth take the initiative to make healthy and safe decisions about their lives and education... .”

I would have preferred for him to say that it's important for the school board to take the initiative to provide the opportunity for all students to make those healthy decisions. 

It's within the board's authority to do so.  After all, the health and the well being of Portland's school children are, to a great extent, the responsibility of the board and the district.