Once again, the president put forth some pretty tough talk last week during a speech at George Washington University, when he proclaimed that the authorization of millions and billions of dollars of tax breaks for the ultra wealthy would not happen while he’s president. While I’m sure this was an error made by the speechwriter or the typist, the word “again” – which should have been between the words “happen” and “while” – was somehow deleted. Believe it or not, I salute the president for that one: We’re too lazy to pay attention, and short-term memory is so outdated it’s almost quaint. Extending W.’s tax cuts back in December? Hell, that’s old news. And best of all, imagine the Republicans slamming Obama for his little lie. What are they going to say? Obama gave away billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the land and then said it was something that wouldn't happen while he is president! Wait a minute, that's the wrong message.
The president’s speech, though, was but a sideshow compared to the conservatives’ reaction to it. Paul Ryan, who allegedly crafted the budget supported by the super Republicans, was utterly shocked by the president’s speech. On one talk show after another, the full-throttle hottie from Wisconsin whined and sulked and sneered over the fact that Obama’s speech was … partisan. According to Ryan, a group of conservatives had met with the president shortly before the speech to discuss the particulars of the budget. Then, the president got up and used the bully pulpit to attack and belittle the Republicans. And furthermore, the knights of that party complained, Obama’s speech wasn’t really about the budget: It was the kickoff of his 2012 campaign. Which, speaking of short-term memory issues, makes me wonder where the Republicans have been, because Katie Couric, Brian Williams and many other celebrities who play journalists on television announced the start of the 2012 “election cycle” on a very cold evening in November 2008, and as a result, everyone with a platform has been in campaign mode ever since. Who can blame them? Not I.
There is plenty of eye clawing going on right here in Oregon as well. While I am not necessarily proud of this, I do have to admit that I find the local budget churn as entertaining – if not more so – as the doings in Washington. Here’s how it usually unfolds: A group of loud, well-funded people who throw terms like “reform” and “fiscal responsibility” into every written and spoken sentence in support of a candidate who, like Christ himself, appears as the clouds part and offers up a simple, back-to-basics brand of wisdom. At home, you don’t spend more money then you earn without running into trouble, we’re told. The government’s the same.
Except that it isn’t. Over the past three works I’ve received e-mails from all sorts of groups. Some of them offer educational opportunities to inmates, some provide services to people suffering from mental illnesses, some organize and administer programs meant to preserve the environment. Different missions, to be sure, but, when it comes to “balancing the budget,” the same identical message: Not if it affects us. That’s where the e-mails come in: Write your representatives, they instruct. This is important, this is critical to our future. This, according to the e-mails, is the one thing to which you, as a responsible citizen, should dedicate your time, your energy, your money. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the big one.
Which brings me, unfortunately, to the Portland Public Schools. Last year, we voted in favor of a property tax increase to save the schools. And next month, voters will be asked to approve a levy to save the school district, once again, from demise. Last Monday, the main attraction at the neighborhood association meeting was a presentation on the levy. The presenters, unfortunately, did not show up. So we winged it. One of the attendees – a parent – threw out some platitudes about our duty to fund schools, to provide for one another. Another attendee – a retired engineer who is not only a parent but a grandparent as well – using the flyer that had appeared at the meeting (whether it was forwarded in e-mail or dropped off I couldn’t say), explained the levy as follows: The school buildings need a lot of work done in order to be brought up to safety standards. Otherwise, if there’s an earthquake, the children will die.
The retired engineer added that while it would be less expensive to just build new schools, it’s more in line with “Portland values” to preserve the old ones. That forced me into strange territory. I think that new construction is almost criminal when you consider what already exists. At the same time, while it pains me to admit this, any rhetoric put forth by the Portland Public Schools, especially when it includes terms like “values” and “sustainability,” makes me suspicious. My reaction, in all fairness to the schools, is but one of the side effects of working in PR.
The very next day yet another e-mail, this one from my state representative, who I think is quite good, announcing that he voted against the governor’s budget but that he is holding out hope that the levy next month will help save hundreds of teaching positions in Portland. So I wrote to him and said that unfortunately the people who were going to speak about the levy to the neighborhood association had not shown up but that the flyer and the conversation were about buildings – not teachers. I do the write ups of the neighborhood association’s meetings, I explained, so I asked that he please clarify for me how the funds from the levy would be spent.
His assistant answered me promptly: Neither she nor the representative had been “as engaged” with the levy issue as they would have liked due to the demands of the state budget. In all seriousness, I salute the honesty of that response. So I went to the Portland Public Schools Web site, and discovered that there are in fact two levies on which we’ll be voting on next month, one for buildings, the other to save teaching positions. Then I went back to the flyer, and it does actually acknowledge that our duty is to not only save school buildings but school jobs as well. That information, though, is woven in subtly, put down at the bottom of the bullet points that bellow in big, bold print the news that while the sky may not be falling at the school district, it won’t be long before the ceilings do.
