Yesterday at work (at HP), we had a visit from Democratic state senator Sara Gelser. She came to give a little speech about children's issues, funding for schools, programs for special needs children and foster kids - those sorts of things. It wasn't quite standing room only, but she got a good turnout. Needless to say, I had to go.
She spoke about the topics listed above, and made it very clear that there is a crisis - that's the word she used - in DHS and other agencies that deal with kids who are also in crisis. Management and HR are defensive and sometimes abusive. Workers aren't being trained, and the turnover rate for DHS caseworkers is a staggering 75% annually. When kids are in crisis, and parents seek help, it can take up to eight months to get into a first appointment in Oregon. That's a long, long time to wait if your child is engaging in self-destructive acts right now.
Given all that, the outcomes we get in Oregon are pretty dismal. It's obvious that changes have to be made in how we handle these issues here. That's my view, and Gelser made it clear it's hers as well.
But she also made it clear that there's one area we don't need to change.
After her speech, she took questions from the audience. After several other people asked questions, I raised my hand and asked if she'd please talk for a moment about Oregon's notoriously low corporate tax rates, and how those low rates affect the state budget overall and spending for children's issues specifically.
Her response was telling.
She confirmed that Oregon does indeed have one of the lower corporate tax rates in the country - and was quick to add that she absolutely supported it being that way. She said it was "good for business." Then, addressing the main focus of my question, she essentially said that, yes, the low corporate tax rate does make it harder to fund the state's budget overall, and yes that does make it harder to fund programs like the ones she had just spent half an hour talking about. But she quickly pivoted back to saying she supports keeping the corporate tax rates low, and finished with her version of the classic conservative line about how it's not about spending more money but just spending existing funds smarter, more efficiently. Then she moved on to talking about something else entirely.
She was pretty smooth, and it didn't sound overly harsh, but let's think about what she said. There's a crisis in Oregon. Services for children in Oregon get delivered slowly, at best. DHS is understaffed. The staff they do have don't get proper training, and a great many of them leave that field of work very quickly. This results in bad outcomes, everything from staff burnout, foster parent burnout, a lack of institutional continuity, all the way up to kids dying. A little more funding to address these things surely wouldn't hurt.
But, per Gelser, we can't change the corporate tax rates to do that, because the low rates are "good for business." So, to sum up, when it comes to dealing with Oregon kids in crisis, it's unfair to ask corporations to do more. That's the Democratic status quo, and that's Gelser's view. Mark that scorecard Corporations = 1, Children = 0.
Pretty sad. Yes, you can make the argument that things might be even worse under Republican leadership, but I'm here to make the argument that things could be a lot better under truly progressive leadership. We can do better, so much better. We can do more for kids, for the environment, for people who are struggling financially, for immigrants. All that's lacking is leaders who will lead, who aren't afraid to stand up to corporations and speak up for those they're supposed to be serving.
I am not afraid to speak up, and I will always know exactly who I am serving. YOU. Not Nike, not Microsoft, not HP. YOU. That's what makes me a better choice than yet another neoliberal Democratic corporate apologist. Please think about that, won't you?
She spoke about the topics listed above, and made it very clear that there is a crisis - that's the word she used - in DHS and other agencies that deal with kids who are also in crisis. Management and HR are defensive and sometimes abusive. Workers aren't being trained, and the turnover rate for DHS caseworkers is a staggering 75% annually. When kids are in crisis, and parents seek help, it can take up to eight months to get into a first appointment in Oregon. That's a long, long time to wait if your child is engaging in self-destructive acts right now.
Given all that, the outcomes we get in Oregon are pretty dismal. It's obvious that changes have to be made in how we handle these issues here. That's my view, and Gelser made it clear it's hers as well.
But she also made it clear that there's one area we don't need to change.
After her speech, she took questions from the audience. After several other people asked questions, I raised my hand and asked if she'd please talk for a moment about Oregon's notoriously low corporate tax rates, and how those low rates affect the state budget overall and spending for children's issues specifically.
Her response was telling.
She confirmed that Oregon does indeed have one of the lower corporate tax rates in the country - and was quick to add that she absolutely supported it being that way. She said it was "good for business." Then, addressing the main focus of my question, she essentially said that, yes, the low corporate tax rate does make it harder to fund the state's budget overall, and yes that does make it harder to fund programs like the ones she had just spent half an hour talking about. But she quickly pivoted back to saying she supports keeping the corporate tax rates low, and finished with her version of the classic conservative line about how it's not about spending more money but just spending existing funds smarter, more efficiently. Then she moved on to talking about something else entirely.
She was pretty smooth, and it didn't sound overly harsh, but let's think about what she said. There's a crisis in Oregon. Services for children in Oregon get delivered slowly, at best. DHS is understaffed. The staff they do have don't get proper training, and a great many of them leave that field of work very quickly. This results in bad outcomes, everything from staff burnout, foster parent burnout, a lack of institutional continuity, all the way up to kids dying. A little more funding to address these things surely wouldn't hurt.
But, per Gelser, we can't change the corporate tax rates to do that, because the low rates are "good for business." So, to sum up, when it comes to dealing with Oregon kids in crisis, it's unfair to ask corporations to do more. That's the Democratic status quo, and that's Gelser's view. Mark that scorecard Corporations = 1, Children = 0.
Pretty sad. Yes, you can make the argument that things might be even worse under Republican leadership, but I'm here to make the argument that things could be a lot better under truly progressive leadership. We can do better, so much better. We can do more for kids, for the environment, for people who are struggling financially, for immigrants. All that's lacking is leaders who will lead, who aren't afraid to stand up to corporations and speak up for those they're supposed to be serving.
I am not afraid to speak up, and I will always know exactly who I am serving. YOU. Not Nike, not Microsoft, not HP. YOU. That's what makes me a better choice than yet another neoliberal Democratic corporate apologist. Please think about that, won't you?
No comments:
Post a Comment