VIEWPOINTS
Saturday, May 27, 2017
East Oregonian
Page 5A
Counting up the days
D
ear class,
It’s quiet outside. I can
hear frogs croaking, the
dishwasher running and a train
whistling as it heads through the
tunnel along the Umatilla River
that winds its way through the
farm land along the narrow Rieth
Road.
The rolling hills to the south
are greener than usual for this
time of year, and the sunlight
seems to hold magic tonight as
I sit and watch the last few train
cars disappear. I’m sure from the
outside looking in, I appear to
be in deep thought about the day
I’m whispering goodbye to —
counting gifts just like I’ve taught all 27 of
you to do with me.
And to be honest, I am deep in thought
about the day, but my body can’t seem to
keep up with my mind tonight. I’m slouched
in a chair, my feet are on the ledge of the
back deck, and my mind is racing as I think
about the popsicle party you’ve earned and
the fact I haven’t been to the store in days,
the list of books some of you have asked to
read over the summer, the reports I need to
print and who I need to email, the phone call
I need to return, the math problems we need
to review for the tenth time, and the test that
some of you have been dreading.
I don’t seem to be able to keep up these
days. And as my mind jumps from thought
to thought, I can’t help but laugh at myself
because I’m currently unable to do what I’ve
been asking you to do all year long — focus.
Nine months ago, I was doing the best
I could to prepare my heart and soul for
all of you, wondering about each of your
personalities and how they would match
with mine. I was rearranging empty desks,
placing books about friendship carefully
on the shelf, and mapping out plans on
calendar pages so that your transition from
carefree, snack-filled, sun-soaked summer
days to fourth grade with me in our modular
classroom would be seamless. Or at least as
close to perfect as I could get it.
you’ve gained during your time
with me.
We’ve become doers and
dreamers in the best ways
over the course of these days
that have somehow turned
into months right before our
very eyes, and even though
I do have a bit of a what I
call a “count-up” going on
in my mind until that first
day of summer vacation, my
heart is still fully present in
not only being your teacher,
but in being the one who
learns alongside you. You’ve
Photo contributed by Lindsay Murdock
opened my eyes to new ways
to solve problems mentally,
on paper, and even with my peers. We’ve
turned more pages of novels than I’ve ever
had a class beg to do — becoming a part
of Mr. Terrupt’s classroom, wondering if
Zitlally’s father would be able to return
from Mexico, traveling the Oregon Trail
with the Sager children and sobbing as
they lost their parents and yet managed
to carry on, picturing what Turtle’s
I had just re-read several of my “go-to”
grandmother really looked like in her
books on literacy grouping, classroom
home on the Florida Keys, wanting Cara
management and explicit instruction. Those
Landry to help us write our own class
big words mean a lot to teachers, but to you,
newspaper, and hoping that Leigh would
well, they mean that I was making sure I was be able to actually meet Mr. Henshaw ... or
ready for another year in my career. I had
better yet, actually become the writer he so
made alphabetical lists, numbered textbooks, desperately dreamed to be.
labeled baskets and stapled the words
You’re a lot like the characters in the
“make yourself proud” along with “it’s fun
books we’ve shared — unlike any other
to have fun, but you have to know how”
group I’ve taught or prepared for, and for
above the white board and also just above
that I’ll be forever grateful. We’re not done
our classroom door, while the printer on top
learning about truth and mercy, and the
of the filing cabinet pushed out just enough
power our words hold. We’re not through
copies of all the right things you would need with being “stout-hearted,” finishing what
for those first few days.
we’ve started and giving it our very best
I was as prepared as possible for each of
until the very end.
you — or at least I thought I was. Tonight,
And we’re definitely not finished with
close to 170 days later, I’m preparing my
becoming the person we dream to be. For
heart and soul again, but this time to usher
some of you, the past nine months have
you into those same sun-soaked, carefree
offered opportunities to find your voice and
days with as much love and hope as I can
believe in what you can do with confidence
possibly give. But more importantly, with the and stamina — knowing and believing that
confidence and the character I hope and pray your character is what truly defines you.
We’re not through with
being ‘stout-hearted,’
finishing what we’ve
started and giving it
our very best.
L indsay M urdock
FROM SUN UP TO SUN DOWN
You’ve gained an appreciation for
perseverance, for solving problems on
paper and on the playground, and you’ve
developed determination to make yourself
proud. You’ve set goals and not only met
them, but exceeded your expectations as well
as mine. It’s been a privilege to be called
your teacher, and has not been a job I’ve
taken lightly.
So just because the sun is out and the
end is in sight, please don’t quit now. Here’s
to counting up our last few days of the
school year rather than counting down, and
claiming the moments we have together as
gifts worth chasing after.
With all the love, truth, and mercy I have
to give, your fourth grade teacher.
Mrs. Murdock
■
Lindsay Murdock lives in Echo and
teaches in the Hermiston School District.
Kicker envy,
2017 edition
By STEVE BUCKSTEIN
Cascade Policy Institute
I
ndividual Oregon income
taxpayers may receive kicker
refunds when they file their 2017
tax returns based on a percentage
of the state income tax they paid in
2016. Based on the May revenue
forecast, $408 million could be
coming back to taxpayers, with the
average refund being $210. A final
determination of whether the kicker
will “kick” and how big it will be
should be announced on August 23.
But even before those potential
refunds reduce our 2017 tax liability,
some are questioning whose money
it is, and others seem envious that
the “rich” will get much bigger
refunds than the rest of us. So,
whether the kicker law is good or
bad public policy, let’s think a little
about who this money really belongs
to. Is it a rebate for overpaying your
taxes, or is “our” money better left
in government coffers?
How the kicker works
First, the mechanics of the kicker
law: Oregon state government is
highly dependent on the personal
income tax for its General Fund
budget. With a fairly flat tax
structure, most wage earners are in
the nine percent income tax bracket,
while the highest income earners
are in the top 9.9 percent bracket.
Therefore, state revenue can be quite
volatile, going up and down as the
economy cycles between boom and
bust.
The legislature first passed the
kicker law in 1979, and voters added
it to the state constitution in 2000.
It mandates that state economists
estimate what income tax revenue
will be over the following two-year
budget period. The legislature
then must balance the budget by
not allocating more money than
the estimate. If the estimate is low
by two percent or more, then the
entire surplus must be returned to
taxpayers. The kicker law actually
is composed of two parts, dealing
with personal income taxes and
corporate income taxes differently.
In 2012 voters decided that any
corporate kickers would be returned
to the state general fund to provide
additional funding for K-12 public
schools.
Some people argue that the way
the kicker “kicks” makes little sense.
They correctly note that projecting
state revenue two years out to within
a two percent margin is terribly
difficult, and has been done only
rarely. Others defend the kicker law
as an important brake on runaway
government spending, especially
since voters have rejected other tax
and expenditure limitations at the
polls.
Whose money is it?
Whether the kicker law is good
or bad public policy doesn’t change
the answer to a more fundamental
question: Whose money is it?
Some argue that the kicker
money really belongs to the state.
After all, they say, it’s in the state’s
coffers because individuals paid
what the tax law said they owed
on their tax returns. As long as any
Oregonian has a “need” for that
money—be they school children, the
elderly, the disabled, etc.—then the
money should go to them instead of
back to the individuals who earned
it.
How much is that latte?
Of course, this is the Marxist
“from each according to his ability,
to each according to his need”
justification. Taken further, not only
would the kicker money remain
with the state, but the state could
retroactively come after even more
of your previous income if, in the
wisdom of government officials,
anyone still “needed” those funds.
One way to look at this argument
is to think about walking into a
coffee shop today and ordering a $3
latte. The price is posted on the wall,
but the person behind the counter
asks you a question before accepting
your order. “Did you get a raise last
year?” “Yes,” you tell her proudly,
“I was very productive last year
and my boss gave me a 10 percent
raise.” “That’s great,” she replies.
“The $3 latte will cost you $3.30.”
“Why?” you wonder. “Because your
ability allows me to better meet my
needs.”
You wouldn’t accept this
argument from your barista, and
you shouldn’t accept it from your
government.
Next, some argue that the kicker
“lavishes a windfall on those who
don’t need it.” They point to the
top one percent of taxpayers with
adjusted gross incomes over about
$386,000 who would receive more
than $4,500 each, while the average
taxpayer would only get back
$210. What is often unstated in this
argument is that those “lucky” top
taxpayers paid way more income tax
than the rest of us, and they will get
back exactly the same percentage of
their tax payments as everyone else
does.
Envy is a powerful emotion,
but it should not trump reason. If
we can find a better way to restrain
runaway government spending,
we should do so. But until that day
arrives, the kicker law is one defense
against those who argue that some
of the money you earned belongs
to someone else just because they
“need” it.
■
Steve Buckstein is senior policy
analyst and founder of Cascade
Policy Institute, an Oregon-based
free market public policy research
organization. An earlier version
of this was published in November
2007.
What’s behind ballot-box biology
L
ast year, a group of Montanans, including
wildlife biologists and hunters, launched a ballot
initiative that would have banned trapping on
public lands. They called trapping barbaric because
people’s pets, as well as threatened and endangered
wildlife, inadvertently get killed in traps.
Trappers responded with outrageous claims,
charging that the initiative was backed by
“out-of-state animal-rights extremists,” who
were “uninformed about wildlife.” Opponents of
trapping, they claimed, were “trying to destroy our
way of life.” And this was just the beginning: “Once
they stop trapping, they will come after hunting, and
fishing, and ranching, and logging.” Many of my
fellow hunters also defended trapping, repeating the
same arguments.
When it comes to predators like wolves or bears,
it’s all black-and-white to some people. You’re
either “one of us” or “one of them,” and there is
little room for rational discussion; if you don’t agree
with them, they attack with fervor.
During the trapping debate, hunting organizations
dusted off the “ballot-box biology” defense, saying
that such decisions should be made by wildlife
professionals whose opinions are based on science,
not by citizens who are acting out of emotion. We
hunters love to claim that our approach to wildlife
management is based on science. And, of course, it
should be, but too often it’s not.
The Idaho Fish and Game Department conducts
aerial shooting of wolves and sends bounty hunters
into wilderness areas to eliminate wolf packs despite
what we know about wolf behavior, ecology and
biology. That’s not management based on science.
Throughout the West, we continue to carry out a
war on coyotes and wolves despite overwhelming
scientific evidence that such actions disrupt the
social and breeding behavior of these animals and
can, ironically, result in even larger numbers of
coyotes and wolves. That’s not management based
on science.
Colorado proposed a ban on the baiting of bears,
based on scientific evidence that the baiting of
bears was having negative impacts by habituating
bears to human handouts and changing their natural
habits. The state’s chief bear biologist penned a
piece in support of the baiting ban for Outdoor Life.
Before it was published (and before anyone even
read it) hunters and hunting organizations rallied
against Outdoor Life and successfully prevented the
publication of the piece. Two editors left their jobs
over the incident. That’s not management based on
science.
Wildlife management decisions are often based
on public needs and desires, and that should be part
of the process.
But sometimes those needs and desires go against
science. Trappers, hunters and the agricultural
industry have a lot of power over state legislatures
and wildlife management. One consequence is that
other citizens feel left out of the decision-making,
and are often ridiculed and attacked by hunters
and trappers. Our system, with all its tremendous
achievements, has flaws, and those flaws can lead
us closer to animal husbandry than science-based
wildlife management.
A report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
about the flaws of the North American model
of wildlife management summed it up this way:
“Wildlife management conducted in the interest of
hunters can lead to an overabundance of animals
that people like to hunt, such as deer, and the
extermination of predators that also provide a vital
balance to the ecosystem.”
I recently heard a hunter who makes hunting
videos criticize the “animal rights extremists”
who file lawsuits to protect wolves, claiming such
lawsuits go against “sound, scientific management”
and our “North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation.” Those citizens filed those lawsuits
in response to states doing things such as gunning
down wolves from helicopters and sending in
bounty hunters to eliminate packs in wilderness
areas. That’s not management based on science.
The executive director of a large, influential
hunting organization has repeatedly called wolves
“the worst ecological disaster since the decimation
of bison,” and claims wolves and grizzly bears
are “annihilating” our elk herds. That’s also not
promoting management based on science.
That leads me to think that some of these ballot
initiatives are, indeed, “ballot-box biology,” in the
sense that they defend and demand good science
when state wildlife agencies won’t.
Hunters and trappers are their own worst
enemies. When they defend the indefensible — the
deaths of family pets and threatened and endangered
species from traps set on public lands — and attack
other citizens for having legitimate concerns, they
just the way lead to more ballot-box biology.
■
Dave Stalling is a contributor to Writers on the
Range, the opinion service of High Country News.
He is a hunter, angler and writer living in Missoula,
Montana, and past president and field organizer for
the Montana Wildlife Federation.