Mount Hood

A letter from your legislators

By: U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

The following is an open letter written by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) concerning their recent education finance bill. The views contained are not necessarily endorsed by the Journal

 

Last month, on campuses across Oregon, students told us that college debt is suffocating opportunity. It’s preventing a move, a job, a car or a house. Debt is stifling ideas for the future before they have a chance to grow. Those students implored us to find real solutions to cut tuition costs and prevent the crushing debt that follows too many college graduates for decades.

In Oregon, the average student graduating with debt owes more than $25,000, and that number only keeps climbing. Nationally, with out-of-pocket tuition costs continuing to fly past inflation – by nearly 24 percent from 1999 to 2011 – students and their families face the brunt of this burden with no end in sight.

The key driver of tuition increases and skyrocketing debt levels is states dramatically cutting their share of funding for public higher education. In fact, researchers at Demos, a policy research organization, found that declining state support was responsible for nearly 80 percent of the rise in tuition costs between 2001 and 2011.

That has certainly been the case in Oregon, where the state’s contribution to the per-student cost of public college has fallen from $5,587 in 2009 to $4,214 in 2014 – a decline of almost 25% in just five years. In the last state legislative session, the state increased higher education funding by almost 20 percent, which is great progress. However, Oregon ranked 45th in the nation in per-student support for public higher education in 2014.

That’s why we introduced legislation to encourage states to put in a bigger share and reinvest their dollars into public colleges and universities. Our bill, the PARTNERSHIPS Act, would provide federal matching funds for states that agree to freeze or reduce the cost of tuition and bring up graduation rates. The bill signals to states and colleges that the federal government wants to be a partner in making college more affordable.

The partnership would work like this: The federal government would send dollars to states if states use those dollars to stop tuition costs from going up, or, better yet, if they use those dollars to bring down tuition costs at public colleges. Under our bill, a school could get up to $1,700 per student each year from the federal government if it meets those conditions.

Even as we work to stop tuition from climbing higher, we know costs are already so high that many feel college is out of reach. So another key piece of the puzzle is ensuring that all kids – starting in junior high and high school – know that they will have the ability to repay their loans.

In August, we introduced the AFFORD Act, which would give all borrowers that peace of mind. Our bill would make student debt more manageable by ensuring no borrower has to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loan payments. Any unpaid balance after 20 years would be forgiven. Everybody, from baristas to bankers, would be able to afford their student loan payments.

In our country, a higher education is often the ticket to a good-paying job. Making college affordable is not only critical to the future of students, it’s vital for our state. It’s the surest way to grow our economy and the incomes of ordinary Oregonians. We must keep higher education – a central pathway to the middle class – open to all.

Bringing down college costs is going to take effort from students, states and the federal government. But Oregonians have never been afraid of hard work. Our students’ future and our state’s require that we meet this challenge. Working in partnership, we can keep the doors to opportunity open to all Oregonians.

Last month, on campuses across Oregon, students told us that college debt is suffocating opportunity. It’s preventing a move, a job, a car or a house. Debt is stifling ideas for the future before they have a chance to grow. Those students implored us to find real solutions to cut tuition costs and prevent the crushing debt that follows too many college graduates for decades.

In Oregon, the average student graduating with debt owes more than $25,000, and that number only keeps climbing. Nationally, with out-of-pocket tuition costs continuing to fly past inflation – by nearly 24 percent from 1999 to 2011 – students and their families face the brunt of this burden with no end in sight.

The key driver of tuition increases and skyrocketing debt levels is states dramatically cutting their share of funding for public higher education. In fact, researchers at Demos, a policy research organization, found that declining state support was responsible for nearly 80 percent of the rise in tuition costs between 2001 and 2011.

That has certainly been the case in Oregon, where the state’s contribution to the per-student cost of public college has fallen from $5,587 in 2009 to $4,214 in 2014 – a decline of almost 25% in just five years. In the last state legislative session, the state increased higher education funding by almost 20 percent, which is great progress. However, Oregon ranked 45th in the nation in per-student support for public higher education in 2014.

That’s why we introduced legislation to encourage states to put in a bigger share and reinvest their dollars into public colleges and universities. Our bill, the PARTNERSHIPS Act, would provide federal matching funds for states that agree to freeze or reduce the cost of tuition and bring up graduation rates. The bill signals to states and colleges that the federal government wants to be a partner in making college more affordable.

The partnership would work like this: The federal government would send dollars to states if states use those dollars to stop tuition costs from going up, or, better yet, if they use those dollars to bring down tuition costs at public colleges. Under our bill, a school could get up to $1,700 per student each year from the federal government if it meets those conditions.

Even as we work to stop tuition from climbing higher, we know costs are already so high that many feel college is out of reach. So another key piece of the puzzle is ensuring that all kids – starting in junior high and high school – know that they will have the ability to repay their loans.

In August, we introduced the AFFORD Act, which would give all borrowers that peace of mind. Our bill would make student debt more manageable by ensuring no borrower has to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loan payments. Any unpaid balance after 20 years would be forgiven. Everybody, from baristas to bankers, would be able to afford their student loan payments.

In our country, a higher education is often the ticket to a good-paying job. Making college affordable is not only critical to the future of students, it’s vital for our state. It’s the surest way to grow our economy and the incomes of ordinary Oregonians. We must keep higher education – a central pathway to the middle class – open to all.

Bringing down college costs is going to take effort from students, states and the federal government. But Oregonians have never been afraid of hard work. Our students’ future and our state’s require that we meet this challenge. Working in partnership, we can keep the doors to opportunity open to all Oregonians.

Mo’ liquor, mo’ problems

By: From the Desk of The Journal Editorial Team

Last week, the Northwest Grocery Association proposed an initiative for the 2016 Oregon ballot that would change how liquor is sold and regulated in the state.

If approved, the regulation and sale of alcohol would undergo privatization, rather than the current system in which the state monitors licensed liquor stores.

Currently, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) oversees all regulation of the sale and taxation of liquor sales.

The move to privatize liquor sales is a poor move, and would only result in harm to consumers and to small businesses.

Encourages alcoholism

Look, we get it: privatizing the sale of liquor would make purchasing it much more convenient. There would be no more scrambling to make it into the liquor store 10 minutes before closing on a Saturday night since you could just run into Waremart and buy whatever you need there without the worry of missing the store’s hours.

However, there is a reason that you can’t buy liquor at certain times of the day.

In Oregon, alcohol of any kind cannot be purchased between the hours of 2:30 a.m. and 7 a.m., and liquor stores themselves are even more heavily mandated by the state.

In Oregon, liquor stores are required to be open between 12 p.m. and 6 p.m., but cannot open before 7 a.m., and they cannot close after 10 p.m., according to the OLCC. Stores also have “the option of being open on Sundays and legal holidays with hours of operation varying from store to store.”

Removing the monopolized regulations on the sale of liquor encourages alcoholism by allowing people to go and purchase hard alcohol with far fewer restrictions. Increasing the ease of access for hard liquor only plays the role of enabler.

Privatizing sales may also increase the chance for traffic collisions, since people then have access to hard alcohol when they otherwise would not. More people buying liquor at later times at night spells disaster for drivers all across the state.

According to a study from the Alcohol Research Group (a program of the Public Health Institute), “the real and potential effects of privatization project that the modification and/or elimination of monopoly status [state regulation] would increase consumption and alcohol-related problems such as assault, motor vehicle accidents and deaths from alcohol-related causes.”

The ARG also claimed that privatizing the liquor market “may result in increased sales to underage and intoxicated patrons.”

Increase in costs

The Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, found that Washington state has the highest average cost of liquor in the country, and that the average price of liquor increased by $8.52 per gallon after privatization.

The Oregonian reported that when sales were privatized in Washington state, the initiative “included taxes aimed at producing as much revenue as the state made when it acted as the state’s sole liquor retailer.”

In the proposed measure for Oregon, however, the decision for how to tax liquor would be left up to the state legislature.

In addition, the ARG noted that prices in Washington state have increased by as much as 15 percent in some areas.

Tina Mulkey, owner of the Independence Liquor Store in Independence, Ore., said that she thinks the state does a good job of regulating the market and controlling the prices.

“I like that the state controls the prices, it takes the havoc off of my shoulders,” Mulkey said. “The state has been doing very well at controlling the regulation of liquor.”

The ARG also noted that replacing the state-controlled system with a private system, combined with a tax plan aimed at achieving the same revenues as before, will result in significantly higher prices to consumers.

Drives small liquor stores out of business

According to an article by the Oregonian, Costco spent more than $20 million on the effort to privatize alcohol sales in Washington state. Now, it controls about 10 percent of the alcohol market in the state.

Advocates for privatization in Oregon claim they want to end the state’s monopoly on alcohol, but privatization simply creates the opportunity for big box grocery stores to take the monopoly over for themselves.

Since the state would no longer have control over the regulation of sales, businesses with high revenue streams – like Costco – could set lower prices to drive other, smaller businesses out.

“[Privatization] will affect my business quite a bit,” Mulkey said. “I do not want [the measure] to pass because what happened up in Washington will happen down here.”

Privatization could also decrease the state’s revenue from alcohol tax.

After Washington state privatized its liquor sales, liquor stores on the Oregon side of the border increased their sales by 30 percent, possibly indicating a decrease in alcohol sales on the Washington side, according to an article from the Washington Post.

Privatization doesn’t decrease prices, increase selection, or provide more convenience. It seems as if the sponsors of the initiative just want privatization for privatization’s sake.

It’s a matter of simple supply and demand: if you increase the price of a product, people are going to buy less of it, or in this case, they will drive somewhere else to go get it, thus reducing the sales in Oregon and losing tax revenue.

This especially hurts small liquor stores: since people are no longer willing to pay the higher prices for liquor, and liquor is the main source of revenue for them, their revenue streams will be severely damaged.

In order for the initiative to get on the ballot next November, sponsors must gain 88,184 signatures to qualify.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor
managing editor

What even is news anymore? Also, what even is that last sentence I typed? It doesn’t fully sound right, but I feel like it’s the right thing to say—so I’ll say it.

Anyway, what do I mean by my question? Well news, to me, lately is not at all what I would consider to be news.

I was on Facebook (I know, terrible place to start my argument, but this isn’t quite an argument per say, just my “musings”) and the top trending story was about a reality show star wearing rubber sandals.

Rubber sandals are what I would refer to as slides, you know those basic black sandals with a thick strap across the foot.

That was the top trending story?

This is news? If I step outside my house to take out the trash in my Nike slides, is a reporter going to stop me on the street while I’m looking like a hot mess and take my picture?

Well no, that would never happen. And I get this was trending because the woman wearing the shoes is famous, but can people see how ridiculous this is?

Literally almost anything else in the world would have been more of a news story than that.

What about the recent debates? Let’s talk about Oregon job loss. Any cats stuck in a tree—I would even consider this last crazy question as more newsy (I’m making this a word if it isn’t one.)

With the rise of pop culture and the lives of celebrities becoming more important to some than the events of the rest of the world, I feel the term “news” is quickly fading away. Or maybe not quite fading, it’s still fitting its definition of being noteworthy and providing information, but sadly the focus of what people see as important is shifting in a different direction.

Who I hate today

DeclanColor

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

“Internet comments are a roiling vat of toxicity and immaturity” is a constantly beaten dead horse that I do not wish to punish any more here.

But I do think that comment sections (especially pop culture comment sections) provide a breeding ground for a certain type of insufferable human being: the caustic “always critic, never creator.”

If you enjoy not being suicidal, never visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) message boards. All that is to be found there is a seemingly endless supply of people who hate the very concept of movies, yet pay actual, real money to complain about them.

They go beyond what Nick Hornby calls the “professional appreciator” in his novel “High Fidelity;” it’s worse than that.

It’s not that these people didn’t like the movie, it’s that someone would DARE to make a movie that wasn’t what they wanted, or God forbid, uses a device they’ve SEEN BEFORE. Nothing is ever good enough: it’s perfect or it’s worthless. And now they have a platform to inflict their opinions on the rest of us.

I am by no means saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to air their grievances (kinda what I’m doing here), but it’s so easy now to satisfy oneself with being angry and useless. And it’s the uselessness that worries me: so many people have an audience to angrily flail at about others’ creativity that they have no reason to create something themselves.

Plus, if you create something, there will be useless and angry people telling you that your art is worthless.

So, to the artists: do what you do. If you have a vision, execute it. Do not compromise or throw out your vision because it doesn’t fit what someone else wants. Forget the naysayers, your voice is worth hearing.

To everyone else: if this made you think “oh God I’ve been so angry and useless,” there is hope for you yet. Go create. If you don’t create, encourage those who do.

If you want to defend your angry and useless tendencies: I can be reached by loudly proclaiming to everyone nearby, “My name is [your name here] and I deserve to be punched in the teeth.”

Musings of a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor

Managing Editor

Let’s talk about how basically, from a retail perspective, Christmas comes before Halloween. And, in all honesty, it is (The Journal does not permit me to use swear words so please insert your favorite one here) ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous? Everyone loves Christmas, they say. It’s the most fun holiday to celebrate, they say. No one has a problem with seeing Christmas stuff so early, they say.

Well I say, let me celebrate Halloween and Thanksgiving now, and get all this tempting, wonderful Christmas propaganda away from me—that is until the right time prevails. I will gladly celebrate it then.

Let me make this clear I am not bashing Christmas. I freaking love Christmas.

What upsets me is that I love the other holidays that come before it, like Halloween and Thanksgiving, and I hate seeing them dismissed in the retail markets.

I guess my anger this year started when I was at Costco.

I was minding my own business, looking for the best deal on hummus, and circling around the store eating a dinner sized portion of samples, when I stumbled upon the massive Christmas section.

It was Oct. 9.

Why? Why? Can’t I enter a bulk food distributor and see spooky costumes and decorations for sale without running into polar bear Coca-Cola cans?

Halloween is so much fun to celebrate, and I hate that stores are taking away from the enjoyment of that by pushing other holidays upon us.

I was at Target the other day, and when I was perusing the costumes aisles I found that they stopped short. Half the aisles that were covered in Halloween decorations and candy the week prior, were already cleared out and being stocked with Christmas lights.

It’s not like the store sold out of everything. I actually saw an overflow of decorations, candy etc. in the “designated Halloween aisles.”

It’s simply that Target, much like Costco, could not wait for the start of the Christmas sales.

I see why the stores do it: they want a jump-start on sales. However, I feel like these early Christmas preparations are taking away from the spirit of Halloween and Thanksgiving.

It also makes me think about the craze to start Black Friday shopping on Thanksgiving – a Thursday, might I add – and the sales simply cannot wait for the holiday to be over. But that’s a completely different conversation.

Wouldn’t it be odd if around St. Patrick’s Day we were seeing fireworks displays at grocery stores? I just wish one holiday could be enjoyed at a time before barreling on to the next one.

Not so sweet

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 6.56.22 AM

By: Jenna Beresheim
News Editor

As Halloween draws near, and the parties start lining up, there is the typical mad scramble for costumes and candy.

Soon, college students will be partying it up and children will be moving door-to-door in hopes of bagfuls of scrumptious sweets.

Something not so sweet is the tasteless, ignorant, and blatantly disrespectful costumes that line store shelves, or even worse still, are homemade.

Ask anyone and they can come up with at least one example they have seen in stores, created by a fellow partygoer, or even on children as the door opens to pass out treats.

On Oct. 31, the streets may be filled with costumes such as: Little Amigo, Indian Brave, Caitlyn Jenner, Confederate General, Rastafarian, and many more.

Whether it is a longstanding tradition of insensitivity, such as costumes focused on Native American outfits and culture, or a trending topic such as Caitlyn Jenner or the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s still always wrong.

Some individuals may claim these costumes are meant as a joke, but what’s really the joke is the human wearing the outfit.

This goes for costumes involving racial, ethnic, religious, LGBTQ+, cultural, and numerous other topics. It is probably safe to say that anything involving blackface is a no go, as are sugar skulls, despite what many Pinterest populates may think.

Don’t get me wrong, my cautionary tales are not about taking the “fun” out of Halloween.

The fun is in hanging out with friends, having a great time at whatever strikes your fancy on Hallow’s Eve, and being safe while doing it. There are plenty of other costumes to choose from that are sure to get the approval of friends and cultural communities.

Some top trending 2015 ideas for the pop culture pioneers are as follows: #FollowMe Couple, The Tumblr Dress, Minions, Left Shark, Mad Max, Game of Thrones (Shame Bell Lady, anyone?), and even the Margarita Man from Jurassic World.

Of course, these featured costumes cover the comedy aspect of Halloween versus those who go full force with the gore. It’s all about personal preference.

For a great, succinct rundown of the idea behind the culturally sensitive costume movement, more information can be found at the source: Ohio University’s STARS program.
The website features past promotional posters and more information on what Culture not a Costume is all about.

Front runners take a back seat in GOP debate

By: Jack Armstrong
Copy Editor

The third major GOP presidential debate took place on Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015 at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

The broadcast, hosted by CNBC, lasted the better part of two hours and featured the two current front runners Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, as well as the eight other leading candidates.

This debate was widely labeled as the “economic policy” debate, especially since CNBC is NBC News’ financial outlet, but the discourse only turned briefly to taxes in-between jabs at the media, fellow republican candidates, and democratic opponents.

With Carson recently surging past Trump in the polls, the chance was there for the doctor to really take control of the race, but both Carson and Trump put in relatively subdued performances compared to the first debate.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Preibus released a statement after the debates claiming that, “CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled.”

Ted Cruz (R-TX) even went so far as to refer to the debate as “a cage match,” and the heckling raining down from a majority of the 1,200 audience members seemed to agree with him.

Many of the candidates accused CNBC of intentionally derailing the debate with hidden agendas, Cruz saying, “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.”

With the bulk of the focus still centering on in-fighting and taking swipes at opponents across the aisle and at the media, what little policy talk that occurred was still vague.

Carly Fiorina suggested that she could cut the entire tax code down to three concise pages, but she was unable to expound on exactly how she planned to achieve this. Similarly, Cruz promised that if he was elected, he would cut the tax code to the point where Americans could file their taxes on a postcard, also with little explanation about how this plan would come to be.

Overall, the end notes for the debate seem to all be ones of confusion and anger. An event that should have seen two clear front runners stretch their leads through clear policy discussion quickly degraded into name calling and finger pointing.

The post-debate polls have yet to show any serious fluctuation, and we are still no closer to knowing who will clinch the GOP nomination in the lead up to November 2016.

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, this debate continued to highlight a problem that permeates our current system of elections.

The talking points were of little consequence, and the focus of the debate shifted from policy and procedure, to personal gain and jabs at the moderators.

Nothing was really discussed, nothing was really clarified, and all we really learned about the candidates is that they don’t like being asked difficult questions – or at least questions that aren’t framed in a pleasing manner.

Hopefully as we approach the one-year mark on the presidential countdown, the field will begin to thin and we will have a better idea of who our choices are without all of the noise and pointless in fighting from both sides.

The next debate is scheduled for Nov. 10, 2015, broadcasting on the Fox Business Network from the Milwaukee Theater in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.