In our case, all we have to do is stop some outrageous property tax breaks:

$27 million for high end condos, closed semiconductor factories and high density condos in downtown and along the toy train lines.

$60 million (or so) taxes paid but diverted into urban renewal districts.

Why don't we just pass a new basic services tax, but allow payers of property tax that actually reaches the general fund a 100% credit. This would force the tax freeloaders to pay their fair share.

We could save another $30 million or so by shutting down our planners on steroids that has this region wasting millions on their pet projects and favored developers.

See http://www.saveportland.com for more details.

thanks jk

The problem with Gordon's little scorecard is that it looks like cutting 10% off of each of the items listed would get you to your goal. I suspect a lot of the "idiot brother-in-laws" out there would think that isn't going to make a huge difference in any of those "budgets that fund" various programs.

Its just another example of the inability of those who support government programs to articulate a direct connection between taxes paid and services received. We tax people to create budgets that fund programs to provide services that reduce the impact of poverty by subsidizing the purchase of healthy food for people who lack sufficient nutritional intake necessary for educational success.

Its not real clear what happens if you cut those taxes by 10%. The average person probably has some pretty clear ideas of what they could do with the savings, but not much idea at all of what the government won't do without spending a few minutes analyzing it. Is it surprising people vote to keep the money for themselves rather than for some vague program.

I see the list differently. I see it as a challenge to talk about specific cuts rather than rhetoric about generalized "waste".

I just wrote a couple of friends (who have Republican friends) this email, along with the link to Gordon's form:

I don't think that Doyle & the mystery money crowd in 2003 or Scott, Minnis, Richardson et al in 2005 understand how many Oregonians would like this sort of straight answer from their legislators.

Of course, it is hard work to publish a list of, say, $200 million in cuts--esp. if you have tried it in private and only come up with $175 million. Or like Mannix did with his "proposal" after the Measure 30 signatures were turned in where the "ideas" were either already in place or "been there, done that, the votes were not there".

I would have instant respect for any House Republican who said "The tax cuts must remain in place for the rest of our natural lives, and if you vote for me I promise never to discuss changing them. But we do need specific cuts so I have published (have print version or website URL to give people) my list of proposed cuts and if you agree with them, I hope you will vote for me. And if you have any questions, I would be glad to discuss them".

But I personally don't think any House Republicans have the fortitude to do that--they'd rather just talk generalities and hope they can win one more term that way.

My issue with this is that this is an "all or nothing" approach. The usual process is if we cant make $350M in cuts, then lets not cut at all?

Good News! Go to http://www.collegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/02/4368610dedd43

or Google "Colorado Election Results".

There is a redstate.org entry on Google which screams about the harm the vote did to "true conservatives".

Well, as Minnis et al were so fond of saying, in Colorado, "the voters have spoken"