The problem that no one wants to face is that there is validity to both sides of the argument. The problem in spending is that it is not transparent. I know of few people for instance who would deny health care or adequate food and clothing to children, yet in our current form of service delivery it happens all the time. According to stats, 30% of the time. The frustration of the Anti-Tax or Tax limit folks, is they do not see progress in the problems of childrens services but see TRAMS. They vote not to Expand the Convention Center, yet it is expanded, and like the old National Lampoon cover give me $5 or I'll shoot this puppy, the children's services like SUN are held hostage. People feel so helpless and turned off you get only one in three registered voters voting.

We don't need a blanket TABOR Formula one size fits all system to off set the BLANKET Bureaucratic one size fits all Services Delivery system.

What needs to be done is to re-engage the people in the problem solving and make the decision making go down to the lowest level. You have lots of folks in East County for example paying a disporportionate amount of the sewer and water charges, while they are starved for parks.

People should have input into how the tax money is applied in their neigbhorhood, and have a menu of services they can chose from for thier tax dollars. This is what the LID system was supposed to allow folks to do, not for a bunch of wealthy developers to build TRAMS.

There is no good accounting for services in the neighborhoods, a few years back the Oregoninan did a front page article on leaf sweeping issue, where Eastmoreland got it but the poorer neighoborhoods with just as many or more trees did not. Why are there four pools with in a couple of miles of eachother in the West Hills and nothing in East County, why is it OK to subsidze indoor pools in SW Community Center over a million dollars a year and threaten to close Peir Pool in north Portland that takes only $60,000 a year.

The problem is how the money is accounted for and allocated, and bled off for pet projects and special interests.

From what I see, hear and read, the average working family in Oregon is already feeling like they are taxed to the limit and those voters are likely to support anything that promises some relief from future tax increases. I can't say that I blame them. Until Oregon restructures its tax system to place a greater percentage of the total tax burden on businesses and wealthy taxpayers, I would expect the middle and under classes to continue to vote to cut taxes, even if important programs are sacrificed as part of the process.

"The righties will scream "class warfare!" as if they haven't been doin that themselves for decades..."

Yup, same ol' same ol.But who cast the first stone? At one time, not too far back, Oregon taxes were close to 50/50. Than came the lobbists and Demo as repubs saw the money..er a light. Since that day the middle [ does it still exist?] and lower class have been paying the way. I'm undecided on how I will vote, one thing for sure; being in senior lower class has gained me nothing from DHS, or Oregon health services. Every day is a struggle. But the agencies big wigs do quite well. Same with schools. Teachers do quite well on the 175 work days they must put in....but I digress. Oh well!

Kari,

I think the tax system needs to be restructured, but it is not going to happen until there is some credibility in the political process to get us there.

As Adam Davis said in his "Disconnect" speech to City Club, there is little knowledge or connection between the services goverment provide and they receive and the taxes voters feel they pay for those services.

Until that connection is reestablished we are in for a long haul, and that is not a BLUE or RED problem.

The frustration of the Anti-Tax or Tax limit folks, is they do not see progress in the problems of childrens services but see TRAMS.

I beg to differ. There are a number of people out there who would say of schools - "My kids are out of school and my grandkids go to school in another state. I don't really care much about the schools in Oregon." And there is a signficant part of the population that will vote for any tax cut that will put more money in their pockets, regardless of how much someone else might get in the process.

The righties will scream "class warfare!"

Maybe Lars and the other entertainment programs. But the campaign against it will try to convince everyone that they are going to be among the losers. And that is essentially just a yelling match where whoever has the louder voice wins. Guess who has the louder voice? The folks with the money.

The extension of the bottle bill a few years ago is a good example of how you can lose even when everyone agrees with you to begin with. The opposition just kept yelling "its confusing" until people were confused.

I think Barbara Roberts was on the right track with her "Conversation with Oregon" but they were too impatient to move to the next step. The discussion of solutions needs to occur over a period of years and involve a wide range of people. People need to see whatever is on the ballot as the logical conclusion of a discussion they were part of and understand.

Of course any such dialog is going to take place in the context of Lars and company trying to shout down any real discussion.

Dare we call for a new constitutional convention on the state level? Start all over and write a new constitution?

Swimmer, you need take the rhetoric of Mr. Adam Davis with a large grain of salt. Reference the transcript of his City Club speech, "The Great Disconnect".

Davis is a pollster, but makes no pretense of non-partisanship, and he twists his results to throw a favorable light on his "friends":

"Leaders tend to emphasize career and job opportunity and civic involvement more, while the general public tends to place more emphasis on family and religion and spirituality. My friends, the Republicans figured that out a lot earlier than the Democrats (if they have even figured it out by now)." (Emphasis added)

Well, duh! The job of a leader in a functional society is to lead citizens to pursue the higher causes benefitting society such as career and civic involvement, while every citizen recognizes his personal duties to family and spiritual advancement. Is his point that his "friends" pander to potential constituents by promising to relieve citizens of any responsibilities outside of their own skin? Ni-i-ice!

The frustration of the Anti-Tax or Tax limit folks, is they do not see progress in the problems of childrens services but see TRAMS.

I beg to differ. There are a number of people out there who would say of schools - "My kids are out of school and my grandkids go to school in another state. I don't really care much about the schools in Oregon." And there is a signficant part of the population that will vote for any tax cut that will put more money in their pockets, regardless of how much someone else might get in the process.

Ross, of course there are a few people out there like that, but truly there are a LOT more who are frustrated with what appears to be a waste of tax dollars on the one hand and a chronic shortage of spending where it is needed on the other. Many many people feel that they do not want to give any more money to the government until the government learns how to spend wisely what it already has. These people are struggling to pay their own bills and be good citizens, and every election they're asked to pay more taxes, yet they continue to read about wastefulness in the newspaper. It is as real a problem as the shortage of funding for important services. Tax limits won't fix the problem, however; the only way to address what is really wrong in local government is with greater public involvement and communication with elected representatives, as well as better oversight of government officials to prevent abuse.

here are a LOT more who are frustrated with what appears to be a waste of tax dollars on the one hand and a chronic shortage of spending where it is needed on the other.

I don't believe that. There is, of course, waste in government as there is in any large institution. But I think the expressed concern about that "waste" is entirely a cover story for people who want to keep more money for themselves. We would all like to have more money, but the anti-tax pressures are largely driven by the devaluing of government services to the point that the quality of those services is unimportant to a large number of voters.

I agree with Ross I don't believe that. There is, of course, waste in government as there is in any large institution. But I think the expressed concern about that "waste" is entirely a cover story for people who want to keep more money for themselves.

People truly concerned about waste would have open public hearings to get publicity for the waste they uncover, and then specific proposals such as "this program is not operating as it should and if the agency can't make these 3 changes we will cut funding and give it to more effecient programs" would be true concern about waste.

<h2>"We must have a spending limit because that agency is wasteful" is, among other things, intellectually lazy rhetoric which doesn't point to a specific solution.</h2>