The best rationale for supporting T.A.'s theory was in Monday's paper - 50% of Americans STILL believe Iraq had WMDs.........what the heck are we supposed to do on "the issues" when confronted with that fact? I thought that was a done deal in July of 2003. There was a story in the spring about 80% or so of US soldiers in Iraq thought they were there to avenge 9-11.....

Tangentially related was the article which also appeared on Monday by Dave Steves about the Governor showing up all over the place recently He's counting on Oregonians to forget that he has been asleep for 4 years and only remember what happened in the months before election day. It'll probably work.

Something inside of me dies every time we dumb things down. I guess the alternative is much worse - people die if the right wins.

I don't agree with you at all about Thom. The times I love to listen are the times he is patient and gets the person to really explain their position. That's when he can really pull out of them who they are and what their motivation is. It's very educational and Thom wins in these situation. But when he gets nasty or interrupts, almost always he has cut the person off right before they would have spilled the beans. I get so irritated it isn't long before I've switched the station to something else. If I want nastiness, I can always listen to Michael Savage.

Do you think any neocon gives a rat's ass about how their issues affect the majority of Americans? People like Don McIntyre count on Oregonians to let their hearts — their better angels — rule their heads.

First, I don't believe McIntyre is a neocon. Second, I really do believe that he cares about Oregonians. He may not be a bleeding heart, but he's not an evil guy.

One more thing about Measure 5 - it gets the blame for every shortage when in fact there is a lot of blame to spread around. The ratchet was tightened even more under Measure 50, for which you can thank the Legislature and the voters. Voters like me who supported these property tax limits - and still do - are not "idjits." That sort of juvenile name-calling, rather than probing the minds of those with whom you disagree to try to understand them, is why you have no business giving Thom Hartmann advice about how to do his excellent show.

I also like to hear the opponents - that way I can formulate constructive arguments in my head to try to work closer to the truth. I believe there is often at least a little bit of truth in most arguments, even if they are uncomfortable.

dems are winning every poll. being honest and decent seems to be working just fine, finally. trying to trick voters by assuming they're too stupid to understand your whole glorious plan sounds an awful lot like why the republicans are the bad guys here.

i'm agin it.

OK, I get it. Progressives are supposed to defeat conservative ballot initiatives by lying. What is new about THAT strategy? Pretty innovative, there, TA.

Where are the lies, you ask?

Well, start with your first message about what you call TABOR. First, we aren't voting on TABOR - that was Colorado's appropriations limit. We are voting on a spending limit.

But you say the message to defeat it is: "Out-of-state interest groups are trying to sucker Oregonians into helping multinational corporations make even bigger profits."

Can you explain how Measure 48 would increase corporate profits? Please, just give a single example of how this would result from capping state government spending at popuflation, and saving whatever excess funds come in in a rainy day fund.

You are not even attempting to be intellectually honest - or is it that you are just intellectually lazy and don't realize that Measure 48 does exactly nothing to reduce state revenues or lower the tax rate?

So, you recommend lying on that point. OK, no problem, progressives have been lying about their policies and positions for decades, going back to the many reports from your intellectual forefathers praising the new model of Soviet Communism after returning from their pilgrimages to Russia.

Your assertions that Gore is smarter than Bush and Carter was smarter than Reagan are just the same old warmed over liberal elitist hogwash. (Oh, BTW, Reagan said old-growth trees increase CO2, not pollution. And that is absolutely true.)

I love the liberal attitude that the only reason one wouldn't accept their worldview is if he isn't smart. That gets reflected in your elitist-revealing statements:

"...Voters, the ones who spend almost no time thinking about the issues before casting their votes, don't give a damn about policy or intellect; they care about me."

"Oregonians to let their hearts — their better angels — rule their heads."

"Twelve years ago, he suckered good people..."

"Enough idjits bought the lies..."

You know the real reason why Oregonians tend to support conservative ballot initiatives? Because they can feel the contempt those on the left hold for them. It is palpable, and it is oh-so-readily apparent in your lovely post.

Thanks for giving us an example we can point to time and again of what the left really thinks of the voting public. You have no idea how great a service you have done for us.

I will personally be copying this post and sending it through the various initiative campaigns and encourage them to use it in their campaign materials.

I thank you, Don McIntire thanks you, Gayle Atterberry thanks you and Howie Rich thanks you.

I definitely sympathize with your frustration over the effectiveness of the Right's dirty tactics -- but I don't want to emulate them.

By the way, my inner editor suggests the following correction: tabula rasa.

OK, then, TA - explain how it is NOT a lie to claim that Measure 48 would result in bigger corporate profits?

Did you READ that part of my post? wtf is wrong with responding?

Funny, you studiously avoided addressing any point I raised. When I point out lies you wrote, you respond that I am wrong because you explicity said not to lie? That is almost funny!

Oh goodness... I'm watching my beloved Democratic Party slip into pandering and dumbing-down. I could tell it was about to happen when Jim Hill lost the primary and Ted "I'm-in-favor-of-all-the-right-things-but-I-don't-have-a-plan-on-any-of-them" Kulongoski somehow snagged the nomination.

It's a sad day for progressives when we adopt a win-at-all-costs attitude. Will we be able to tell the parties apart in five years? The Democrats' platform too often consists of platitudes that wouldn't look out-of-place on a Republican website:

• More health coverage
• Strengthening voting rights
• Responsible energy policy
• Higher standards for ___ (insert your own issue)

The difference is in the details. You won't find any candidate who comes out against education or the environment... but when you campaign simplistically, it's a campaign on personality and charisma... and to advocate a move in that direction is just sad.

Voters are smart enough to know the real meal deal when they see it... but neither party trusts them enough to offer it up -- not even the Democratic Party any more.

TA,

I sympathize with you. You and the leading edge of progressive thought have a real challenge:

How do you help the dull masses understand the basic concepts? If I read your post correctly, it's all about the sound bite.

Americans just can't get it otherwise. Right?

It is quite amazing that with all of the dumbos out their running the country and major organizations, the U.S.A is the world leader in economic output.

How do we keep out-witting those sophisticated Europeans?

It's sure a good thing we've got a Liberal like you to lead us through the dark canyons to the light.

In the meantime, until we reach the light, we'll just keep on winning elections (and measures).

Someday, we'll get educated and learn how to lose with great moral conviction like you.

Sasha, you said: First, we aren't voting on TABOR - that was Colorado's appropriations limit. We are voting on a spending limit.

In the real world, do you want to please explain to me what difference it makes if we limit how much the government can collect versus limiting how much it can spend? The result is precisely the same. Government services get cut by billions of dollars, and over time they get decimated.

Oh, yeah, there's that rainy day fund thing. But you don't say anything in the measure about a rainy day fund being required, and the measure doesn't create one. It just says basically if one is created then it can be spent outside the spending limits. By the way, the same if, then applies to the sale of public lands (i.e. parks and open spaces) to pay for government - that's exempt from the spending limit, too. No ulterior motive there, is there?

How is it honest to create such a hulaballoo over the semantics of an "appropriation" limit versus a "spending" limit, and how is it honest to call a measure a "rainy day amendment" when it doesn't create a rainy day fund?

I know why Howie Rich is doing this - he's a hard-core libertarian who doesn't like government. I think most people would agree his position is extreme. And now we know why Norquist is helping Rich with this measure. It's more than just drowning government in the bathtub - he himself has said that funding ballot measures limiting government spending all over the country is part of his strategy to make government spending a voting issue, like guns and abortion, that will help cement Republican power.

The real question is whether it is good policy. I think if Oregonians could take an unbiased look at what government would be like today had this measure passed ten or twenty years ago, they might realize that it is not. So why should we let three or four anti-government people from Washington, DC, New York and Illinois get away with saying that it is good for Oregon?

Becky:

Here are some difference between TABOR and Measure 48

1) TABOR had a 6% cap on appropriations for ALL gov'ts, not just the state. Revenues exceeding this amount were returned. 48 has a popuflation limit on state gov't spending. Revenues in excess are .... almost certainly kept in a rainy day fund. No, the measure does not require this, but do you think the leg would send the funds back rather than create a fund?

2) In down years, TABOR had the new 6% benchmark set against the down year's appropriation. This caused the "ratchet down" effect during the recession. Under 48,during down years, govt budget growth up to popuflation will still happen because the rainy day fund is automatically tapped to bring the budget to that level.

3)TABOR resulted in tax cuts since receipts in excess of the appropriation limit were returned. M48 has no such tax cut. No funds are returned unless the leg and gov do so.

4)M48 actually is a floor on spending increases. As long as there is money in the rainy day fund, if receipts aren't sufficient to fund the gov't at the popuflation level, the fund will be used to do so. Automatically, with no vote required. Plus, the fund itself can be tapped by a 2/3 vote of the legislature and the people in case of a some emergency or necessary project such as a new road.

The design of m48 is such that it takes away any objection people had to TABOR except the objection of those who think that the state budget should grow beyond popuflation.

That is why it is dishonest to try to claim M48 is modeled after TABOR. It was modeled to NOT be like TABOR so it didn't have the ill-effects TABOR had in recession.

hm, i hate to see t.a. get beaten up, as he seems like a good fellow. i can see what motivated this post, but i still don't agree.

republican talking-pointism was indeed very effective. can anyone here think the words "marriage is" without then thinking "a union between a man and a woman"?

but the reason they had to resort to full-scale brainwashing like that was because their real argument, that gay marriage would affect anyone negatively, was plain wrong.

our real arguments on the left (maybe children should have access to doctors and good educations; maybe we should stop heating up the planet; maybe we should have been working on alternative energy six years ago; maybe working with other countries is better than calling them names; maybe preventing abortion through education and health care is better for women than bringing back wire hangers) are correct, so we can make them any way we know how. america has woken up to the fact that they've been tricked by the republicans. it would be a bad mistake for democrats to change course and try to trick america, too.

TA, thanks for the thinking you put into your post. I think your position is sound.

An excerpt from the nonexistent Democratic manual on "How to Build Your Party"...

A loss can only be attributed to one thing: voter error. Because the Democratic party is fantastic and amazing, minimum effort is required to convey that fact to undecided voters.

After a loss, you should always blame the voters, for they are stupid if they do not somehow sense our innate greatness. (Also, this is an appropriate time to make fun of NASCAR, chain restaurants, or anything else the majority of Americans regularly enjoy.)

Frequent losses may indicate a stupider-than-usual populus, which may need to be spoken to at a fifth-grade level. Our consultants assure us that voters LOVE being spoken to at this level, and this should ensure victory with those lovable idiots.

so let me get this right..the reason that voting rolls are down, and people don't turn out to vote, especially for progressive causes, is because we overestimate their intelligence? suuuure..

and you bet about m48, we need less funds for our government. our schools are overflowing with money, and I am running out of poor elderly folks on my meals on wheels route.

conservative friends, I know that you don't have any websites to write your comments on, and I feel for you. about m48, or any other measure NOT FUNDED BY MY NEIGHBORS, keep it. any argument that don or bill makes are tainted. bill doesn't have a real good record with his own taxes and finances, and don merely spends other people's money, but he wasn't elected to do so. they make their living by putting garbage on my ballot.

Thomm, I have truly appreciated your approach to dealing with these snake oil salesmen. keep asking the hard questions, and if you keep treating voters like intelligent people, instead of suckers to sell a commercial to, maybe this new trend will catch on.

tip of the day, don't treat anyone like they are "idjits", just boil the issue down clearly. many of these choices are so clearly poor, all anybody should need is an explanation that is NOT for dummies.

1) TABOR had a 6% cap on appropriations for ALL gov'ts, not just the state. Revenues exceeding this amount were returned. 48 has a popuflation limit on state gov't spending. Revenues in excess are .... almost certainly kept in a rainy day fund. No, the measure does not require this, but do you think the leg would send the funds back rather than create a fund?

Sasha: when has that EVER happened here? Seems to me the first thing you should do to make that a reality is to spend some time and money FIRST getting rid of the kicker and requiring a rainy day fund BEFORE you create this system. Then you might actually get people to trust you over this. Otherwise, it comes off as a complete scam and financially reckless at best. You're asking us to rely on the state legislature to make the RDF exist-- why would we expect the state legislature to make anything work? Their track record speaks for itself.

"now out-of-state special interests want to screw Oregon.."

I thought it was the 160,000 registered Oregon voters who signed the petitions?

And it will be the 59% of Oregon voters who pass M48.

Despite your gang's attempt to screw the taxpayers and voters both.

Sasha -- One thing that TABOR (okay... RDF) supporters have never been able to answer for me:

Say that the measure does create a RDF. (Which is not required by law.) Why does that even matter... if the state spending is locked down and we're not able to spend it?

Old Lady: "Was I dropped from OHP because there wasn't enough money?" DHS Employee: "Oh no, ma'am... there's plenty of money in the rainy day fund. We're just not allowed to spend it." Old Lady: "That's stupid!"

Real cool.

BTW, isn't the TABOR crowd the guys who don't trust government an inch to do the right thing (like curtail spending)... but their current argument seems to be based on trusting government to create a rainy day fund -- even though it's not spelled out in the initiative. Change the argument to suit the moment, it seems.

jhl: I'm not sure why you would say that M48 supporters have never been able to answer that for you. From my post above:

As long as there is money in the rainy day fund, if receipts aren't sufficient to fund the gov't at the popuflation level, the fund will be used to do so. Automatically, with no vote required. Plus, the fund itself can be tapped by a 2/3 vote of the legislature and the people in case of a some emergency or necessary project such as a new road.

Your point abut "trusting" the legislature to create the fund is not valid. Conservatives assume that the leg will always spend every dime it possibly can. In the case of M48, the leg will have the choice: return the $$ or save it in a fund so that they might be able to spend it in the future. The notion they would save it in a fund is ENTIRELY consistent with the conservative viewpoint on behavior of the legislature.

jhl: I'm not sure why you would say that M48 supporters have never been able to answer that for you. From my post above:

As long as there is money in the rainy day fund, if receipts aren't sufficient to fund the gov't at the popuflation level, the fund will be used to do so. Automatically, with no vote required. Plus, the fund itself can be tapped by a 2/3 vote of the legislature and the people in case of a some emergency or necessary project such as a new road.

Your point abut "trusting" the legislature to create the fund is not valid. Conservatives assume that the leg will always spend every dime it possibly can. In the case of M48, the leg will have the choice: return the $$ or save it in a fund so that they might be able to spend it in the future. The notion they would save it in a fund is ENTIRELY consistent with the conservative viewpoint on behavior of the legislature.

jhl: I'm not sure why you would say that M48 supporters have never been able to answer that for you. From my post above:

As long as there is money in the rainy day fund, if receipts aren't sufficient to fund the gov't at the popuflation level, the fund will be used to do so. Automatically, with no vote required. Plus, the fund itself can be tapped by a 2/3 vote of the legislature and the people in case of a some emergency or necessary project such as a new road.

Your point abut "trusting" the legislature to create the fund is not valid. Conservatives assume that the leg will always spend every dime it possibly can. In the case of M48, the leg will have the choice: return the $$ or save it in a fund so that they might be able to spend it in the future. The notion they would save it in a fund is ENTIRELY consistent with the conservative viewpoint on behavior of the legislature.

sorry about the multiple posts.... for some reason it gave me an error screen and appeared as if it did not get posted the first two times I tried...

Sasha... you missed my point... perhaps I can rephrase.

"Popuflation" is not an accurate measure of government spending increases. In 1859, the state government spent money on horse trails, a few buildings, and not much else. If those services remained constant, popuflation would be a great measure!

But the services expanded. Today we offer a robust higher education program, a Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Oregon State Police, to name a few items that weren't around in 1859.

So "popuflating" the first state budget today (at maximum increases) gets us $65 million per biennium, which is enough to provide the same level of hitchin' post and 1 sheriff + posse per county service that the state provided in 1859.

But if citizens expect services that weren't around in 1859, the popuflation formula doesn't work, because it doesn't allow for those additions... even with the rainy day fund.

So who's to say that for the next 140 years, the necessary budget won't require the types of advances we've seen at every other point in Oregon's history? The arguments you're making in favor of the measure today could have just as easily been made in 1859, except that we now know that it would have been absolutely paralyzing if it had been passed then.

JHL: Actually, I didn't miss your point, I answered it directly. But you just changed the question. I'm happy to address your new question, but I don't think I "missed" anything.

Now, to address your new point:

The VAST MAJORITY of laws passed today would make no sense whatever if they had been proposed in 1859. Imagine we are in 1973, and Tom McCall was proposing SB100. The argument could easily have been made: "Shucks, guv, if we had done this in 1859 we'd really be screwed."

The fact is, M48 is a reasonable spending limit designed to provide a restraint on what we know are the modern day legislature's unrepentant urge to spend everything they can possibly spend.

We can certainly disagree about whether or not the M48 limits are good policy. But don't try to make the claim that they are bad policy simply because they aren't designed for an 1859 world.

<hr/>