Then change the constitution!

er, I mean ask voters to change the constitution.

And good luck with that!

If only we could get Oregonians to connect the dots.

Try explaining in a way that makes sense to us. But talk real slow, cuz wez ain't to brite.

You mean the problems with the state budget are all caused by not getting enough money from the taxpayers?

And if the kicked had been abolished 5 years ago our current problem would be less?

If that's what you think then you are missing a few puzzle pieces.

It's normal behaviour from taxpayers. Repeal taxes and then bitch and moan when services are taken away. Prop 5, the kicker. It's like we never heard of saving for a rainy day. Or from another POV, you get what you pay for... have a great day!

It was great in the pre-kicker days when the government saved excess tax revenues for the next biennium. Oh, that's right, the government just spent the money. If the government had used excess tax revenue wisely, the citizens would never have approved the kicker. If the kicker checks hadn't gone out, we'd probably have a $4.1 + billion dollar shortfall -- the government would have spent the extra $1.1 billion on programs that would have to be cut from the 2009-2011 budget.

If the government had used excess tax revenue wisely, the citizens would never have approved the kicker.

In a perfect world, blizzak, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, people don't always make the best decision for their own long-term interests.

See: California, Proposition 13.

Anyways, I'd rather be have programs in place (you realize that these programs actually do stuff, right, blizzak?) that can be cut and then reinstated, then have to go through an arduous constitutional process to roll back a measure which ensures that the state government is perpetual penury.

I think blizzak has basically hit the nail on the head. The public has little confidence that, left alone, our leaders would use that money responsibly. Let's say we keelhaul the kicker and place the money into an emergency fund. Under what conditions would the state have access to the funds? What could they use it for? Let's say we need more money for education for the next 2 years, how do we make sure that ed is not being underfunded on purpose just so they can fund other "crap" knowing full well that they can pull "reserve" funds into ed?

Yep, I usually disagree with lestadelc, but there is no disagreement over the kicker:

Fiscally irresponsible, economically counterproductive, and incredibly destabilizing.

"If the government had used excess tax revenue wisely, the citizens would never have approved the kicker."

In 2000, there was an avalanche of ballot measures. The kicker and an alternative to a Sizemore measure were # 86 and 88--don't recall which was which.

In the five special sessions shortly thereafter, the legislature modified / did something to the alternative to Sizemore, and no one screamed "But the voters have spoken".

Even if "the voters" really would have supported Rep. Knopp's idea of putting the kicker in the Constitution, it is now 9 years later. Does no one who registered to vote in the last 9 years have the right to an opinion because "the voters have spoken"?

Randomly ask 5 people you know who are not political, "Should the kicker be in the Constitution? Should it even exist?".

See how many of them have a strong opinion, and how many say HUH??

I'm guessing that if a number of people asked their non-political friends (esp. those 25 and under who would not have been old enough to have voted in 2000) that there would be a number of HUH? responses.

And UPO, "I mean ask voters to change the constitution.

And good luck with that!"

Do you really believe everyone agrees with your point of view, esp. those under 25 who had no vote on the issue?

There are two solutions to the Kicker Problem; either start the long fight to change the framing of the matter. Move the general public from a view that he kicker is their money to the view that the kicker is a prize the public gets when ever the state economist guesses wrong. Only till after that view is changed does a ballot measure to end the kicker idiocy have a chance

The other solution is more underhanded, only hire State Economists who are extreme optimists, but do not budget all the revenues in his optimistic predictions.

As to how to limit legislative access to a rainy day or emergency fund just put a restriction that the money can only be used to make up the difference between the State Economist’s prediction and actual revenues.

"they might regret the $1.1 billion "kicker" tax rebate"

They might regret the 20% budget increase that they used to deal with a $1B surplus in 2007.

Why doesn't the legislature just work convincing us that they have some inkling of financial planning skills? We might trust them enough to actually let them have a new tax instead.

David has the best description I have seen of the kicker:

"a prize the public gets when ever the state economist guesses wrong"

Connect dots for MP:

Case #1: Economist guesses - economy tanks - revenues reduced - services underfunded

Case #2: Economist guesses - economy surges - revenues in excess - kicker kicks prize to public - services underfunded next cycle

Case #3: Repeat Case #1 or Case #2

Just a fine, fine logical way to fund vital police, health, schools. Its so logical that exactly zero other states have followed our breathtakingly innovative tax system.

Saving during the of abundance to carry through the lean times is not a difficult concept. The biblical story of Joseph and the pharoah of Egypt is embedded in American lore. The present crisis is a teachable moment if we have any leadership around. Oregonians would buy it if there were guarantees it would be placed in a "lock box" rainy day fund. It's too late to help us now but a change would help down the road. At least the rainy day fund from the corporate kicker that didn't kick will help next biennium.

Reform the Kicker! The kicker should be based on actual money not an economist's estimate. Unfortunately to change the Kicker would reguire amending the state constitution thanks to "Tim the Dope Knopp" and our really stupid initiative system. The Kicker should be based on the "Rainy Day Fund". In the good years when the Rainy Day Fund is full taxpayers would receive their kicker check. Using budget history the legislature could determine the appropriate level for the Rainy Day Fund. During the economic good times fill up the Rainy Day Fund and send out kicker checks. In poor economic years - no kicker. First we would have to amend the constitution with a Rainy Day Fund and then amend the current kicker system. Maybe two or three initiatives - Arrrgh!

Does the government uses tax money wisely? Here's a few examples of the government not using money wisely that I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can add more.

1. The arrest, prosecution, and supervision of people caught with trace (empty bags, empty pipes, etc.) amounts of methamphetamine.

2. The arrest, prosecution, and supervision of people for delivery or manufacture of marijuana.

3. The arrest, prosecution, and supervision of people for driving with under a 0.08% BAC.

4. The attempted prosecution of domestic violence cases when the "victim" does not want a prosecution.

What? Are guys on crack? The State of Oregon can't be trusted to take the Kicker money and save it for a rainy day. Repeal the Kicker and you will get more unsustainable spending.

State spending has increased relentlessly, year-after-year, for decades. Is it really such a bad thing for the state government to take a hit and be forced to rein in irresponsible spending? I think this is a wake up call for Oregon to put its fiscal house in order.

I am not right-wing nor am I an idiot. If you think someone is stupid just because they don't believe that government spending should increase anymore then you are wrong. We can pay for good government and generous public services without obscene spending.

A possible, partial solution: - nothing is preventing individuals from returning their kicker back to the state. Any statistics on whether anyone is doing this? The amounts returned?

Are there any stats on demographics changing in Oregon? Is the growth rate of the "rich" demographic increasing or decreasing? A study reports that problems in CA are due to an exodus of higher income families and businesses, while there is an influx of people who contribute considerably less in taxes, while consuming even more state resources -- i.e. the"poor" and the average middle class families.

Steve states that population, inflation, and maintenance costs have all been increasing. I would counter that state spending has perhaps increased faster than inflation or population growth; spending infrastructure maintenance has fallen behind.

There are no easy answers. Businesses and families are only able or willing to pay taxes to a certain level. We can all agree that taxes can only be increased only so much.

So, while it is easy to look at the low-hanging fruit of the kicker, lets look beyond that. If thru a miracle, the kicker is eliminated, what will be the reason used the next time the state tax revenues are below forecasts and considerably below spending? Or when any rainy-day fund is insufficient?

The bottom line is that the budget process and the resulting spending needs to be more flexible, taking into consideration the economic situation on a more frequent basis. Businesses and families already have to do this every month. Businesses can ask investors, but their success and reliability will determine how easily new funding will come their way. Without new funding, belts are tightened as revenues and profits drop. Same for families; if family income drops, you can be sure that families will use their savings and economize in the nearterm; sure the breadwinners might look for a new job, or ask for a raise to improve things, but at the end of the day, the immediate solution is to cut back.

Both the WSJ and the NY Times today point out that even increasing taxes on the very rich will not solve the problems at the Federal level. There is only so much tax revenue that can be harvested from the richest taxpayers.

As we move closer to what some will call socialism, recall what Margaret Thatcher said many years ago:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” Margaret Thatcher

Steve Maurer says: Population has increased relentlessly, year-after-year, for decades.

Inflation has increased relentlessly, year-after-year, for decades.

And clearly, uninformed right wing idiocy that imagines schools, roads, bridges, are all free, has increased relentlessly, year-after-year, for decades.

Steve, Oregon's budget has increased from ~$3B in 1979-81 biennium to nearly ~$18B for 2009-11 (including lottery funds)... that's ~600% growth over 30 years(!)

During that time, Oregon's population has increased from ~2.641M to est ~3.766M in 2009 = ~43%

Annual overall inflation has bounced around 3% over the last 30 years.

I'll ignore your apparent predilecition for derogatory name calling. But a reminder that some $ are spent every year for construction and maintenance of schools, roads and bridges. It's not like NO money has been spent on these things over the last 30 years as you seem to be implying.

But even given inflation and population growth, it's still hard to fathom a more than quadrupling of the budget per capita since 1980 ($1136 per person then vs $4780 now)

A big part of the spending increase that you cite above is due to the transfer of school funding from local to state government. Your point still holds though.

Is it really such a bad thing for the state government to take a hit and be forced to rein in irresponsible spending?

Irresponsible spending such as:

--public schools --public universities --community colleges --unemployment benefits --health care for the uninsured

It is not "state government" that "takes a hit". It is WE THE PEOPLE, except those for whom money is no issue, who take a hit.

Separating "government" from "the people" is a classic GOP framing, one that has become so pervasive that even people who claim to reject the GOP have internalized it.

Population has increased relentlessly, year-after-year, for decades.

So let's stop subsidizing it. There are other pieces missing in the puzzle that aren't just in the dust bin, they're swept under the carpet!

@Kari:

1. Define exactly what combination of criteria allows the "reserve fund" to be accessed.

2. Define exactly what budget items the reserve can be applied to.

3. Put in place the necessary provisions that guarantee that the items named above(#2) ARE NOT deliberately underfunded just so you can use the reserve funds.

You see, it really isn't that hard. It is exactly what responsible businesses and families do every day. We have a reserve fund. When times are tough, we tap that fund. We don't tap the fund for vacations or new cars or rounds of golf. We use it for food and housing and health care.

If only government could show the same responsibility in their use of limited resources, we wouldn't have the damn kicker in the first place.

I detest the kicker that 60% of Oregonians voted to put in the state constitution. Sheketoff is right. We should refer a measure to kill the kicker and put together a campaign to kill it.

But Sheketoff's friends who run the State are not known for doing new ballot measures that improve the public good. They prefer to keep their money to play defense and maintain the status quo against things they don't like.

I am concerned that Oregon badly under-funds its public education system at every level, k-12 through community college and college. Where is the Governor's plan for the future of education and funding it? Where is his ballyhooed Education Enterprise? Where is the Governor's plan for cleaning up the Willamette? How can the Governor say he is for leading the nation in fighting climate change and, at the same time, support a 12-lane, $4.2 billion big new bridge across the Columbia that will dramatically increase global warming pollution, remebering that vehicle fossil fuel use represents 35-40% of global warming pollution in this state? The list of what this Governor has failed to do that he says he wants to do is so long as to boggle the mind. We'll see about cap and trade...once again I sense a backing away.

There are lots of good ideas out there, including killing the kicker, achieving universal health care as a right for Oregonians, building a floor under education funding, cleaning up our tax giveaways and loopholes, leading the nation in fighting climate change, campaign finance reform, etc. Progressives today want the power and they have it. But there is a failure of leadership, a failure of nerve, a failure of confidence, a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to risk. I know, let's take a poll to see what might pass. I know, let's save our money to play defense on the next set of Sizemore ballot measures. I know, let's fight over splitting up the pie this session, over who gets hit hardest. I know, let's knuckle under to our own set of special interests who want to maintain the status quo and their own political power.

The real answer to the question that Chuck poses about the kicker is that we need some new political leadership in Oregon not wedded to the bashful politics of our recent 20-year past. A gubernatorial candidate who wants to detach himself or herself from special interest politics in order to look to the public interest and the future of Oregon. I don't see anyone talking that way yet. Not Bradbury, not DeFazio, not Novick. They all want to be the darlings of those powerful public employee unions and those powerful trial lawyers, and those powerful, big-giving wealthy Portland business-folk, the limousine liberals. I will start listening to the first candidate who talks about running a grass roots campaign while taking a pledge not to take above $1,000 from any single organization or individual, not to do any negative advertising, and not to take any PAC money. That person might be able to lead us. Kroger seems to be willing to lead aggressively, but then there's that $362,000 he took in the primary race from SEIU and OEA, given to punish Greg MacPherson on his PERS reform leadership. Kroger doesn't qualify either using my criteria -- darn.

The State of Oregon's 07-09 biennial legislatively approved budget (LAB) special session total was $48.4 billion total funds. Thirty billion in 99-01 and $23 billion in 95-97, for comparison. I am not clear about 'alcatross's budget numbers nor estimating the growth rates. There has been an increase in the amount going to local government, mostly schools to offset reductions created by property tax limitations, and a decrease in federal revenue.
Oregon's per capita state tax 'burden' ranks it at 40th – lowest. Oregon also ranks near the bottom in terms of federal revenue received versus federal taxes paid, 36th in 2005. Between 95 and 05, Oregon state and local average annual per capita revenue increased 4.6% compared to 5.6% nationally. The “State of Oregon” and the Legislature are not monolithic. Who has been in charge has changed , there hasn't been one mind set. Budget problems and cost drivers are not all policy driven and have changed over time. The tax, revenue, expenditure, and budget discussion is like a greek chorus; the refrain has often come up on this site. The point, I thought, was simple. The kicker is a product of unique budgeting anomalies, not the least of which are ~forecasting, limitations, and biennial sessions. Yet, it's treated as an entitlement. Unfortunately, I can't imagine people supporting 'giving up their kicker.' I think it is a shame we can't figure out how to have, and agree on, a more efficient process that doesn't include the administrative expenses of estimating, collecting and then again redistributing state revenue. Seems like a big waste of time and ....money. Frame it as eradicating waste in government, maybe? I don't think it has to be a partisan issue.

Here's my problem with this:

"Unfortunately, I can't imagine people supporting 'giving up their kicker.' "

I can't believe anyone really believes all Oregonians think alike.

If someone were to randomly ask Oregonians (on a busy street corner, at a public event --from concert to county fair--, in the parking lot of a shopping center or big box retailer, etc.) if they favor ending the kicker, does anyone really claim the mind-reading capacity to know that they would all react the same way?

Isn't it possible that the more likely scenario would be:

*some refuse to answer a stranger's question

*some say "I voted to put it in the Constitution and I would vote against changing that"

• some would say "keep your hands off my kicker"

• some would say "for the small amount of the kicker check I got, it wasn't worth mailing out--whose bright idea was that?"

*some would say (as someone said on TV not long ago) "my friends and I regard it as a guilty pleasure

• parents would say "given the choice of a kicker check or adequate school funding, I'll take the adequate school funding"

etc.

My point is that those who say "people" do or believe what an individual expects them to do or believe (for example--all Oregonians read all ballot measure titles no matter how many measures there are on the ballot because "that is what people do" sort of thing; or Rep. Knopp saying on the radio that everyone who voted the way he did on Measure 28 voted that way for the same reason he did and it was an easy decision) are really saying either that Oregonians are lemmings who all think alike, or else the person speaking has the right to TELL people what they believe without asking them.

Do people 25 years old and younger have no right to an opinion on this issue because "the voters spoke" before they were old enough to vote? My guess is that the number of young legislators this session indicates young people and others tired of being told they have no right to think for themselves because others "know" what they believe.

It may be that everyone who voted to put the kicker in the Constitution still thinks that was an intelligent vote, but I believe anyone has the right to rethink a previous vote if times change.

It may be that everyone in someone's circle of friends has the same point of view. But Oregonians have long had a reputation for independence, and I don't believe the years of Knopp, Minnis, Scott et al really deprived Oregonians of the right or the ability to think for themselves.

I would gladly give up the kicker if Oregon adopted the federal levels for deductions and exemptions on income as Utah and Idaho do. I needed that kicker money to pay my high income tax in Oregon. Shift more of the tax burden on those who pay little now(need I say who)and use the kicker to fund the rainy day account.

"The real answer to the question that Chuck poses about the kicker is that we need some new political leadership in Oregon not wedded to the bashful politics of our recent 20-year past. A gubernatorial candidate who wants to detach himself or herself from special interest politics in order to look to the public interest and the future of Oregon."

Yeah Ron! Someone who remembers what Oregon used to be like before the big worry was defeating the anti-taxers, before legislative campaigns were run by caucus campaign arms and we were all just supposed to accept that and if our district was not a target, tough luck.

Grass roots politics (with organization and volunteers as important as money) and a positive message (HOPE, Yes We Can) were proven to work in 2008.

Which attack ads worked? Certainly not the hot dog or furniture ads against Merkley, there were no effective ads against Obama, and there is a school in Silverton named after the author of this poem which pretty much describes the primary between Mannix and Erickson.

http://www.mtcc.com/~mom/calico.html

It is the children's poem about the gingham dog and the calico cat.

Ron also said, "I will start listening to the first candidate who talks about running a grass roots campaign while taking a pledge not to take above $1,000 from any single organization or individual, not to do any negative advertising, and not to take any PAC money."

What if the Republicans got smart and nominated someone like St. Sen. Frank Morse who talked about his work on the Public Comm. on the Legislature and the Revenue Restructuring Task Force? A problem-solving message instead of warmed over attacks! How radical!

What if Kitzhaber runs again? What if Westlund decided to run for Gov. ? If there is an old tired candidate [in message and attitude, regardless of chronological age], and someone who makes people grin when the name is said (as happened much of last year with Obama), who do you suppose will win?

Frank, Dr. John, and Ben may decide against it. But they are the level of quality we deserve. The Ted K. vs Saxton campaign of 2006 was intellectually empty calories,(with the exception of a few speeches by Ted in the fall) and we deserve better.

A friend of mine was a Republican staffer in the 2005 session. People would ask him to support their candidate for Gov. and he would say "Show me your candidate has a vision for the future and a plan to carry it out" and I don't know that he ever endorsed in that primary.

Yes, folks, if you get out in the world and meet people who are not straight party line voters, you might learn something.

HB 2500, esp. if tax breaks are included in the website, could be revolutionary. A bipartisan coalition of "strange bedfellows" is putting that together. There was a time when that sort of thing was not odd.

How many folks here know that the reason that Oregon in the early 1980s became only the second state in the country to pass an Agent Orange bill was that there were 2 lesser-known state reps. as sponsors, from different ends of the state, one from each party?

Ron Wyden (whatever you may think of his politics) doesn't run negative ads (100% positive got him elected) and keeps the promise of a town hall meeting in every county every year. He doesn't get angry when people ask heated questions. He gives direct answers. He ended his Marion County town hall recently (scheduled for about an hour, he let it go close to half an hour longer) after listening to a small businesswoman who had expertise which, if combined with the other small businesswoman he had talked with earlier, might provide a way to lower the cooling costs of mobile homes in summer by making green roofs for them. That would be a new business employing Oregonians. He said he would connect them with the Small Business Administration and walk them through the process and make sure they stayed connected with each other. Problem solving rather than ideology--what a concept!

Ron B. also said, "They all want to be the darlings of those powerful public employee unions and those powerful trial lawyers, and those powerful, big-giving wealthy Portland business-folk, the limousine liberals".

Ron, some of us have been derisively called such people "the smart set"--the folks who think Mult. Co. is the only county that matters, that winning, say, Hood River County and running hard in Marion and some of the other counties really does matter.

They deride those who say that Oregon is more than the Portland area.

It is time for Democrats to push some big ideas (the way McCall did) and stop the nonsense of "we have limited resources so we have to target where we think we can win". Was that the message of Howard Dean? Of Barack Obama?

Why be a Democrat if they just act like they will need to permanently guard against things that happened in previous years?

How many of the people who help elect the young legislators to be a voting bloc this year were voting in 2000? (Whatever anyone wants, if that group of 10 works together and demands support for their ideas, they can be the same force women were in Norma Paulus's first session when they brought the financial status of women finally into the 2nd half of the 20th century. ) How many young people were voting in 1990? How many of them know what it was like to vote for a Sizemore measure that won?

As Bob Dylan sang, the times they are a changin' How many folks here realize that?

<hr/>