A "Full Court Froth." Very nice. Do you do your own headline, or does the department of mixed metaphors handle that for you?

Two thirds of all corporations in Oregon pay the minimum tax established in 1933 when it was reduced from twenty-five dollars to ten. Beware on this site because outofstate trolls will be lobbying heavily to keep their status of free loaders. Yes, they are already frothing as the first post indicates. Wonder where it came from.

Connecticut perhaps. Or Delaware. Definitely not an Oregonian who gives a damn about the state of Oregon or its schools or its children.

I would think, and hope, that these relatively modest raises on corporations and the wealthy won't be as hard to defend as other tax increases. I hope that rural Oregonians will realize that state spending is far more important to our survival than for the cities. Jobs in education, transportation, public safety, ect... are gold in rural OR, especially with sky high unemployment, 20% in some areas. I don't understand the anti tax folks in counties like Grant and Mahlher. These taxes will benefit them pound for pound far more than the tri county area.

I think Mark Nelson is more than just the treasurer. Isn't he the overall consultant? That is usuallythe role he plays in hbig $ ballot measures.

Can we somehow run against this guy? I think voters need to know the power that lobbyists have and who are behind these referendums.

Here is the lowdown on Nelson from the Mercury's recent ranking of lobbyists:

MARK NELSON: DEVIL'S RIGHT HAND MAN

Like Romain, Nelson was consistently rated among the lobbyists as possessing low integrity (an average of 3 out of 7), working least in the public interest (an average 3 out of 7), but who are highly effective (an average of 5 out of 7). Nelson drew by far the most negative comments on our survey, described as a "creepy dude," "the silent villain from horror movies," and "against all that is good." By contrast, people are struck by "how much power he has," and write, "if we ever meet Satan, we're pretty sure he's going to bear a striking resemblance to Mark Nelson."

Nelson runs lobbying firm Public Affairs Counsel. Its most controversial clients include Anheuser-Busch, Pfizer, and Reynolds American (big beer, big pharma, and big tobacco). There are also corporate clients including 7-Eleven, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Les Schwab, and the Oregon Restaurant Association.

Nelson employs two other lobbyists at his firm: Erica Hagedorn and former right-wing Oregonian columnist David Reinhard, who took the paper's buyout offer back in November 2008. In 2007, Nelson was reportedly part of a $12 million campaign that defeated a ballot measure intended to raise tobacco taxes to pay for children's health care.

"We represent a lot of issues that are very controversial, such as tobacco, and we're generally on the opposite side in terms of taxation," says Nelson, responding to the criticism. "We also represent what some people perceive as white hats [or] black hats—but that's just the nature of the business."

"David [Reinhard] has done an excellent job; he's strategic, an excellent writer, a very soft-spoken guy. I think everyone perceived him to be an ideologue, but I don't know how many people have come up to me and said what a nice guy he is," says Nelson.

Nelson quit smoking 15 years ago, but says he continues to represent Reynolds because of the smokers who have to pay taxes.

"I have a thing about zealotry," he says. "I don't care if it's zealotry at smokers or minorities or whoever it is. Zealots are zealots."

I just diaried this over at DKos, come see for yourself: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/21/11834/6285

CENT ONE: Good Golly, I am so surprised...I thought that, rather than spend all that money on a ballot measure, the corporations were going to just pack up all their jobs and flounce off to some state with lower corporate taxes! Isn't that what they said while the legislature was debating the bill? Oh wait...the only such states are on the gulf coast and have a workforce educated in wooden schoolhouses out of textbooks written in 1972.

CENT TWO: Remember, DON'T SIGN THE PETITIONS. In fact, anyone with a little spare time might want to picket a corner where they're trying to circulate the petitions...

Carla,

You and others here have advocated that it's the Democrats turn to lead after a bruising victory over Republicans. The election results would lead many of us to believe that most of the liberal agenda will be victorious.

However, on this tax issue, I think it will be different. Given historical evidence, a measure to overturn the tax increases will likely make it to the November ballot. History also shows that Oregonians often defeat such tax increases.

What's interesting to me is that Oregon is largely a liberal state. That means a significant group of Dems have come out against similar tax increases, and probably will this time, too (at least the more centrist ones).

Personally, I believe no campaign is going to convince most Republicans to vote against the measure. It seems to me that Democrats have hefty burden to convince most of the base, and a good chunk of moderates, that it makes sense to raise taxes in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

How do you convince voters to support the tax increases in November?

Carla,

I think there was one other component on the corporate tax measure that you did not include in your recap. Wasn't there a gross receipts tax that was not part of the corporate minimum nor a part of the net income rate hike? I seem to recall it was a fractional percentage on gross sales on companies with gross sales over $500,000 annually? Did that make it all the way through?

The gross receipts component, if in fact it stayed in the bill, is the most troubling to me. That's the part that would be passed on to consumers and is a de-facto sales tax.

If a company had to pay eight tenths of one percent on five hundred thousand in sales, they would owe four thousand... whether they were making money or losing money.

I support the taxes, but it was petty of the guv to withhold his signature this long, just to prevent the petitioners from having an extra three weeks to gather signatures. We should win on substance, not gamesmanship.

Is there anyone on Blue Oregon who would be able to put together a flier and info sheet like I see the petitioners carrying? I would be willing to do a counter-petition hang out, next to the petitioners.

Did anyone see the article in the Oregon showing that a large money manager is setting up a regional shop in Camas WA, so that his employees can escape paying high taxes in CA?

The firm is called Fisher Investments. They are a huge money manager.

The article states his employees earn anywhere from $80,00 to $200,000 per year.

The article goes on to say further that in addition to WA, they have picked out two other states in the US for employees to migrate to.

Tax rates on the most productive do matter. They move. This is a clear example.

They could have chose Oregon. They didn't and they named lower taxes as the primary reason for picking Camas.

Keep over-reaching Dems, by this time next year, the moderates will vote you out of office.

I am new here, probably wont stick around but this article doesn't paint a full picture. The Governor increased Tax's on 2/3 of Oregon buisness, with out more facts I would say those are small mom and pop buisness's that are hurting currently with the way the market is going, especially in Oregon. Two why is it, when ever Government, local, County, State or National has a budget problem the first thing that gets cut is Teachers, Police and Fire? To scare the mass's into allowing such increases. You all might think this is a good thing, yea let buisnesses pay for it, but think a minute...... if your employer, which is a buisness (unless you work for the State) has their profits decreased do to tax's do you think you might get that bonus or raise that you need. Do you think that maybe they might have to cut a postion here and there. Yes its only $150, and you only want only a $2.00 more an hour. Not going to happen. Thanks Ted, as with your Oregon Jobs bill that has created 542 jobs, for spending my money and making it so I can't live. So sorry I voted for you.

So an outfit called Voice of the Electorate which is comprised solely of members of the Office And Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) kicked in $100k which is four hundred percent more than a whole bunch of the Ususal Suspects in the Oal,Car, and Real Estate bidnesses.

These guys will see either a net savings or will experience no impact from the bills.

The mind boggles......

with out more facts I would say those are small mom and pop buisness's that are hurting currently with the way the market is going

By all means get the facts on this particular bill. Mom and Pops, LLCs and all Sole Proprietors will pay the lowest annual fee for the minimum ($150) and only C-Corps will be subjected to the tiered/sliding scale based on net receipts........Yeah, $150 is a hardship, if you didn't make any money with your carpet cleaning firm, but it ain't the ding that will sink your business.

BTW: Fellow little red Dakota owner here, and my wife was down there in Salem offering input to protect small businesses during the design of 3405. I think that it could have been better, but all in all was a B+ for the lege.....

The focus here is on minimums, but that's not where small businesses get hurt.

Small businesses have always been able to deduct purchases on both state and federal taxes. Basically, this proposal takes away the deductions for state taxes. My wife is self-employed. She is able to recoup a significant amount on various purchases. Now, that goes away on the state level. That's just one small example of how small business will be hurt.

I challenge anyone to tell me this tax increase doesn't affect small businesses.

"However, on this tax issue, I think it will be different. Given historical evidence, a measure to overturn the tax increases will likely make it to the November ballot. History also shows that Oregonians often defeat such tax increases. "

This sounds like "the issue is settled, the voters spoke on Measure 30".

Except there were people who registered to vote since then who might not like being told the issue was settled before they were old enough to vote, so they should just shut up and accept that!

Jason, historically there were different rules for circulating petitions, as well as a different voter base. I would expect you out collecting signatures if you believe so stronly in the cause. But be prepared for someone like me to come along and ask "OK, if you think this is so bad, tell me exactly who on Ways and Means you spoke to about your ideas to balance the budget and what those ideas are".

The deadline is Sept. 25. Either there will be enough valid signatures or there won't be. Anything else is just tired rhetoric.

Basically, this proposal takes away the deductions for state taxes.

Please explain.

Thanks.

Carla, you did a great job on KPOJ this morning, just like the last time. Hope to hear your voice more often. Thanks for all you do.

The not-for-profit org I work for paid more than $900 in "taxes" last year yet these creeps are fine with corporations paying a lousy $10? Give me a break. Oh, I'm a beer drinker and we should be more heavily taxed as well.

I care about Oregon, public education, public safety and health care. I'll also sign the petition. the democrats in power pased PERMANENT tax increases when temporary increases would have been effecitve.

The democrats could fill the gap just as easily by recinding the $250MM plus pay increase Kulongoski gave to Oregon directors and managers and by forcing various state departments and divisions to dip into their own reserve funds carried over from past budget years.

Dave Lister:

S-Corps pay the $150 minimum.

Other corporations pay a corporate minimum that increase with sales/revenues/gross receipts/whatever.

Note that the rate associated with the minimum makes no real sense. The lowest rate is paid by businesses with $3 million to $4 million in sales. Corporations with $10 million to $25 million pay the highest rate.

By way of comparison, Zupan's has about $40 million in sales a year. With those revenues, if it were a C-corp, it would have to pay $30,000 under the new corporate minimum.

Intel, on the other hand, has almost no sales in Oregon, so it is likely that Intel would pay only $150.

The new corporate minimum punishes home-grown businesses (especially retailers), but gives out-of-state manufacturers a virtual free pass.

This just proves two things:

1. Those who want to bring this to the voters are cutting off thier noses to spite thier faces.

2. Those same people always seem to say "I've got mine - screw you!" in more ways that we can count...in this way by their actions (taking it to the voters).

"Be that as it may, teachers, police/fire and healthcare for the elderly/those in poverty are 93% of the Oregon budget. If you've got to cut over a billion dollars, there are few other places to cut."

So what taxes should be cut? Where do you/we begin to trim the fat?

Kurt Chapman said: "...forcing various state departments and divisions to dip into their own reserve funds carried over from past budget years."

Please explain. Because it sounds like you're referring to the ill-thought-out Republican plan that was floating around during session.

See, it was easy to hold up a fund balance from Agency 'X' and say "Hey, this money is left over from last session!" But of course, if you look into it, you'll find that most (if not all) of those agencies have contractual obligations pending on that money.

It's like this Kurt: If you have a checking account and you write a check at the supermarket, that money's spent. Just because it's still in your account until the check gets cashed, doesn't mean it's a good idea to "dip into" those funds.

Or perhaps you could enlighten us all: What funds are you talking about exactly?

"When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society." --John Adams

Slashing budgets and thus killing jobs in Oregon aren't in line with the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah; neither is a statewide vote on a legislative decision. I beleive that the Constitution's Article IV guarantees "to every state in this union a republican form of government."

The legislature blew it when they refused to compromise and made this tax increase permanent instead of temporary.

A permanent tax increase at a time of economic distress unrivaled since the Great Depression is irresponsible, punitive, and wildly unfair. It's a red flag to the voters that this not about funding essential government services but simply a greedy money grab by an entrenched political machine completely out of touch with the average Oregonian.

Count me as one progressive voting to repeal the tax increase.

Why in the world are you so upset Carla about letting all of us vote on these tax increases? If the folks want it, fine the tax increases remain. If they don't, they're gone. Is this wrong, against current Constitutional law, or does it just plain piss ya off to have a full statewide debate (Vote)?

"Holding elections costs money. It's wasteful government spending." - Carla

HAHAHAHA! Ralph, in other words, we control government at all levels, local, state & federal and we're going to do whatever the hell we please. Screw you! Shut the hell up and give us your money. We know how to spend it better than you. We're going to tax you to keep from going bankrupt. Get used to it.

I think Carla's point is not that normal elections (for actual officeholders)are a waste. Holding a referendum election on enacted laws is a waste when you can just vote out the guys at the next election if you don't like the laws they passed.

Ralph asks: "Is this wrong, against current Constitutional law, or does it just plain piss ya off to have a full statewide debate (Vote)?"

Well, you certainly can say that it is against Constitutional Law.

Article IV says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Meaning that I'm supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority overruling a representative legislature.

However, in 1912 the Supreme Court, in one of the most massive displays of testicle-shrinkage ever, determined that this portion of the Constitution would be better adjudicated by Congress. (Pacific States Telephone Co. v Oregon) Congress, of course, has no appellate procedure for this question, so it remains up in the air. (It's been suggested that if Congress has beef with the issue, they can refuse to seat Senators and Representatives, but that's not really practical.)

So to answer your question, Ralph... Yes.

Carla: I didn't vote for the Reps/Sens in my district. I'm in the minority in that respect, so do you now want to deny my Constitutional avenue of "Initiative & Referendum"? Surely not sweetheart.

FactBot4000: You are so disengeniuos to conveniently leave out Article IV, Sect 1, Oregon Constitution, to wit;

Section 1. Legislative power; initiative and referendum. (1) The legislative power of the state, except for the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people, is vested in a Legislative Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. (2)(a) The people reserve to themselves the initiative power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly. (b) An initiative law may be proposed only by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to six percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition.

What the hell's the matter with you?

Mike, that's bullshit and you know it. Carla; you can't pick and choose when the initiative/referendum process should be used. A great part of our Oregon representative democracy is that we have the option of over riding our elected representatives when the over reach or under react to situations.

Suggesting that elections have consequences and those opposed to government over reaching should just shut up and bear it until the next election cycle is disengenuous at best. At its worst, its outright political censorship.

Unless of course last November was just about the same old power quest and not 'change we can beleive in'. Maybe its just me.

So Carla, what about when the system you believe is abused produces results you agree with? would you quietly smile or still call for the system reform? I'm not saying it is perfect, but as written, it gives citizens the opportunity to address/redress percieved issues not handled by elected officials to the satisfaction of the general public.

Off-topic comment deleted--Editor

MLW, start advocating for the next Gov. to always put tax bills at the top of the stack, no matter what else there is. Do you think the Gov. should have staff do a thorough review of all bills passed before signing them, or "I know all I need to know, so I will sign this first" attitude? Contact legislative and Gov. candidates on behalf of such an idea. Can that idea wait until the new Gov. is elected, or should the Feb. session pass a bill dictating to the Gov. the order bills are signed at the end of a session?

Call Ted Kulongoski's office and tell he he had a lot of nerve signing the Metolious bill before the tax bills. HOW DARE he decide to sign bills in the order he sees fit when that made the anti-taxers angry. Who runs this state anyway, elected officials or lobbyists and anti-tax activists?

"I support the taxes, but it was petty of the guv to withhold his signature this long, just to prevent the petitioners from having an extra three weeks to gather signatures. We should win on substance, not gamesmanship." makes me wonder if you were outspoken on this issue before Sine Die--did you contact legislators or the Gov?

First of all, I'm not your "sweetheart", Thank Christ for that.

I think it is humorously ironic when it becomes obvious that the democrats don't really support democracy. That is why they have spent the last several years trying to impede the initiative process, not to mention eliminating free and fair elections in union organizing.

What are you afraid of? Vox populi, Vox Dei.

Ralph ever-so-politely asks: "You are so disengeniuos [SIC] to conveniently leave out Article IV, Sect 1, Oregon Constitution, to wit;... What the hell's the matter with you?"

Umm... Ralph, the U.S. Constitution trumps the Oregon Constitution. I don't know how to explain it better than that. (Anyone?)

So... Basically, you parried an issue related to the U.S. Constitution by citing the Oregon Constitution... Hmm.

You fail at civics.

(I blame the cuts to our public school system.)

I think what they are afraid of is the possibility that the voters of Oregon aren't as liberal as they would hope for, just repulsed by the GOP.

I personaly CANNOT WAIT for a campaign that shows just how easy the rich and corporations have had it lately. They got us in this mess, are failing to get us out, and now they want to WHINE that they might not be able to keep their limos, private planes, or four vacation homes. Give me a break.

I live in a fairly conservative area - have already walked my neighborhood and once my neighbors understood who would pay this, not a single no. People want to make these over-indulged f**kers pay!

The true devils are now showing themselves. OBA is now leading the forces of evil. AGC are showing the true hypocrites they are - they will make huge profits from some of these new taxes to build new roads, update schools, etc.) Homebuilders have generally always occupied the lowest levels of hell - but how in the heck do they have one red cent to contribute to a campaign? Didn't the housing sector implode on itself? I saw that ridiculous thing in the Oregonian today from their staff person - how does he even have a job?

Well, I guess if you got money for signature gathering and overpaid silly staff people - then maybe you can pay a few extra bucks to keep the schools open and grandma in the nursing home.

Hey Devils - see you at the ballot box - and good luck. Sorry this year - you won't be able to keep all of your huge bonuses.

If the progressives really cared about schools, old people, police etc. they would demand that these be funded at the start of each legislative session, before anything else can be considered. And they would back a rule or constitutional amendment to that effect.

That they don't shows that they don't really care.

Comments Carla? Or are you going to ignore the difficult question once again?

"If you don't like the way these people voted, them vote them out next cycle."

Slight issue - We are voting on a tax, not people who represent us. If we liked everything else except for this one vote, then vote them out anyways?

This reasoning is so flimsy. I mean if you voted for someone who was pro-abortion, then once they got elected found religion and became hyper pro-life and pushed a bunch of legislation to support this, you're happy just waiting 'til the next election cycle? Wouldn't you like to be able to address the laws?

MP - "I think what they are afraid of is the possibility that the voters of Oregon aren't as liberal as they would hope for, just repulsed by the GOP"

Right on the money. Many voters were so disappointed and disillusioned with the GOP, they overwhelmingly voted them out. That does not necessarily mean those same voters are going to follow like sheep every time the democratic led legislature comes to a consensus.

The ability to put this before voters is an important fail safe built into our system to protect each of us. We cannot know ahead of time what elected officials will do when they get into office. Lord knows they seldom keep every campaign promise. So, we have a system here to review any decision and to vote on it.

To continue down this path of disparaging those who wish to challenge those decisions not only reveals a sense of arrogance and alienates the average voter, but it opens the door for the GOP or worse waiting in the wings to take control of the ship.

"The ability to put this before voters is an important fail safe built into our system to protect each of us."

The ability of voters to ask questions of petitioners, to discuss this issue with anyone they choose (from blogs like BO to conversations with friends and neighbors, to even discussing this issue with current legislators or friends who might be former or future legislative candidates) and to decide not to sign petitions is also part of the system.

Roy, if you really believe in this, I suggest you find a way to circulate petitions. You would be much more convincing than the "I'm just doing this for a job, I don't know anything about the issue" petitioners.

But don't make the mistake Minnis made when she loudly proclaimed "the voters have spoken on Measure 30"--that you know what voters think without asking them.

The most memorable time Minnis said that was when Ways and Means had taken a road trip to S. Oregon and someone in the Jackson County asked about raising taxes. Minnis remarked on that news story and went as far as to say that local resident shouldn't have said that, because "the voters have spoken on Measure 30".

Jackson County has legislators of both parties. Was Minnis saying that the votes for legislators (higher turnout election, btw) didn't matter because the Measure 30 result governed everything?

Those who favor this referral need to explain how the budget would be balanced without the taxes. Did they propose any of those ideas to actual members of Ways and Means? Did they try to gather support for such cuts? Or is this considered an easier approach?

I'm looking forward to watching legislators on this whole thing. St. Rep. Kim Thatcher owes her political career to Russ Walker et al, but what services did she advocate be cut as a legislator? Will she be carrying petitions? Will she be silent? What about the Republicans on Revenue and Ways and Means?

LT,

Good point, but much the same could be said about the election of candidates. Some going door to door or doing mailers during election time only knew they wanted one party out, but often knew very little about the candidate they "supported".

I won't be helping to get this changed by circulating or signing petitions. I am the first to admit I don't have a better idea on how to make fifty bucks work like a hundred. My point is that it is a mistake by those who support the legislature's decisions to impede or condemn this process. Voters should be able to disagree with the decisions of our elected, and have a process to reverse decisions they disagree with. Next election cycle is too late to change a bad decision, and even if you elect someone new you are not always sure of what you are getting until they arrive in Salem.

Carla Axtman: Jamie: Those things ARE funded first and foremost. They're 93% of the state budget. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. JK: I mean time wise -- no other bills are allowed to be considered until schools are funded. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

Thanks JK

"Then why bother having representatives at all? Why not just vote on EVERY issue?"

Nice try - You do realize there is a diff between a public vote on one issue and all issues?

Pat, I think you're mistaken.

You're probably correct Kari. I arrived at the question by googling "Voice of the Electorate" and getting linked to the DC based union.

You've (reasonably) concluded that (you)"doubt very much that this right-wing anti-tax group would have shipped $100,000 to that DC-based union......"

I share your doubt, but am still open to the possibility. I was not, however, confused by Oregon union acronymns.

In some areas this may be true, but not where I live:

LT,

Good point, but much the same could be said about the election of candidates. Some going door to door or doing mailers during election time only knew they wanted one party out, but often knew very little about the candidate they "supported". ...

Candidates are not individuals, just seen as party members?

I once helped get a friend elected by going door to door as a volunteer. Between himself and volunteers, he hit just about every door in the district. "Not supposed to have a chance in a district like this one"? So why did he serve both in the Oregon House and Senate ?

A friend defeated a Republican incumbent in 2006 by hitting every door in the district (himself or volunteers) at least twice, sometimes more than twice. Local issues (annexation on the edge of the city limits, for instance) and issues brought to his attention by citizens have played a big part in his work as a legislator.

Our 2 state senators have been in office a long time. Love them or hate them (one of each party, personalities few are neutral about) they sometimes seem like they do the work of at least 5 other legislators. They understand the issues, they have sometimes co-hosted meetings in town, they are more non-ideological problem solvers than some in either party may like.

<h2>Many of our local legislators are talked about by first name. We talk about individuals here, not party.</h2>