To call anything "permanent" is a misnomer. The tax rates are set for now - and will be changed by future legislatures.

The idea that we should only temporarily increase the corporate minimum from $10 - where it's been stuck since 1931 - to $150 - is ridiculous. That's not the main thrust of Beck's column, but he simply doesn't make a compelling case that the rich would pay too much, or corporations would pay too much.

What he's saying is "let's duck and cover" which is what the corporate lobby wants us to do.

There's NO evidence that a temporary tax increase wouldn't be referred to the ballot by the anti-tax folks, or that we'd avoid a fight. We'd just have a different fight. So if the point is to avoid a "protracted, expensive and wholly unnecessary fight" the thing the legislature would have to do is repeal their taxes, and cut services to the vulnerable and needy.

This op-ed by Beck, combined with the poorly argued Oregonian editorial, are simply mindblowing. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to opine about process...about who said what in what negotiation...when they were never there. Was Beck even in the capitol when the legislature was meeting with OBA's board to talk about whehter there could be agreement on a package? What about Rick Attig? Are both relying upon what OBA's lobbyists are telling you, dismissing perhaps the occupational imperative behind the version that is being spun out?

For Beck and the Oregonian: Where were the Republican votes? And why is it somehow a bad thing that some Democratic legislators believed strongly in making permanent progressive changes to our very regressive tax system? "yes, we belieave in progressive taxation but only if it is made temporary?"

Second, what proof does OBA/Beck/Oregonian/Deckert present that AOI, Freedomworks, Oregon GOP wouldn't refer even the temporary changes to voters? And when that package was refered to the voters (because for those groups it isn't simply about taxation but starving government and creating a crisis that would benefit Repbulcian electoral chances) how much money would OBA have contributed? Would it have been more than the pittance they contributed in 06 and 08 fighting far-right intiative efforts.

It is never a good idea to undertake major policy initiatives in emergency session, unless of course you are looking for campaign contributions from special interests.

"Was Beck even in the capitol when the legislature was meeting with OBA's board to talk about whehter there could be agreement on a package?"

Here is where I have a problem with this remark and with the Oregonian editorial.

Either OBA presented their package in open Revenue Comm. which was then subjected to open committee debate.

OR

They expected that the kind of closed door meetings common in the Minnis years would work in 2009 and public process would be sacrificed to make OBA happy.

Without taking a stand on Chris's post, I believe that Mark Hass and Ryan Deckert did themselves ( and perhaps OBA's) reputations no favors. Public perception that they were playing games behind the scenes helps no one.

And are teachers and others with jobs outside the legislature supposed to put their jobs on hold for a special session? Special sessions without an agenda hammered out ahead of time can spiral out of control (see 5 special sessions of 2002). Would Republicans agree to a special session? If not, wouldn't they be as grouchy as state senators when Minnis told them they should support the House "bucket plan"? I don't think recent history shows this would be a good idea without buy in from Minority Leaders Hanna and Ferrioli. Political games are the last thing we need right now.

I would suggest private consultations with those who were in those 2002 special sessions (incl. the current state treasurer who was then a W & M co-chair) on the wisdom of such sessions would be more valuable than any debate on a blog.

Hey Chris,

Since we're past the point of having a theoretical discussion on this--the signatures are being turned in this week, there IS going to be an election on these measures, and there's nothing the legislature can do to stop it--what's your vote?

Yes (uphold the targeted tax increases) or No (trigger a billion in cuts and complete legislative chaos next Feb.)?

Those are the only two options now, so which is it?

We should vote to uphold the tax increases.

And the anti-tax tide may be turning. If there was a special session now, would we know if it had turned in Oregon?

Interesting column in the Oregonian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/09/taxing_the_rich_its_not_class.html

Sal Peralta Their argument is that public employees should have been asked to make greater concessions on benefits. An oft-cited example is that public employees don't have a co-pay for prescription meds or doctors visits whereas basically everyone who receives benefits through employers has to pay such co-pays. Is that true? If so, does anyone have any thoughts about it?

That's nonsense.

At Lane Community College, we pay a contribution to the cost of the insurance, we pay co-pays and deductibles (both medical and Rx; a few "preventative" services excluded) just like most people. We may have lower costs; it's a "real" plan not just catastrophic coverage. That's the benefit of having a union.

We happen to have a stand-alone plan; most K-12 and Community College employees are covered by OEBB; most state employees by PEBB. All of these plans have costs of some sort.

Most public employees took hits to our pension plan; it's significantly worse for new employees. We've also taken wage freezes, pay & benefit cuts and reduced FTE ("furlough days").

What you're hearing from these folks are just the usual Fox News/Lars Larson/Rush Limbaugh lies.

Thanks for the answer, Chris.

But if voters aren't going to support a tax on a bunch of rich people that aren't them, they sure ain't gonna support a sales tax on themselves. And it doesn't matter how bad things get, especially since there will be plenty of people out there claiming that it's all the legislature's fault anyway--kinda like they are RIGHT NOW coughcoughfingerpointingatyou.

Sal:

No problem; thanks for asking.

I'm always amazed at the misinformation floating around regarding public employees.

My POV is that the debate shouldn't be why public employees have such "great" benefits; it's why most people don't.

This proposal has no legs whatsoever. It's just shooting the breeze. The die is cast and we are going to have another stupid debate about taxes in Oregon and the Rs are going to pretend that they hate all taxes and they will try to sell the deception that these taxes are really on the middle class and not rich corporations or individuals. So why cave and give any credence argument that there should be anything but passing the taxes that were passed.

Sal,

Bob beat me to it, but I'll add my two cents as a union employee. I'm actually am in a union and work for a union.

My insurance has a deductible and co-pays and caps. I don't disagree that since it's union-bargained it may be better in many ways than what people can purchase on their own or get through their employers, but I still have the deductibles, caps and co-pays.

The union I work for has a myriad of contracts it negotiates. Most of the Insurance plans have caps after which costs are either split between the employee/employer or are solely the responsibility of the employee. Some have deductibles, some have co-pays.

Like Bob said (and you acknowledged) there is a lot of misinformation out there about union benefits being a gravy-train, everything free, no-cost option.

Having said all that----GO UNION!

Chris,

People often vote against their own self-interest becuase they listen to the loudest voice in the room or allow fear-mongering by one group or another to overrule their common sense. I know you know this. This is why we've had no luck overturning the kicker so far....the public isn't ready to touch it, no matter how bad the situation has become. In a perfect world, perhaps we would get rid of or revise the kicker first. But given people's reactions to that idea in the past, the actions of the legislature this time around were the best mix of cuts and revenue increases they could try to fix the problem.

And KC is right---corporations have, for far too long in this state, not paid their fair share of taxes. It's ridiculous and has to stop. Will they gripe about it? Of course. Will they take their ball and go play in another state? Unlikely since they'd still pay higher taxes there than here. We have to bring the seesaw of corporate vs individual tax responsibility back into balance in Oregon and this is the best way to do it. Ditto the higher taxes on those individuals who have higher earnings---and yes, I'd say that even if I was in one of those categories.

All of this anti Corp blather certainly gives y'all great blue cred, but has anyone considered the unintended consequences? You know they're coming. They always do anytime government does something.

mp----Unintended consequences are not always the same as unexpected consequences. What do you see as possible unintended consequences----and do those outweigh the things that will be accomplished?

Good god Kari. You've uncovered Bush's ad hoc ventriloquist. That is to say, we always wondered where those obtuse conundrums came from when he shifted to unscripted burblings.

Now we know: Cheny throws good voice.

Eek.

Oops. Brain INfarct.

RUMMY .... good voice.'

Eh.

Ouch. Even worse: so the true title was originally, "The Fog of War"... ?

Two points:

1. Beaverton School District employees have healthcare options that include Kaiser. For the Kaiser option, employee, spouse, and dependent children are covered at no cost to the employee for the entire family. There are tiny co-pays for office visits; prescription costs are minimal; vaccinations and flu-shots are little or no cost to the family.

2. In the many, many discussions regarding the new tax there is one aspect that has not been discussed. The assumption is that this tax increase is to make up a projected budget shortfall. There are many arguments for and against this tax increase, but I've not seen any comments directed towards the likely outcome that tax receipts will be considerably BELOW projections. The assumption being made with this tax measure is that the new taxes are to make up for forecasted shortfall in tax revenue.

With unemployment likely to continue at the present rate for some time; with the long-term unemployed falling off the counted rolls; the lag of new medium to high paying jobs being created; etc. It really could be that the tax revenue projections are exaggerated, and that receipts will actually be considerably less in the coming years. The pool of taxpayers and businesses able to pay will be shrinking in Oregon.

This speaks to placing even more importance on controlling current and future state spending as well as looking seriously at restructuring how the state and public operations are funded. And it is not just the operations of state and local governments who may have less funding than expected, but unfunded pension obligations will start to rear their ugly head.

Oregon cannot count on Fed stimulus funds forever to help fill the gaps.

Focusing on kicker reform alone does not address the issue if times continue to be tough.

My first visit to this blog, and I appreciate the tone and content. The Tax Foundation favors Oregon's position in the general tax competition among the states, that is, the idea of doing without one of the major taxes. (Eleven other states take that approach.) It does make you more dependent on the income tax at the state level and property at the local level, but that works well, and it maximizes your federal deductions.

You now have the highest income tax rate in the country, which is the sort of thing site locaters notice. Even just a 0.5% reduction in that top rate would have spared you that dubious honor. Thanks to John Chisolm for correctly explaining the difference between Tax Foundation's rankings and Census's. Finally, Mike M.'s post is right on: current revenue projections are probably optimistic (that's the most common case in every state every year), so retrenching in long-term public sector spending is more important than revisiting the kicker. Pensions are the sleeping giant here -- most state-local funds require grossly inadequate employee contributions.

when you include all taxes including the hidden ones you liberals are too afraid to and never mention fees,ie system development charges and etc sorry to burst your bubble oregon is not 49th in the nation in business taxes we are in the top 5 in the nation in total business taxation.hey chris beck before you demand kicker reform and ask taxpayers to fork over one more dime to salem why dont you demand spending reform in salem and for the state to quit wasting millions of dollars on consultants and outside contracts they dont need?how about you demand a major league cut in the size of the bloated state govt?when is the last time the state govt has been cut?

Matthew, it's good to see our tax dollars were put to use on your public education, but it was Ernst & Young who put out the report that says Oregon is 48th in the nation for business taxes, and they looked at every tax and fee imaginable.

Thank you Cheese and Crackers!

Or maybe someone who uses language like "you liberals are too afraid to and never mention " believes Ernst & Young is some kind of socialist front or "liberal" organization?

Damn, I'm too late to this thread. But I'll add something anyway.

First, Sal, the best response to those who argue that public employees should have been asked to make greater concessions on benefits is to point out the magnitude of the budget crisis in Salem, and how going after employees does nothing to solve it. This came up in 2003 as well, when DHS in particular was facing a large shortfall, and there were those who argued that DHS needed to cut employees and "administration" before cutting services. But in that situation, EVERY DHS EMPLOYEE could have been fired, and it would not have generated enough savings to cover the shortfall. The size of the cuts in this biennium dwarf those from 2003, so it makes the argument even more specious. And if it's purely a symbolic thing for them -- that we should reduce the compensation packages of state employees just because -- then I think it's worth asking very directly how we're going to attract people to work in government if the compensation continues to be below market rates.

As for Beck's op-ed, I disagree with most of it on policy grounds. Not only do we need to rebalance Oregon's tax policy so that more falls on business and less on individuals -- as it did 20 years ago -- but we need to make those changes permanent. And on the individual side, there is nothing wrong with taking Oregon's flat-tax income tax and making it slightly more progressive. . . on a permanent basis. I don't understand the reason for making it temporary at all unless you don't believe it is justified, which calls into question a fundamental progressive principle: should the top 5% pay a higher percentage than the bottom 95%? I didn't even realize progressives were still debating this, but apparently we haven't convinced people like Chris Beck.

Most troubling, though, was this statement:

The Legislature's recent handiwork is likely to fail at the ballot box

Chris, it has a higher chance of failure now because you wrote this damned op-ed. Seriously, do you not see the connection? These debates don't happen in vacuums, and when good politicians like you push faulty arguments in public, you are doing a disservice to the entire state. This is not academic, it's real lives we're talking about, and if the state has to cut another $1 billion because this fails, some of that blame will sit squarely on your shoulders.

<h2>i am talking about every dollar the state collects not the general fund and income tax dollars you liberals mention.i dont care about biased pro liberal never honest firms like ernst and young.cheeses and crackers its sad that you are so brainwashed by liberal rags like the democrat party,oregonian editorial board that never include the all funds budget numbers and total taxes that includes every fee,system development charge and hidden tax included in their we need more taxes argument.oregon is not 48th in business taxation its in the top 5 in the nation now.if our tax rate is so low cheese and crackers can you please explain why our unemployment rate is so high and businesses are not chomping at the bit to get to oregon and stay here?</h2>