Never mind that many profitable companies are now paying $10 because of overgenerous tax code subsidies ...

How many? How profitable? Which subsidies?

Mr. (or is it Ms?) Wine, I found some answers at Defend Oregon's website, I'm sure a little research would turn up additional facts:

How exactly do the tax reforms work? Corporate minimum tax: Two‐thirds of corporations that do business in Oregon currently only pay a $10 corporate minimum tax. That includes Sprint, Macy’s, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly* and many national corporations that do a lot of business in Oregon, and paid their CEOs millions in compensation, but paid no state taxes in 2008. The corporate minimum has not been changed since 1931. Under the new plan, LLCs, partnerships, S corporations and almost every other type of business will pay only $150. For C corporations with less than $500,000 in Oregon sales, the new minimum will be $150 as well. For C corporations with more than $500,000 in Oregon sales, the minimum will be approximately one‐tenth of one percent of Oregon revenues. Corporate profits tax: Profitable corporations will, for the next couple of years, pay an additional 1.3% tax on profits above $250,000. That means a corporation making $260,000 in profits will pay an extra $130 a year. Starting in 2013, the additional tax will drop down to 1%, and will only apply to profits over $10 million.

And Chuck posted this recently at Blue Oregon, explaining some tax code subsidies.

That includes Sprint, Macy’s, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly and many national corporations that do a lot of business in Oregon, and paid their CEOs millions in compensation, but paid no state taxes in 2008.

Would you please provide the link to the state's website that identifies these companies as both (a) doing "a lot" of business in Oregon and (b) paying no taxes in Oregon in 2008.

According to Sprint's annual report to the SEC, the company paid $15 million in state taxes in 2008.

Across all states, Macy's did not pay state and local income taxes in 2008 (page F-30). That does not mean that Macy's did not pay income taxes in Oregon. (Apologies for the double negative.) Also, you should be aware that Macy's paid $36 million in state and local taxes in 2007.

I'd be wary of the "facts" that Defend Oregon puts out.

"Never mind that many profitable companies are now paying $10 because of overgenerous tax code subsidies, not because they are “losing money.”

Chuck are these companies only paying $10 in TOTAL taxes or just the Oregon minimum corp tax?

...are these companies only paying $10 in TOTAL taxes or just the Oregon minimum corp tax?

This is only for the corporate income tax. They still are paying property taxes on their facilities, and personal property taxes on their tangible assets.

Never mind that many profitable companies are now paying $10 because of overgenerous tax code subsidies, not because they are “losing money.”

Well Chuck, I suggest you file a formal protest with the IRS and ODOR, since these companies are just following the law.

Can we expect you to ever do any analysis of the "overly generous" tax credits that are given to individual tax payers, or is your focus only on employers in this state.

thanks Chuck - what I am asking is do companies that pay the $10 corp min also pay ANY other taxes?

what is the total number of companies that paid only $10

@Pat

Here is a book you might consider reading.

The logical end point of the argument about taxes on corporations--that these taxes are regressive because they necessarily wind up hitting Joe Sixpack--is that there should be NO taxes on corporations. A similar conclusion follows from the argument that cutting marginal tax rates on business and the wealthy will produce MORE tax revenue. An honest assessment from the anti-tax crowd is rarely heard, although if you want one, turn to Grover Norquist: he has always been explicit that the point of cutting taxes is to REDUCE tax revenue and trigger cuts in government services.

I don't have anything to say about Chuck's original post, but his comment (a couple of comments up) deserves a response on a couple of points.

1. Chuck observes that 256 companies used tax credits to reduce their Oregon income tax liability to 0 (216 using credits only; another 40 also using net operating loss carryforwards with credits). These credits were all creations of the legislature to incent behavior the legislature wanted to encourage. If the legislature feels the credits are now inappropriate, repeal them. Be honest about it, don't appear to give them and then take them away through the new gross receipts tax. And don't punish all the other taxpayers because you want to take away credits that only some taxpayers get.

2. Chuck refers to Tiger Woods golf balls in reference to the research credit. This would seem to be implying that Nike pays no Oregon corporate income tax other than the $10 minimum. Chuck, did you intend to make that implication?

3. Chuck asserts that in 2006, 4900 companies used net operating loss carryforwards to reduce their current year income tax to 0 even though they had taxable income. But in the next paragraph ("How profitable?"), if you sum up all the companies he refers to, they add up to only 1112 companies, not 4900 (and I think he counts the companies with $50-100k of income twice at that). I suspect he's pulling these numbers from multiple sources, but there's a pretty big discrepancy between 4900 and 1112.

4. One number Chuck doesn't mention is the companies that had a current year loss and paid the minimum tax. Under the legislature's bill, those companies would have to pay the gross receipts tax based on their sales, even though they lost money.

5. Finally, every one of the 4900 companies that had a net operating loss carryforward first had a net operating loss. And under the new gross receipts tax, companies with net operating losses will be responsible for the new minimum tax, even in the year they originally have a loss. (And one would expect that there will be a lot more of them in 2009 than there were in 2006.)

Bob Wiggins

From the comments I can see the is very complicated. I'm sure that the citizenry will engage in this lively debate, reading ODOR and IRS regulations, SEC reports, various public policy websites. I find it fascinating.

On second thought, I think I'd rather do nothing at all. Just say, "Screw it! I don't have the time to figure it out." Obfuscation is always a great tactic.

Does anyone else think that it is bizarre (or at least misguided), that the state would raise the taxes on thousands of small businesses so that Nike can claim a credit on golf ball dimples and the City of Portland can give away bus passes to a select group of Portland high school students?

How much in taxes should a company pay that loses money. The numbers below are for a real Oregon corp for Q2. For sake of argument, lets pretend they are full year numbers.

Revenue $179,000,000 COGS $105,000,000 Gross $74,000,000 G&A $90,000,000 Operating Income $-16,000,000

This company lost 16 MILLION DOLLARS. How much in taxes should they pay?

"These credits were all creations of the legislature to incent behavior the legislature wanted to encourage."

But did those tax breaks have the intended result? Was there any oversight, or was it "if we give them the tax breaks, they will behave as expected"?

"The legislature wanted" implies that there are the same members of the legislature every session. With turnover from candidates who decide to retire or take other jobs, candidates who are defeated for re-election, or whatever, the legislature of 2009 and the Feb. session of 2010 is not the same group which created some of those tax breaks.

This is why I am glad the 2009 session set up a system for sunsetting tax breaks. The alternative is "never mind if the tax breaks were created before you were old enough to vote, even if you get elected to the legislature those are carved in stone, never to even be discussed again".

I am sure there were former legislators who would have been happy with that alternative idea, but current /future legislators are not required to agree with them.

As most college freshmen learn in Economics 101, corporations do not pay taxes, people do.

Corporations do pay people who pay taxes. Some, Republicans, would prefer they pay more people more money.

Democrats would prefer the government confiscate a larger share of corpoarate revenue instead.

The burden of corporate taxation is ultimately borne by customers (through higher prices),

stockholders (smaller dividends and capital gains),

and employees (lower wages).”

But blue politics regularly trumps economics. Democrats are always saying corporations pay too little.

Of course most businesses pay all sorts of taxes and many pay millions.

In this state, in the middle of a recession with revenue plumetting, the legisalture increased government spending 9%. So they want businesses to pay more.

That's the battle here. And all of the public employee unions Chuck represents likes his bit to wrangle out the rhetoric to make it all sound so prudent.

With 100s of thousands of pubic employees requiring more funding to insulate themselves from the recession the only option for their Democrat politicians is to raise taxes. And they couldn't even hold the line on spending last session.

Good greif Chuck, exempting the first $2400 from taxation for the unemployed is just about meaningless.

It's likely most unemployed will pay very little tax in the first place. Is it not?

So someone not addressing that insignificant component is hardly some gotcha.

Let me guess, MP: you are scared shitless that reality is gonna shift for YOUR corporation, eh?

That's Right Richie Rich: my friends who were IT/IS developers who refused 100/hr b/c it was beneath them....................... and went on unemployment... of course they never paid taxes.

Richard, you make me furious.

Chuck, thank you for responding to my comment.

On points 1 and 2, we've probably exhausted the issue.

On point 3, thank you for the cite. Although it is not crystal clear, I think you are misconstruing the tables to reach your conclusion. From table 3.15, it is clear than just over 20,000 tax returns paid the minimum tax, and that about three-fourths of those returns showed no income or a loss for the current year. The table does indicate that about 4900 returns get to zero through net operating loss carryforwards, and just over 200 get to zero through credits. Where I think you are mistaken is assuming that the income categories in table 3.14 represent net operating loss taxpayers. The table itself includes net operating loss returns in the "zero income or loss" category. I would conclude that the returns showing minimum tax returns with taxable income therefore would have to be returns claiming credits (which there were over 200 of). I'm sure this isn't very interesting to most readers, but getting the facts right does matter.

On the fifth point, you are of course right that in the year of the statistics, the 4900 minimum tax returns with net operating loss carryforwards would have had taxable income, but for the carryforwards. My point was only that the carryforwards had to have been preceded by losses at some point, and if the gross receipts tax becomes law, a company with a current year loss (and, yes, also with no income based on a carryforward) will pay a gross receipts tax with no Oregon income. In the year of Table 3.15, that would have been over 15,000 returns with a current year loss or no income, where the taxpayer would have had to pay a gross receipts tax.

On your assertion that I'm saying you are anti-business; I am not saying that. We've never even met. (I can't understand why anyone would be "anti-business.") But the fact that AOI supported some type of gross receipts minimum tax is, to me at least, irrelevant. The gross receipts-based minimum tax will be bad for investor-funded start-ups and struggling businesses, and that will adversely affect employment in this state. The fact that AOI may have supported it doesn't change that fact. (And as for me, I wouldn't have had a problem in raising the $10 minimum to a number reflecting the reduced purchasing power of the dollar since the '20s).

I appreciate the willingness of Blue Oregon to at least give opposing points of view a hearing here.

Bob Wiggins

Thanks to a question from Rep. Nick Kahl, at the House Revenue Committee meeting today Legislative Revenue staff estimated that 95% of Oregon businesses will pay between zero and $150 more than they currently pay in taxes under the new tax law in HB3405. That includes sole proprietors, s-corps, LLCs, partnerships and c-corps.

While LLCs, partnerships and s-corps will contribute $34 million more, c-corporations will contribute most of the new revenue. Before you feel sorry for the fact that c-corp businesses are going to pay roughly $200 million more, remember since we only tax on what you sell in Oregon, Oregonians and visitors gave them ALL their Oregon taxable money, we’re only asking for a little bit of it back to help provide the services they want and use: educated employees, police protection, courts, regulations to keep the playing field fair, jails, university research, and all the departments of the state that significantly support businesses including Agriculture, Employment, Energy, Environmental Quality, Forestry, Consumer and Business Services, Transportation and Economic Development.

For the next few years, of that $200 million from c-corps, about half will come from the corporate minimum and half from the new marginal rate.

While 74% of c-corps will pay more under the corporate minimum, only 5% will pay more because of the new top rate, and nearly all the new rate money will come from businesses selling more than $100 million---mostly from utilities, wholesale trade, retail trade, insurance and finance, and management of companies and enterprises.

If you really want to have facts, see the Legislative Revenue Report on the two measures here.

Chuck, You just refuse to get it or address the problem.

"Simple, it' sticks another tax on companies who may not make a profit or may even have a loss but can be demogogued becasue they have BIG figures in sales or business.

No $150 is not too much in any application. That's hardly the point.

These companies, corporations and all of their employees, you apparently despise, pay massive amounts of taxes in all forms. Your cronic obscuring of this fact in your efforts to pile on more tax burdens to fund your mission creeping government bureaucracies is disingenuous at best.

It would have been far more prudent had the legislature not increased spending 9% last sesion along with many other options which would have reduced the need to pile on more taxation. But your organization never explores anything that would help avoid misappropriation and facilitate efficient goverment. Thanks

People like Richard demand the police respond when there's a break in at their business or the fire dept if there is a fire, but refuse to pay for these services. Why should I pay for a corporation's share of govts services. I don't send Walmart my electric bill.

Blue People like Dan like to perpetually pretend that the conservative critiquing of excessive, growing and wastefull government is no more than an irrational oppostion to funding basic services.

And no matter how many times stark examples are given to demonstrate our point it ALWAYS come back to our supposed not wanting to pay for services we use, need and support.

Here in Oregon, in our own backyard is a plethera of examples.

Carla wanted more lottery dollars to go to education.

But no Dems support real school reform to make our education dollars more effective and it's crickets when $250 million from the lottery is channeled to Light rail expansion.

Yes Richard demands the police respond when there's a break in at their business or the fire dept if there is a fire, because I do pay for those services.

But when police and fire disability and pension beneifts far exceed responsible and fair levels it becomes a problem I demand gets fixed. You Democrats not only ignore and support every single example of bad policies, excess and waste but then perpetually advocate that they don't exist and we just don't to fund government.

What a way to debate.

Corporations and all of their assets and employees pay vast amounts through many taxes and fees.

They are not the boogeyman making your life harder.

On the other hand the PGE monopoly has you democrats facilitating everything they need to guartantee big profits in every economy.

If you did send Walmart your electric bill it would be a lot less.

But PGE bought and paid for Democrats and the liberal policies around here long ago. It continues today as they support the Democrat AGW movement.

Classic American politics. You get right to the devilish details, without discussing the symptoms of systemic rot in the premise. Why are we taxing unemployment benefits? Can you cite a precedent in any first world society where that has been tried/works?

It would be nice in these debates, if the great middle ground had a voice. You know, the people that believe in a progressive tax code, but find the monies collected now to be horribly wasted? They are sidelined while the extremist "trust our good intentions, regardless of the consequences Dems" and the "taxed enough already mindless dittoheads" battle it out. I doubt history will note a difference as all are subsumed under a future history's chapter on "The Parochial Fin de Siecle Politics that Demonstrated that the American Dream was Long Dead and Unrecoverable".

You want to bring progressivism to the business tax code? How about factoring in the measurable effects on society. Cut this American "the more you're after a buck the more business minded you are" crap! Job creation should be a factor. And those jobs should be weighted against regarding H4 Visas and heavily weighted under-30 hiring as "creating jobs". It's the Intels and Trader Joes, guilty of the aforementioned, respectively, that get the attention. Meanwhile the real, community strengthening, 50 and some odd employees outfits are towing the tax line for them.

Progressives take a daily caning over being idealistic and utopian. This is something that Dems, mainly, just don't get. Maybe they do. Setting off resolutely without a concrete goal might be part of the sham. Most traditional progressive consider having a clear mental picture of what it is your progressing toward to be rather indispensable, though.

@Carla:mp: A better question is

Classic avoidance

@rwLet me guess, MP: you are scared shitless that reality is gonna shift for YOUR corporation, eh?

Really? This will have no bearing on my company at all. Nor have I EVER said I was opposed to raising taxes on businesses. I am only opposed to imposing an income tax on someone who has no taxable income.

Dan, Danny, DannyBoy. Leave it to you to go and ruin all that good work of the lefties making their arguments and you come along and drop a doozie.

People like Richard demand the police respond when there's a break in at their business or the fire dept if there is a fire, but refuse to pay for these services. Why should I pay for a corporation's share of govts services.

Google "property taxes"

"Blue People like Dan like to perpetually pretend that the conservative critiquing of excessive, growing and wastefull government is no more than an irrational oppostion to funding basic services. "

OK Richard, here is your chance. List some specific examples of excessive, wasteful government?

Or are you from the Generalities R Us crowd and can't give specific examples?

If you think something is a specific example of wasteful government, and someone else believes it is worthwhile and gives a reason why, we could have an intelligent debate on the issue.

Debating soundbites serves no purpose.

@Pat

I am pretty sure that local police and local fire services are still funded through local property taxes. If that is no longer the case, can you please show me the error of my thinking. Police and fire were the 2 services mentioned and were the limit of my response.

As far as the last part of your post, whether directed at me or not, I don't know, but here is my answer. As a business owner I support an increase in the tax rate applied to all taxable income of all businesses in the state.

As I see it, tax debates present two fundamental issues. The first issue, and threshold question, is whether additional tax revenue is necessary. If it is, the second question is who should the additional tax revenue be extracted from. Posters on this blog, and tax supporters generally, seem to be focused entirely on the second question of who should pay. Yet the debate regarding this second question is only relevant if the threshold question (whether additional revenue is necessary) is answered in the affirmative.

In my opinion, there is no reasonable justification for answering the first question in the affirmative. From the 67-69 biennium to the 07-09 biennium, Oregon's total funds budget has increased by 2460%. During this exact same period, per capita income in Oregon increased by 976%. In other words, the ratio of Government growth to personal income growth over this period is 2.5:1.

The obvious response is that while the above may be true over the long term, it is not true over the short term. Yet the fact of the matter is that Oregon legislators increased the all funds budget for the 09-11 biennium by 9.38% over the most recent 07-09 biennium. How many Oregonians will see their income increase by 9.38% over this same period? Last time I checked, the people I know with average jobs were either losing them or lucky to be keeping them - not getting 10% raises. Last time a checked, the companies that employ these people and the wealthy individuals I know were having there heads handed to them - not experiencing 10% increases in profitability. In fact, the between November of 2007 and July of 2009, Oregon's economy has lost 120,000 private sector nongovernmental jobs. Yet during this exact same period, the number of government jobs has increased by approximately 10,000.

Irrespective of what side of the political spectrum you are on, the above should tell us something. That "something" is that government is growing at an unsustainable pace while the private sector is struggling. Taking money from the struggling private sector and giving it to the ever expanding governmental sector does not make sense, unless myopically and dogmatically believe that a thriving government is all that matters.

The above leads me to a general point that bothers me to no end. This point, which seems obvious to me, but is apparently not to anyone else is as follows: Republicans are hypocrites. They claim to be for individual rights, personal freedom, and limited government, but when it comes to social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, drugs, religion, etc etc they think the government should be large and in charge and telling people what do to or otherwise involved. If Republicans were consistent to what they claim are their core principles, they would hold the belief that government has no business interfering with people's lives on these issues. Yet Democrats are also hypocrites. On social issues, they purport to be for individual rights, personal freedom, and limited government, but when it comes to fiscal issues (i.e. the business of government) they think the government should be involved in absolutely everything and act morally outraged anytime someone objects to the government taking hard earned money out of their pocket and giving it to someone else to operate yet another nonessential governmental program and don't believe there is any such thing as a nonessential governmental program.

The point of the above is that I think we are seeing the ideological hypocrisy of democrats, liberals, or progressives (whatever label you want to attach) in this tax debate, just as we see the ideological hypocrisy of republicans in public policy debates regarding other (usually social) issues. I think this state, this country, and the world would be much better off if people took more time to critically examine their core values and belief systems to ensure the political positions they advocate for are truly consistent with their values. My guess is that Democrat leaders will not undertake this critical examination, but instead dogmatically pursue their present course which will result in their downfall, just as this same failure on the part of Republicans led to their downfall.

If you are an attorney or a paid political consultant, you are not doing your job unless you dogmatically pursue and vigorously defend the position you are being paid to represent. I realize that many commentators on this blog, myself included, are in this position. However, if you are not being paid to represent someone else's interest or when you are not acting in the capacity of representing someone else's interest, I think it is very important to constantly question whether or not your professed political positions on particular issues are consistent with the core values you believe that you hold. If you're certain in your political beliefs but there is an inconsistency between those beliefs and your values there is a very high probability you are wrong - either in your understanding of your own values or in your political position. Your political positions should be consistent (and follow from) your core values, and if there is an inconsistency (as there often is) something is amiss. Either you fail to understand (or have not wholly defined) your values or the political position you advocate is inconsistent with the values you actually hold.

In any event, the above is neither here nor there I suppose, but it is something I struggle with constantly and something that might be worth thinking about for conscientious participants on this blog.

Pat Ryan says: We got that one [property tax limitations] courtesy of folks who must really oppose local control and accountablity.

Actually we got those property tax limitations courtesy of a majority of voters in the state.

"Actually we got those property tax limitations courtesy of a majority of voters in the state."

Actually, we got Measure 5 because of voters in the NW quadrant of the state passing it. But the whole state has been affected.

I am tired of hearing all taxes are bad without the connection to what lowering taxes means to lowering costs. We shouldn't cut emergency services, or education---how are those to be paid for if not from taxes?

I'm getting to the point that when I hear/read (as I did in the Bruun for Congress article in the SJ) that deficits are bad but tax cuts are good that I just tune it out.

This is going to be the 2010 election cycle, and it seems we are still having 1980s debates.

Amen, "Some Thoughts", amen.

"Some Thoughts" wrote:

From the 67-69 biennium to the 07-09 biennium, Oregon's total funds budget has increased by 2460%. During this exact same period, per capita income in Oregon increased by 976%. In other words, the ratio of Government growth to personal income growth over this period is 2.5:1.

Thanks for comparing apples to apple orchards.

It turns out that the population of Oregon has about doubled in the same time frame.

You're comparing a total measurement to a per capita measurement. I can assume one of three things:

1. This was an honest mistake, in which case you'll quickly admit that it doesn't make any sense.

2. You not very smart.

3. You were purposely attempting to mislead readers.

Carla: Naw..just tired of you asking the wrong questions over and over again.

Classic arrogance! :-)

Geeze, I can't believe the stupid error in my post. Argh!

Conservatives take it on faith that tax increases kill jobs and tax cuts create jobs.

There really isn't much to support that view. When the "Reagan Tax Cuts" were passed in August of 1981, unemployment was at 7.4%. A year later, unemployment was 9.8%, and two years later it was still 9.5%.

When the tax increase was passed in August of 1993, during Clinton's first term, unemployment was at 6.8%. A year later, it was at 6.0%, and two years later 5.7%.

hey chuck why are you liberals too lazy and afraid to include in your argument all the hidden taxes businesses in oregon pay like fees, system development charges and etc?corporations pay a heck of a lot more than the 10.00 corporate minimum baloney you liberals claim.its time you liberals for once be honest with taxpayers

baloney corporations dont pay taxes.yes they do millions of dollars in fees,system development charges and etc that the democrat leaders and their liberal supporters never include in their oregon is such a low tax state argument and businesses only pay the 10.00 corporate minimum

I am of the opinion that anyone paid through taxpayer dollars = Government BUREAUCRAT. So yes:

Fire Fighters and Police Officers = Government BUREAUCRAT

My more conservative friends hate me equating what they call "public safety" as bureaucrats just like the "pencil pushers" we call public officials in Salem.

As far as my family is concerned, we are of the opinion that fire fighters are overpaid for their line of work. Think about it, fire fighters spend about a fifth to a quarter of their total work time per week actually fighting fires and spend the other 75 to 80% of their time being paid by taxpayers to lift weights, hang around in the firehouse cooking pizzas and playing poker.

Considering the nature of "fire fighting," I am not surprised that it is widely sought after. Hell, I would love to be paid an envious salary with full benefits and a tax payer funded retirement for keeping in shape and playing games with my friends.

As for the whole "Reinventing Government" thingimajig, I would be the first to vote yes on privatizing Fire Fighting via competitive bidding to private companies.

I could see paying fire fighters $35,000 per year with full benefits and a tax payer paid for pension, IF their job entailed more "work," therefore it would be in the best interest of the tax payer to privatize fire fighting.

RyanLeo---when my Dad was in the military, he did tasks which are now done by private contractors.

Sen. Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, is worried about the quality and cost of contractors for those types of jobs. Do you remember who hired Webb to be Navy Secretary? It was Reagan.

I prefer to have experts doing jobs--whether it is firefighter/paramedic or whatever.

But then, as the saying goes, they risk their lives, and how many anti-tax advocates ran into burning buildings on Sept. 11 to rescue people?

Is it all just theory to you?

LT,

Experts do not need to be 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation firefighters who start off with a salary close to $50k/year, full benefits, and job protection from a union that makes it practically impossible to fire them unless they are inherently incompetent or have committed a felony.

Do you consider the ambulance services in Portland, OR as experts? After all, they are contracted by Legacy, Providence and the other health systems around Portland, OR.

One only needs training, certification and experience to be considered an "expert" no matter the line of work.

As for "running into burning buildings," that is specifically what fire fighters are trained for and expected of from society. Likewise, if you join the military, you are government property who is trained to shoot an M4 first, then resume your specialization once the base is secure.

As for "contracting" out, I can see the practicality in it in many cases (ie ambulance services, fire fighting, etc.), but I will agree that it is entirely impractical in other cases such as the hiring of consultants for 6 figures of tax payer dollars to do strategic planning, quality improvement and similar work when the public agency has the capacity (the effing Director and Assistant Directors) to do that.

BTW, please don't throw emotion when commenting back at me. I ain't some bleeding heart moron who is going to wave the white flag just because someone threw "9/11" or some other event like "Katrina" back in my face. Emotion does not make an argument, only cold blooded logic does ;)

"As for the whole "Reinventing Government" thingimajig, I would be the first to vote yes on privatizing Fire Fighting via competitive bidding to private companies."

OK, then who pays/ supervises the private companies? Or would oversight of training, certification, and the question of who pays for fire protection (each homeowner a monthly fee to a private company? each renter?) by anyone but the owners of the private company be called "excessive regulation"?

Should these fire fighting companies be responsible for showing a profit to shareholders?

What are your steps to the goal of privatizing fire fighters? Are you willing to be a chief petitioner on a ballot measure? To campaign for a candidate who runs on the platform of privatizing fire fighting? What if voters don't agree with you?

Or is that too much work and you are just expressing an opinion but not willing to do the work to actually make your proposal happen?

Clearly, those in the unemployment line have lost their income and need some help. Those owners of small businesses that have lost their income- and perhaps a sizable investment- need help as well. My business is borrowing money to keep my employees employed, and I am taking on all the risk and burden of paying it back. I have lost my income, just like those in the unemployment line, and the legislature's idea of help to those in trouble is to raise my taxes thousands of dollars. So yes I am confused- about why would the state would punish those who are still in a position to employ people, keeping them off unemployment and welfare?

The unemployment tax break is great, and I support its passing, but not the additional two tax measures that will cost people their jobs. I think Oregonians would rather keep their jobs- and pay taxes- than getting a good deal on taxes while in the unemployment line. And lest we forget, the tax break for unemployed is only for a year, and the tax increases are permanent.

This fight would not be necessary if the legislature would figure out that every business, from the corner gas station to AIG, can lose money with incomes and lives destroyed. I have more faith in the public's ability to understand it, and when they hear the bill taxes small businesses that are going down in the recession, it will be rejected. You can cry out "somewhere there is a big business that isn't paying enough!" but it will not hide the fact that this bill hurts the little guys, and taxes the despondent.

The Democrat leadership over-reached. This fight was unnecessary. Everyone was on board for an increase in the minimum- just not in a form that would assess tens of thousands of dollars in taxes on a business going down the toilet.

Yes, Chuck- raising taxes on small business that has lost its income is exactly like raising taxes on workers that have lost their income- except the business tax has the ability to put far more people out of work.

Ryan Leo, by your example, LT is correct. Most military personnel NEVER fire a weapon in hostile territory or are subjected to enemy fire. So would you privitize those functions and have a mercenary military force with low pay and no benefits? Sounds like a recipe for junta.

I'm usually one to question how big state government has become, but firefighters are highly trained and extremely courageous individuals who respond during emergencies. They are the ones going into the emergency when everyone else is trying like heck to get away. they are NOT symbolic of the administrative bloat in government functions.

Here in Jackson county, we went almost all summer without any major urban interface wildfires. Then there was a big wildfire in ashland and another one in Medford just 2 hours later. were it not for the highly skilled and courageous fire fighters (both wild land and interior structure) aided by pilots and others from across the state, multiple structures may have been loss. In all approximately 500 homes were spared.

Sure, we've only needed them once this year here in Jackson county, but they were worth every dollar paid all summer long.

Ditto our paid structural firefighters. In most of Oregon, all firefighters are also EMT certified and are first responders to 9-1-1 calls. About 10 years ago they rolled at 9:00 pm on a Friday night to our home. My youngest, then 10 had fallen and hit an upturned hibcap, almost severing his patella tendon. The trained firefighters responded, gave first aid and transported him to RVMC where he had surgery within the hour.

Ask any firefighter, the majority of their runs are medical in nature.

Thank you Kurt! I'm usually one to question how big state government has become, but firefighters are highly trained and extremely courageous individuals who respond during emergencies. They are the ones going into the emergency when everyone else is trying like heck to get away. they are NOT symbolic of the administrative bloat in government functions.....................

Ask any firefighter, the majority of their runs are medical in nature.

One of those medical runs awhile back was to the home of Jason Atkinson, who spoke at the opening of our new local fire station here in Salem. He said "Firefighters saved my life".

RyanLeo, would you privatize fire fighters and paramedics as separate companies?

And what is your occupational background that you know so much about the military and firefighters?

" Everyone was on board for an increase in the minimum- just not in a form that would assess tens of thousands of dollars in taxes on a business going down the toilet. "

Seems to me that a struggling business would be paying the $150 minimum, not "thousands of dollars".

When you say "everyone was on board", do you mean you had the votes in the House and Senate (both committee and floor votes) and you knew that all those votes would come to pass when the public vote was conducted?

Or was this some sort of "fix is in" situation where you talked to some people privately and they were supposed to do your bidding in public without any discussion....and then they had the nerve to debate something in public and perhaps actually change their minds?

I remember a party platform convention a couple of decades ago when some people who thought themselves powerful didn't want to stay for the whole boring meeting. So they talked to those they thought were the "right" people who could control things, and they left.

The vote on the platform involved the folks who were actually in the room voting when the resolution those people cared about came up for a vote. Votes were cast by people in the room, and the "powerful" people who had left didn't like the result.

When they screamed, most who were there and many who just heard about it thought if the issue was that important to them, they would have stayed for the whole meeting.

We have "sunshine" laws in this state for a reason. Committee votes and floor votes happen in public (and now, televised on cable and Internet) so that the general public can know what is going on, and how their legislators voted.

"You are supposed to do as told and not ask questions" didn't really even work for Speaker Campbell. He did get a bill out to the floor that he demanded have a floor vote. But he alienated one member of the committee the bill was in to the point of that member announcing the day after that committee vote that he would no longer be a member of Campbell's majority caucus because he was so disgusted with that level of arm twisting.

Some have wondered if they elect members to represent them, to be caucus members, or to represent lobbyists. Looks like this was a situation where some legislators represented someone other than just business lobbyists.

Next year, try "vote for those who will obey the business lobbyists" as a campaign slogan, and see how far it gets you!