I tried Google to find polling results for 66 / 67 and was not successful. Is there any early polling? Links would be appreciated.

Bill Lunch said about 2 weeks ago that there had been some early polling, but the questions might have, to paraphrase, "skewed the results". But I don't have the source.

Here is a small business owner that says you should vote NO. Score 1-1.

Source: Salem Area Chamber of Commerce "Chamber Insider" Fall 2009

Board member Brent DeHart is leading the effort to raise $100,000 among business community leaders and partners. "This is a fight we need to win for the well being of businesses throughout the state," said DeHart. "The permanency and formula used to assess these taxes will hurt our ability to employ people, provide benefits, and ultimately even stay in business."

DeHart owns a Shell gas station located on the corner of Mission Street and 22nd Street as well as Salem Aviation Fueling. DeHart employs about 20 individuals as a part of his retail gasoline business on Mission Street. Sales in the past have exceeded $7 million in the last several years, but in 2009 DeHart expects sales to be approximately $5 million.

"This new tax on C-corporations like me will absolutely devastate high margin, low profit operations like the gasoline business," said DeHart.

Based on the formula used in Measure 67, DeHart's new tax bill would be $4,000 to $7,500 even though no profit was made on the business.

"There is nowhere for that money to come from except my family's household budget," said DeHart. "My other option is to fire a key employee and take all their responsibilities on myself."

Chuck, Have you ever made a dime in "private practice"? That is, as a lawyer in "private practice" and I don't mean your work in legal aid. Point being that attorneys who become judges etc., are deemed by their own colleagues to be those who couldn't/didn't make it in private practice. Or aren't up to the task. If your answer is No I've made my point. If yes, will 66/67 affect you currently? Point, set, match.

re: money to fund education and other essential services,

Then, why don't we cut non-essentials before raising taxes?

John

Do you understand the concept of gross profit?

Calhoun, Let Sheketoff answer my question and yours. Profit? It's not for you or anyone of your bretheran to decide that a mans profit belongs to someone else. Legal aid my friend is where CS learned socialism. He's had his hand in others pockets forever.

Great column, Chris.

It is thoughtful, accurate, and unfortunately, a stark contrast to the opposition arguments at this point.

Oh and now we're joined by Peter Buckley another non profit devotee. You guys are amazin'.

Thanks for the alternative perspective, mp. I truly think the party animals really believe they just happen to agree with the Party, 24/7, 365.

I'm doing some more research on this, for my own edification, but the main question I'll be asking are "why C corps"? I, too, like to take BO points and go around asking real people what they think. The attitude of those that mp interviewed is really contrasting, compared to the attitude of a lot of state middle managers. At least 5 posters, over the last 2 years, have detailed their entitlement attitude and, save Kari bothering to ask once, quite rudely, if he was serious, those first hand accounts have been ignored under BO's favorite license to abuse, "troll". Unfortunately it's the only forum for what it does. There's going to be quite a stampede the day an alternative pops up.

If you want to balance the ed. budget, don't pay any managers more than the highest paid teacher.

It's hard to not remember a year ago today. What hope we had! The smugness of a lot of the BO regulars and their high and mighty policy of ignoring 1/2 the posters really makes it tempting just to vote against it on principle. Political parties are for idiots and the power hungry.

chuck you only polled 500 people and i dont think i would throw a parade yet over what 500 people think.that is a tiny small percentage of people and sorry to burst your bubble the whole state does not share your rosy view of these tax measures passing.

I also understand that the seller gets to set his prices to maintain whatever margin he thinks works to maximize profit.

Would you mind explaining that to the consumer. I would love to be able to set my prices to whatever level I would like to maximize my profits.

Kari Chisholm: So, if he's selling gasoline at $2.75 a gallon, he just needs to raise the price by $0.00275 a gallon - just over a quarter-penny a gallon. (He could do that, perhaps, by raising his prices a penny - but only on the weekends. Would any of his customers even notice?)

<hr/>

Thanks for verifying the fact that businesses just pass the tax on to their customers - YOU & ME.

So this tax is really a BILLION DOLLAR tax on Oregon citizens. Not businesses.

I have no sympathy for the public employee's and teacher's unions.

Down here in Chico, CA, my family works with a special ed teacher who has a house in Bali. I am sure that many aspiring, individuals who do not teach special education could own a house in Bali. Then again, getting a house in Bali off of tax payer expense is a hell of lot less risky than putting your own money down earned entrepreneurial endeavors.

The point is, those who are paid for by the tax payer dollars harvested from the private sector AKA Business, do not convince people to join their side when they do not lay all their cards out on the table.

What exactly is at stake if Measure 66 and Measure 67 do not pass? Will old people go homeless? Or will some jag off administrator just lose the ability to make the payments on his brand new BMW?

If it is proven that government workers will become homeless if Measure 66 and Measure 67 do not pass, then those not of the government class would gladly vote to ensure that more costs to society are not incurred due to homelessness.

However, if it is some 64 year old's $5,000+/month tax payer paid for pension in stake of being cut down to $3,000/month, then the case is that much more harder to make. Or if public employees start having to fork out more in healthcare premiums, then I could care less.

Hell, my employer runs with catastrophic coverage with a $10,000 deductible meaning I have to put 10 grand of my own money in before the health insurance fully kicks in.

Like I said, I have no sympathy and I am running real short on crocodile tears.

If Harker is only paying $10/yr on his company taxes he either isn't making any money or has structured the company so that he pays company taxes on his personal income taxes. either way he isn't telling the whole story.

He also admits that the bulk of company revenue comes from out of state so he would be exempt from the Gross Revenue Tax calculation.

So he really, REALLY isn't representative now is he? Its easy to vote in taxes on others to pay for what you want.

OK, if I have this right.....

Position 1- This tax is burdensome and unfair to small businesses, and will result in the loss of many, many, jobs. It would not be a necessary tax increase if state employees did not earn so much in pay and benefits, and other wasteful government spending was reigned in.

Position 2- It will be devastating to cut educational programs and essential services, both in terms of overall long term costs, and on issues of livability. Government employees are paid fairly, and have already sacrificed. There are no more cuts in this State to be made.

The reality is that our legislators (we elected them) did not cut what some many perceive as waste. They have argued there is nothing more they can do. Therefore, education and essential services will will be cut if the new tax proposals are sent packing.

Seems like it makes much more sense to elect those who represent what you want to see in the first place, than to complain after the fact. It might be smarter to un-elect (is that a word?) those who are not representative of your concerns. Fighting over the decisions that are made in Salem after the fact seems counterproductive.

Who really cares if a gasoline dealer goes out of business?? He is just contributing to global warming and the murder of the environment and our dependence on foreign petroleum! These are exactly the kind of people we SHOULD be using our power and influence to guide them into another line of work that is more responsible and civic minded. I see absolutely no downside to this tax. Yes, he may have to lay people off, but that will just make him less competitive and will hasten his departure from this line of work anyway. Chuck...you rock!!

Chuck, I like this great column better. A couple more of these and this Tax will never pass. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/state_lowballed_cost_of_green.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/state_lowballed_cost_of_green.html.

A couple more of these and your tax will never pass.

Not a bad point TruBlue. You can't really do parody without giving aid and comfort to the enemy, can you. That ain't a bad point. Poor, feckless chappie.

The only fly in the ointment is that as the lower end collapses, there is consolidation around the megadealers, and they are eeeevil! Large corporations are the existential phallus of the Jezsus, who can't get his way with our back sides as often as He would like, so uses the faithful as his stand-ins. See, that's how it's done.

This column proves that decent debate can erupt, despite the troll load, if everyone bothers to be responsive. I say, well done, crew!

State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told, an investigation by The Oregonian shows...

...The official estimates turned out to be absurdly low. In 2007-09, the business tax credit cost the state $68 million, of which about $40 million can be attributed to the bigger subsidies. The latest estimate for 2009-11 puts the tab for subsidies at $167 million in lost revenue, which is projected to grow to $243 million for 2011-13 -- about what Oregon spends now from its general fund on the entire state police budget.

The next time someone asks you whether taxpayers should support Measures 66 and 67, just tell them "no" and direct them to Harry Esteve's article. Thanks Harry (and meg)

"If it is proven that government workers will become homeless if Measure 66 and Measure 67 do not pass, then those not of the government class would gladly vote to ensure that more costs to society are not incurred due to homelessness."

So in your world judges, school teachers, principals, public health professionals, building inspectors, and all public employees (many with advanced degrees, published research, doctors, etc.) should all be forced to perform their duties at poverty + $1.00.

Thirty years ago a whole class of public employees signed employment contracts and performed their duties at below market rates and now you're pissed off because they have something you don't - education, common sense, and security into their retirement years. It must suck to be you.

Well I'd love to hang around this fine sunny day but I have to fill up the car across town from Dehart's station to save 1/10th per gallon so I can drive around Portland tomorrow and count all the MBs and BMWs at all the high schools.

Oh, all you bottom-feeding selective free-market non-thinkers out there - be sure to support the 10% increase in PGE rates for 2010. I hear Peggy Fowler is having a hard time living on $7,000,000 every year of the public's money!

So in your world judges, school teachers, principals, public health professionals, building inspectors, and all public employees (many with advanced degrees, published research, doctors, etc.) should all be forced to perform their duties at poverty + $1.00.

No. They will leave and rejoin the private sector. Meanwhile all those quite adequately trained to do those jobs, but languishing underemployed because they don't kiss ass the right way, will gladly take those jobs at minimum + $1. There are more advanced degrees waiting table than working in gov.

Typical material worship that you equate minimum with poverty. Yeah, be a mindless consumptive and minimum will leave you pretty poor. Be a producer, live within your means, and you'll find people that think it's just dandy.

Middle class consumptives- the "I require" generation- foam at the mouth when you say things like this. It very dearly threatens their way of life. People with too many kids, people that can't control...well, you name it...people a car for every family member, all the consumptives do not want to see that it is possible. "Polite society", polite conversation for them is not having these things questioned. You will hear them disparage such notions with all the vehemence they can muster. You right wing trolls want to really, really get under their collar? Promote radical sustainability. Ha, ha. You can't do that can you? Might be worth it...

After reading the Oregonian article about the ruinous green-energy tax credit swindle, I will definitely be voting NO on 66/67. It's time to put an end to the lunacy in Salem.

I feel compelled to respond to Ryan Leo and his example of a special ed teacher who supposedly owns a home in Bali soley on her techers salary. We have a customer who is a special ed teacher and who lives with and cares for her elderly great aunt. She predicts she will be able to save enough money by late November to replace the defective ignition switch in her worn-out Saturn. I wonder which is the more representative teacher.

And I can tell you as an Oregon business owner that our C-Corp company would experience a greater negative impact if one of the instructors at Mt. Hood Community College's automotive program were to get laid off due to budget cuts, which almost happened last spring, than by the effects of either measure 66 or 67. I have no qualms in voting yes for both of these measures, under the current circumstances.

John Calhoun above asks, "A $5 million business can't find $5,000 without laying someone off?"

We might ask the same question of the state of Oregon, "A $50 billion state government can't find $733 million without laying someone off?"

Scott in Damascus,

Don't try to misconstrue my argument and then assume that I am some sell out America, free trader Ayn Rand worshiper. Also, don't be a freaking idiot.

We all know during budget cuts that the last people to be affected are the school superintendents and high level union officials. The first people to get the axe are teachers and those who provide the services.

My disdain was leveled at those middle and upper management do nothings who hide behind statistics to justify their worth, while conveniently forgetting that it was the teachers and lower level workers who were responsible for those numbers.

Jim,

In Chico, CA, special education teachers do make enough to own houses in Bali. You know where I live.

Where do you live? If that teacher is in rural Oregon, then I ain't surprised one bit.

To Ryan Leo: I live in Portland, OR, as does the special ed teacher. Since these are Oregon ballot measures and Oregon's economy we are discussing maybe you can enlighten us as to the value of your reference to a teacher's salary in Chico, CA.

Jim Houser,

Enlighten my reference? My family works with her. Do you want me to cite some scientific journal to appease your curiosity?

She has spouse who works with some local company for $40k to $50k per year.

I may be underplaying the spouse and/or any potential inheritance she may have received, but that does not hide the fact that she is a special education teacher who owns a house in Bali.

Having teachers who own houses in Bali....Yeah, no need to dig further into the sound byte. Just like when George Allen said "macaca," no liberal myself included were wondering the context of the statement, we just focused on the macaca.

If memory serves, I think Chuck has written several posts exposing - and lobbying against - excessive business tax credits including the energy tax credits the O article talks about today.

It's funny that some people are citing these energy tax credits as a reason to vote no on the tax measures. They can't afford any new taxes, but want to do away with credits that reduce them? Don't get me wrong, I think these credits are a joke and need to be reigned in -and regulated - a lot more, but it seems really ironic that this is cited as government waste by these people. Am I missing something here? Is a tax credit only a waste if your business can't take advantage of it?

And I'm really curious - and more than a little perturbed - by the constant derogatory references to Chuck's history as a legal aid attorney. What gives? What has legal aid done to earn such scorn?

Were it not for the tax credits, the state would not be begging for more taxes. That's the point.

Um yeah, I get that Frank. But tax credits like the energy one are just another way the tax code has been manipulated to supposedly help business, like the corporate minimum. The companies taking advantage of this "green" credit say they need it or they couldn't - or wouldn't - do business here. They say, just like those bitching about the new taxes, they will cut jobs or fold.

I think it's rather duplicitous to defend the credits and other ways your company legally manipulates your bottom line, while saying the credits that others take advantage of to do the same thing are wasteful and the reason you won't pay a little more to support the system. It's pretty frickin selfish if you ask me. I.e., tax credits for me are good and necessary, tax credits for others are wasteful.

How bout we go through the tax code - line by line - and do away with the credits that aren't doing what they're supposed to. I'd be willing to forego any increase if we get rid of ALL that waste. Somehow, I doubt businesses would go for that deal because it would probably affect their bottom line worse than this puny increase.

Kari, You’re of course correct that the proposed tax increases are a higher percentage of the state budget than the example given of a $5 million business being hit a $5,000 minimum tax. But the $733 milion tax increases represent less than 1.5% of the state’s $50 billion All Funds Budget. Put in those terms, I think many voters will find it hard to believe that rejecting the measures will cause serious harm to state services.

Steve B,

Great insight! A 1.5% "problem".

I don't think any of us could manage our own annual budget to that precision. To cry crisis over that amount is folly.

This again should redirect efforts to address spending, rather than simply looking to raise taxes as the only solution. After all, the benefits of the proposed tax increases are guesses at best.

Same old story. The state spends too much and grows its budget too rapidly, and when tax revenue slows they use the scare tactic of releasing prisoners and firing teachers, instead of cutting back on unnecessary state programs, of which there are many. Instead of being fiscally responsible we face more taxes. Why is that? In 1990 Oregon tax revenue was 2/3 of what it is today. Seems the state provided all the services necessary then?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/11/oregonians_ask_wheres_my_subsi.html

Do tax expenditures need to be paid for?

Are they a secret that people who oppose government spending don't want to talk about?

"the state’s $50 billion All Funds Budget"

Steve, should the Common School Fund be used to make sure that the State Police are funded? Was the SAIF decision of the 1980s wrongly decided because of course when businesses make insurance payments to SAIF they should know there is a danger that money might be used for general budget balancing? On whose authority do you say the court made the wrong decision. Do you even know who were the justices who made that decision?

Guess what! In a free country we are not required to believe in the "all funds budget" no matter how much people like you try to make us believe that every dime which comes to the State of Oregon can be spent for any purpose whatsoever. That's just not how government accounting works. Ask the folks at WESD who just fired the Supt. for, among other things, spending funds for purposes other than the intended purpose.

"This again should redirect efforts to address spending, rather than simply looking to raise taxes as the only solution."

Mike M: proposing budget cuts is only the first step. Even if you believe you have the greatest ideas of all time, if you can't get budget cuts from Ways and Means subcommittee to full committee, then to floor vote in both chambers, then to Gov. signature, then they don't happen. Period.

I live in the St.Sen. district of a the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Services (or whatever the name was) in the 2001-2 time frame who said some proposed cuts for programs helping needy people were just too deep and "you can remove me as chair, but as long as I am chair those cuts will not leave this subcommittee".

No amount of rhetoric will change the minds of those of us who were proud of our Republican St. Sen. for standing up to the "cut it all" crowd like that. She still holds that seat, although she almost lost one of the counties in the district last time around to a bright young Democrat.

Carla above asks “…which cuts specifically would you like to see made to the budget in order to close the gap should the measures not pass? Please be very specific with each line item and the corresponding dollar amounts.”

Carla, I could ask you the corresponding question:Please tell us which individuals you wish these tax increases to affect if they do pass. Since we know that business doesn’t pay taxes, but just passes them on to consumers, employees and/or owners, please be very specific about which individuals you expect to pay the $733 million in new taxes. And remember, most of the high income individuals directly affected by M66 are small business owners, so their tax liability will likely be passed on the others also. Who do you think they should be?

..., which cuts specifically would you like to see made to the budget in order to close the gap should the measures not pass?

I'll take a crack at that: Eliminate OLCC = $143M Eliminate Oregon Racing Comm = $6M Eliminate Oregon Library (use Google) = $15.7M Move Dept of Corrections back to 05/07 budget = $523M (they can release non violent drug offenders et al) Move Natural Resource budget component back to 07/09 = $70

Total Savings = $757.7M

You may not agree with my choices, but at least I made some.

MP, thanks for making specific suggestions.

Now all it will take is 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate to make those changes.

Blogging is an expression of opinion which anyone can accept or reject. The way our system still works, actual budget cuts are made by elected legislators. No matter what happens with 66 and 67, that will still be true.

I think I finally get it. OK. I even agree. We can move on to the next topic, now. No more corporate minimum tax postings for a while even if it does bring out the beast in me.

(@RyanLeo, I'm sorry you're so perturbed that a SPECIAL ED teacher should be able to buy a house in Bali. Perhaps if they bought one in Truckee or Reno you wouldn't be so put out. A little surfing around on the net and I found the salaries of Chico school teachers. You'll be interested to know that a teacher with 20 years of experience and a master's degree makes $71,635 a year. Combine that with the $50,000 from the spouse, a little frugality, and I bet you could swing a small villa in the Pacific, yourself. Apparently you can get a nice, but small one for about $200,000. But it's easier to begrudge others than do anything yourself, isn't it?

Plasticgraduate,

A little bit perturbed, that would be an understatement. I am peeved off because the same cast of characters (teachers and public employees unions) try to frame the debate on tax initiatives as if every teacher and government worker will go homeless if the initiatives isn't passed. All the while, dodging and not answering the pointed questions of where the money will be going exactly.

Last I heard, around 70 cents per every dollar given to K-12 Education is spent on "Administrative" costs, while around 7 cents is spent to help individual kids. My water cooler talk may be a bit dated as my friends and I are more concerned with the economy than K-12 education at this point.

The system has it's faults, a complete lack of transparency is one of them, but as a product of public schooling, I am in favor of incremental change such as offering students and parents more choice via charter schools and school vouchers. I am opposed to blowing the whole system up as most sane people are :)

Last I heard, around 70 cents per every dollar given to K-12 Education is spent on "Administrative" costs

You can see how much attention serious proposals to deal with that are given, such as "Aaron Cady's" (second post, first doesn't look quite as serious).

The current power brokers have a white knuckle grip on the wheel of state, and won't let go until they crash, run out of gas, or concerned progressives throw a legislative spike strip down. It is points like this that illustrate that this is the kind of issue and response that leaves progressives wishing the BO masthead said, "...a place for Democratic Party hacks to gather around the water cooler and plot...". "Progressives" that refuse, on principle, to consider that government is service. Right.

Lord Beaverbrook,

What I fear is that progressives are in the same boat with anyone who has a "D" next to their name, regardless of that individual power broker/candidate's public policy positions. Power broker as in political outsider such as lobbyist, staffer, etc. Candidate as in legislator or potential legislator.

It is starting to seem as if this is one big high school football game where one player can be a complete cheater, but so long as he is "our" cheater, then he is all right.

Case in point, I see very few regular commentators on this blog for fiduciary, career, partisan or other reasons not doing their progressive duty and speaking truth to power as it pertaints to teacher's and public employeee's unions.

Good job mp! Actually, eliminating the OLCC could net a lot more than your figure. Eliminating Oregon's idiotic liquor laws would boost sales and generate a lot more revenue.

Frank, why don't you and MP run for the legislature? Then you could actually implement your ideas instead of just talking about them here.

Or would running a campaign be too much work?

LT

<h2>This is what I don't get. Everyone bitches about no one ever providing any specifics about anything and when I do, whether you agree with them or not, all I get from you is a line of condescending crap. Kiss my arse.</h2>