(Someone better call an ambulance for Chuck before he reads this comment)

Since I haven't commented on the increase on individual taxes yet, here goes: I support them fully. This tax increase will have no meaningful impact on anyone in this tax bracket (myself included) and this is nothing more than ideological idiot regurgitating talking points.

(Someone throw some cold water on Chuck)

I hope this is considered "on topic"

Kari? Is he sufficiently on-topic to stay intact?

Chuck, trying to figure out your precise points of displeasure?

Chuck. I'd be interested in your answer to the the question that John Chandler posed: at what point are wealthy Oregonians paying their "fair share?"

With its high income and capital gains taxes, Oregon's state tax system is already weighted heavily toward higher income earners.

While I can understand a temporary income tax surcharge to get through the recession, is raising the permanent tax rate on upper-income Oregonians REALLY making our tax system more fair?

I'd love to understand what "fair" means in terms of income taxes paid and see some data to back up the claim that Oregon's current personal income tax system isn't fair.

@Jeremy:

Yes. A permanent income tax increase on personal and corporate income above $250k is very fair.

People and corporations earning more income benefit more from public services like roads that ship goods and move people, police that protect property, and courts that enforce contracts.

Unless you want to make the argument that consumption of additional luxury goods or additional savings are more desirable to society than provision of basic services - teachers, police, firemen, roads, health care for the most vulnerable, etc., then there really is no sense in saying taxing the rich a little bit more is anything but fair.

Isn't the whole point of money and commerce to provide for human needs more efficiently?

Since the rich pay less of an effective share of their income in state and local taxes than people who make minimum wage, I'm gonna say that any steps toward fixing that are pretty dang fair.

Or, were you trying to make us feel sorry for poor John Chandler? In case you missed it, he makes more than a quarter of a million dollars. Poor lil rich guy is gonna have to pay a widdle bit more.

Excuse the rest of us while we go cry into our Top Ramen.

Chuck - to quote Mark Twain, one of the rules of good writing is to use the right word, not its second cousin. I’m afraid your post has shirttail relatives hanging all around. F’r instance:

Poster child: a person having a public image that is identified with something (as a cause). (www.merriam-webster.com, definition #2)

I, as an individual, am not a poster child for much of anything (other, perhaps, than for maintaining my boyish good looks). To the extent that you, or OPB, or anyone else, gives a rat’s patoot about what I think or what I say on a matter of public policy, it is because of my public image (using that term fairly broadly), which – Carla’s references to a fine and underrated folk singer notwithstanding – in turn derives from my affiliation with and representation of the Home Builders and my role as a spokesperson for this campaign, not as a random citizen.

Irony: incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (www.merriam-webster.com, definition 3a)

There is nothing ironic about my speaking against these taxes; my opposition is not now and never has been due to the impact they might have on me personally. Rather, I'm involved in this campaign and opposed the tax proposals during the legislative session because of their impact on the industry I represent. For that matter, the industry from which I derive my income is not home building: I work for the home builders, but I personally do not build houses. The people that do build houses, though, and on whose behalf I am opposing these taxes, have gotten their collective teeth kicked in by this recession and will have the nubs filed down by the tax increases.

Admit: to concede as true or valid (www.merriam-webster.com, definition 1b)

Contrary to your headline and final paragraph, I didn’t admit (or concede) nothin’. While my personal finances are none of your or anyone else’s business, I testified to the House Revenue committee during one of the hearings that if the legislature was determined to raise taxes, they should do so on individuals such as myself. I don’t like it, I don’t agree that any tax hikes are necessary, and I might well invest a few extra bucks with my accountant to ameliorate the increases, but I won’t fire anyone.

What the legislature did, though, will impact businesses disproportionately because 70 to 80% of the filers subject to the increased personal taxes are not individuals but are in fact Sub-S corporations and other pass-through business entities whose income is reported on the owner’s personal taxes. This will, I believe, cause the loss of jobs. It’s that belief that these tax increases will further hurt the members of my association and the overall economy of Oregon that has me involved in this campaign, not my individual situation.

But while we’re on the general subject of word choice and sloppy writing, Chuck, old buddy old pal – your ‘at least he’s honest about that’ line, might be read by those unfamiliar with your style of imprecise argumentation to imply that there are areas where I have not been. Since I know that isn’t what you meant, I’d sure appreciate it if you could perhaps be a tad more precise in the future.

C

What the legislature did, though, will impact businesses disproportionately because 70 to 80% of the filers subject to the increased personal taxes are not individuals but are in fact Sub-S corporations and other pass-through business entities whose income is reported on the owner’s personal taxes. This will, I believe, cause the loss of jobs.

Chandler -- that's a pathetic statement.

You're basically saying that some rich guy (or gal) will fire someone because they're making just a bit less than they used to as a result of the personal income tax measure.

Take a person making $280,000 a year. How much more will they pay? Under the permanent increase (.9%), that person will pay $270 more a year in taxes. Plus a bit more with the phase of the deduction of federal taxes (how much more, I don't know exactly, but a few hundred, even a couple of thousand?). And you're saying this person will fire someone for that?

There's no freaking way. If you fire that worker, it will cost you in productivity and you'll make even less.

You're just plain full of it.

But I guess that's why you get paid the big bucks as industry lobbyist.

People and corporations earning more income benefit more from public services like roads that ship goods and move people, police that protect property, and courts that enforce contracts.

That doesn't pass the sniff test. Care to document that

People and corporations earning more income benefit more from public services like roads that ship goods and move people, police that protect property, and courts that enforce contracts.

That doesn't pass the sniff test. Care to document that

People and corporations with more income have more goods to ship, more people working for them, more property to protect, and more contracts to be enforced. This is not the kind of fine-grained detail assertion that needs "documentation," this is plain simple truth.

There is some excellent information on this thread that boils down to two points of basic fairness, and helps to explain why Jon Chandler can afford these tax increases (Jon, I heard the interview, and that is what you said).

1. For almost all small businesses (unless they are making more than $250000 profit), the cost of basic filing to do business is going up from $10 per year, an amount established over 50 years ago, to $150 per year. I doubt the state can even process a tax form for $10. This is completely fair as a minimum cost of doing business in Oregon.

2. As OCPP has documented, the state and local tax system in Oregon is regressive - lower income groups pay a higher % of their income in state and local taxes than the highest income groups. This modest increase in the marginal personal income tax rates on the 3% of highest income earners starts to moderate that unfair regressivity of the tax structure.

That is what this tax referendum boils down to - should we cut school days, increase class size, reduce state police, and release criminals onto the street early OR should we rationalize the minimum tax filing fee, and begin to balance out the regressivity of Oregon's tax system?

Chuck, you tried matching wits and good humor with Jon Chandler and were found sorely lacking.

Carla, best one-liner of the year.

Chuck-

Oregon clearly needs temporary increases to fill the current budget hole, but the long-term problems with Oregon’s tax system are not addressed by permanently taxing high incomes and capital gains more. In fact, without adequate reserve funds, the problems of our tax system are exacerbated by the permanent portion of the Measure 66 increase.

Every Governor for the last 30 years has asked experts to analyze Oregon’s tax system and make recommendations. Not once has “the state’s system is too regressive” or “rich people should pay more” ever been mentioned in these reports. In fact, they all say that Oregon’s biggest problem is our tax revenue volatility that is a result of our over-reliance on income and capital gains taxes, which are PARTICULARLY VOLATILE for high incomes and capital gains (when the stock market crashes, which is always unpredictable, Oregon loses hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue just from capital gains).

These reports all say that job #1 is creating adequate reserves. They say that local Governments are strapped because of Measures 5 and 50 and that these policies should be reformed. They say that Oregon does a terrible job at long-term budgeting, and that we need a "balanced budget" amendment for initiatives.

The legislature did nothing to address these issues (the piddly amount sent to reserves after Mark Hass held his vote back is not enough to be taken seriously). The legislature should have spent its political capital on permanently sending the kicker to a reserve fund, a policy supported by business and labor groups, rather than divide our state with these permanent tax increases that were not vetted through a process like the Revenue Restructuring Task Force.

While the legislature should have spent its political capital on kicker reform, a long-standing priority and one that had the support of business groups, even if they would have devoted ALL of the permanent portion of the new tax increases to reserves (until the reserve funds were adequately filled), and then adopted some of the other non-tax reforms suggested above, like a long-term budgeting process and requiring fiscal impact statements to be included in the BALLOT TITLE of ballot measures, it would have signaled a seriousness about real reform.

As it stands now, and after hearing the rhetoric coming from supporters of this increase, it seems more like class warfare than an honest attempt to improve the state's tax and budget system.

Chuck, I'll grant you that. Here is what troubles me about the rhetoric, I agree with Jeremy that the redundant theme appears to ring of class warfare.

The state has money and has means to support itself. Otherwise, how could ODF just have instituted 40% pay increases for their wild land firefighters? Where did they find the money? are they using federal stimulas dollars? Are they counting on the tax hikes before they are final? Do they have massive amounts of cash stashed in the proverbial mattress? How many other state agencies are contemplating or doing this?

Chuck and Carla-

You both seem to be very involved in this effort. There are a million ways to skin a cat. Can you tell me why the legislature chose to permanently increase the tax rate on high incomes (I'm referring to the permanent not the temporary part) rather than address the issues outlined by the Revenue Restructuring Task Force?

Here is the revenue restructuring report I'm referring to. It says nothing of permanently raising the income tax rate and spends thousands of words describing thoughtful reforms.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/task_force_exhibits.htm

OK Jeff, but you failed to answer my question. If the state is broke, if the budget is bare bones; then how did ODF find the money to give a 40% pay increase to their wildland fire fighters?

I'm not saying that they aren't all great professionals and that maybe a pay increase is deserved, but 40%? This translates to higher OT, PERS, workers compensation, FICA and Medicare costs as well. Where did the money come from?

Jeff:

You are a really smart guy. Do you really think the situation is as simple as you laid it out? Do you really believe that business groups like OBA are crazy conservatives? Do you really believe that the state couldn't have made a better choice about how to improve our tax system, and that there ARE choices about how money is spent that are deeper than "good government, bad government?"

This debate isn't about big government versus small government. The legislature has all sorts of options about how to raise revenue and spend money. Almost all of the business groups involved in opposing these tax increases were offering ideas and told the legislative leaders that they supported tax increases and that they would help defend those increases so long as they were temporary and structured appropriately.

These same business groups were urging the legislature to take the unique opportunity of the recession to act on kicker reform. If you don't believe me, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/user/OregonBizPlan#p/u/12/jtscLJFuqc4.

This is not an argument about government, its an argument about GOOD GOVERNMENT.

1. If you read the whole ITEP analysis that Chuck cited, you’ll see that Oregon's wealthy taxpayers pay more, and low and middle income taxpayers pay less, as a share of their income in state and local taxes than taxpayers in the vast majority of other states and across the nation as a whole.

(Chuck-my comments refer to the 2002 report, which is the only one that I can find that looks at ALL states. If you’ve got an updated one, please share with me and with Blue Oregon, thanks!)

The study shows that Washington has the most regressive tax system in the nation, and in fact ITEP has stated that Washington should make its system more like Oregon’s. According to ITEP, the average Washingtonian in the lowest 20% bracket is paying 17% of his/her income in state and local taxes, compared to 9.4% in Oregon. The top 1% in Washington are paying 3.3%, compared to 8.9% in Oregon.

1. A very small number of wealthy taxpayers pay about 30% of Oregon's state income taxes.

The ITEP analysis doesn't look at the total contribution to the tax pot of higher income earners. When you run that analysis, you find that about 2% of taxpayers at the top end pay about 30% of all income taxes.

1. The ITEP analysis doesn't include federal tax liability

The ITEP analysis includes the FEDERAL deduction for state incomes taxes paid (a deduction that says nothing of how much $$ the state and local government is receiving from wealthy taxpayers). If you wanted to look at the situation holistically from the perspective of the taxpayer, who must think about their total tax liability. In this case we would want to consider all federal taxes paid, not just the federal deduction. In that analysis, I assume that the overall tax burden is very progressive, with the graduated rates at the federal level. Moreover, when/if the Bush cuts expire, if healthcare is paid for with a tax on the wealthy, and other federal increases are implemented, it will become even more progressive. If all of these proposals do pass, however, Oregon’s 11%, 9.9% or 9% income tax will seem even less attractive to wealthy taxpayers.

1. Fix the property tax system and sales/excise tax systems or lower income taxes for poor people Reading the ITEP analysis the thing that jumps out at me is that we should rethink our property tax system, that we expand the EITC or give an income tax cut to poor Oregonians, and that we should help poor people quit smoking.

Why is raising the income tax the right change?

When reading this analysis it does not occur to me that we need to increase our already high and already progressive state income taxes. That’s the part of the picture where Oregon is doing very well in the progressive category.

Jon is free to write a check to the state any time he wants. What Jon is really saying is: "I'll gladly pay the additional taxes so long as we also make my competitors give up their '♫ Silver and gold, silver and gold ... ♫'"

♫ In the spirit of the moment ♫:

(to the tune of 'A Holly Jolly Christmas' - with apologies to the late Burl Ives...)

Pay your higher income taxes Pay'em 'round the year I don't know if it's fair share of what you may hold dear

Pay your higher income taxes And don't you dare complain The state needs mo' and their take is on the wane

Oh ho more revenue for spending you don't see The ODOR waits for you Pay them more for me

Pay your higher income taxes and in case you didn't hear Oh by golly pay your higher income taxes this year!

@Alex: People and corporations with more income have more goods to ship, more people working for them, more property to protect, and more contracts to be enforced.

1) Every hear of the knowledge economy. It's that thing that Oregon has such a love affair with. Since 1993, I have never shipped a single package from any of my businesses.

2) More people working for them??? How is that bad? What services go to people with jobs that they aren't personally paying for anyway?

3) More property to protect??? Ever hear of property taxes and personal property taxes paid by businesses? That pays for their protection, not state income taxes.

4) Contracts to enforce -- I have never had to use the courts to enforce any contracts, so there goes that one.

Carla- (Actually) Judge not, that ye be not judged...

Trossie, it's "lest ye be judged."

rw wrote: Trossie, it's "lest ye be judged."

rw, you'll find that 'Judge not, that ye be not judged' is as it is written in the King James Version of The Holy Bible. I'm of course aware 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' is the more common translation today, but either form is technically acceptable/correct - the meaning is the same.

The Oregon Judicial Branch of government is comprised of a Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Tax Court, and 36 circuit courts in 27 judicial districts. The budget for the 2007–09 biennium was about $360 million. The work of the courts is carried out by 1,800 FTEs and 191 judges. The courts processed 600,000+ cases. Of those cases filed, Oregon judges presided over 21,000 court trials and more than 3,000 jury trials.

Approximately 60% of the case load is for business entities. However since mp97303 has never found the need to utilize the court system, then it never happened.

Carla Axtman - I'd like to hear more from the subject of this post about how he's going to reconcile it when his clients can't sell houses after the state budget is further gutted.

Kurt Chapman - Well Carla, it could be that the basis of the argument around these tax hikes from Mr. Chandler and his clients is that preserving high pay and high benefits jobs at the state level is not required for homes to sell. Perhaps they believe that preserving state jobs is less important than preserving or creating private sector jobs. An interesting case, when income tax hikes were turned back at the ballot box in 2003-2004, how many state jobs were lost? How many private sector jobs lost? That would be a great number to know.

Carla, I'm not a Nazi or a Communist, yet I've read Mein Kampf as well as the works of Marx and Engels.

The home builders' lobbyist is obviously making too much money. If we talk about salary caps on sports stars, and award caps on lawsuits, why not salary caps on lobbyists? They serve no public good type purpose, in fact most work against the interests of the public by promoting corporate interests that are often directly contradictory to the public good. How about we just make it so lobbyists don't get paid at all? Then if you don't care enough about an issue to go to the capitol for free, you should not be going.

Carla wrote: Why? Cuz you wouldn't judge me if I didn't say something? LOL

I don't/wouldn't judge you under any circumstances, Carla. It's not a constructive or worthwhile activity.

This seems like so much fiddling while Naples burns. Someone HAS noticed that California is teetering on the edge of becoming America's first failed state? Affect any of the projections? They border Oregon, you know.

Wanna get out of the water now, or wait to be sucked under with the sinking ship? Get control of IT (at all levels of gov), raise taxes, and spend, spend, spend. You sure ain't gonna do it later and there's not enough gas in the tank to ride the storm out. The rest is details or irrelevant. Ignore the irrelevant, use the majority, and get to it!

One of those details: have the FCC rate radio/TV by their educational worth, and use that categorization to tax the parent corp. Full scale, too, positive and negative. Not only would some get a tax cut, companies like Clear, that suck off the teat of toxic radio would be paying more. Yeah, that's the ticket. A Rush tax. How appropriate.

The budget for the 2007–09 biennium was about $360 million. The work of the courts is carried out by 1,800 FTEs and 191 judges. The courts processed 600,000+ cases

The price of suing someone in Oregon jumped today, from an old rate of $189 or less to what can amount to $500, $5,000 or in rare cases thousands more.

So based on YOUR figures, they spend roughly <$600 per filing. I guess the new fee structure will take care of most of that. Problem solved.

"So based on YOUR figures..." blah blah blah

Those are the official reported numbers from Salem. Somewhat conservative because they are for 2007-08 and the number of business related filings (i.e. foreclosure, bankruptcy) have increased dramatically over the last year.

So the question remains, given the amount of services businesses demand from the state, why is it fair to socialize their debt yet privatize their profits?

Carla, my last snippet about Mein Kampf and the others was a poorly worded attempt at saying you don't have to believe in a person or a cause to read the works. It was aimed at your Biblical barb. I failed.

However on the central question. Why do we have to keep funding more government jobs with tax pa increases? as I said several times before, the last time these same folks placed us in this mess (2002-2004) I voted in favor of the temporary tax increase, partly because it was across the board.

Where do you come up with the premise that further cuts to the state budget will mean wholesale loss of state jobs. Did that happen when the tax increases, although temporary failed in 2004? I still beleive that Pregon is very capable of balancing the budget without huge tax increases or draconian cuts in state employees.

@Scott in Dumbasscus

Go find some figures about the value of services delivered vs. tax revenues contributed by business vs. individuals and then we can have this debate.

Carla wrote: Interesting. You have an odd way of commenting otherwise.

(shrug)

Carla- I may disagree with you but I don't pronounce judgement on you as being non-constructive or making worthless or negative contributions. There is a distinction.

It's very easy to settle this. Jon and Burl don't look at all alike: Burl had more hair and was much sexier!

Jon Chandler http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hUnLmt6cmp4L0M:http://www.ncbia-or.com/JonChandler077bw.jpg

Burl Ives http://www.tvgasm.com/shows/images/christmasspecials/season1/121607_34Burl.jpg

Another BIG difference between Burl and Jon:

Burl melted away when the sun came out.

Jon will melt when Dorothy throws a bucket of water on him.

"Go find some figures about the value of services delivered vs. tax revenues contributed by business vs. individuals and then we can have this debate."

Actually, that's your job.

I'm waiting ....

Sorry Scottie, I am not the one making the claim that businesses/the rich aren't paying their fair share, you are. Document YOUR assertion with facts and stop being so lazy!

albatross: you are kidding right? You do not make pronouncements?

As usual, pulling comments out of your ass and attributing them to others coupled with low reading comprehension makes for really dull reading.

You asserted because you have never used the courts to enforce a contract that it must not cost the public anything.

I simply printed off the costs associated running the Oregon legal system in total with a percentage associated with businesses.

Now I'll ask again - why should the public shoulder the majority of Intel's trademark, patents, and contract problems? Oh, that's right. We the public should be damn grateful for anything offered by Intel and their kind while they whine for property tax exemptions and hold their profits offshore indefinitely to avoid taxes.

(Oh, and one more thing - if you don't know the answer you might want to avoid the whole name calling bullshit. It just makes you look like a tool. Just sayin'.)

Dang Scott. Perhaps not in tone, but in substance I rather agree with all you say about the Nikes, Intels and others of that ilk who ARE indeed brilliantly protecting the sums they do NOT announce as earnings... offshore.

COURT REVENUE HISTORY
Based on the June 2008 revenue and trust forecast, the projected court revenues for the 2009-11biennium total $272.0 million. Restitution and compensatory fine collections are estimated at an additional $27.1 million. The total $299.1 million represents a 4.1 percent increase over the 2007-09 biennium projections. The source and distribution of these revenues vary with changes in law. 2009-11 CHIEF JUSTICE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET

Add to that and additional $40M from increased fee's and you have a government agency that is essentially cost neutral.

I really don't see how the public shoulder the majority of Intel's trademark, patents, and contract problems is an issue anymore than Intel and Nike et al subsidize the cost of public safety to homeowner in Hillsboro, Aloha, Beaverton, Gresham, etc. through their property tax payments is an issue.

Maybe you can enlighten me?

Seems like I may have missed the moment to respond to one particular comment criticizing ITEP's model methodology, but I'll do so briefly anyway: RE the comment of Jack Roberts (Oct 10, 2009 11:47:02 AM): we do NOT assume that all renter property taxes are paid by renters. This is contested ground: some say it's all paid by renters, other say it's all paid by owners of capital. We take a middle ground and assume 50% of the property tax on renter property is paid by the owners of rental property, and the other 50% is passed through to renters in the form of higher rent. Put another way, half of the incidence of this tax looks quite regressive, but the other half is quite progressive. A slightly wordier statement of this can be found on our website's methodology page at http://www.itepnet.org/model.htm .

Chuck Shetekoff:

And most telling of all, Chandler admits that he can afford the Measure 66 increase.

Bob T:

Chandler has every right to decide that he, and no one else, can afford this and thus support it.

I'm still waiting for the Kennedy family to end their off-shore trust fund income set up by Daddy Joe decades ago so that frauds like Teddy Kennedy can or had nice annual checks which we close to tax-free while Joe Six-packs all over the country paid a much higher rate in comparison. I guess that's why the Kennedys are lefty Dems -- live the great life, but promise free stuff using other people's money so that when they die they are called "great men". Gosh, Teddy and others really went out on a limb on that score.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T:

Except for the 1968 Oregon primary visit shortly before Bobby Kennedy's death after the Calif. primary, when has a Kennedy been to Oregon?

Is your slogan "vote no on the Oregon tax hikes because the Kennedy family of Mass. have too much money"?

Exactly who do you expect to convince with that idea?

This election will likely be decided by people like those I spent this weekend with at a family reunion--parents of small children.

The wife of a man who works in corporate development thinks lobbyists standing up for the rich and powerful as if no one else matters doesn't seem like someone who would be convinced by your argument.

If everyone deeply involved in this battle: petitioners lobbyists Defend Oregon Activists bloggers

were to be counted, would they be more than 10% of the Oregon electorate for the January election? How about the folks who didn't vote in 2008 election (weren't old enough or whatever) who will be registered to vote by the end of this year?

How many heated arguments on this issue take place among people who realize that maybe 90% of the population may have seen the headline that there will be a vote in January but have been too busy yet to study the details?

Matt and Jack and all the others who talk inside baseball:

"Seems like I may have missed the moment to respond to one particular comment criticizing ITEP's model methodology,"

REALLY!

Don't you folks realize that the deciding votes on this are going to be the people who vote but are not political junkies, like the working parents of small children?

I was talking to a few of those folks this weekend and the one who lives in Wash. County was just absolutely amazed at the path a budget takes from the first hearing in a Ways and Means subcommitee to Gov. signature. She was also glad to have someone explain that marginal tax rate means that if someone has a $260,000 income and there is a marginal tax rate over $250,000, that means that the ordinary rate is paid on the first $250,000 and the marginal higher rate is only paid on the $10,000 above that.

When one's days involve getting a child up, fed, and dressed, taken to child care, then a full day at work, then picking the child up from daycare, then dinner for adults, feeding, bathing, and getting the child ready for bed, then being so tired that the parent goes to sleep within the hour after the child is asleep (and all hope the child sleeps through the night), the fine points of ITEP methodology are not going to have much influence on how they vote in the Jan. election.

LT, I agree with you last post entirely. The voters who will decide this battle are the ones least informed as to the budget and how it is maniputaled. This is an off-year election, so even though it is vote by mail the turnout will be lower than last November.

It will be interesting to see if the 20 somethings who nornally snooze through election cycles will get informed enough to turn out and affect the outcome.

LT:

Except for the 1968 Oregon primary visit shortly before Bobby Kennedy's death after the Calif. primary, when has a Kennedy been to Oregon?

Bob T:

We pay more in taxes because the Kennedys and others like thrm don't (not much, anyway), and that affects our ability to drain more out of us at the state level. Again, it's a general statement on taxation.

LT:

Is your slogan "vote no on the Oregon tax hikes because the Kennedy family of Mass. have too much money"?

Bob T:

Go read exactly what I twice stated above, and then you'll see how you twisted what I wrote. When you show more honesty about what I wrote, I'll try again.

Bob Tiernan Portland

I also agree with LT and Kurt's summary:

• the uninformed will determine the outcome. The message they will hear is quite simple:

-- taxes are being raised; directly on the rich and businesses; indirectly on the poor and middle class voters to whom businesses will pass on their "higher" costs -- businesses may have to eliminate even more employees, while the state government has increased the number of public employees -- during this recession and tough time while almost every family has had to cut back, state government has increased their spending 9% -- the jobs created to date by the stimulus have been short term; little has been done to create longer-term, higher paying jobs that will last.

The subliminal message will be: -- the state needs more money short term, or else Oregon will sink even further into the recession. There are no guarantees that this permanent tax increase will improve the situation any time soon. It is a stop-gap, band-aid to Oregon's budget crisis -- if this tax increase is approved and the problem continues, Oregon will come back to the voters again and ask for another tax increase

During the coming weeks, the messages will be quite simple. There won't be too many people digging into the details to understand the magnitude of the problem Oregon is facing, nor the practical solutions.