Let me be the first to champion the right of Pfizer, Chevron et al to pay 10 bucks a year to Oregon and my right to subsidize THEIR cost of doing business in Oregon. Hooray!/snark.

While it's easy to argue about the principles involved, the fact is that defeating this goes zero towards changing gov in the way the anti-taxers want, but does throw the money managers in state gov off balance. The $2,400 exemption is some of the only social progressive leg I can remember in some time. Anti-taxers can't face that a disproportionate number of them will be helped by that. (Assuming employers lay off their dimmest witted employees first, that's going to disproportionately be Limbaugh's lemmings). Yeah, I know they don't but it was too tempting with the title.

I intend to vote for it. May take a few pints to forget the ham handed tactics Dems have used to support it (particularly here) that BEG me to vote against it, but I won't be goaded.

My take on this is stoopid simple. A large ship of state is going down, right next door. As the sinking whirlpool develops, this is not the time to be sitting nearby, watching, with the engine off. Effectively TEA protesters are advocating that we empty the fuel tanks. Oregon's boat has sputtered in calm waters, for years. We either point away from the sinking neighbor and get a move on, under reliable power, or we end up going under for no better reason than California did.

You think there are too many Californians here now?! We'd better be firing on all cylinders when THAT tidal wave hits. If not, the best hope we might be left with is a 9+ subduction zone earthquake that makes the state uninhabitable to economic refugees. I'd rather vote for Measure 66.

It just doesn't make sense to promote taxation of businesses during a depressed Oregon economy. We should be offering tax breaks to invite companies to the state to employ more Oregonians. Not quibble over why businesses should pay an extra nickel and dime in order to provide more wasteful spending to our schools and other programs. Our schools are failing, particularly in the metro areas, with or without the premise of 66/67. And who cares if unemployed doesn't pay taxes on their unemployment benefits? Think, man, think. You are smarter than buying into this horsecrap. Businesses are bolting from California, yet you compare that and try to paint it as favorable to Oregon? They're not going to come here. No, we vote NO on 66 and 67 and stop the peril we are self-creating.

Ricky, in a depressed economy, you can only take money from who has it and give it to those who don't. Who has it? Pfizer, Chevron et al. who doesn't? Students, Patients, victims of fire and crime, (google Palin rape kits, for example).

Show me the data that says giving large corporations tax breaks they don't need creates more jobs than providing infrastructure and supporting small businesses, the biggest creator of jobs in the state.

You can't just mouth republican talking points here without data. I mean you can, but I don't believe you.

Funny steve, when you're a hammer, the rest of the world is a bunch of nails. Perhaps you should let everyone know that you are a paid lobbyist for YES on 66 67.

REAL leadership would have advocated for a sales tax.

Where to begin? Ricky, if keeping taxation extremely low for corporations is supposed to draw corporations here, then why, when our corporate tax is so low, isn't it happening already?

Kurt Chapman: a sales tax is extremely regressive and only serves to hurt the poor on a disproportionate level because they have to spend just about 100% of their take-home income on the necessities of life.

Here's my problem, if we do what Steve N says, then next year they'll still be in the hole and we'll need more taxes. For god's sake within the past 3 years Oregon went thru $700M (tobacco settlement) and >$1B (stimulus payments) and it didn't make one bit of difference in better schools (unless you count teacher benefits.)

Unfortunately, govt is going to have to cut something else besides customer service - like the private sector does.

Marx,

Stop with the nonsense of teacher benefits. The stimulus money didn't enhance anything for schools. It only served to save jobs. If you look around Oregon, there are lots of towns where the local public school district is the largest employer. It makes good economic sense to protect the jobs of your largest employer.

In the end, it is sad that so many school districts are the largest employers instead of a strong core of private industry. Instead of whining about taxes and jostling for government handouts in the form of tax credits, maybe Oregon business should looks themselves in the mirror and realize that private industry is suffering because the state is not creating quality businessmen and women to run the companies. We have pitiful infrastructure. No military bases. Unstable K-12 and university funding. We don't spend enough to get federal matching funds. Did you see the new green car plant that Delaware just got? Get some trains and skilled laborers and presto there might be some jobs that follow. It is time that Oregon small business stopped being shills for national libretarian political causes and started actually doing something reasonable about creating jobs. The government is not the enemy. Stop being used like chess pieces and screw your heads on right before its too late.

Here's an idea--create a job, get a tax break. Not "give tax breaks and they will come".

A major problem with the budget in this state is unexamined tax breaks treated as if they can't be questioned. Fortunately, it sounds like maybe the 2009 session finally created a process to look at them and decide whether they should be sunsetted.

a trial attorney commented: 'a sales tax is extremely regressive and only serves to hurt the poor on a disproportionate level because they have to spend just about 100% of their take-home income on the necessities of life.'

45 of 50 states levy sales tax rates between 4% to 7%. Somehow I doubt Oregon has a significantly lower % of poor people due to our lack of a state sales tax - nor do they likely have a higher standard of living than the poor in those other mean 'regressive' 45 states.

You can't have it both ways here. When people are trying to claim what a low tax haven Oregon is for business, they always cite reports/studies that include state sales taxes as a tax on business - and Oregon's glaring lack therof always results in a high ranking for favorable business tax environment. (Incidentally, if you subtract out the sales tax revenue component, you'll find the sum total of Oregon's overall businesses taxes is comparable to other states similar to Oregon)

But now you're arguing we shouldn't have a state sales tax because it's a tax on CONSUMERS that will disproportionately affect the poor?

Now... which is it? Is a state sales tax a business tax or is it a tax on consumers?

Or are you advocating we should raise the other business tax components significantly above average to compensate for the lack of a sales tax?

I didn't search the word but I'll bet ya the word "PERS" is nowhere to be found on this post concrening the Liberals in Oregon, you guys, needing more of taxpayer $$$$ to cover the Bankrupt PERS.
Where's your integrity?

ATA, as with much in life, the slogan matters less than the details.

5% on everything everybody buys is regressive.

An intelligent tax reform proposal (which might include lowering one tax by raising another tax, or a carefully worded sales tax with exemptions for everyday items) might just come up with a good plan.

In the oral history video shown on the Oregon Channel, former Gov. Roberts talks about the Conversation with Oregon reform plan which lost out in a battle on the House floor with Speaker Larry Campbell, but she still thinks is a good plan which deserves discussion.

Kari, do you suppose you or someone else at BO could talk to Gov. Roberts and either have her write a blog post (or have someone from BO take the information from her and write it) here detailing the plan ? It was roughly a decade and a half ago that happened, which means Oregonians (incl. legislators?) under 30 would have just been school kids when that happened.

Let's have that openly debated and see what comes out.

My experience talking to people on various sides of this issue convinces me there are a few Republicans (Winters and Morse come to mind, and maybe a few House members) who believe in the sort of intelligent debate such a proposal might spark.

But I suspect there are many who dread intelligent debate because they are so used to argument by talking point.

LT commented: 'Here's an idea--create a job, get a tax break.'

Nah... Didn't you hear? One of the many noted tax law/policy experts here says businesses are already getting a HUGE tax break because they can deduct the cost of their employees.

"and started actually doing something reasonable about creating jobs."

Well.I really don't think raising corporate income taxes is the way to do this. Why not ask employers why they take their jobs to other states instead of assuming building streetcars and condos will attract them?

So if you have another suggestion . . .

hey mr novick how about the 5,000 you ripped off from portland public schools last year to tell them how to be stimulated?how about the thousands and millions of dollars in hidden taxes like fees,system development charges,taxes on their profits and etc businesses in oregon pay mr novick that you are too scared, lazy,and afraid to mention in your arguments?that 10.00 mininmum you liberals harp on is not even a tax its a registration fee and thats what you are too lazy to mention.how is it absurd kari chisholm to offer tax breaks to businesses to com to oregon kari?tell us if our tax rate is so low mr chisholm then why is our unemployment rate so high?can any of you liberals honestly answer that and please include every tax, fee,system development charge and etc businesses pay in your answer back to me too.and start telling us that public employee benefits,including increased pers costs will suck up most of this tax increase something you liberals are too afraid to tell us.the govt and schools have enough money now and need to spend money educating kids not millions of dollars wasted on consultants that never save them any money or do anything for the kids.the private sector is hurting now and its time the greedy selfish state govt and schools really felt the way we feel and live with what they darn well get now and shut up for once.i am tired of the nonstop incessant whining about money from them to pay to maintain increased state worker health care and pension costs.school funding is stable now and has been for years lou fleming at 10,000 bucks a kid.thats more than enough money and thats full funding to give kids a quality education.same old tired lame scare tactics argument about education steve novick.

How about shutting one of the smaller state colleges? How about tuition subsidies based on need? How about opening the local transit market to competition? Hint: businesses will see that the state is serious about finding other ways to fund things and maybe locate in Oregon.

Just look around and I'll bet you can find lots of ways to reduce expenditures.

If history according to the Oregon Blue Book is any guide, I predict both of these measures to fail. I suspect they will be closer than the 60/40 margins, which the sales tax and other tax raisers usually fail by.

Blue Collar Libertarian brings up a very good point about consolidating the Oregon University System. Rearrange Southern Oregon University as University of Oregon-Ashland, rearrange Eastern Oregon University as Oregon State University-La Grande, and either let Western Oregon University fail or have the 2 big state universities fight for it.

Rearranging the smaller regional state schools as smaller campuses of U of O or OSU is a perfectly reasonable idea. Not only would you be able to cut administrative costs by doing away with redundancies, but you would give students who choose to go to one of the smaller regional state schools a more worthwile degree with the U of O or OSU on their degree. Finally, the consolidation of the smaller state universities may allow for a sharing of resources where students at Oregon State University-La Grande would have more resources and classes offered to them due to the sharing of monetary resources with the mother campus. Then again, U of O and OSU could consolidate them and drain them of resources leaving those who choose to go to a smaller regional school in a worse off position.

Anywho, it could work, but I do not think that more taxes when people are finding it harder to sustain their current lifestyle will not bode very well for the proponents of 66 and 67.

"You can't just mouth republican talking points here without data. I mean you can, but I don't believe you."

If my opinions and thoughts on Measure 66 & 67 are seen as "Republican talking points", then I guess I am in agreement with whatever those "talking points" are. I haven't seen them. There is PLENTY of data out there to look at to know that voting YES is a bad idea.

Look at the largest employers in the private sector in Oregon and the numbers of people they employ. Almost all of them made a decision to locate here because Oregon was a promising climate to prosper in. Then , the jobs created not only employed an individual, but fed and clothed their families, as well. Tax exemptions invite the types of big business who employ thousands. Non-partisan studies are all over the place, and you can find them if you simply spend a few minutes looking, that all say the measures will create a net job loss in the state.

And do not forget that these businesses contributed enough to the till that we have had KICKER rebates sent to all of us, fairly recently. So much for the "peril".

Why are we expected to blindly believe, and blindly vote for a measure just because we are liberals? I realize it's a soft sell, but the fact is, the depressed state we are in is not linked to conservative legislation, but the direct result of Democrats' legislation.

The entire Tea Bag phenom should have taught us a lesson. It's an easy reaction to simply write that off that they are all crazy Republicans, but more and more I see that people are tired of the over-regulation and over-taxation that doesn't even allow some poor schmuck to set up even a food cart business cheaply.

We should be inviting and trying to win back industries who set up operations in China and India. The revenue we gave away from that global experiment would sure come in handy.

It’s critically important to maintain basic services for people who have nowhere left to turn.but you would give students who choose to go to one of the smaller regional state schools a more worthwile degree with the U of O or OSU on their degree.

WhatNovick and company fail to mention is the Pew study specifically cited Oregon's OVER RELIANCE on the income tax as a chief revenue source. They went on to point out that a sales tax, reasonably set up could help states such as Oregon even out the roller coaster ride of over dependence on the income tax.

The Pew report cited huge job losses in manufacturing, high tech and forest products as the leading cause for the drop in the income tax receipts.

A sales tax that exempt basic food, medicine and rent would not be regressive. Furth breaks against AGI for families under 200% of the poverty level could also be part of the plan. At 5% it could bring in far more from business and "the rich" than the amounts proposed by 66 and 67. face it folks, the dems in salem lack the cajones to even attempt effective leadership.

66 and 67 do absolutely NOTHING to address the huge revenue needs for PERS beginning 7/1/2011. The rates for PERS 1 and PERS 2 go up by about 50% then. A sales tax evens out these revenue hills and valleys.

I always wonder why the argument starts with laying off "teachers." Why not mention Administrators? Non Credentialed staff? I also wonder why we don't talk about less government. I hear businesses cutting 20% of personnel costs through layoffs, retirement, etc. I hear them cutting overhead by consolidating facilities, etc. When was the last time you heard of our state government or school districts shrinking? I also believe that one of the main impediments to job growth in any state is the perception of government involvement in business. If I am considering moving a business to Oregon from outside of the state, I will be checking carefully to see just how oppressive will be the government in the state. Will it make me jump through more hoops than another state? The state with the biggest and most intrusive government is probably California. Businesses are leaving that state in droves. By approving the tax measures we may preserve a few teacher's jobs for a year or two. If we deny the tax increases, push will come to shove and legislature will need to shrink our government in some way. If we never deny funding to Salem, there will never be an end to the increases.
Is Steve Novick really a paid lobbiest for Yes on 66/67? If he is, I am disappointed that Blue Oregon allows him an unpaid advertisement without any disclaimers. He may be a friend of Blue Oregon, but he should pay for his ads like everyone else. Or is he another of the political animals who feels that the end justifies the means?

Between BO Democrats and today's lead Oregonian editorial Oregon is doomed to follow California's track record.

The rhetoric here at BO is a clear message echoed by the madness in today's editorial. The editorial says keep the kicker, which triggers more spending, which increases the size of government and that's how we "avoid" following California?

How can Blues be so oblivious?

David Sarasohn during a 2001 or 2002 episode of Seven Days stated that had the kicker been over turned in the 90s all of the money would have been spent. The rest of the panel nodded and after some silence they changed the subject.
Now here we are in an even deeper recession and there is no learning curve.

The elephant in your blue living room is Oregon taxpayers and businesses cannot afford YOU. Expanding goverment as was done last session with the 9% increased spending is exactly how Califoria got where they are.

Is it your thinking that Oregon Democrats are smarter than California Democrats and you'll somehow make the same approach work?

"Tax exemptions invite the types of big business who employ thousands."

Wrong.

If this were true, then one would expect that Costco, Microsoft, Expedia, Amazon.com, Paacar, Nordstrom, Alaska Air Group, Starbucks, Weyerhauser, and Itron to all close their Washington corporate offices and move to Oregon tomorrow - all because of Oregon's lower corporate tax rate.

The fact is Oregon has 6 Fortune 1000 companies, Washington 12, and California has 98.

Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 8:37:23 AM

Between BO Democrats and today's lead Oregonian editorial Oregon is doomed to follow California's track record.

Oh nooooo! They're endorsing electing a photogenic no-experience conservative, at the behest of right wing talk radio? You saying Sarah Palin is relocating to Oregon?

Posted by: Tom Vail | Nov 13, 2009 7:30:21 AM

I always wonder why the argument starts with laying off "teachers." Why not mention Administrators? Non Credentialed staff?

Because the Dem logic is, "We mean well. the ends justify the ends. Better hold a gun to their kids' head so they do the right thing." Yeah, point taken, they could help a bit. Middle management is not a career, competitive with the private sector, it is service. And when 20% bitch at that, fire 'em. That immediately generates as much as M66.

But, by all means, do both!

Online schoolers... Great idea. OU and the universities lobby will fight you to the death, though. They would play the role that the current health care providers do in the health care debate. And for the same reason.

Steve..I'm sorry dude, but when it comes to the economy, you just don't get it...at all. The reason Oregon is struggling is because our largest city is one of the most liberal, and least business friendly cities in the country...with a city council that is more interested in wasting money on garbage like bike paths and kite festivals than on tax incentives for corporations that might want to move here.. We have a Democrat legislature that is hell bent on raising taxes at a time when our citizens can least afford it..the same legislature that fails to recognized the irreparable harm the labor unions cause to our local economy... There is a reason why Oregon's unemployment is more than twice that of state's that institute conservative fiscal policies, like South Carolina and Tennessee...there is a reason Oregon is unable to attract any new, large corporations to our state...and the reason is that the state and local government offices are occupied with people who are as confused as you are on these issues.

If Oregon is to survive this recession, and position itself to grow in the future, we need lower taxes not higher taxes, less regulation, not more of it. These are not Republican facts, these are just the facts and they are not debatable. If you care about this state and our economic viability...you need to get on board with reality..or at the very least, stop advocating for policies that will further destroy our state, we simply can't afford it.

"Where's your integrity?"

Not a good idea to site things like integrity when your a morally bankrupt corporate prostitute.

Here's the perfect example of blue thinking. Peri posted

<hr/>

"Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 8:37:23 AM Between BO Democrats and today's lead Oregonian editorial Oregon is doomed to follow California's track record.

<h2>Oh nooooo! They're endorsing electing a photogenic no-experience conservative, at the behest of right wing talk radio? You saying Sarah Palin is relocating to Oregon?"</h2>

What a loopy leap without any connection. Blue Peri imagined something entirely different from my comment and responded to what he/she imagined. And the vagueness of both what he/she read and the response is supposed to be got?

Geeze, bluey, at least spit it out.

The chronic use of vague inferences by blues is maddening.

Is that technique used because you're not really sure yourself what you are trying to say?

But assume at least your fellow blues always get it?

Now is there any response to

Keeping more or rasing taxes= more spending=more government to support=more like California?

A sales tax on luxury items would be a good idea. Food, healthcare, etc. could be exempted. We need the revenue and it would serve the environment by providing incentive to consume less.

One Eyed Snake, that's not a rebuttal. You never answered "how". That's just name calling, so, as you will notice, I'm speaking the only language you seem to know.

OK. You've convinced me. It's hopeless. We go down in a talk radio inspired frenzy of self harming.

And you'll love my next move. Buying a gun. 9mm. I will dutifully practice at the range with my Hannity target, and when society falls apart, I will lead gangs of displaced Calis into your precious homes and shoot it out with you for your precious material fetishes, food and water.

Happy?

I'm voting for it, even though every point about how they could spend much better is well taken. I also call for liberals to come out in numbers. Shadow TEA protesters and let's get a database of where they live. Radical action groups are baying for blood and I say they shall have it!

You're right Peri, you'll have to pull him out of his hole, cowering.

I've called these idiots out for weeks (#bringbackdueling) and only liberals have twitted. Not one of those cowardly dittoheads has dared engage in debate with those that are prepared to spew right back at them. They can only exist in polite company, playing the bratty child.

You know, next time you see a kid doing that, just backhand him with all your strength and see how long it continues. Meanwhile, doting Aunt Kari offers the little troll their fix of white powder...

Get validated IDs already! This is so insulting to your serious readers.

"Why not ask employers why they take their jobs to other states instead of assuming building streetcars and condos will attract them?"

I think there is a reason why we don't ask employers about taking their jobs to other states, as you request, because it does not happen as much as you would like us to believe. Sure, there is the Freightliner example but the whole jobs fleeing the state argument is an over-hyped scare tactic. Jobs have not fled. They have disappeared in almost every state that doesn't end in Dakota.

The real focal point is not about jobs fleeing. Business needs to focus on the fact that people keep coming to Oregon and we have a growing population. The righties like to convienently forget this while they whine about their taxes. Increasing population means increasing business opportunity, but our prone to failure business minds in this state are too busy whining about taxes and being played by the right wing extreme and not prepping themselves for this trend and the money that can be made.

The Dick's Sporting Goods and Wallgreen's of the world are not going to miss out on this population expansion whether they dislike the corporate taxes or not. It'll be a Carl's Jr. on every corner or bust. In the meantime, the real question is how do we create middle class jobs? My answer, Marx, has nothing to do with street cars or condos--I avoid liberal veneer. My suggestions would center on bridge repair and construction and a high speed rail corridor. I think there is opportunity to manufacture small scale portable nuclear power to be exported to the third world as has been designed at OSU. I think we need to reduce restrictions on the urban growth boundaries to encourage more conference centers and hotels in the wine country. And most importantly we need to stabilize revenue for the state for a simple and obvious reason---we need government. To the rightie hogwash machine--Alexander Hamilton died a long time ago. Get over it. Vote yes on 66 and 67, as Paulie points out, it is our only choice at this time.

"The reason Oregon is struggling is because our largest city is one of the most liberal, and least business friendly cities in the country"

During the 5 special sessions (back when Republicans controlled both Oregon House and Senate), there was a rush to gimmicks because there apparently weren't the votes for the "cut it all" agenda, but a devotion to the anti-tax agenda.

Let me tell you as the granddaughter of a Republican elected official and the daughter of an accountant that this is not about ideology.

The House Ways and Means co-chair back then was one of the last truly logical Republicans. He was candid with the general public and talked common sense, not ideology. For that, he was replaces as W & M co-chair the next session because the Minnis crowd wanted a true believer instead.

This House member became a state senator by appointment when his state senator got a job which meant leaving the legislature. Then he left the Republican party and became an independent. Then he became a Democrat.

In 2008 we elected him our State Treasurer.

I have heard Ben Westlund talk about what this state needs for the budget to be truly stable and balanced.

It is not about ideology. It is about having open public discussions about budget reform, tax reform, kicker reform.

I suspect there are some people who don't want that open public debate because it would involve ordinary citizens, not just lobbyists, activists, ideologues, people who do politics for a living.

The way to solve problems is to set a goal (which can be debated), discuss the steps to achieve the goal, then do the work to complete those steps.

Call me "liberal" or any name you want. But I want concrete answers, not just blame against "government" because someone doesn't like the individual actions of certain officials. For the record, I have talked to my state senator's office in the last 24 hours, have often argued with legislators, school board members, and others. How many of you have done the same?

What part of the $2 billion in cuts in the 2009 session did not go far enough?

Kurt, are you aware of the tax reform proposal St. Sen. Frank Morse had in the 2007 session? He took a slideshow to civic groups in his district, and had the slideshow online for people to look at. But there were those (esp. in his own party) who just wanted that proposal to go away. It was more complex than just "a sales tax" or any other single idea.

It is the fault of those who like the status quo (not "liberals" or "government" or any other generality) that such ideas aren't more widely discussed. I believe there are legislators (my Republican state rep being one of them) who don't want open public discussion because they want all this only to be debated on their terms and inside the capitol building by the party caucuses.

I don't think people doing name calling want to answer that question.

Lou--great column!

hey lt how about we cut the size of the state govt to the absolute bare bone and get all non citizens and their anchor babies off all state services?funny you liberals dont want to and wont talk about that.we have talked to legislators lt and the problem is unless you are a state woreker belonging to a public employee union you are ignored.how about spending reform lt and the state stop wasting millions of dollars on consultants that never save them any money lt?kicker reform is not needed.sorry the kicker money is taxpayers money and it came from our pockets and its ours lt not the greedy selfish state govts.tax reform is not necessary.give them the kicker and i gurantee you this they will spend every dime of it to benefit their public employee union buddies and it wont go to a rainy day fund.ben westlund became a rino republican and i will vote for him for anything.

LT

You're hopeless. The 09 session increased spending 9%.

What matters is how one defines "truly stable and balanced".

Nothing but unlimited ability to extract more from taxpayers is the liberal definition.

Here you are noting that the '09 session made $2 billion in cuts when they increased spending.

With the liberal definition of "truly stable and balanced" the '09 session would have raised taxes and increased spending enough to avoid all the "cuts".

That "stabilizing" move probably would have increased spending over 20%.

You want an open public discussions about budget reform, tax reform, kicker reform so that spending can be increased every session by at least 20%.

That is the liberal road to ruin you refuse to face.

And why many on the right view today's "liberalism" (progressives) as a mental disorder. Is there any wonder so many Democrats like Marc Abrams have not joined the liberals turned progressive on the insane far left?

You can't even do simple math on the road to ruin and avoid advocating the California model.

LT, Peri, you can't debate with right wing zealots.

Totally serious (for once). I have friends working at Human Rights Watch that have been receiving threatening phone calls from Mossad agents at home, recently. Don't take my word for it. Someone here must know someone that works there. She said it's happening to everyone.

At some point allowing these people a forum can be regarded as actionable suborning of harassment.

That is the liberal road to ruin you refuse to face.

We've been on the Reagan rode to Mourning in Amerika for 30 years and are paying the price! I told zealots back then to have an abortion. But no, and now, 99% of the dittoheads are useless male gen X ers. That's you Dick! Just like battery hens, bred to purpose. Alien in nature, fit only for the chopping block.

End human domestication and you'll not have to deal with barnyard types like Dick.

Since the state's green tax credit is considered over generous to business, and it has started to work in attracting new business to the state, I think the least we should expect is a modest return through increased corporate taxes. Vote yes - the job creation already in the pipeline with the tax credits more than offsets any discouragement a slight corporate tax increase might entail. Wake up people.

Thank you Sal for your comment.

Richard, How much of the increased spending was on construction projects, on help for needy Oregonians, on criminal justice spending?

And how do you account for my high respect for Sen. Frank Morse--is he a "liberal" too because he is an old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Republican legislator?

Richard, how many elections have you won recently by saying "You want an open public discussions about budget reform, tax reform, kicker reform so that spending can be increased every session by at least 20%.

That is the liberal road to ruin you refuse to face. "

Marc Abrams is a Portland Democrat---many downstate residents (esp. those who have ever been active in Democratic politics) don't think too highly of Portlanders telling the rest of us what to think. And in a ranking of best Dem. State Chairs, not everyone would put Marc in the top 5.

But bringing him up does point to a certain frame of mind.

There are those (both Sen. Frank Morse and Sen. Wayne Morse in Oregon history) who have believed in the idea that individuals think for themselves, and that at a table of 5 people there is nothing subversive about having 4 factions and a moderator.

However, there are others who stereotype: "you're a woman, why aren't you supporting Hillary?" "you're an environmentalist, therefore OLCV speaks for you" "you own a business--is it NFIB, AOI, or OBA which makes your political decisions for you?" "you work in a unionized job, therefore your union has decided that you believe...".

Guess what, Richard! Some of the biggest fights in this state in recent decades have not been along ideological lines. They have been among those who believe all members of a group conform to what they are told to believe, and those who choose to think for themselves, thank you very much.

This has a lot to do with why the numbers of NAV + other party registration is now the deciding number in many races. If Democrats are somewhere over 40% registration, and Republicans something over 30% registration, either could have 100% straight party voting and lose an election if the NAV + other voters choose the other side.

But go on believing that calling someone "liberal" will win an argument if you wish. Or maybe all you want to do is name-call because accomplishing anything takes actual work.

"Oregon is facing a severe financial crisis. "

The solution is obvious: Increase spending and raise taxes.

Fee's need to be raised across the board, property taxes need to be raised, and a special wealth tax needs to be created. I'd also like to see 90% estate taxes.

And I am sick and tired of hearing those anti-tax sissies complaining.

Sales tax on goods wouldn't provide all the revenue needed for essential services, but it would certainly provide enough to help..... and also would provide an incentive to consume less.

Good ideas. Raising fees and news taxes, like a Sales Tax would be great. I know Portland was looking at a leaf tax at one point, as a means of funding street clean ups; so this is another good possibility.

I was also thinking about a "newborn" tax. Basically, each additional person born in the USA would be taxed, which would go to offset global warming.

~Darin

An economic war has begun between the low cost states of the Southeast and the higher cost states of the West Coast. Jobs are leaving Oregon, Washington and CA and heading to what I lovingly refer to as the "Cracker States". I suspect that the Cracker States will ultimately win this war, just as Mexico, China, Vietnam, India, etc. etc. have won the international competition for low end manufacturing jobs.

Oregon and the other West Coast states need to prepare for this economic war with people in states like Arkansas or Mississippi or Louisiana who consider $8.00 per hour with no benefits to be an elite opportunity. How can Oregon compete with the Cracker States? I don't know, but I have a feeling that it will require slashing public service costs to the raw bone, eliminating public employee unions, cutting state benefits, etc. etc. etc.

Turning Oregon or Washington into the equivalent of South Carolina to compete for low-end jobs sounds like my vision of hell, but economic forces are like glaciers, they just keep grinding you down.

Beaverbrook,

What makes me a "right wing zealots".

Stating the fact that the 09 session increased spending 9%?

We haven't been on any "Reagan rode" at all. President Reagon couldn't even get the spedning cuts he was promised by th eliberals of his day.

Now Progressives are rewritting that era and everything since.

We've been on the expansion of goverment road at all levels for 30 years. Including the fiscally reckless expansion during the Bush/Chaney years.

Like so may progressives you seem to have imagined some era of conservative policies being adopted by congress.

Just like LT imagined deep cuts when spending was increased.

genop,

Any increased taxation will simply increase the rate of increased spending and government expansion which we cannot afford or sustain, period.

That's the California model progressives love so much.

LT,

Good to see you acknowledge the "increased" spending.

It doesn't matter how you cast and shape the increased spending. It must stop and move backwards to a level that works. That means mission reduction not more taxes and continued mission creep.

So what if you respect Sen. Frank Morse?. Yes is he a "liberal" too in some ways.

Not because he is "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Republican legislator".

Because he supports a sales tax, reversal of M5 and the Kicker and a legislative review of initiative petitions.

Among other Liberal stuff. But he is a well respected guy.

Do you have a point to make in the context of his liberal side?

We'll see about winning elections with you blues, in the face of deep recession, touting more tax increases to support expanding government.

I think that is all coming home to bite you.

California's model isn't selling any more. It's plain to see BS for too many people.

Marc Abrams is an "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Democrat who is reasonable. That's why he, and many other prominent Democrats are not the "progressive" liberal.

They aren't the ones telling democrats what to think either. Progressives are the ones doing that.

I'll pass on your "guess what" lecture on stereotyping, group thinking and ideology.

I don't think you even know who you are talking about.

As for my "believing that calling someone "liberal" will win an argument", you need to pay attention.

I was explaining that today's liberals, "progressives" are advocating a California model road to ruin with demanding tax and spending increases in the face of deep recession.

Expanding spending and government in a shrinking economy is crazy.

Why don't you explain how it makes sense?

Don't wander off into something more cozy.

I'll wager not a one of you progressives can stay focused long enough to stick to that point and justify your advocacy for increasing taxing and spending.

Beaverbrook,

What makes me a "right wing zealots".

Stating the fact that the 09 session increased spending 9%?

We haven't been on any "Reagan rode" at all. President Reagon couldn't even get the spedning cuts he was promised by th eliberals of his day.

Now Progressives are rewritting that era and everything since.

We've been on the expansion of goverment road at all levels for 30 years. Including the fiscally reckless expansion during the Bush/Chaney years.

Like so may progressives you seem to have imagined some era of conservative policies being adopted by congress.

Just like LT imagined deep cuts when spending was increased.

genop,

Any increased taxation will simply increase the rate of increased spending and government expansion which we cannot afford or sustain, period.

That's the California model progressives love so much.

LT,

Good to see you acknowledge the "increased" spending.

It doesn't matter how you cast and shape the increased spending. It must stop and move backwards to a level that works. That means mission reduction not more taxes and continued mission creep.

So what if you respect Sen. Frank Morse?. Yes is he a "liberal" too in some ways.

Not because he is "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Republican legislator".

Because he supports a sales tax, reversal of M5 and the Kicker and a legislative review of initiative petitions.

Among other Liberal stuff. But he is a well respected guy.

Do you have a point to make in the context of his liberal side?

We'll see about winning elections with you blues, in the face of deep recession, touting more tax increases to support expanding government.

I think that is all coming home to bite you.

California's model isn't selling any more. It's plain to see BS for too many people.

Marc Abrams is an "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Democrat who is reasonable. That's why he, and many other prominent Democrats are not a progressive loon.

They aren't the ones telling democrats what to think. Progressives are the ones doing that.

I'll pass on your "guess what" lecture on stereotyping, group thinking and ideology.

I don't think you even know who you are talking about.

As for my "believing that calling someone "liberal" will win an argument", you need to pay attention.

I was explaining that today's liberals, "progressives" are advocating a California model road to ruin with demanding tax and spending increases in the face of deep recession.

Expanding spending and government in a shrinking economy is crazy.

Why don't you explain how it makes sense?

Don't wander off into something more cozy.

I'll wager not a one of you progressives can stay focused long enough to stick to that point and justify your advocacy for increasing taxing and spending.

So how do Church schools, home schoolers, Madrassahs, etc. do it?

There are lots of models for schooling, all less expensive. They're non starters though. Public education isn't about learning to think or cope in adult life. Obviously, it is pitiful at that, considering the money invested. Can you imagine sitting with 40 people for 12 years and saying the same thing and, when, asked, it's news to them? Most classes are smaller. How unsuccessful can you be?

No, what is CRITICAL that they cannot learn in the alternatives, is that participation is more important than results, the content of your urine is more important than the content of your mind, "negro" is an unacceptable word, exercise is an option and that catchup with fries is a vegetarian meal!

Talk to a middle manager looking for a job. Find a good one. Met a guy that had been with US Bank for 10 years and he is having trouble. Now imagine you push paper for Clackamas School District, and get $86,000/annum. Think you're going to make a lateral move? How much is left after their bubble inflated mortgage payment goes out each month? How many kids have they invested in? Is the breadwinner supporting a stay at home fraud as well? That person CAN NOT leave the school system, without their world totally falling apart. But all they have to do is convince you to pony up, and it's back to life per the usual. What you are seeing now is what they do instead of standing in the roadway medians with placards. If they can just convince you to throw a few coins in their tin, they won't have to change their life decisions one iota.

Richard was expelled from our local TEA group for basic rudeness. That poster got one thing right, for once. He is not up for an honest debate. Just a bratty, whining little boy. How would you react if someone's ratty 12 year old kept interrupting the Governor's speech, with dumb questions about it, everyone introduced and concluded with puerile name calling? Even hapless Ted could manage that one. What's the difference between "media" and "news"? Management. So do some. Decide, is this 21st century media, or the wall of the bathroom stall where anyone can write whatever? Come to think of it, the discussion on here about Mayor Ale-in' are almost verbatim what I've seen in that particular, notorious City Hall stall!

The fact that Blue Oregon lets people that have set out to be an irritant, with no thought of debate, have their way with the blog, is evidence of the kind of thinking that you can only learn at a public school. The desperation you see in these posts is genuine. If others can make it via a different course, then they didn't have to go through it. Doomed to that narrow perspective, they are "concerned" that we are trying a path that "cannot work". Facing that it can work means facing that they could be different. Too lazy to change, enraged by groupthink, they attack the messanger as if it were the end of the world. We agree. The subject is the end of their world.

That's where I disagree, too. The choice is YOURS. Not ours. Whatever your political beliefs, when a party, especially the one in power, says "we is you", run the other way. Run very fast.

Turning Oregon or Washington into the equivalent of South Carolina to compete for low-end jobs sounds like my vision of hell, but economic forces are like glaciers, they just keep grinding you down.

Watch out Greg. Objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear.

I'm a computer contract consultant and over the last 10 years there has been growing competition from other markets. First Taiwan, then India, now Pakistan and African states. There's been an upturn in activity in the last few months, and there's been a new phenomenon, just as you describe. I even said outloud, last Friday, "since when did South Carolina become Pakistan"? And made them this nifty little license plate .

Anyway, in the last few days I've been seeing a lot of the same kind of activity from...Idaho! It is a dangerous fallacy to believe that the West coast states are blue ones. The West Coast, literally- just the coast- is very blue. California is a very red state (ahhhm...RICHARD!). The Willamette valley is about as far east as it goes, and by quite a bit. I can tell you that the good folk of Stockton are every bit as nice as KKKers from Indiana. Look at the House Map, if you want to know what a state "is".

This is the one thing the Catholic Church got right. If it's an important vote, you should go to an enclosed space, lock out the rabble and not come out until you have an answer. "All politics is local"? NO politics of consequence is local. Fix that. Get rid of all this outside money and influence and limit those things to the area actually impacted. Do you think the dittoheads on this thread could exist without their holiday stuffing? I mean, read poor Richard's almanac! Can barely gibber the old tired lines. Those people are purely a symptom of outside influence. Fight the disease, not the symptoms. The symptoms will go away. That's where the dueling thing is off, m'lawd. Even if you could whip them into a debating team, they still don't have anything to say. If being unfit to be a TEA prankster doesn't qualify as useless, I don't know what could!

Unfortunately, when people produce the useless, they never, once, remove that "gotta be somebody" bit. Bugger all, that! Like a chicken running around with its head cut off.

Steve Mauer,

Nice try but you lost focus with your theory.

You lost with One, I didn't talk spenidng in terms of dollars. I was addressing the 9% increased spending last session and other similar occurances.

If you want to pretend otherwise as you repsond to my question with a question fine.

I don't mind considering population and inflation. So did the population and inflation in Oregon increase by 9%? Is that your justification?

Did the taxpayer's ability to pay taxes increase by 9%?

Obviously, and elementary, inflation and population growth should have a fundamental relationship on the size of governmental budgets. Just as more vehicles require more road capacity.

So what is your point? Stop inferring and spit it out.

Are you saying the increases in spending and government have only been a result of inflation and population increases? Or are you just inferring it?

So that's not why the right wing zealot label. Next?

You appear to be too easily coming up with an excuse to avoid explaining the progressive advocacy for taxing and spending increases while the economy and ability of taxpayers to pay shrinks.

Explain away pal. Or don't bother if all it takes is some lame excuse and diverting.

So far a few blues have acknowledged the '09 session increased spending. Of course in the context of wanting it to be twice as much of an increase.

Now here I gave you a serious answer to your imaginary presumtpion that I didn't see any relationship between pop. growth/inflation and goverment.

The missing answers are from progressives who like to avoid, divert and infer versus spitting out with plain speak.

Oregon does need new leadership; Leadership that will focus on jobs, economy and state funding.

Steve Shields is running for Governor exactly because of this problem- the Fiscal and economic mess the state is in, and the lack of leadership to get us out. Salem seems resigned to the situation, to the point they don't even acknowledge we've been in the bottom 10% of states economically for years now.

Steve Shields is running because he sees the economic train wreck coming, and he cares enough to want to stop it. He's got the courage to step in, step up and make a difference by focusing on what really matters. Not just healthcare, not just green jobs or the environment. Steve wants to serve to create a better Oregon for everyone, which means fixing our economic mess. This is what he's good at. This is what he's been trained to do. Fix economic messes.

Steve Shields has leadership skills, businesses experience, he's created jobs, and he's got the political will to tackle the issues brought out in this study. Give him a listen, give him a chance.

"because it does not happen as much as you would like us to believe."

You need to read more carefully. Ask any employer who is NOT here why. Whether he just left or is considering Oregon. I mean look at the CIty of Portland, they do not have a clue on how to attract jobs and use the jobs premise to justify development they like. I mean Sam's Eco Dev Director's experience is writing grants for African farmers. We really need to be competitive and this means looking at our own short-comings in the marketplace and fixing same.

The days of us patting each other on the back and saying everybody wants to live in Oregon are over.

You can continue your high-flown rhetoric now.

"Do you accept that inflation and population growth should have a fundamental relationship on the size of governmental budgets?"

I went thru this before, but state revenues are far (like 50% faster) outpacing inflation * pop growth.

Since 2007, I can guarantee our population * inflation has NOT grown 9%

"For those who are interested in a thoughtful discussion on this topic, State Rep Peter Buckley will be debating one of the Chief Petitioner's, Brent DeHart, at a townhall in McMinnville on Tuesday, November 17th from 11:45 to 1:15 at the McMinnville Grand Ballroom, 325 NE 3rd St. Tickets are $5. If you want lunch it's $15 and you need to pre-register. It's hosted by the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce: (503) 472-6196. "

Sal, if McMinnville were closer, if I wasn't working that day, I might have considered going.

DeHart appeared in an event like that in Salem and sounded like a great example of personal pique making a snide remark to the effect that people who become legislators don't have common sense.

I hope that with the Ways and Means co-chair present, there can be some discussion of alternatives/ ways to balance the budget.

Kim Thatcher has a piece on Oregon Catalyst about core services. At least she admits there are core services the state must fund, which is more than some tax opponents want to discuss publicly.

I would love to see Steve Shields debate DeHart, as Shields spoke on KGW Straight Talk about actually having locate companies and taxes were only one factor, not the only factor.

Steve Marx: language like " Sam's Eco Dev Director's experience " makes you sound like a disciple of Lars.

Do you have any positive suggestions, or just insults?

Steve Shields has definitely sounded very tuned into specifics, and not at all like an outsider when I've heard him, recently. I agree with the poster that said the situation he had at HP (not the sauce) is very much like OR gov.

Of course the herd animals, aka party animals, will become skittish the moment they realize he's leading them outside the Dem herd. That's Kitz's appeal. He addresses what needs to be addressed without spin and national party control, yet the domesticated ones can look around and see they're still with the herd. Definitely the BO poster child if ever there was going to be one. Progressive without those nasty, hard life choices.

Liz, Steve seems like a bright guy.

You, however, might want to read the old posts about Novick vs. Merkley.

Statements like "That's Kitz's appeal. He addresses what needs to be addressed without spin and national party control, yet the domesticated ones can look around and see they're still with the herd. Definitely the BO poster child if ever there was going to be one. Progressive without those nasty, hard life choices." are inclined to make people skeptical of a candidate whose fan writes something like that.

Where is Shields on the need to debate kicker reform in the Feb. session?

Or is that a question only someone "inside the herd" would ask?

I'm only a little familiar with the suggestion of a VAT a few years ago. It would be an interesting alternative discussion to 66 and 67. Both measures passed by the legislature have fatal flaws in my view.

M66 builds on the idea that it is "OK" to tax someone else for what we want because they make "a lot" of money. Of course "a lot" is defined by us. the other major problem with 66 is that it acts as a disincentive to make "more" money. It is a built in penalty for making more than what somebody else sefines as "a lot".

M77 fatal flaws are that it went beyond what many agreed was long over due minimum tax adjustments on business. It also paced an odiferous gross receipts tax into the mix that taxes a company based soley on sales in state regardless of profit/loss.

Both measures are flawed in that they reinforce Oregon's dependency on the income tax, a widely variant form of state revenue. The PEw paper that Novick wishes to pick and choose from clearly outlines what Oregon, and several other states can do in order to shore up revenue streams and allow for a more even and sustainable tax vehicle.

I voted for the temporary tax increase on all in 2004 becaue I believed that the legislature could/would work on a better solution. that measure failed and the legislature still failed to address meaningful change. I am defintely voting aginst 67 and now am leaning towards a "NO" vote on 66 as well. It may be the only way to force the moribund dems in Salem into action to seriously consider a meaningful 3rd leg - the sales tax.

Sure, Oregon has voted against this type tax numerous times. It is basically a vote against the legislatures and government. The population has stated that they have no confidence in elected officials to be responsible. With calamaties like BETC, it is difficult to refute.

However, a properly crafted sales tax would even out revenue, protect the poor and be a revenue producing vehicle that shores up Oregon finances. Again, properly crafted, it is also mostly a personal decision. Don't want to pay high sales tax? Fine, keep the 5 year old TV and stay away from the flat screen. Purchase a good reliable used car instead of that new showroom spiffy model. Instead of micro brews, stick with BUD, Miller or Coors (OK, I went too far! still buy great local craft brews!)

"Steve Shields has definitely sounded very tuned into specifics..."

Oh yeah, very specific. But rather than take Liz's word for it, let's hear from the man himself regarding education:

"This is not a simple problem and I'm not necessarily wanting to go into all these details at this point."

Another favorite, let's-get-specific quote:

"I'm a big-picture guy, I'm a strategy guy, I'm a long-term-planning guy."

Shield's won't even man-up to the proposed tax package claiming he is for it but only because it is the lesser of two evils.

Nobody's afraid of Steve because he is outside the herd. It's just this race doesn't need another deer-in-the-headlights former business executive who feels he needs to start his next career at the top without a plan. Or a clue.

"Nobody's afraid of Steve because he is outside the herd. It's just this race doesn't need another deer-in-the-headlights former business executive who feels he needs to start his next career at the top without a plan. Or a clue."

Thank you Scott. The biggest challenge Shields faces is convincing people he would not be another Bruggere.

Business taxation is the worst thing you can do in tough times. In fact why not try to reel in some of the gross overspending in the state. Look at how little of the money spent on education is for teachers. More people work in Oregon education that are not teachers than are... yup more administrators, janitors, than teachers.

darrel, we will continue to disagree. That's OK.

contrary to your argument, adding a third varible that is more static in nature tends to even out the variations in the outcome. So to use your analogy of math, statistically adding a third varible that is more static makes perfect sense.

I also disagree about the affect of a sales tax on the poor. Again, properly structured it has additional encumberance on their ability to obtain and purchase necessary items such as food, medicine and shelter. Again, it is a tax that can be self regulating. buy hamburger and buns, pay no tax. Go to Mikky D's and pay the tax.

Poor people don't purchase home theater systems, Meemers, Porsches and second homes at Sun River. the people that do could pay the sales tax.

Bottom line darrel, the current system is not working. The addition of a well crafted sales tax will go a long way to stabilizing and solidifying the revenue base for Oregon.

"Business taxation is the worst thing you can do in tough times."

Because those massive Bush tax cuts worked out soooo well, eh Eugene?

Oh, and ((admin + janitors) > teachers ) = stupid to the nth degree.

Kurt C - how in touch with Oregon's unemployed are you at this time? A sales tax would be a disaster for the have-nots. Believe me on this one.

The choice is clear and Steve is right. Pass the tax fairness and make the wealthy corporations and individuals pay their fair share, or destroy the public school system by laying off hundreds more teachers , shutting down academic and sports programs; destroy our public safety by releasing more prisoners and firing more police officers; and destroying the safety net for the unemployed and the infirm by cutting people off unemployment, food stamps, in-home care for the elderly. But the wingnuts hate all that socialism stuff, except when it's their socialism stuff.

Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 14, 2009 11:40:35 AM

"Business taxation is the worst thing you can do in tough times."

Because those massive Bush tax cuts worked out soooo well, eh Eugene?

Oh, and ((admin + janitors) > teachers ) = stupid to the nth degree.

Why thank you, Scott. When my math. class next asks of an example of an exponential function, I'll say, "the stupidity of salary grades in this school system". And it is soooo true.

OK all you dismissive types out there. Make your hypothesis falsifiable. Under what condition would you cut management salaries? Simple question. I'll bet I don't get a single concrete answer to that one.

This is where you may be right, but are screwing the pooch with your presentation. Any business owner could/would answer that question. Not only will you not answer it, not consider it, you grab our kids and threaten them if we keep asking. And now you want money.

Can you see why this might not be the best way to go about it? Will you admit that, given that what people like Scott and I are pointing out is blindingly obvious, that you do it because you know no other way? You're also helping the far right. Even they can get it, and can see you're conditioned to an untenable response. They will and are jumping all over that and will sway members of the great centrist herd.

Bill R - interestingly, the safety net for the unemployed is tattered already. Many of those receiving unemployment are unable to qualify for any assistance to put food in their mouths, yet are unable to pay for more than very essential bills at this time. I am aware of many folks who live in our over-pumped PDX Metro area, and not high on the hog, who can barely cover the essentials and now subsist on foodbox food and know daily hunger as they search for jobs in a bleedout environment. There is no safety net. There is the illusion of a net. The proportions of the crisis in Oregon are not being adequately articulated, I think.

I'm really stunned at the childish and empty gameplaying here. A person with five dollars in her pocket having to get food for tonight's dinner vs. someone with thousands in their bank account - and taxing the poor person for her basic necessity is PROGRESSIVE?

I just do not understand this. AND: I think politics is a mighty and stupid venue of gameplaying.

"A person with five dollars in her pocket having to get food for tonight's dinner vs. someone with thousands in their bank account - and taxing the poor person for her basic necessity is PROGRESSIVE?"

A properly written sales tax bill exempts groceries.

A poorly written bill slaps the same tax on everything.

The first aims to help low income people. The second is stupid.

Conversation about "a sales tax" implies that the wording doesn't matter---but it does.

Here is a challenge for those of you who talk a lot and say so little: How does the state stabilize its revenue from one budget cycle to the next?

Obviously, with a sales tax, mp. Would at least keep WA drivers from running down peds in the crosswalks!

But rw is right. Of course, LT, you exempt groceries. But what about the ever increasing load of schools supplies (likely to be worse when this doesn't pass), etc? Pet supplies are important. At least do like the old German Constitution and allow a pint of lager a day.

When you think all that through, then realize all the effort is to protect corps from a small amount, I think the initial comment's point about it being easy to get lost in the theory of it for the choice on the table, should be well taken.

I would add there should be no corporate tax for any showing less than $20,000 in revenue (not profit). Ultimately, the challenge is to craft an income tax that preserves Oregon's unique character. In terms of waste, we could at least put all those juggling the never predictable budget to work crafting such a measure...and then lay them off when revenue is stabilized!

MP, a lot depends on those revenue forecasts---which are just that. Has any revenue forecast ever been totally accurate (to the dollar) and neither over or under? Or is it like weather forecasting--prone to conditions changing things ("if the clouds come in, it will rain")?

If we had a good-sized rainy day fund and got rid of the kicker (or didn't send it back until the rainy day fund had been built up) that would be a start.

MP, how did you like the court decision on the wording of 66 & 67?

LT

Has there been something new on 66/67? I have been out of the loop on news this last week.

I agree on the kicker. It should be used to fund a rainy day fund of some pct of the budget before any goes back to taxpayers. How we use the kicker is another debate.

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=statesmanjournal&sParam=32048203.story

Remember how the petitioners went to court to contest the ballot titles written by the Measure 66 and 67 ballot title committee?

The court ruled. It changed a few words here and there but did not throw out the ballot titles.

Steve Maurer,

Your type of progressive California obfuscation is exactly the kind used to justify the insane expansion of government . Your tone and attitude are oozing progressive anger.

When liberals turned progressive this is where they have taken us.

The legislature wisely cut spending during the 1981 recession 1981-83-----$8,940,741,798 --(-10.88%) But then,,, After liberals turned progressive.

The Legislature increased spending during recession. 2001-03----$35,508,990,712 ----16.57%

The Legislature increased spending during the current recession 2009-11----$53,760,031.018----- 9.38%

And now progressives are advocating massive tax and spending increases at every level.

Oregon and especially the Democrats, have a spending problem, that has lasted a long time.

Biennium----Total All Funds-----% of increase 2009-11----$53,760,031.018----- 9.38% 2007-09----$48,005,409,654-----13.72% 2005-07----$43,220,555,200 ----11.56% 2003-05----$38,743,009,114 -----9.11% 2001-03----$35,508,990,712 ----16.57% 1999-01----$30,462,319,439 ----11.55% 1997-99----$27,308,692,023 ----17.62% 1995-97----$23,218,655,377 ----15.85% 1993-95----$20,042,060,862 ----12.18% 1991-93----$17,866,757,268-----17.74% 1989-91----$15,174,994,031 ----20.72% 1987-89----$12,570,014,958 -----4.23% 1985-87----$12,060,094,718 ----17.97% 1983-85----$10,223,173,163 --- 14.34% 1981-83-----$8,940,741,798 --(-10.88%) 1979-81----$10,031,862,751 ----35.08% 1977-79-----$7,426,493,362 ----42.91% 1975-77-----$5,196,769,722 --- 56.72% 1973-75-----$3,315,908,507 ----22.15% 1971-73-----$2,714,651,811 ----27.54% 1969-71-----$2,128,527,639 ----13.49% 1967-69-----$1,875,459,599 1965-67-----$1,411,920,395 1963-65-----$1,267,100,097 1961-63-----$1,067,822,805 1959-61-------$946,954,063 1957-59-------$718,552,984

@ rw

No safety net? I remember before there was food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid, Medicare. I remember when aid to dependent children required a years's residency in a state. I remember sleeping in a car in the 50s, with a single mother one of three children who were all hungry, and government had no interest, nor did anyone else. You claim there is no safety net. It can be much, much worse than it is now. And that's where the right wing wants to take us. They love those times when poverty was so noble and uplifting, and deprivation so purifying. Their Ayn Rand world of social darwinism is what they worship.

Atiyeh didn't support raising taxes?

"The legislature wisely cut spending during the 1981 recession 1981-83-----$8,940,741,798 --(-10.88%) But then,,, After liberals turned progressive."

And how much did it cost the state to pay back the SAIF Funds they used to balance the budget?

If you don't understand what really happened back then, have a conversation with St. Sen. Jackie Winters.

Bill R - I lived in those times too. And I am here to explain to you that you are listing items that are no longer open. Voc Rehab has a waiting list to get considered for one of three waiting lists; medicaid opens for a lottery once every couple of years; the housing lists you go on about have three and five year waitlists.

A person who does not have credit cards, fancy housing or even television whose unemployment ONLY covers the rent will find themselves a slim 12 dollars above the amnt allowed to get food help.

It's worse than you think it is, dear Bill. Believe me.

Steve Novick:

....our decreasing ability to pay for basic services

Bob T:

What, in your opinion, are the non-basic services funded by the state budget. Or is everything basic?

Bob Tiernan Portland

how about a major league cut of the size of the continuing to grow size of the state govt?it appalls me that i am the only one posting regularly on blue oregon that calls for that.bill r what have your left wing nut buddies actually done to get oregons unemployment rate down and put people in the private sector back to work? oregon has a safety net bill r the millions of dollars they anually waste on consultants and studies like green this and green that that never gets the unemployment rate down.before you mouth off bill r and call people right wing nuts look at how the left wing has ruined the economy and business climate in oregon with high taxes,fees,system development charges and done absolutely nothing to reduce our high unemployment rate.

So pointless. Have to make it a food fight. No. matthew, every dittohead repeats that line.

If anyone had the intellectual integrity and personal honesty to be real, the obvious option would be more gov spending less.

you liberals lack the brains,education and iq mr lord beaverbrook to see through the sme old tired full of it scrare tactics abot how broke the state govt and schools really are.its never half as bad as you liberals claim.only dittoheads like you liberals keep falling for the same old tired crap.sorry mr beaverbrookn extortion scare tactics dont work with me and never have.its funny mr beaverbrook when honest people like me tell the truth about how dishonest and full of it you liberals really are and how bad your plans are you question our education level and intelligence and resort to name calling because the truth hurts you and you have absolutely no answer for it.all you want is more taxes,fees and etc to maintain the overgenerous pay and benefits package the state workers get.sorry taxpayers cant afford to pay the increasing pension and healthcare costs of state workers.i dont see you democrats talking about the fact that pers will suck up most if not all of this 733 million.im sorry when i see the state wasting millions anually on consultants and etc i dont see a revenue shortfall i see a greedy selfish state govt that cant stand up to the greedy public employee unions and tell them no for once.when i see the state telling us they have a 3 to 4 billion shortfall when they actually have a 54 billion all funds budget with a 2 billion surplus now its hard to feel sorry for them.sorry extortion scare dont work with me.

If anyone had the intellectual integrity and personal honesty to be real, the obvious option would be more gov spending less.

Can you read matthew?

You will note that statement contains: - no extortion - no scare - no consultants - no greed

Just a prophetic call to get real.

If you bother to read other posts of mine you will find: - projectile vomiting at consultants - foo fighting with Dems - admiration for your vigil in the cold against Wal-Mart - no self serving arguments

I feel like screaming too. It's worth noticing who you're screaming at first. Cashing out is also an option if it's all too much. Hating the GOP is not love of the Dems. And I'm not a socialist. I'm much further left than that. Education policy? I'd take kids away from their parents at birth. You all need some real lefties so you can recognize tepid Dog Daze Dems when you see them.

"But I've never seen wording for a sales tax -- either as a proposal or an existing system -- that makes it anything but a regressive revenue stream that hurts low income people, even if it claims it's "helping" them."

For a long time there was a very loud anti-sales tax wing of Oregon Democrats---to the point of going after anyone who disagreed with them.

However, there have even been people in such a movement who admitted privately that the wording of one measure was not as bad as others.

In her oral history on the Oregon Channel, former Gov. Roberts talks about the Conversation with Oregon tax package which was killed by a parliamentary move from Speaker Campbell.

I'd like to see a discussion of what that plan entails, how it is different than the Westlund-Williams-Shetterly plan when the Republicans controlled the House (all 3 of those moderates found a way to leave the House not long afterwards, were they not ideologically pure enough for the majority leadership) and how either of those are different from the Sen. Frank Morse proposal and the findings of the Revenue Restructuring Task Force.

But spare me another foray into the old sales tax wars--been there, done that.

If someone has concrete ideas, I would love to see them.

darrel, seriously you need to cita other sources:

Washington’s tax system is regressive. The lowest income group ($20,000 or less) pays 15.7 percent of income for total excise taxes and property taxes. The highest income group pays 4.4 percent of income for the same taxes.

I doubt seriously that someone earning $20k/yr or less is in any position to own real estate and therefor pays $0 in property tax. They pay a little in vehicle tabs, but that is a licensing fee rather than a tax. It is also totally contollable by the payor in that the fee is a variable of vehicle value. The same holds true for excise taxation in Washington. The Washington poor as described in your cite making $20k/yr and less do not pay excise and property tax.

Funny how everyone gets all hot and bothered about a taxes regressiveness while advocating for the very same thing on businesses.

No matter how you spin it, you are advocating adding taxes to a taxable entity that has no taxable income. How else would you define regressive.

Out of 20,803 C Corp's that paid the $10 min, 15,647 did so because that ACTUALLY LOST MONEY or had minimal income as defined the ODOR. That is 15,647 companies that will have to pay higher taxes without an ability to pay.

"you liberals lack the brains,education and iq mr lord beaverbrook to see through the sme old tired full of it scrare tactics abot how broke the state govt and schools really are."

Somebody? Anybody?

Some days it's like shooting conservatives, err fish in a barrel.

resr

Sal thank you for making that point about property owners.

I would also add that there may be a number of unemployed people owning real estate who are going to have a tough time coming up with their property tax payments due on Monday.

Are there any revenue projections from Oregon or Washington that factor in property tax delinquencies due to inability to pay? How does the state account for these shortfalls? If accrued that masks the issue.

With wages and salaries for most people, withholdings assure that the taxpayer pays their taxes as the income is earned. Not quite the same with property taxes. Also, are estimated taxes for the self employed and for people with other income source meeting forecasts?

Missing from the discussions is still the fact that states assume an increasing population earns more income, that property values rise, and growing businesses result in higher tax revenues. Thus far, the state has not shown that it knows how to deal with income and property tax revenues that may decline rather rapidly as they likely are today.

That is also the issue of PERS and other pension obligations both private and public; if they assume future revenues from taxes or growing businesses rather than actually putting money aside to fund them, it is only a matter of time before the jig is up.

This is a trying moment for all.

Thank you for mentioning this, Mike. "With wages and salaries for most people, withholdings assure that the taxpayer pays their taxes as the income is earned."

There have been Republicans (most famously Gov. Reagan back in those days, and Steve "flat tax" Forbes) who wanted to do away with the withholding process and then wondered why people thought them out of touch with ordinary wage earners.

So about this championship-wording for a sales tax: please explain to me why the sales taxes I've lived under in ohhh, say.... five states.... have ALL included every basic necessity I ever had to buy and then the rest?

I am most likely ignorant as can be, so I had no idea we had a state in this union that DOES have a selective tax that only somehow targets the well-fluffed in hard times.

Sales tax: regressive.

I think we all pretty much agree on the sales tax. It would stabilize the economy, but writing one that isn't regressive would be an historic accomplishment. My major point, originally, is that I would rather see the budget managers doing that than juggling budgets every few years.

Of course, failure would pretty much write that off as a permanent no starter. Makes more sense to try than to dole out school days, punctuated with panicked public referenda.

mp, I mention the no-tax cutoff on the business tax as a way to keep it from being regressive. Hey, maybe that's a partial answer to general sales tax. Something like a handicapped parking permit, or Oregon Trail Card, that exempted certain people from ALL sales tax. Theory would be that it doesn't have to be graduated, because you can either afford it or you can't, owing to its small, absolute amount.

The way M66/67 take such a flat, monolithic view towards corporations isn't encouraging. It resembles posters that bang on about "business", without realizing that there are a lot of start-ups that never become big or fail in a few years that have nothing in common with large, established corporations. And there's an inverse relationship between size and how much tax they pay. If you're in the former camp, a "tax on business" seems pretty unfair.

For what it's worth, I'll vote for it, with reservations. I only know one concrete business example, a non-profit run by a friend that declared bankruptcy last week. She was going to continue to keep it afloat on a shoestring budget, but if this passes, she'll have to shut down. $250 is a fortune when you've never made a penny in revenue and rent is $600. So, yes, a flat business tax is regressive too. Wish our adroit legislators had at least as much sense as can be found in this thread.

And if you're going to embrace regressive taxes go all the way and talk about a poll tax.

sorry, "stabilize the budget", not "stabilize the economy".

Rereading this thread, I think the devil's in the first word. "Falling". Doesn't make the agent explicit. Reading the responses it seems like some are being pushed, others, like matthew are jumping. Richard is getting a running start for his leap of faith.

Not a minor semantic point, either. Think about it. Try to change the word. "Being pushed off a cliff...or not, the choice is ours"? If you're being pushed it's not a choice. "Jumping off a cliff..or not, the choice is ours"? Oh....that's it. There's what we're trying to avoid. Why would someone jump off a cliff? Must be pretty motivated. Or pretty deluded. Either way, we don't have time to address that. Must get this passed. Cut straight to the pitch.

Taking that seriously would mean seriously considering both sides of the issue. The conclusion was given a priori, hence the neutral verb to make the conclusion fit.

Add to that what has become standard BO editorial policy, a la t.a., "I only look at a few responses, then I don't pay attention to the rest. Most of it is garbage" (or something to that effect), and these posts start to look like mailers from the national committee. But then, what do I know? You're obviously fired up to balance conservative paid ad. spin. I don't have a TV anymore. No point. So, all people like me see is your rhetoric. It's not balanced by another, extreme POV. But than, those couch potatoes are your real constituency, no?

Oregon unemployment is improving, but conditions vary throughout the state according to this heat map: http://www.localetrends.com/st/or_oregon_unemployment.php?MAP_TYPE=curr_ue

From the Legislative Review Office, please note the following figures (numbers have been "rounded"):

State General Fund Budget: 2003-2005 = $ 10,223,200,000 2005-2007 = $ 11,609,200,000 2007-2009 = $ 12,793,500,000 (legislatively approved) 2009-2011 = $ 13,278,500,000 (legislatively adopted)

This is a 29.9% increase. (It's a 217% increase compared to 1993-1995.)

State All Funds Budget

2003-2005 = $ 38,150,000,000 2005-2007 = $ 40,297,900,000 2007-2009 = $ 47,748,700,000 2009-2011 = $ 53,760,000,000

This is a 40.9% increase. (It's a 268% increase compared to 1993-1995.)

Before any changes in tax policy are discussed, don't we need to discuss the reasons behind requesting more funds when the above percentage increases far outstrip inflation AND population growth? Don't we need to discuss this more than saying we need the increase to "maintain services"?

As to changing tax policy, how is it logical and rational to:

Permanently change (increase) rates for a temporary problem?

Make the changes (increases) retroactive?

Tax companies on gross receipts (and not net/gross profits)?

"As to changing tax policy, how is it logical and rational to ... Tax companies on gross receipts (and not net/gross profits)?"

In a word - profit laundering.

The cost of manufacturing drugs or computer technology (for example) is minimal compared to the cost of research and development. So, beginning in the early 1990s, several dozen companies established subsidiaries in Bermuda, the Caymans, and other tax havens to game the system.

They set up shell companies and transfer patents, logos, and other intangible property there. Then when profits rolled in, the company paid big license fees or royalties to its own shell (at the price it decided) and deducted that from home taxes. Revenues were sucked out of the U.S. or other countries even though the patents were created and were still used for work within home borders.

Just ask Intel.

Valid point, Darrel. I'm thinking more of when it becomes destabilized. When I say stable, I mean that you start with something workable, and something that resembles the last budget, before deciding how much to spend. Obviously you can always spend more than you have and end up back in the same situation.

Kind of like financial planning. May work for a middle class, employed bread winner, to keep spending on a par with earnings, but not very helpful for an unemployed worker at poverty level. The best financial advise for the latter is to get a job.

You could summarize my position as "without a sales tax, it's like having Oregon on a fixed income". Like people on fixed incomes, it's easier to fix the prob by beefing up revenue than by cutting costs. Of course, I think costs could be cut hugely too by doing things differently, using better modeling assumptions.

rw - Kentucky (not well known for being progressive) has a state sales tax that exempts medicine, basic food items and primary heating (electricity, gas). the state tax code also allows for a sales tax deduction off the annual filing forms. This certainly is a form of sales tax that at least recognizes that low income folks need to save what they can, where they can.

However (and using the food example again), opting for fast food hamburgers instead of butinng and preparing is rightfully subject to the sales tax.

The other huge problem with 66 and 67 is the PERS iceberg headed our way. Novick and CO do not want to face, let alone acknowledge that these two measures do NOTHING to deal with the PERS increases.

I must correct LT or at least enlighten him.

Westlund-Williams-Shetterly plan when the Republicans controlled the House (all 3 of those moderates found a way to leave the House not long afterwards, were they not ideologically pure enough for the majority leadership)

Westlund became a Senator. They run for office half as often. Almost every Rep. wants to be a Senator.

Williams was appointed to be the Director of Corrections by Democrat Governor Ted Kulongoski.

Shetterly was appointed by Governor Kulongoski as director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

None of this had anything to do with a 'plot' by the House Republican Majority office. In fact, it was likely a shrewd move by Governor Kulongoski to play politics and it partially worked as Max Williams seat was won by a Democrat.

"Because of Measure 5, the State government has had to make up"

Explain that one again? Measure 5 was in 1990 (19 years ago) and state revenues have been growing at about a 8-10% clip every year on average for almost 30 years now.

Sorry, I'll give the next gov his campaign slogan - Government needs to do more with less (just like the rest of us.)

Kurt - I find it interesting that you buy into and elucidate that tired old stereotype of the gap-toothed hick or urban slick chowing up in a fast food joint. Those who have experienced TRUE poverty do not have such money, and so escape the stereotype and the radar.

However, thanks for telling us about the only state in the union to have a SEMI-progressive sales tax. In Kentucky and other rural states, there is often no mass transit, or exceedingly poor mass transit. A tax on gasoline is regressive. Having lived in those states, I can speak to the distances one must drive to one's minimum wage or somewhat-better-wage jobs... taxes on clothing and shoes: regressive. The impoverished cannot afford a sales tax on many more items than appear to be exempted.

I'm not being querulous here -- just holding the flag for the real facts of life for those in poverty. Those deemed barely over the line of poverty and thus denied support for base needs... are in poverty. THe line is shaven so close that you may have enough for your rent, but, fifty five dollars on the other side of that line, you are too well off for food support. And so you live on foodboxes month in and month out. This is reality. I have relatives living generationally on beans, biscuits, hog and squirrel gravy. :)... yep, it's liked. But it's also necessity.

Going to back to OR real estate, there is plenty of real estate out there that people with a lower income could afford:

Portland Real Estate