Carla, I am disappointed you were so slow to mount the attack. I guess you took Christmas off.

Have a happy New Year!

Dave

Unicorns are delicious, if slowly baked at 325 and basted frequently.

Oh, now I get it.

If we tax ourselves more, our generous Uncle Sam gives us FREE MONEY (what the wonks call "matching funds"). The best part is that the more we tax ourselves, the more we get from our uncle. How stupid of me to think that Uncle Sam gets his money by taxing the people he's giving the FREE MONEY to. It's a perpetual prosperity motion machine.

Are you an angry, unhappy person, Carla?

The tone and rehtoric in your posts always takes the attack mode, while disrespecting anything Republican. I come here because I wan't to read about different views on life and politics. I disagree with many of the positions here, but so what? I've learned a hell of a lot by visiting this site, and in a few small cases, my mind has been changed.

The irritating thing is you do a great job of providing good information, but that way you go about it is often disingenuous to those who don't see eye-to-eye with you. I know this is a blog and you can say what you want, how you want, but after reading your stuff for the past two-years, your posts are often mean-spirited and degrading to anyone with an opposing view.

That's sad. And I wonder how that creates honest debate, other than to rally like-minded folks to jump on the bandwagon. Trust me, I know this happens on the other side as well (Lars Larson), but it doesn't make it right.

Liberals and Conservatives are alienating people like me who - while holding fast to certain values - are open minded and willing to engage in good, honest and clean debates. But when people are argumentative and degrading, that's when I stop listening.

This is a transparent policical shell game. Raiding obligated funds isn't anywhere close to a solution. There is no magic bullet to this crisis. You either cut programs or raise taxes.

If you're a Republican, do you want to talk about your plan to balance the budget? They don't have one. Could they come up with one that does the job and motivates their base? No chance.

Meanwhile, attacking airy fairy concepts as if those will-o-wisps where the devil himself at the door, has gotten some traction. So....they keep trying to deliberately dig the hole deeper, so that all liberals can talk about is raising taxes, both unpopular and a seeming validation of their predictions. It may be transparent, lame and just out and out isn't true, but that isn't the question. The question is, how well has it worked, and what else have they got?

Pretty well and nada. So guess what's going to happen.

If just once the finger where pointed at the stupid people that need to have such transparent crap picked through by talking heads, maybe the "what are they thinking" shtick would play better. I forced myself to listen to the Tory conference this year, and it was instructive, vis a vis this kind of political meconium. One thing became blindingly obvious. The Tories are not different people than the Republicans, the difference lies with the voter. Jimmy Carter was the last time any pol had the balls to tell the electorate to straighten up and fly right. As long as that is political death, which is to be expected when you have the whole tyranny of the majority thing we have going on, there will be pols that will exploit it. Repugnants don't seem to have any monopoly on that!

So, any of you thinktank connected types care to fund an instructive widget? Kind of like Sim City, called Oregon on Budget. Let people play with the moving parts and try to balance the budget themselves. Let them control the parameters, even, so that none cry foul. Just keep the rules to what's in the statue and OAR.

Yeah, probably none of the target audience could tear themselves away from "must watch boob toob" long enough. So you're left with a sound-bite competition. Imagine your SO is leaving for work, and you've about 10 seconds to say good-bye. SO has talked about a new gym membership. You don't think you have the money. Which is easier? To yell, "and don't take out that gym membership", or explain the budget? You can never win if it's sound-bite competition. It's like growing up on sweets. Once so spoiled, something bad has to happen before you change.

I think it's pretty simple. You have to do one of the best mass education efforts, like yesterday, or states like Oregon and California will crash and burn before anyone learns. More and more I think back to a picture my psych teacher had over his desk. It was a white rat, on its back, dead, in a complicated maze, with food at the end. The caption was "white rat, died of hunger, without learning anything".

I don't like anything about you! Your take on the 2010 election, the day after, will be a fun read! The spinster(Carla), will be spun!

I am glad now people are at least talking about the fact that the budget increased. It seemed like everyone was in denial of that fact. Everyone is strapped, including those who are paying taxes. Some companies have seen a 60% decrease in revenue and now face a new tax. You cannot simultaniously tax the economy and expect it will grow and create jobs. We must look at the bell curve as the Scandinavians did in the 80s. There is a certain point when you tax, that you being to get negative returns at a future date.

Earth to Jason.

Damn right Carla's angry. We all should be.

29 years of GOP policies designed to bankrupt the public sphere (except the portion going to Defense contractors and anyone else making nice, fat campaign contributions), wage war on the middle class, turned millionaires into billionaires, who then turned our government into one of, by and for the wealthiest donors and demolished all of the safeguards enacted after the First Republican Great Depression only to create... the Second Republican Great Depression! And their "solution?" More tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations!!

Any respect the GOP ever deserved they themselves tossed out years ago.

Dude, if you're not outraged, you're seriously not paying attention. If it is in fact true that you "are open minded and willing to engage in good, honest and clean debates," then doesn't it make YOU angry that the GOP just flat out lies in order to try and promote the same self-serving, middle-class-destroying ideology?

If it doesn't, I suspect you are only pretending to be "open minded." Or does a little anger simply bother you a great deal more than a whole dump truck full of destructive, manipulative lies?

Right on Carla!

There are some very intelligent Republicans, Winters and Nelson being at the top of that list.

Perhaps there is a debate going on among Republican legislators, with the Telfer wing thinking the games around Measure 28 and 30 actually helped the party (she wasn't here back then). Gee, when was it the GOP lost majority?

Deschutes County Republicans must be really angry that over the last couple decades, they have sent what seemed to be 3 great legislators to Salem, and all 3 were more moderate than expected. Bev Clarno became Speaker and was such a moderate she helped kill a bill Right to Life really wanted. Not only that, she was courteous and would actually answer questions people asked. What a concept!

2 of those (Bob Pickard who served from 1987-1991 and then was defeated in a close St. Sen. race, and Ben Westlund) ended up switching parties.

Apparently Sen. Telfer and Rep. Berger are buddies. They served on the ballot title comm. for M. 66 & 67 and were very unhappy with the outcome.

Jackie Winters apparently has no problem with LFO and LRO--she invited them to a town hall meeting she organized which Berger and Cameron participated in. But then, there are those in the GOP who have always been upset that Winters doesn't always follow party orthodoxy.

Some of Telfer's ideas arose in a face to face conversation I had with Vicki Berger. She didn't say what legislators pay for health care--just that she was upset about state employees. I wonder how she would react to a proposal that both legislators and all state employees pay ____% of their health care premiums---making sure it is higher than what legislators pay now.

That crowd doesn't want to differentiate between management and rank & file.

Of course, there was that time when Kim Thatcher was first a legislator and her office was startled at people asking "OK, you folks have gotten your first paychecks. Were taxes taken out? Thatcher said public employees don't pay taxes. She and her staff are now public employees--were taxes taken out of your paychecks?"

I mentioned to Berger that the question of drawing down ending fund balances should be subjected to full public debate because there are some who believe those are a cushion against budget emergencies and protect the state's credit rating. She just gave me a blank look which said "that does not compute". Open public debate? It must have been tough for such a caucus creature to have served in the 2009 session, the most open in a couple decades.

Which brings me to another "dreamland" issue which needs to be addressed.

Will House Dist. 20 be a priority in the next election? The last 2 candidates in that district had no establishment support--that they had great life stories and would really have represented the district didn't seem to matter. They didn't have political connections, were not professional fundraisers, and if their poll numbers didn't hit a target, why should anyone care about such a district? seemed to be the attitude of the Democratic caucus.

There have been rumors of misguided Democrats believing Berger to be a "moderate" who would vote with them on some crucial bills. Exactly what were those bills in 2009 that Berger voted with the Democrats? Or is that a myth?

Underfunded, ignored campaigns in Dist. 20 the last 2 elections (locals worked their hearts out, without any help from the caucus---apparently it is OK to have a condescending state rep. if the caucus thinks that is OK because we are only constituents) have reduced Berger's victory margin to the point that if she loses 5% more, she is out of office. Ending caucus power may have been why so many people around the state voted for Measure 65---yes it lost, but only a fool ignores something that over 500,000 voters supported.

Berger often votes the way the caucus tells her to vote. She even had the gall to say THESE ARE BAD TAXES was enough to decide her on the ballot measures--and should be enough for anyone she talked to, but not being on Ways and Means meant not having to think about an alternative before Feb.

And I wonder if Telfer would be willing to answer questions about her proposal (esp. face to face would be fun--to see her facial expression) or whether she is of the "revealed truth" school of thought that if a Republican says something we should agree without question.

I have never voted for Jackie Winters and have campaigned against her. But I have also known her for decades. She has strong views about protecting "the least of us" from budget cuts, which is why Zupancic went after her when she ran for Congress. The GOP's best chance of a serious challenge to Darlene Hooley and the Republicans threw it away because she challenged party orthodoxy. But, by golly, Zupancic did not carry Marion County in either the primary or the general.

This will be interesting to watch---is Telfer trying to replace Ferrioli? Does she think her views will help the Republicans win seats in 2010? Does she not realize that the budget views of those like Westlund back in his Ways and Means days or Winters now are where the Republicans would more likely pick up support? Or how many elections are not decided by straight party voters but by those who don't register with major parties?

Or are the party orthodoxy crowd willing to go off a cliff rather than attract the views of moderates and independents?

Any discussion of the imaginary "state worker" is meaningless if you don't discuss management and rank and file apart.

So discuss them. Specifically, how would that point actually change the thrust of the discussion on this post?

By realizing that the management are largely the protagonists' supporters, and that they will make sure that field workers feel all the pain. This is a great time to say, "great idea; no COLAs for management this year". Then throw the argument back at them by pointing out that cutting services increases costs on business while cutting their gross revenues AND pass M67/68. They might think twice next time.

off-topic comment deleted. Please stay on topic.--Editor

"The take backs from state employees are outside the purview of the legislature. The way I understand it, this would require a re-opening of the contracts that the state has signed with employees."

The way I understand it, the Tiernan and Sizemore measure to govern public employee pay packages (incl. whether unused vacation/sick leave had to be used before someone retired because it couldn't be converted into retirement benefit) led to a St. Supreme Court ruling which said contracts were contracts and no vote could change that.

Maybe someone can check that out--would be a great counter to Telfer.

The woman who answered the phone at the Sen. Republican office said Sen. Ferrioli backs the Telfer plan. She also claimed that setting out a vague plan without details (how much of a cut to state employee pay packages, do they draw reserve funds down to zero, etc.) "is what both sides do".

That sounds like a description of inside baseball that a staffer for a GOP member in a previous session described as "so inward looking that Oregonians could be rioting in the streets and the people in the capitol would never notice because they are wrapped up in their own games" or words to that effect.

What sticks in my craw is that most the sentiment for brainlessness if being whipped up in the deep south, directly targeting places like Oregon, and we have to spend money and time (more money) to deal with it!

I say run a "left hook" ad. Slowly pan around shots of Houston, and other southern beauty spots and the hopelessness on peoples faces. Then cut to a spring day on Mt. Hood. Back to a fuming redneck, grinding his teeth. He quietly mutters, "so you think you got it good..." Cut to an out of state right wing rabble rouser, working the phones for donations. Cut to a scene in Salem where very Oregon looking folks are celebrating something. Then, Mr. GOP fundraiser, goes up the capitol steps, hands some documents to Telfer, who runs off and files some paperwork. Last scene is the celebratory crowd, now depressed as they hear their victory has been stolen, that a ballot measure is needed to re-confirm their progress. Final message displayed, "We don't mess with Texas, you don't mess with our taxes" (pun on Texas anti-littering campaign, "Don't mess with Texas").

" I'm sure the rainbow clouds and pretty white unicorns made Christmas especially lovely in that world. Alas, the rest of us can't afford to live there--being in the real world and all." - Carla

Carla, you wouldn't want to live in that world anyway. There's no Karl Marx, Joesph Stalin, Mao Zedong or any of your other heroes.

John, don't forget Mao Zedong.

I wouldn't underestimate Chris Telfer for one minute- I believe she is a former Democrat who switch parties prior to her Senate run- her brother John Horn was Legislative Assistant to Bend State Rep. Tom Throop, a progressive Democrat, in oh I think like 1979-

Carla is factually correct as far as she goes.....

Yes, much of what is proposed by republicans regarding Public Employees benefits and pay are subject to negotiations for the represented state employees. The democrats in salem and Carla sort of leave out the FACT that those negotiations took place this summer. None of the recommended concessions were bargained into the contract. State employees still get a 2% COLA annually - Thus wiping out the effects of the 10 day furlough over the biennium and becoming a pay increase despite the furlough days.

Had the state been able to average a $100/employee/month shared payment for health benefits (less than 7% of the total Plan cost) the state would have seen Millions in employee payments going to help offset rising healthcare insurance costs.

Had the state been able to rescind, or freeze the management pay increases given by the gov in 2007, the state could have saved million$$.

Had the state placed a moratorium on all vehicle replacement (except for totalled vehicles or needed vehicles for new safety positions) they could have saved millionSS.

Instead the state chose, through our democrat politicians in Salem, to levy permanent tax increases on business and those deemed making too much income.

I voted for M30; not sure what I will do with M66 & M67

My father taught me two very import things: there is no free lunch and that the tax cut fairy is a conservative wet dream.

We have to pay our way. We just need to make sure it's done in a fair and equitable manner.

Don't like government? Move to Somalia, they don't have one. It should be paradise.

"My father taught me two very import things: there is no free lunch...." -url

Well you should have listened to your father then, because liberalism is all about giving out the free lunch. Certain groups are deemed worthy of the free lunch, and other groups are targeted to finance the free lunch.

Oh, here's another little free lunch tidbit for you: Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Paul M. says: Oh, here's another little free lunch tidbit for you: Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million.

It works like this. If you vote D and pay zero, you are paying your "fair share." If you own an unprofitable business paying $10 in taxes, you are not paying your "fair share." And if you pay $42,000 in taxes on $500,000 of income (according to Oregon DoR), then you are not paying your "fair share."

See, "fair share" has nothing to do with what you get out of government, but has everything to do with how much government can get out of you.

I know this could be off topic but in someone's own words, what is a conservative and what is a liberal? I see the word used alot. If I am not conservate then I must be Stalin etc. To me Stalin would be the ultimate conservative. He manifest all power in the State and killed his opposition, he instituted a 100% tax over a certain income but exempted party members and himself. Maybe we should have an article on that subject.

"Unicorns are delicious, if slowly baked at 325 and basted frequently."

Dave L: I know very little of you, but if I were to judge you on this statement I would conclude you are still encumbered by a juvenile attitude.

Deborah, They intentionally choose schools to cut so they could use them as hostages. They could have cut anything to get us by this year, but they increased spending when revenue is in jeopardy and used schools as hostage to cover it. They have done this before, it’s not the first time and we want it to stop we have to vote no and then support a measure that forces them to fund schools first. This mentality that it won’t hurt the economy to vote yes on every tax is backwards minded. The fact that such an outrageous ballot measure could make it to a vote, will hurt Oregon. If it passes, even more so, but really half of the damage is already done. Those of you who work for yourself understand what I am talking about. If you have no personal investment in the ecnoomy except as a taker, I probably sound like an alien to you.

"Legislative Assistant to Bend State Rep. Tom Throop, a progressive Democrat, in oh I think like 1979-"

You might get some argument on that from people who knew Tom, but I believe Tom had better people skills and less of the "good people agree with me and don't ask questions" attitude.

galen, who are "they"--Ways and Means?

Schools take a certain amount of money, and some of the spending is federally mandated.

But if you want a good intellectual exercise, find the amount you believe schools should be cut in terms of $X.

Then find $X elsewhere in the budget and tell us what you would cut instead.

Deborah,

In exchange for my hard earned $$$'s, what specifically can I expect to get from our education establishment. What? A 20% reduction in dropouts? A 30% increase in test scores?

If the schools cannot guarantee me some tangible improvement, I would just as soon spend my money elsewhere!

mp, if you really live in the zipcode in your screen name, have you ever been to McNary High School?

Schools are individual, not just generically "the public schools". McNary students made a presentation to Keizer Rotary which really impressed at least one member of that audience who spoke admiringly about it at the school board meeting.

Kids are not widgets. Some come from homes struggling with poverty, substance abuse, or other problems---and you believe teachers can wave a magic wand and deal with all of that or you will take your money elsewhere? Exactly how do you expect teachers to deal with such situations, or isn't that your problem because students aren't future voting adults, they are just data to you?

Take yourself into a school to visit and see if what is going on at the school matches your preconceptions.

Unless you would rather just blog than participate in the real world.

Hey LT why not just freeze spending? Why increase it when the economy is slow? Does that State always have to grow? The government is not a holy deity, it cannot fix our problems. I wonder why people have not learned this. Government is at is best a necessary evil... -Thomas Paine

This is no different than the Republicans who praised George Bush when government expanded and intruded on the liberties of "Other People" You want to tax "Other People" in an attempt to control or gain from their economic liberties. I call it collective empowerment for self satisfaction. My great question is when the Feds starting giving control money to local schools, did the situation improve? I think not, only the spending increased. We need better stewards of the future generation's education before we right a blank check with someone else's money. Do you want to cut spending and raise money? I can do it and I bet most Dems would follow my plan, but the party never will because its not about us, its about them: 1. decriminalize recreational drugs such as marijuana 2. Insure that people who commit crimes that are victimless cannot lose their life to the system 3. Tax Marijuana at a rate similar or higher than alcohol. Enough to keep the price competitive, but increase revenue. 4. Decriminalize hemp product manufacturing in OR. All of these ideas decriminalize liberties and/or decrease the size of government while increasing revenue.

Dave Lister and I rarely agree on policy. And I don't agree with him this time. But he is a friendly, personable guy. The unicorn line was funny.

Sigh, here we go again – Unless you give us more taxes we will shut down schools and this time we mean it (like the past 30 years we haven’t) Was hoping you could explain why: - The avg state employee is making close to $70K/yr (give me a link to show otherwise) while the avg Oregonian is closer to $40K/yr. Even with temporary furloughs (FWIW - Intel is taking a 10% pay cut when things get tough) - All-funds 05-07 Rev = $43B, 07-09 Rev = $48B and 09-11 Rev = $54B, none of which looks like a decrease - Unless Ted and I are syncing sleep schedules, I missed any opportunity Teddy has taken to reduce state spending at all besides cutting schools or police

Against this vast tableau of boring numbers our Legislature comes up with the new fresh approach of more taxes. Whatever happened to creativity?

Especially with these taxes asking businesses to pay tax if they don’t make a profit which should attract even fewer employers. Here I thought it was unjust to give us an exemption on paying OR taxes on Fed taxes.

I am hard pressed to believe $0.01 of any tax increase would end up in the classroom, especially after the 2007 20% increase in education spending went to benefits.

Discuss

"Hey LT why not just freeze spending? Why increase it when the economy is slow? "

In the middle of a recession, there are more unemployed people and more people needing other government services. Do you really believe that having the same workforce deal with a larger workload (for example, everyone who calls the unemployment phone number should not object to 2 hours on hold) is really the best answer?

Oregon hired, for instance, more people to answer the unemployment phone lines. Was that wrong?

How about this: freeze all tax breaks because they can't be paid for, and have an open public debate on any line item in the budget someone wants to debate.

But "freeze spending"---what exactly does that mean? Fewer people on the Oregon Health Plan? Going back to the days when the state police did not patrol the roads 24/7? Laying off people in the Corporations Div. because there is a need to cut spending? Please tell me you don't want auditors laid off--that was done in the 1980s and I believe that was stupid, as who else can find waste in the budget?

Or do you mean that 2009 workloads should have been done with 2008 funding and not a dollar more? As I recall, that was done one year in the early 1980s.

If you don't like what the legislature has done, get involved in a legislative campaign or run yourself. That is, if you really live in Oregon.

Where do those "average" employees live?

Or are you adding up all salaries in the public sector (part time workers, low income workers, management), dividing by the number of workers and coming up with an average?

How about a cut which says no one in management earns more than the Gov?

"there are more unemployed people and more people needing other government services."

That helps to explain why the budget and spending went down when times were good - Erm, maybe not so much.

With govt it will always be feed the beast.

Here's a suggestion, Teddy goes to all of his $100K+ managers and say, cust spending by 5-10% without affecting customer service.

It happens all the time in the private sector, however, they need to offer a competitive product.

"How about a cut which says no one in management earns more than the Gov?"

How about any cut period?

Continuous spending increases have not corresponded with equal improvement in American educational performance. Long-term measures of American students' academic achievement, such as long-term NAEP reading scale scores and high school graduation rates, show that the performance of American students has not improved dramatically in recent decades, despite substantial spending increases. The lack of a correlation between long-term education spending and performance does not suggest that resources are not a factor in academic perfor mance, but it does suggest that simply increasing spending is unlikely to improve educational performance. *Heritage Foundation

It seems that Carla has struck a nerve with our wing-nut trolls!

"equal improvement in American educational performance. Long-term measures of American students' "

So, if one school is doing an excellent job, that doesn't matter because until the national average comes up we should think of schools as failures?

How is the performance measured? NAEP so that scores across states are apples to apples comparisons? Or is that too specific a question?

Great ivory tower position, mp. But visit an actual school and see what you think. Or would that be too much work? I wonder how many at the Heritage Foundation volunteer at local schools--or is that too reality-based and solution-oriented for them?

Talk about factually challenged -- state workers got a 2% COLA? No state workers I know! Who the heck are you talking about? Average state worker makes $70K a year? You show YOUR links. Most state workers I know make barely over poverty. And many had a hard time making ends meet without furlough days. And now have to handle bigger case loads with less hours. If you don't like the education funding system, you can thank Don McIntire for Measure 5. And Sizemore for M47/50. Thanks to them, the reality is education does have to compete with human services and public safety dollars. Freezing tax breaks is a good start. Many corporations and upper income individuals take advantage of tax credits the ordinary taxpayer cannot. And, if they can't use the credit, they sell it! I don't think that's what the legislature had in mind when they created them.

"Average state worker makes $70K a year? You show YOUR links"

http://www.urindependent.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2483:oregon-state-employee-compensation&catid=21:general-news&Itemid=66

"According to the DAS figures, in 2008 the average state employee was paid $47,724 in salary and $20,407 in benefits for a total compensation of $68,131. In 2009 the average state employee will be paid $48,459 in salary and $20,569 in benefits for a total of $69,028. The $897 increase in average compensation is after an average of $2,682 was subtracted for mandatory time off without pay called furlough days"

You show your links.

"One way to get the private sector back to work is to spend public money on public works."

Here's my problem is that $1 collected in taxes might get to be $0.50 spent on public works. If Oregon wanted to give tax credits for actual work done, I might go for that, but those get abused a lot (a la the energy tax credits.) I guess, in sum, my main issue is that govt doesn't create lasting jobs or careers (unless you coutn state jobs.)

LT

Since you have taken it upon yourself to claim all knowing knowledge of who I am, let me ask you this: What am I thinking right now?

Is there any doubt that today's GOP is morally bankrupt?

"Oregon hired, for instance, more people to answer the unemployment phone lines. Was that wrong?"

There are few jobs in Oregon. No new large businesses want to locate here. When mine is large enough we are leaving because we can hire several people we desperately need but cannot afford with the tax savings in Nevada. So yes it a bad move to hire telephone people. What do they talk about on the phone? And how did hiring a few telephone people translate into billions of dollars? Let me guess they found lots of other people to give raises to and hire?

"Or do you mean that 2009 workloads should have been done with 2008 funding and not a dollar more? As I recall, that was done one year in the early 1980s. If you don't like what the legislature has done, get involved in a legislative campaign or run yourself. That is, if you really live in Oregon. "

Yes people are without jobs That is the people the government is supposed to serve so yes the government can actually pay less if its serious about getting things done on budget. I am involved in campaigns time to time and yes I really do live in Oregon. All of these answers do not lie at the heart of the problem and that is government empowered and financed beyond its intent. As long as people think government can solve their problems and are looking to control others are make them live their way we will be losers. Oregon is shot to the curb. I have been here since '94 FYI The government will always have a reason to waste your money and that is exactly what they do. Do not fool yourself about efficiency. Government can never be more efficient than individuals who make detailed plans for everything they do. Central planning do not work well when it comes to detailed economic production. Ask the Russians .

Here is Oregon on the happiness index we are dead last. Central planning has paid off well: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/happiness-index-nebraska-nabs-top-spot

Yes the GOP is morally bankrupt, but the Dems are not helping us eather with this Statist agenda. We need some balance in the legislature for the sake of balance.

So the answer is $48K, not $70K. Looks like you're wrong.

So.....where do the benefits come from? If you are trying to claim that benefits are not part of your compensation, you are an idiot.

I have no idea who you are, mp, but since I know the location of zip code 97303, I wonder if you live there.

Galen, so what you are saying is that the Republicans did no better job running this state than the Democrats?

The legislature makes budget decisions when it passes budgets.

When the Republicans have a Gov. candidate as qualified as Atiyeh, maybe they will win statewide.

I saw figures on here- for a good five minutes- with links, that got deleted. They split management from field worker salaries.

"So the answer is $48K, not $70K. Looks like you're wrong"

Even if you want to compare $48K to the avg Oregon owrker @ $40K, that's still a 20% adder for being a public employee.

I am not even going to go into $20K (almost $2K / month) of benefits courtesy of the taxpayer.

Just like TorridJoe can blog all day on taxpayer time at CoP.

It really inspires me to pay even more taxes.

BTW - Am still waiting to be factually challenged or even just given some justification for tax increases besides supposition.

"They split management from field worker salaries."

So what? Are youi going to tell me the State has a higher % of mgrs in the workforce than all of Oregon. If so, that is even more troubling.

"came in the form of a stimulus bill that included a bond to finance capital construction"

Mr Peralta, tell me that a majority of that one-time stimulus is NOT being used to shore up benes?

Again, Teddy told us that 20% bump in 2007 for education - Mostly benes.

No torid joe, the answer is $68 and change with a whopping 43% benefits package for the total compensation.

You're wrong, sorry.

No torid joe, the answer is $68 and change with a whopping 43% benefits package for the total compensation.

You're wrong, sorry.

Steve, ever looked at the number of public salaries in this state that is over $100,000?

A number of us have been trying to get attention to that for years.

Maybe it is because management is not unionized, and unions are considered the great evil, but somehow the "protect the taxpayers" crowd doesn't want to discuss management salaries.

Thanks Bert. I think we need to have a little fun while we are debating these issues. We all want the same things. The route to attaining them is where we disagree.

Bill Bodden:

If I am never no longer a juvenile at heart then plant me six feet under. Don't take yourself so seriously. In the universal scheme of things we are specks of dust.

Unicorns are mythical animals. They don't exist. But if they did, I bet they are good eating.

Dave

"Steve, ever looked at the number of public salaries in this state that is over $100,000?"

I understand. Ted seems to be able to find these $100K/yr job for ex-legislators all day long.

If he wants to cut $100K/yr jobs fine, I just need him to show one scintilla of interest in increasing efficiency or reducing costs. I mean he should have enough revenue (as above) to live like a king, if he can slow down costs.

The avg taxpayer is getting tired of the same script after 25-20 years:

"We need higher taxes, if we cant get them then schools and police wil be cut."

If you are telling me the only thing he can cut is the classroom experience and beat policeman, then I guess I am not really convinced he wants to cut anything.

"It isn't. Every dime to capital construction and deferred maintenance."

OK, as they say above show me the link (proof.)

I think it was something like $700M from heaven that landed here and I'd love to see the projects that get done. I think Ted will just do some two-week make-work jobs to pump up the numbers.

At least Telfer uses her own name and office: "tiene los cojones," you could say. Then there's Mannix:

Kevin Mannix, Russ Walker and Ross Day (having lost theirs) are taking a lower road to get even with Oregonians -- hiding behind the "nonprofit," Common Sense where they can lob snow-bile at passing "socialists." This time, they've targeted Margaret Carter.

DHS spokeswoman Patty Wentz ascribes "confusion" to these rabid polecats -- A consummate understatement.

Three lawyers more slimy than any three-strikes scumbag -- to the point that BlueOregon's April 1st spoof of Mannix looks like a glowing tribute.

"Galen, so what you are saying is that the Republicans did no better job running this state than the Democrats?"

Yes. We need balance in the legislature. Republicans I think might spend more than Dems when they have legislature. We can't let either side control and it would be nice to have independents as well.

"I am talking about the bi-partisan $175 million state stimulus package"

OK, Mr Peralta, thank you for the clarification. I guess I'll go back to the point of whether it is a better investment to leave $175M in taxpayer's pockets or give it to the state (in the form of bond pmts I guess).

Posted by: Brig. Peri Brown, Purity Troll Brigade | Dec 29, 2009 2:26:44 PM

Steve, this isn't a fair debate. There were scads of links posted supporting Jason that were all deleted because they also commented on Carla's treatment of him...with external links! That was verboten, and so he has been laboring alone, without some very good supporting evidence.

That's real class. Call anyone that doesn't agree with you "factually challenged", then deleted hard data because it offends your vanity. Looking at the way editors have gone into topics and selectively deleted criticism, leaving child porn links, leaves me unable to have a serious debate here, anymore.

For anyone who is considering how Measures 66 & 67 might impact you or your business, or your friend's business, I have created a calculate posted at http://jimrobison.org/node/64 which can be used to estimate tax impacts of the Measures. Any small business owner should be able to see from this calculator how little impact the measures will have on them.

While I agree, and am voting for the measures, I personally know three non-profits that will be going out of business if the measures pass. Used to a big "fuck you very much" from the right, the fact that the most basic provisions were not included to protect them has given them the message loud and clear that "their" people don't give a good goddamned about their efforts either.

The cats and ivy and cricketers and product ratings sites that don't work with significant $$$- or none- can all get stuffed. I can tell you the next business I start will be a proper American company, i.e. based on fraud. VoIP and SIP look to be very promising! Lotsa fraud, no violence. That's the sweet spot.

That's real class. Call anyone that doesn't agree with you "factually challenged", then deleted hard data because it offends your vanity. Looking at the way editors have gone into topics and selectively deleted criticism, leaving child porn links, leaves me unable to have a serious debate here, anymore.

You're at the wrong site. HuffPo if you can't stand the heat in this sausage factory!

Peri, do you mean a nonprofit is operating on such a thin shoestring that $150 will drive them out of business? Don't they have a fundraising director?

Jim Robison runs a small business--try his calculator.

I'll bet the five don't pull in $150/year together. Total barter and sweat equity operations.

Peri,

Non-Profits are Tax Exempt, so do not pay corporate income tax. This means they are unaffected by any change in the corporate minimum tax.

jim