Abbreviated punditry
Carla Axtman
Shorter Arthur Graham: I'm a business owner who works hard and makes really good money. I'm also one of those people who greatly benefited from public services as a kid. It gave me stability and infrastructure when I needed it, and made me a better man for today.
Every business in this state absorbs costs bigger than any tax increase they'll see under M67. It's good for business to give back to the community--it makes for a better community and in the long run, for much better businesses.
Vote yes on Measure 67.
Shorter Bob Wiggins: Measure 67 is a communist plot to undermine the Monopoly Man's ability to shovel cash.
Vote no on Measure 67.
Shorter Kate Brown: Since Mark Nelson insists on engaging in douchebaggery, we must now change the playground rules to make the kids play nice.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 10, '10
OBAMA: ...you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have instead cut taxes. So I guess what I would say to Scott is his economics are right, you don't raise taxes in a recession.
Jan 10, '10
he is absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up -- take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.
Jan 10, '10
I guess we have to repeat one more time that Obama is referring to federal taxes, and that the fed has the luxury of not needing to balance its budget. Oregon must balance its budget, which means finally whittling down some of the tax breaks the rich have seized for themselves since the Reagan era--and before that, too. And now a troll will raise the spectre of class warfare here--as if the threats that you'll lose your job if the measures win is not a vicious form of class warfare.
8:42 p.m.
Jan 10, '10
During the past few weeks, the No side has claimed that public employees earned more in in 2009 than in 2008. As a public employee who -- like every other State employee -- is subject to a 3.69% cut via unpaid furloughs, I was puzzled by this assertion. It turns out, that the sleight of hand being used is to compare CALENDAR years rather than fiscal years.
To explain: workers in government get their raises July 1st of a year. In 2008, we recieved a raise negotiated in 2007, when the economy was good. So if a worker was earning 100 widgets in 2007-08, and got a 6% raise to 106 widgets, she would earn 103 widgets in 2008, as the raise would hit with the July paycheck. In 2008, that worker takes a 3% pay cut, but has earned at the 106 rate for the first half of the year and the 103 rate for the second half, meaning she's earned 104.5 widgets in 2009. A raise? Only if you count in a manner no one else does, and one that would not show up in 2010. This worker made 100 widgets in 2007-08, 106 in 2008-09, and 103 in 2009-10 (and 2010-11). Try telling that worker she got a raise!
Also, averages can mask many anomalies, such as staff cuts from the bottom (losing less expensive workers) or hires from stimulus funds (jobs that weren't in the previous years calculation).
The claim is Mostly False.
Jan 10, '10
Carla posted: Shorter Kate Brown: Since Mark Nelson insists on engaging in douchebaggery, we must now change the playground rules to make the kids play nice.
Brown's office sent Nelson a letter Friday warning that in the future, his surveys should contain a boldfaced warning stating, "NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE." But the letter said he would not face a fine because the secretary of state's office, in 2002 and 2004, allowed Nelson to use different wording and in at least one case did not insist it be boldfaced.
Brown, who took office in 2009, said she intended to take a sterner line than the office has in the past.
"Fidelity to election law is something we take very seriously," she said. "In the future we will insist that any imitation ballots adhere to the both the letter and spirit of the law.
This is hardly CHANGING the playground rules... more like she's cracking down now after DP darling and potential gubernatorial candidate Bill Bradbury's regime dropped the ball. Speaking of changing the playground rules in the middle of the game: if Bradbury's minions had paid the same degree of attention to Nelson's mail surveys back then that they placed on inventing ever more novel picayune ways to invalidate ballot measure signatures and entire signature sheets, this whole situation likely would have been avoided.
Jan 10, '10
Arthur Graham:
It's good for business to give back to the community--it makes for a better community and in the long run, for much better businesses.
Bob T:
He's free to do that already, in any number of ways.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jan 10, '10
@Bob
He's free to do that already, in any number of ways.
I am inclined to believe that the larger corporations affected by the measures will cut back on public sponsorships of events and donations to the community when the measures pass, and I believe they will pass.
Jan 11, '10
I think the only thing that would make Kate Brown happy would be if she counted the ballots herself.
8:25 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
I am inclined to believe that the larger corporations affected by the measures will cut back on public sponsorships of events and donations to the community when the measures pass, and I believe they will pass.
Based on Graham's assertion that all businesses in Oregon already absorb costs larger than any tax increase they'll see with M67, the scenario you paint seems highly doubtful.
In addition, even when the increase passes, Oregon will remain one of the most tax-friendly states in the nation.
Jan 11, '10
I'll take more corporate taxes over them spreading their logos over events and donations any day. And if they don't want to advertise like that, fine by me. If they want to give the money and not brand their name on the event and donation, that is fine. Here's a good one: they can largely namelessly donate to the State of Oregon, and we'll call it a tax.
Jan 11, '10
Also... curious the Secretary of State apparently omitted any reference to Nelson's 2006 use of a similar mail survey ballot in the campaign against term limits.
Or could it be complaints against these mail survey ballots are just more valid as 'douchebaggery' when they're used in support of measures your political party may generally be opposed to?
Jan 11, '10
At the risk of causing Mark Bunster er... Torridjoe to burst an artery has anyone read today's analysis of M67 at Bojack.org?
Jan 11, '10
I read Jack's analysis and found it to be well written. Jack adds another layer of issues that the pro crowd have been ignoring in their zeal to find some more revenue.
I'm voting no on both measures so Jack's points didn't make me change my mind.
Jan 11, '10
Could Ricky/Jack/Gary post a "no" on 66 piece? It would be nice to hear the points that have been overlooked debated without having to endure the outright lies from the "no" people.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 10, 2010 10:11:14 PM
Speaking of tax money, how many years have you been wasting ours, posting here? Get to work, dude!
Jan 12, '10
"Speaking of tax money, how many years have you been wasting ours, posting here? Get to work, dude!"
The Bob Tiernan who posts here is not the State GOP chair and former state legislator from Lake O.
<h2>He is a libertarian from Gresham.</h2>