Everytime one of you anti-tax fairness advocates at BO post a piece on 66/67, I've pointed out that the top 2% pay more than 1/3rd the State's cost. This is a FACT and it gives lie to the irresponsible untruths presented on this blog. Your presentation is clearly a lie but, you continue. This is the mentality that drove me from the left, if you guys are correct then, why do you have to protect your truth in a shroud of lies?

Geoff

Not sure Kropf understands how many people he has alienated. Wasn't he the guy who was absent from the legislature to appear on the radio?

What were his ideas for "government to live within its means"? Or doesn't he need to have any because the anti-tax gospel is all that matters?

@Carla -- Oh, I see, so it's not the portion of the State's budget that is relevant to fairness, it's wealth. So, where do you draw the line Ms. Axtman, at what point has the top 2% of producers contributed enough to the functioning of the state to be fair? Be specific please.

Carla, what is your definition rich? At what point is too much income unfair? You have never said what level that is, not the 250k that is shown on these obscene tax the wealthy measures. At what income level do you think a person should have to redistribute their income?

Funny, I have been on the Do not call list since the day of its inception and I have received calls from the YES side.

@Carla, dodging? Your question is only relevant if you define the state as entitled to some percentage of a private person's wealth, I asked you what that percentage is.

BTW --

According to wikipedia, receiving calls from political organizations is a KNOWN LOOPHOLE ... if true, this "complaint" will amount to nothing more than a harassing tactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Do_Not_Call_Registry#Exceptions_to_the_do-not-call_rule

leinad

Thanks for the clarification.

@leinad -- robocall / call center / email / snail mail ... it's an investment decision based on response rates ...

Guess my question isn't relevant?

@Carla -- I won't be doing your homework for you.

Hey Carla, I just had a thought, are you advocating a flat tax based on wealth? Wealth being assets less liabilities.

Who cares about wealth. We only tax wealth at time of death. Someone can make $18k per year and have $1M in net worth or someone could make $1M per year and have $18K in net worth.

The issue of this debate is income taxes and tax fairness. Why are you evading....it is a simple question. When will "the rich" be paying their fair share?

Carla and Geoffrey,

Thus far, neither the Feds nor the State requires anyone do declare their wealth, disclose the amount of money stuffed into the mattress, or hidden in their pantry. Seeing the wads and rolls of hundred dollar bills in some peoples' hands at many stores tells me there is quite a bit of cash floating around in this economy that may not be reported income. I'm ignoring the cash seen in Vegas. . .

Unless you have your eyes on taxing wealth, it really doesn't matter.

For people who are land wealthy, unless those holdings throw off some sort of cash or other earnings, the property taxes come out of other earnings or cash assets. I know of several people who were between a rock and a hard place when they were unable to come up with the cash to pay property taxes on inherited property.

That being said, I hate robo-calls just as everyone else likely does, Though I have not received any calls from either the NO or YES campaigns, I certainly am receiving more than my fair share of unwanted robo calls for credit card offers, siding, glass repair, college tutoring help, etc. Many of these calls forge the caller-id so the original calling firm cannot be easily identified unless one follows up with the solicitation to find out who is behind the calls.

And yes, I too am on the do-not-call registry. I still get unsolicited calls - robo as well as real-person. They are all unwelcome at my home or on my cell phone.

KC, You are absolutely right about two things and wrong about one.

1. You are absolutely right that wealth has very little to do with taxation, especially income-based taxes. Geoff and Karla should start talking about something relevant.

2. You are absolutely correct that the highest income earners in OR pay a lower total tax incidence rate (about 6.1%) than the lowest income earners (about 8%).

3. You are incorrect in calling Oregon's tax system progressive. When lower earners pay a higher rate than high-earners, that is called REGRESSIVE.

Its hard to believe, but Oregon has a regressive tax system - M 66/67 will only partly mitigate that fact.

Property taxes have never been anything other than flat.

If I make $1M per year and live in a $250000 house and you make $50000 per year and live in a $250000 house, GUESS WHAT!

Your property taxes as a percentage of your income will be higher than mine. SO WHAT!

I'm just saying that low-income folks don't pay a lower percentage of their income for government services than high income folks, they don't pay the same percentage of their income for government as rich folks, but Oregon low-income wage earners pay a HIGHER percentage of their income than all those capital-gain earners, CEOs, etc...

Those are the facts on which we agree. I guess we don't agree if that's fair or not.

Jack,

I don't think it has anything to do with free speech. It's not legal for you to follow me into my home to continue your free speech without my permission. I don't have a telephone in my home (or pocket) for the convenience of someone to exercise their right of free speech. Anyone who dials my number with an unwelcomed call is impinging on my right to freedom from their message.

Geoff, you are debating theory. Fine for a debating society but no connection to what happens in the real world regardless of the voting results next week.

Jack Roberts had an excellent column in the Oregonian about that reality.

Today the SJ had an excellent article on the complexity of the state budget, and the competing views of St. Sen. Chris Telfer (newcomer) and St. Sen. Jackie Winters (served in the Oregon House before being elected to the Senate, about a decade on Ways and Means incl. being a subcommittee chair).

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100124/STATE/1240346/Claims-that-surplus-money-is-available-in-state-budgets-reveal-complexity-of-laws-and-finances

Realtity is that regardless of your theory, changes to the budget depend on actual legislative votes. If more legislators see the budget as Sen. Winters sees it, you, Sen. Telfer, and whoever else can debate theory all you want, but the votes won't be there.

to geoff lundt

i looked for you at oregon tea party site. no answer. please tell me what am i supposed to call wu and schrader in my emails. i say fairy but my brother says tory. whats up? fairy or tory? my brother says real patriots fight torys but i say real patriots fight fairys. i am confused. what would god do. i will do what god or you says. please tell me. vote no. i am excited about daytona 500 and nashville. will u be there?

Geoff,

Forget about wealth, what percentage of the states income is earned by the top 2%?

What percentage of the states income above the poverty level is earned by the top 2%?

If you can answer these questions, it might put your statistic into a meaningful perspective. What if the top 2% earns 90% of the states income? In that case, paying 33% of the state's taxes (and do you have a source for that?) would mean that they are paying far less than their fair share.

Here's must see TV from KATU...

Deceptive Practices By The "Vote Yes" Campaign</a?

fbear commented: ...what percentage of the states income is earned by the top 2%?

Actually, I referenced some data on this question from a 2009 Oregon Dept of Revenue report based on 2007 OR income tax returns here at BO a couple weeks ago.

This report does not provide data for the top 2% of earners specifically nor were there any numbers for income above the poverty level (the poverty level $ amount will vary depending upon the number of people represented by each return) - but to recap:

The top 1% AGI earners paid ~25% of the total income tax liability on their ~$16.8M in income (or ~18.3% of total OR AGI)

The top 5% AGI earners paid ~42% of the total income tax liability on their ~$30.3M in income (or ~33.0% of total OR AGI)

So, based on above, the top 2% are certainly paying a higher percentage of the state's total income tax liability than their share of the state's total income.

@Alcatross -- you're going to have to spell it out like you're talking to a 3rd grader for these folks to get it.

Good work BTW, I just spent an hour looking for the stats you already had.

@Lou Fleming -- Look, I just made your day!

Geoff

@LT -- Theory? Huh? The reality is that the State of Oregon RAISED spending in the midst of the worst recession since Carter and, how did we get out of that recession? We got a grip on spending and unleashed the private sector -- it's not rocket science.

"Anyone who dials my number with an unwelcomed call is impinging on my right to freedom from their message."

How's someone to know that their message is "unwelcome" before they call you, unless they're clairvoyant? The federal do-not-call list is prior restraint on speech, and the only reason it's stood up to challenges thusfar is that it restrains commmercial speech. Whether it would withstand a rigorous challenge at SCOTUS level is a good question.

Jack, I don't have a citation. I don't know if the question whether the telephone is a "public place" where free speech is allowed or a "private place" where it can be curtailed has ever been directly addressed. I do know that I don't have a phone for the convenience of someone who wants to sell me something (including ideas). I find it hard to believe a court would find the telephone is a "public place" since it's usually a one on one interaction but who knows with the present SCOTUS. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, you can put your free speech out there in public but you can't make me listen.

Ron, Wouldn't putting your name on a do-not-call list imply that the call would be unwelcome? If I didn't have a telephone would that be a prior restraint on free speech since they can't call me? No one has a right to force their free speech on me in the privacy of my own home.

Alci and Lundt, we get it. You hate America's progressive income tax. So let's get it out in the open. What else about America do you so hate?

"Ron, Wouldn't putting your name on a do-not-call list imply that the call would be unwelcome?"

The last time I had a land line I signed up for the list, but I didn't care if I got political calls. So, no. Just because you think the law implies something doesn't make it so, especially when the law explicitly states that it doesn't pertain to political speech.

I make a lot of political calls. In my experience there is a lot of confusion in the public concerning the do-not-call list, but the attitudes of call recipients seem to hinge more or less on whether or not they agree with the caller.

Anybody can call you up, as long as they have your number. If they make a habit of annoying you, you can file charges against the and request a TRO, but the burden is on you to show the calls harm you.

How far do you want to go with this? Do you want to keep the police to not be able to calll you in case of an emergency? Or the fire department to skip your house with an evacuation order? How far, and in what direction, do you think the implications of signing up for the do-not-calll list go?

First, I voted for M66 & M67.

"Yes For Oregon" proves once again just why the proponents are the biggest problem in getting these measures passed. Steve Novick has pretty much destroyed his credibility by becoming the lead whiner, and the one of the worst things that can happen to a ballot measure is to get Blue Oregon's support because the supporters are just obnoxious dirtbags.

Now YFO has made utter asses of themselves, again. From the official website:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm

If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls?

No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC,calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, ...

Finally, to the equally obnoxious Geoffrey Ludt on the other side who wrote:

@Carla -- Oh, I see, so it's not the portion of the State's budget that is relevant to fairness, it's wealth. So, where do you draw the line Ms. Axtman, at what point has the top 2% of producers contributed enough to the functioning of the state to be fair? Be specific please.

Fair is at whatever point the voting majority decides they've contributed enough is fair. Because that's how a representative democracy works, pinhead. If you don't like it, tough.

Personally, I think fair is the minimum of much, much more than now and whatever drives you absolutely berserk.

@Jimbo -- there it is, "hate" ... next you'll be calling me a racist or a homophobe right? "Hate" is the word progressives use to describe heretics of their religion.

You equate progressive taxation with America? Funny, I associate it with Chapter 2 of "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

@idiots on both sides -- Oh, I see, though Ms. Axtman has repeatedly asserted that she is for tax fairness when I ask her to define what that is, I'm the one that's in the wrong ... who's the pinhead now?

It's unfortunate Kroger doesn't have the personal integrity to refuse to enforce a state law that doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of being upheld if it prohibits political calls, robo or otherwise. But he misrepresented his role in the Enron case, the convictions under his bizarre legal theories in that case were reversed by the courts, and he ran for the office making false claims (some would say bald-faced lies) to the voters what he was going to do concerning civil rights enforcement that was not even within the jurisdiction of his office. For a guy who most of you fools on this blog think is so smart and principled, you think he would have at least read the ORS's that created his STATUTORY (not constitutional) office before he lied to the voters. He's an embarrassment the Oregon Democratic Party and so are his supporters. So why would anyone expect anything less from a guy like that except that he would attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law rather than refuse?

And riverat, the phone network is a public accommodation. I think you'll find that if put to the court, the decision will be that by connecting to network for your benefit, you have agreed to accept an invitation (ie. receive a call) to listen to a political message because you are in fact not forced to listen. You can hang up at any point. Being on the "Do Not Call" (DNC) list is irrelevant, despite whatever you believe in your childish ignorance, because the law does not provide that you are indicating you do not want to receive political calls when you sign up for the DNC.

This whole episode is an embarrassment to those of us who support M66 and M67 because, as already noted above, it highlights the pettiness and obnoxious of those who claim to speak for the rest of us but who, I assure you, don't.

Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jan 24, 2010 10:16:31 PM

Anyone who dials my number with an unwelcomed call is impinging on my right to freedom from their message.

I'm sure you're right, riverat. You don't happen to have the citation to the court decision that says that, do you?

Oh, come on, can we get real for a moment and acknowledge two facts? One, laws are passed by pols and pols want their favorite causes exempted from no call lists. Two, some folks consider cold calls to be an invasion of privacy and a nuisance. That means that either you have your own internal no call list, or you are the salesman trying to shove his foot in the door.

FWIW, I can't stand telemarketing and have set up numbers, some for as many as five years, purely to collect data about the practice. Then I set up two numbers, with the idea that one would be a telemarketing magnet, the other protected. To date, before I had to remove the magnet for being too effective, that number averaged 7 telemarketing calls/day, with a max of 25. The other number, in 4 years, has NEVER ONCE received a telemarketing call, survey, charity...NADA.

In a nutshell, you can explain where 99% of cold marketing calls come from with only four factors.

<h1>1, your telco. QWest or your telco is responsible for most of those calls. Yes, I know about and have debated their privacy policy with them. The hole you can drive a truck through is that the "marketing partners" are excepted. And they are legion. How many people have had their QWest number connected, only to get a call 30 seconds later and it's a telemarketer? That is not dumb luck. Count the call volume that very day. What is it? Five? But the first one came within 30 seconds? No, your number gets downloaded into "partners" dialers by the same software that sets up your number. People that hate telemarketing calls don't give ANYONE their number. The scum know this. Your telco is the weak point, where they know they can get your current number.</h1> <h1>2, the Federal no call list. That's right. There are LOTS of shady companies that subscribe to the no call list and use the waiting period to bombard you with marketing calls. All that bull about, "it takes 30 days for our records to be updated" is total BS. It takes however long for the law to make it a crime. They update the list daily. As soon as your number goes on there, the time between their seeing it and the statute kicking in is their chance to saturate you with calls. Then, there are companies that simply ignore it. They get the list to find out who hasn't been called, and then go right ahead. Enforcement is good if you can give law enforcement chapter and verse, but you have to do a lot of sleuthing and enforcement won't do it for you. Amazingly, the "never called" number survives by being on neither the Oregon or Federal no call lists.</h1> <h1>3, like #1, the companies you do business with and their "partners". These will ALWAYS be internet businesses. These can be hard to track and worse to stop. Simple solution is NEVER give your actual phone number to an online business. Sounds impractical, but I deal with them everyday and it has never been a problem. And this means ALL online business, right down to your bank. In five years of researching this, I have never once received a call, from a number given online, that was useful. Example: your bank has to have updated contact info., including phone number. Question: when was the last time they called you to tell you you were overdrawn, instead of assessing fees? It is NEVER in your interest, so just don't give it out.</h1> <h1>4, pollsters and charities. First, any decent ones won't call you cold. It's counterproductive to their goals. Only those working to short deadlines, or slightly shady, engage in the practice. Unfortunately, that is more and more, as everyone perceives it as a must-do. Solution is real easy. Get a voice over IP number with a different area code. Make sure you have a good calling plan so local calls don't become long distance, but I have never had one of these call when the area code and my physical residence don't match.</h1>

All four can be satisfied by getting a voice over IP number and never putting it on any no call lists. When I moved from SF, I kept my number (to satisfy #4). That was in 2001. I have never received an unwanted call on that number. The measures? Wouldn't know they existed without BO. Xmas? Only got calls from friends. Oh, just for grins, my experiment was set up so that the two numbers were the same, differing only in a 415 v 503 area code. If you ever want to hear a QWest rep get real quiet, after they've explained that they don't telemarket or sell your data, ask why their number got 53 calls in the week, and the one with the different area code received none. Ever. It's simple enough to prove to yourself. Keep your landline (and turn off the ring), and do business only with your VoIP number. You will learn to love the silence, and be amazed at the difference.

alcatross,

I looked at that document. Yes, the top 1% pays 25% of the total income tax. They also make 18% of the total AGI. It's not out of line that they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

They average over $1 million a year in income, so their $80,000 tax bill doesn't seem unreasonable.

Jimbo46 commented: Alci and Lundt, we get it. You hate America's progressive income tax. So let's get it out in the open. What else about America do you so hate?

Jimbo46, for your information, I merely presented the data directly from the 2009 OR Dept of Revenue report and observed that the top 2% are paying a higher percentage of the state's total income tax liability than their share of the state's total income (which is true...) - contrary to a previous supposition here. fbear asked for data - I provided what relevant data I could find.

If you have something constructive and pertinent to add to the conversation, fine. Otherwise, to avoid making yourself looking the public fool again, best keep your wild accusatory thoughts about me to yourself.

fbear commented: Yes, the top 1% pays 25% of the total income tax. They also make 18% of the total AGI. It's not out of line that they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

fbear, I wasn't trying to imply the amount they were paying was unreasonable. I was just clarifying that the top % earners don't earn anything near the wildly large share (~90%) of the state's total AGI you hypothesized earlier.

Carla, would you do me a favor please?

I recieved a robo call Saturday from an SEIU center urging a "Yes" vote on M66/M67. My home phone number is registered on the National "Do Not Call" list.

Please forward my complaint to Atty Gen Kroger.

Thanks!

IOBS-- Youre right, insofar as federal law goes. Nice googling.

But state law is what you are looking for. Oregon state law uses the federal no call list to filter calls, rather thsn setting up a separate state no call list.

Jack-- Are you suggesting that the state's attorney general shouldn't enforce a law that is on the books?

Kari, first Federal law and the Constitution pre-empt state law.

More importantly, the statute cited in the letter from Kroger's boy is from "Chapter 646A - Trade Regulation" and specifically "TRADE REGULATION AND PRACTICES". Political speech is not trade (commercial) speech.

Now, as is typical of Kroger's deceit, the letter represents that ORS 646A.370-374 "AUTOMATIC DIALING AND ANNOUNCING DEVICES", read in isolation, doesn't mention any exemption for political speech. However, he and the poor sap he made write this letter (is he too cowardly to put his name on it even though he is responsible for every action his office takes?) look like fools for doing so, and you look like a fool for defending them. As already noted, these paragraphs are in ORS 646A "TRADE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES", and specifically between ORS 646A.340-365 "MAILINGS AND DELIVERIES" and ORS 646A.400-476. (The latter section deals solely with warranties on new motor vehicles, vehicle protection products, and assistive devices.)

If there is any question about construction here, and whether Kroger's office should have hesitated based on whether this is an improper restraint of protected speech, he should have on the basis that not only is there no textual support that ORS 646A.372 applies to political speech but instead ORS 646A.376 provides clear textual support it does not attempt to regulate political speech, only commercial speech:

646A.376 Enforcement; civil penalty. Violation of ORS 646A.372 or 646A.374 is an unlawful trade practice subject to enforcement under ORS 646.632.

Moreover, Kroger and/or his toady obviously knew they and "Yes On 66 and 67" were not complaining in good faith because they cited the calls as being prohibited under the "Unfair TRADE Practices Act, ORS 646A.376, and ORS 646.632", the latter section specifically starts with:

646.632 Enjoining unlawful trade practices; assurance of voluntary compliance; attorney fees. (1) A prosecuting attorney who has probable cause to believe that a person is engaging in, has engaged in, or is about to engage in an unlawful trade practice may bring suit in the name of the State of Oregon in the appropriate court to restrain such person from engaging in the alleged unlawful trade practice.

in their request for action.

Now, it now looks like the person who ought to be worried about being on the wrong side of the law is Kroger himself. He took out a $500 "Argument in Favor" of both Measure 66 and Measure 67. He has engaged in, or failed to properly supervise an Asst. Atty. General (Lianopoulos) committing, what clearly looks like blatant harassment of someone legally exercise their Constitutional rights of political free speech in opposition to Kroger's publicly stated political position in the form of an intimidating letter on Kroger's official letterhead.

Moreover, it's very significant in terms of divining Kroger and/or Lianopoulos's possible improper political motives that the letter doesn't directly mention ANY penalties if AfPF doesn't comply with the suggestion of what they "should" do in the last paragraph. Instead the letter only makes reference to ORS 646.632 where enforcement and penalties are discussed in detail and DOES NOT mention ORS 646A.676 that actually is the the section which enables enforcement of ORS 646A.672.

As much as I don't support the AfPF position, this looks to me like an unethical misuse by Kroger of government resources on behalf of a political position on an issue, and even an outright abuse of power. And maybe even an improper attempt to cover it up by having an Asst. Atty. General actually write the letter so hecould argue deniability it was an innocent mistake by an (inexperienced) underling. Guess he learned a trick or two from the Enron boys.

This affair should now be investigated because there is more than ample evidence Kroger and Lianopoulos should have known that the section ORS 646A.372 they asserted AfPF supposedly violated deals with "Trade Regulation and Practices", not political activity as regulated by ORS 260. And Kari, if you and Blue Oregon had a shred of integrity you'd be calling on the Ethics Commission to investigate and for the Governor to call for the appointment of a prosecutor to investigate. Because if this is not sanctioned, the next time it will be a Republican AG who attempts to harass someone working on the supposed progressive side as a dirty political trick. And they might even be able to use the corrupted system this incident unsanctioned would have created even more aggressively against opponents.

This whole episode is a fine example why the people in the "Yes On M66 and M67" campaign that Steve Novick are actually one of the most significant obstacles to passing these measures. Thank god election day is tomorrow so these people can go back to just being obnoxious annoyances to their private social circles (hopefully)

"I suspect that the only reason it hasn't been knocked down in court is that robocalls are annoying and no one has been willing to break any spears challenging the law."

That's for sure. Folks hate 'em, far more than they hate real-time human calls. I've only received robocalls twice, both times a recording of BIll Clinton exhorting me to vote for a candidate in a local race I didn't support (One for Gavin Newsom for SF mayor, who won, another for a candidate for SF County Supervisor, who got 17% of the vote). Are there any studies around that deal with their effectiveness? I was involved in a campaign once that utilized one, but I don't recall seeing any data to support the fact that the call would be helpful, only an excepted wisdom or hive-mind consensus that it was something that the campaign should do.

Robocalls seem to be a ubiquitous part of the political landscape that few profess to like, but that everyone will use if they have the funds.

I am confused. T. A. Barhart posts that the top income earners pay 6.1% of their income in state and local taxes. How can this be? The marginal rate is 9%. As ones incomes increases mathamatically that taxpayer should get closer and closer to the paying 9% of their income.

@ t.a.

(even though they are using 3rd party data themselves, from Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy - omg, Robert Reich is on their board!)

Go to their website and see who contributed the data for the Oregon report, you might be surprised...

@Jeff Alworth -- Are you therefore arguing in favor of a flat-tax for all?

The rich who want the little people to pay the taxes are similar to the old titled aristocracies of Europe, a parasitic social category that was specifically omitted from the US Constitution. When in danger of being legally required to pay progressive income taxes, the rich often call up the virtue of their charitable giving, that is, charity for the deserving poor who show proper deference and gratitude. Else the charitable giving goes away. Again, same as the charitable giving of the old aristos.

Often the rich threaten to move away to a paradise for millionaires such as Maryland, with its yachting, thoroughbred racing, and proximity to Capitol Hill, as did our erstwhile Senator Gordon Smith. So goes the game on and on.

@Jeff Alworth -- I represent myself and my understanding of how $ flows through an economy. I find it curious that you use the flat-tax to make a point then, state that you're not in favor of a flat-tax, how do you square that peg? What did I misunderstand with your argument about tax fairness?

Geoff

@Pat Ryan -- It depends ... would the overall rate of taxation be the same or less? I see your emotional argument and understand that it makes the issue thorny.

How many peole are still on the flat tax train by this point?

Sounds good to me!

alcatros: If I lumped you in with Ludt in error then please accept my apology. Ludt: I found no mention of the progressive income tax in your reference to Marxism and I doubt you did either. In fact the Communists would in no way be interested in promoting ANY tax scheme that would financially support the capitalist state. In fact we can thank not Karl Marx but our own Republican President Lincoln for introducing America to the ultimate fairness of the progressive income tax. Now do you hate Lincoln and other Republicans too?

Pat Ryan commented: How many people are still on the flat tax train by this point?

Think of the cost savings associated with a greatly reduced IRS (2008 budget = ~$11B) and no need for a gazillon page tax code!

Think of the productive capacity of people that could be unleashed in both the public and private sectors to produce products/services of real value (maybe some we could even export!) rather than toil their lives away on tax assessment/collection and tax law interpretation activities!

to geoff lundt

oh you did make my day. thank you so much. i keep looking for you at the tea party. i have another question. my brother says that real patriots read the federalist papers. i tell him no they dont because federalist has federal in it and federal is bad just like the government. right? if you could answer that would be great. i keep trying to be self reliant but i need some help.

btw my real name is luis (not immigrant)

IOBS - The statute you are looking for is ORS 646.608, which was amended by SB 863 in the 2007 legislative session. There is no question that political robocalls are banned under Oregon statute. Whether such a ban would survive constitutional scrutiny is open to question. However, I see no reason to suggest that John Kroger acted deceitfully or in error in seeking to enforce the ban. Hardy Myers took a similar position when the Clinton and Obama campaigns did political robocalling in Oregon during the last election.

Sal, exactly what do you think I am looking for that you think ORS 646.608 is the answer? ORS 646A.376 explicitly enables enforcement of ORS 646A.372, and ORS 646.605-ORS 646.656 deals solely with "UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES", and ORS 646.608 doesn't even mention ORS 646A.370-ORS 646A.376. There is no question that Kroger knows ORS 646A.372 does NOT apply to POLITICAL robocalls as a textual and Constitutional matter, and he needs to be investigated for abuse of power.

Furthermore, whatever corrupt stand Hardy Myers took, and the fact the Clinton and Obama campaigns refused to stand up for what is right (surprise, surprise) because they wanted the votes of people who actually think dumping on the First Amendment is a good idea is proof of exactly what to you? Those campaigns should have stood up for the First Amendment and he should have been investigated for abuse of power, but we are talking about politicians in an era where responsibility and integrity have absolutely no meaning in politics, so what can you expect?

Your argument is basically just because one loser (Myer) didn't act responsibly, another loser (Kroger) doesn't have to. Not the kind of lesson responsible parents teach their kids.

More importantly, given all the REAL challenges Oregon faced in the 2007 session, just what kind of sorry excuses for leaders were the Democratic majority in the 2007 session, including Jeff Merkley as Speaker of the House, that they thought restricting or banning political speech in any way was something they should do and spend time doing?

It would be nice if the AfPF was just cranky enough to take this to court, but I doubt they really care about doing what's really right any more than those who thinking regulating or banning political speech is a fine idea.

"Kropf can certainly challenge the ban, but that doesn't mean that any AG has acted inappropriately by enforcing the statute. "

Kropf on one side, Kroger on the other. My memory of Kropf as a legislator leads me to believe Kroger would win any battle involving law.

As an AG's granddaughter, I would love to see this taken to court. Let's see what a court says about this--they have more power than bloggers.

Kropf can certainly challenge the ban, but that doesn't mean that any AG has acted inappropriately by enforcing the statute.

Sal, this is not only an non-sequitor, there is nothing in what you say, including the fact that two AGs have acted improperly in the same way to enforce restrictions on political speech. Why do you find that something you want to defend?

And by the way, moron, I had been discussing exactly the relevant specific sections of the ORSes all along, ORS 646A.370-ORS 646A.376, and ORS 646.632 whose text stands alone, so all you proven with regard to the text is you haven't paid attention, which is a pretty good indicator of how little your opinion in general is worth.

As an AG's granddaughter, I would love to see this taken to court. Let's see what a court says about this--they have more power than bloggers.

LT - why would you want any restriction on political speech to stand? Just because it matters more to you which side wins rather than what's right?

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jan 25, 2010 3:38:25 PM

How would a "flat tax" look that was truly "flat"?

Why are we competing to think up the most regressive tax? If you want that, go straight to a poll tax.

Posted by: Jimbo46 | Jan 24, 2010 11:30:23 PM

Alci and Lundt, we get it. You hate America's progressive income tax. So let's get it out in the open. What else about America do you so hate?

Anyone that acts and thinks freely. It is the origin of the word "liberal".

thanks you You will have to crawl very nice,owe you gratitude.. sikiş

<hr/>