I am proud of Oregonians for coming together to make the responsible choice to protect our families instead of high rollers and corporations.

I was particularly impressed, not only the level of citizen engagement and activism, but with the level of cooperation and dedication from such a wide variety of groups advocating for tax fairness.

Groups that protect the environment, education, health and the service industry should team up more often. This could be a winning formula!

I think you Progessive Socialists need to get to work IMMEDIATELY on the next tax hike! This has been so successful, just think of all the jobs this will create!

This was a good old fashioned beat down of the teabaggers, neoliberals, libertarians, and Dick Armey-loving fools who are clueless when it comes to understanding the true nature of capitalism and economic theory.

Yes, the public sector matters douchebags...I mean teabaggers. Your vaunted private sector requires a legal structure, a public safety stucture, an education infrastructure, and a human services infrastructure because not everything is, or should be, a commodity to be bought and sold by the lowest cost producer to the highest bidder.

The public and private sectors and inextricably linked and interdependent. At least the majority of Oregonians voting last night recognized that.

Tim Boyle & Phil Knight can go if they want, just make certain that the leaders of the Yes campaign stay in Oregon.

Now are we going to continue this common sense effort to include diverting the kicker money to a rainy day fund, and make that a bipartisan effort to avoid raising taxes in a future recession?

I say raise the taxes further on the rich. Eisenhower, that flaming liberal, had it right.

Congratulations. Your cynical “divide and conquer” method of turning Oregonians against each other through greed and envy was plainly successful.

Pat yourselves on the back and tell each other how smart you were to play on class envy and how the people were who fell for it are all so dull. Enjoy the fruits of your labors as they will further erode our democracy and the sense of unity needed to make it endure.

So much to be proud of.

I'm happy to know that Bob Tiernan thinks I'm stupid.

I thought this resembled the off election passing of levies before the double majority was adopted.

The government/union class won this round with a turnout advantage and the perceived tax increase many thought would not effect them. With nothing else on the ballot many non-governement/non-union voters tossed theirs.

The next round of trying to raise taxes, (repeal the kicker) and other progressive efforts won't be so easy.

The train wreck you promote is imminent, so enjoy your embellishment for now.

We own a mom and pop business (LLC with sub-chapter S passthrough). Even before the passing of 66 & 67, there are states friendlier to people like us (i.e., we get to keep more of our income). Even with the lower taxes, their services are at least as good for us (e.g. in Texas - where we are now).

I ask this seriously (not rhetorically): why would we want to move to Oregon, or if there, not move away (we are service based, so we have little equipment to transport)? What would we get in exchange for being able to keep less of our earnings?

The revenue from these measures is designated almost entirely to fund schools to educate Oregonians and increas their employability; social services for the unemployed; and criminal justice programs to deal with those unemployed who are turning to crime to obtain money.

Not to mention the thousands of state workers who depend on tax revenue directly for their jobs, AND the likelihood that our enhanced quality of life (better schools, an educated workforce, lower crime, a strong safety net) will attract employers to our state.

Oregon learned the lessons of the New Deal well. In order to fix a broken economy,you need a strong, active government with the funds to make the needed repairs.

Make no mistake: Measures 66 and 67 were a JOBS initiative.

We're Oregon. We use our revenue to make our corner of America a GREAT place to do business.

If you have jobs to offer, consider coming here. Your new employees will be literate and healthy and require less training and sick days than in those gulf coast states with substandard schools and health care.

You'll find well-maintained roads and parks around your store or factory. Good libraries, publicly supported art, police and fire protection. With a fully funded Department of Corrections, more of our criminals are off the streets and your business will be safer than it would be in the gulf coast states. The prevention of JUST ONE break-in or robbery will more than cover the piddling $150 corporate minimum tax you'll pay (still a great deal even at the new rate, beating out all but four out of 50 states, and giving you much more bang for the buck than those four).

And if things go bad or you locate in an Enterprise Zone, you might be eligible to take part in a block grant for struggling businesses, especially new ones.

All thanks to programs paid for with Oregon's revenue. It's a great deal for everybody.

Polly Pure Bread commented: This was a good old fashioned beat down of the teabaggers, neoliberals, libertarians, and Dick Armey-loving fools who are clueless when it comes to understanding the true nature of capitalism and economic theory.

Yes, the public sector matters douchebags...I mean teabaggers.

Nothing like lumping anybody and everybody who may have an opposing point of view into your favorite labeled whipping groups along with a good dose of insults and offensive name-calling to demonstrate class and one's ability to be a gracious victor - plus make a start at persuading those who might be open to persuasion of the rightness of your point of view.

That's rich, alcatross whining that commenting lacks grace on BlueOregon.

Congratulations, you lazy bastards in the public sector nabbed some low hanging fruit with a textbook class warfare campaign.

How will you get your next fix, since the jackasses in the capital building have shown exactly zero restraint on budgeting matters? Your real "constituency" in the public employee unions and composed of hand out recipients will easily absorb the new hit of confiscated money and come back demanding more in the parasitical way that they do.

Eventually you are going to strong arm too many people who actually have to risk their own efforts and treasure to make a living and the anti-public sector backlash will be a throat cutting, just like Measure 5 was.

So enjoy your high. The voters will eventually intervene and send you to rehab.

Admiral Naismith,

All you describe, we have here in central Texas (you paint the Gulf Coast with too broad a brush). We have a very literate workforce (among the most literate in the country). The roads are in good shape. There is little crime (at least where we are). Our fire departments are fine. We have many city and state parks. Based on my experience, we are just as comfortable here as we would be there (except for summer weather - it can be hot here - but neither the OR or TX governments control that).

By my reading of the tax rates given in the propositions (existing and new), we'd be paying not $150 more, but tens of thousands more. Indeed, if I understand it correctly, we'd be able to afford one less employee were we there and not here. How is that good?

The situation here is not unique. There are other states too that are friendlier to people like us, yet provide all that you list. So again, I don't see anything unique in Oregon that we cannot find cheaper elsewhere.

Surely we are not unique? How many others are in our situation?

One part of the State controls the rest. It is time to divide Oregon not just at the polls as was done yesterday, but geographically as well.

Hank- You don't want to move to Oregon. We like business owners that are good with math. They understand that 66 & 67: •Increase the $10 corporate minimum income tax for the first time since 1931. The new minimum will start at $150. •Increase the marginal tax rate on corporate profits above $250,000 by 1.3% (above $10 million in 2013) •Increase the marginal tax rate on personal income above $250,000 for couples by 1.8% ... which would only affect a "mom and pop" business marginally. In return, our Oregon businesses will get educated workers, and workers that can get to work because of our public transportation. Also, our businesses, their work forces, and all Oregonians will continue to have public safety and health services that are not compromised by budget issues. If you don't understand this, then I would be concerned that your lack of understanding of important investments may be a significan liability to your business. If you don't invest well, then that adds a considerable layer of risk to your business. If your business goes bankrupt due to the lack of smart investing, then it would be better for Oregon if you laid off Texans instead of Oregonians, and leaned on the public services there instead of here.

Hank:

Another advantage (to add to the list that PDXTan so elequently provided) to moving a business to Oregon:

IT'S NOT HOUSTON!

Very disappointed. I have no problem increasing unemployment benefits, but this state's budget and spending just keep going up, teachers get raises, state employees get to double dip and get COLA raises while we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

I moved a small consulting business (5 employees) here from Texas two years ago because we are from the PacNW and now am going to move it to Washington and will save over $50,000 in taxes. Yes I will pay an additional $2,000 in sales taxes per year, but the math makes sense.

Ask yourselves, why does Oregon have the second highest unemployment in the country? This is a simple trading of jobs for state employee raises. Maybe everybody can work for the state.

Oh, the trolls are out today. Folks who think that reading Ayn Rand's works of fiction provides a good understanding of economics.

After 30 years of tax cuts and concessions to the wealthy, one would think that a good corporate citizen could afford to share in the interests of their communities and employees. But the cult of "greed is good" and a fair amount of interference and money by outside interests drown out all reasonable (critical) thought for about 46% of our voters. Tragically, the upper 2-3% is able to convince 43% to vote against their own interests.

As a small business owner, I supported these measures. Having spent nearly 50 years in Oregon, I want to see improvements in our communities and educational system that does not entail a regressive tax.

For those business owners who would move their lot somewhere else because of these taxes, fine. They will bellyache no matter what. Further, if they can't afford these increased taxes, perhaps closing shop would be a good idea. We really don't need employers who have no investment in Oregon and we don't need large or multinational corporation's interests hiding behind the skirts of small businesses as they have done for so long.

We do, however, need a well-educated population from properly funded schools and some real support for local innovators to grow their businesses. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to improve our own economic lot in terms of encouraging entrepreneurship. And no, this increase in tax will not hinder such efforts, contrary to the myopic viewpoint.

It is time for balance in our taxation policies and this is a step in the right direction. Thank you, fellow Oregonians who supported these measures --

Northwest23rd says: "I think you Progessive Socialists need to get to work IMMEDIATELY on the next tax hike! This has been so successful, just think of all the jobs this will create!"

Wake up Northwest 23rd, you sound like another corporate slug. It's time to recognize where the real power is in this state, and clearly it's not with the business associations and the West Hills crowd. The big corporations and their wealthy owners are finally getting what is due them. I consider M66 & 67 merely a good start on what is needed to turn this state around. If you look at the statistics for job creation, it's clear that big business is no longer a driving force in the Oregon economy. Lasting jobs with family wages and good benefits are only created by the public sector. Small business suppliers, professional service firms and creatives are the only private sector we need, and these entities can exist in a symbiotic relationship with the public sector.

My hope is that our brethren in the labor advocacy movement are already working with the Governor, Senator Courtney and Speaker Hunt to craft the next round of assessments that will pry more needed revenue from the greedy hands of the rich corporate pillagers.

PDXTan: In my two posts prior to this, I made clear reference to both the existing taxes before 66 & 67 in addition to the increases. By my reckoning, we'd be paying tens of thousands more were in in Oregon - all up. It seems to me that 66 & 67 have made a bad situation worse (at least for people like us). By any measure (no pun intended), 66 & 67 do not encourage people like us. If I read the tone of your response correctly, you do not like what I have to write. Regardless, it is how we see things.

Scott in Damascus: We are in central Texas, not Houston (but yes, Houston is not a pretty place).

It is a shame, for much of Oregon is beautiful - but so are many other places.

I see that already.. calls are being made to Dismantle the voter approved "Kicker" law.. That law was approved by voters but it just sticks in the craw of the progressives that money sent to the state coffers must be returned to the tax payers if the state takes in more than they predict.

The call is made that "its decent", "be placed in a rainy day fund".. But yet the Legislature continues to spend.. and spend...

"but this state's budget and spending just keep going up, teachers get raises"

False

"state employees get to double dip and get COLA raises"

False

"I moved a small consulting business (5 employees) here from Texas two years ago because we are from the PacNW and now am going to move it to Washington and will save over $50,000 in taxes."

False

Just for the record:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffett November 26, 2006.

Just the headline of this post shows how the "Yes" campaign was so divisive and offensive. It suggests that anyone not in the "Yes" camp is not decent and lacks common sense. During the campaign, I heard too many times that if you care about children and education you have to vote "Yes". I'm a progressive "D". I care deeply about children and education. I'm a decent person with plenty of common sense. I voted "No". Please stop demonizing people like me.

Torridjoe said, "what sales tax does your business pay, as well as you personally? In Oregon, not a dime."

Sales tax on fuel, sales tax on utilities, sales tax on tobacco, sales tax on liqueur, sales tax on motels and hotels sales tax on garbage collection sales tax on and on and on

Then there's the fees and other excise taxes.

That's a lot of dimes. But as a public employee union guy you don't recognize them, except as being not nearly enough.

Increase the marginal tax rate on corporate profits above $250,000 by 1.3%

That should say "by 1.3 percentage points which is not the same as percent. The tax was raised by 20%.

Torridjoe: We have a sales tax (on "non-essentials", e.g. produce). We also have a property tax (which I would say is quite onerous). However, all up, the taxes we would pay via pass-through in Oregon would be much more than that we pay here collectively (based on the numbers I saw in the measures' texts). So either we would have to reduce our income, or lay off someone.

It seems to me that you have not seen central Texas. We lack little in the way of roads, services, education and quality of living. I know - I live here (after having lived in and visited many places). Yet we pay a lot less (to us) in taxes than we would in Oregon.

Comparing where we live to Mississippi is not reasonable. Texas is a big state. It is far from homogeneous. But if you prefer figures, I suggest you look at the relative growth of Texas with respect to migration of business and people from other states.

I'm not trying to advertise Texas. We keep an eye on elsewhere in the U.S. to ensure that we don't become the proverbial boiling frog here. We do wonder at the wisdom of increasing the burden on business in Oregon and assuming it won't adjust accordingly (e.g. move out of state).

Carla, Didn't some 71% of the yes votes come from Multnomah County? I heard a blip about that.

How statewide of Multnomah County.

I want to see improvements in our communities and educational system

Who claimed these taxes will improve anything. THis was about maintaining the status quo.

"By my reckoning, we'd be paying tens of thousands more were in in Oregon - all up." -- Hank

Let's see the math, troll. You're either lying or you have no idea what you're talking about. And honestly, if you love Texas so much, I guarantee you'd hate Oregon.

I'm very proud of Oregon this morning. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard on this campaign. To me, the most exciting part of the victory is now we have a good chance to convince the legislature to refer a kicker reform that will establish a robust rainy day fund for this November. If we can achieve that, we can give Oregon stability that it has not known in the past. In the past decade, we've experienced two major recessions that have been very hard on our schools and other public services. With this fresh in our collective memory, now is the time to work on long-term solutions.

Multnomah Co. voted 71% 'Yes'. That was less than 22% of the total 'Yes' tally.

I used the results published at 4 AM.

I further note that Multnomah County has 20% of Oregon's registered voters. You'll have to twist those statistics pretty hard to validate any claim that they are dictating any election results.

Frank Martin writes "I see that already.. calls are being made to Dismantle the voter approved "Kicker" law.. That law was approved by voters but it just sticks in the craw of the progressives that money sent to the state coffers must be returned to the tax payers if the state takes in more than they predict."

Actually, Frank, yesterday one of the heads of the "No" campaign was on OPB radio talking about how his business organization wanted to see the kicker reformed, and the money going to the state for a rainy day fund. He's hardly a progressive.

So basically...Bob Tiernan is calling Oregonians stupid? Is he calling Oregon a stupid state? Would he like to get that quoted in the Oregonian and WWeek?

@Randy: You're not smart enough to run a company of any sort. Seriously. You're making up numbers. Washington still has a much higher overall corporate tax. If you had the brains to run your company right, instead of dragging it around the country in some sort of single minded tax dodging mission (instead of delivering a product), you'd have crunched the numbers and realized you'd be paying much more in Washington. I say you're a troll and you don't own a company. If you do, however...good luck with that.

@Richard: Hey, don't blame Multnomah County for voting one way or the other. It's conservatives fault for hiding out in the suburbs and trying to avoid the rest of society. If more of you folks moved downtown, voting numbers would change.

Cheesus Cripes: From www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2010/301text.pdf - see the marginal rates of 10.8% and 11%. From elsewhere, I understand that the new rates will drop to 9.9% for income over $125,000 after 2012.

From www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2010/302text.pdf - more complex, but see the rates as amended on reported income. As I read it, Section 5.(2) specifies a tax bracket of 7.9% for taxable income over $250,000.

The former is as much an issue for us as the latter, given the sub-chapter S pass-through nature of our business. Of course, I might be misunderstanding it, but if the above is accurate, it far exceeds the property tax and sales taxes we pay here (to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars).

Thank you very much to Steve Novick and everyone who worked on the yes campaigns.

Progressive taxation lives!

My father and I own a small business here in Oregon where we were both born and raised. And we both voted yes on 66 and 67. Some business owners understand that our companies are made possible and profitable by a strong and vibrant public infrastructure. Without a strong public school system, we would not have educated employees. And they need a strong social safety net for when they fall on hard times, like many are now.

The times of the greedy and irresponsible business owners getting away with taking advantage of the middle class in this State are coming to an end. When so many middle class workers are out of work, they tend to look more closely at the way things around them are being done. And when they see large corporations and the wealthy not carrying their fair share of the burden, they rightfully ask "why?".

The passage of these measures is a great victory for the hard working middle-class people of this State. And a much welcomed rejection of the insane "trickle-down" economic hood-wink of the Regan years.

My father and I own a small business here in Oregon where we were both born and raised. And we both voted yes on 66 and 67. Some business owners understand that our companies are made possible and profitable by a strong and vibrant public infrastructure. Without a strong public school system, we would not have educated employees. And they need a strong social safety net for when they fall on hard times, like many are now.

The times of the greedy and irresponsible business owners getting away with taking advantage of the middle class in this State are coming to an end. When so many middle class workers are out of work, they tend to look more closely at the way things around them are being done. And when they see large corporations and the wealthy not carrying their fair share of the burden, they rightfully ask "why?".

The passage of these measures is a great victory for the hard working middle-class people of this State. And a much welcomed rejection of the insane "trickle-down" economic hood-wink of the Regan years.

My father and I own a small business here in Oregon where we were both born and raised. And we both voted yes on 66 and 67. Some business owners understand that our companies are made possible and profitable by a strong and vibrant public infrastructure. Without a strong public school system, we would not have educated employees. And they need a strong social safety net for when they fall on hard times, like many are now.

The times of the greedy and irresponsible business owners getting away with taking advantage of the middle class in this State are coming to an end. When so many middle class workers are out of work, they tend to look more closely at the way things around them are being done. And when they see large corporations and the wealthy not carrying their fair share of the burden, they rightfully ask "why?".

The passage of these measures is a great victory for the hard working middle-class people of this State. And a much welcomed rejection of the insane "trickle-down" economic hood-wink of the Regan years.

My father and I own a small business here in Oregon where we were both born and raised. And we both voted yes on 66 and 67. Some business owners understand that our companies are made possible and profitable by a strong and vibrant public infrastructure. Without a strong public school system, we would not have educated employees. And they need a strong social safety net for when they fall on hard times, like many are now.

The times of the greedy and irresponsible business owners getting away with taking advantage of the middle class in this State are coming to an end. When so many middle class workers are out of work, they tend to look more closely at the way things around them are being done. And when they see large corporations and the wealthy not carrying their fair share of the burden, they rightfully ask "why?".

The passage of these measures is a great victory for the hard working middle-class people of this State. And a much welcomed rejection of the insane "trickle-down" economic hood-wink of the Regan years.

My father and I own a small business here in Oregon where we were both born and raised. And we both voted yes on 66 and 67. Some business owners understand that our companies are made possible and profitable by a strong and vibrant public infrastructure. Without a strong public school system, we would not have educated employees. And they need a strong social safety net for when they fall on hard times, like many are now.

The times of the greedy and irresponsible business owners getting away with taking advantage of the middle class in this State are coming to an end. When so many middle class workers are out of work, they tend to look more closely at the way things around them are being done. And when they see large corporations and the wealthy not carrying their fair share of the burden, they rightfully ask "why?".

The passage of these measures is a great victory for the hard working middle-class people of this State. And a much welcomed rejection of the insane "trickle-down" economic hood-wink of the Regan years.

My father and I own a small business here in Oregon where we were both born and raised. And we both voted yes on 66 and 67. Some business owners understand that our companies are made possible and profitable by a strong and vibrant public infrastructure. Without a strong public school system, we would not have educated employees. And they need a strong social safety net for when they fall on hard times, like many are now.

The times of the greedy and irresponsible business owners getting away with taking advantage of the middle class in this State are coming to an end. When so many middle class workers are out of work, they tend to look more closely at the way things around them are being done. And when they see large corporations and the wealthy not carrying their fair share of the burden, they rightfully ask "why?".

The passage of these measures is a great victory for the hard working middle-class people of this State. And a much welcomed rejection of the insane "trickle-down" economic hood-wink of the Regan years.

My humble apologies for the rabid multi-post above... =(

Thanks to those of you who were brave & committed enough to volunteer for days & days. One hour of phone banking taught me that I would be better off just trying to convince all my friends to get their ballots in, & I think I probably convinced about 10 or 12 people to vote who might not otherwise have gotten around to it (plus I donated every penny I could scrape up to the Yes campaign).

This was a win for grassroots volunteers and the middle class. Thank you all so much!

I have to say I am happily amazed that this passed. Oregonians seem to be waking up and becoming more immune to corporate cowpucky.

ps. I'm a small business owner who wants a good education for his kids and other services. I also know that the money I pay in taxes to the state, stays in the state, and I've got a good chance of getting it back.

Not wanting to further a flame war with Texans, just some economic data from Statemaster.com (albeit dated a few years):

Total state tax burden per capita: OR: #40, $1700 TX: #50, $1368

Total personal income per capita: OR: #30, $32,070 TX: #28, $32,575

People below poverty level: OR: #19: 14.1% TX: #8: 16.6%

Lesson taken: Texas is a tax haven for those unconcerned about leaving their fellow citizens destitute. You can have that state.

I understand 66. I don't understand 67. When corporate income taxes increase, the costs of their services/products increase, and so the affected corporation will raise the prices of their services/products and the consumer of those services/products actually pays the tax. I know that Winco and Dari Mart will see tax increases, and I know that I will be paying the tax in the products that I buy at their stores. How is this a good thing? I am in the lower income group, very close to fixed income on Social Security, and yet I will be paying this tax. Why are you celebrating? Corporations do not pay taxes--never have and never will. I have owned or managed many corporations. I never paid any tax-just passed the expense along to my customers.

Richard

This is fun! My apologies if I seem to be writing too much. All the while the discussion remains civil, it is both interesting and entertaining. Besides, I'm recovering from a minor injury and this helps distract.

Lee Coleman: Given your emotive language, hyperbola and blatant inaccuracy (regarding the tax rates), I suspect you are "trolling". If so, then shame on me for taking the bait.

A: this link to the Tax Foundation shows relative state tax burdens from 1977 through to 2008 (indeed, my Google search string was "states ranked by tax burden"): www.taxfoundation.org/files/sl_burden_1977-2008-200808073.pdf. According to them, Oregon's state tax burden has in that time always been high to middling (improving suddenly in 1996). Texas' tax burden over that time was always low. Never in that time has Oregon had a lower tax burden than Texas.

B: Civilized? That's a subjective measure. Your taxation is clearly not "phenomenally low". As regards the relative levels of education, Oregon does exceed Texas - 28.3% vs. 25.2% with at least a bachelor's degree (another link found using Google: www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p20-560.pdf). However, speaking again about central Texas (where we live and own a business), the level of education is very high. It is a center of high tech industry. Weather? I recall West Oregon as being quite damp. But perhaps in August you have a point (100F and higher in the afternoon here).

Referring back to the Tax Foundation's link above, I notice that the growth in Texas' per capita income has for a long time exceeded Oregon's. Said income for Texas overtook Oregon's in 1999. I suspect that's an effect of the type of thing we are discussing here.

Ed Bickford: I don't want to leave my fellow citizens destitute. But I don't want to be forced to give them a handout either. I have my own ideas as to which causes are worthy of support. When taxes are increased, I no longer have a meaningful say in how that money - which I made - is spent. How would I, as a small businessman, stop it from feeding yet another bloated Oregonian bureaucracy?

You might think me greedy, cold-hearted or mean. Regardless, if your state's tax environment is unfriendly, we won't be there doing business. Your state gathers zero taxes from us. In no way is that of benefit to you or the people you care about. I'm not here to trumpet for Texas, but perhaps this state has weathered the deep recession relatively well precisely because it is less hostile to business.

We are just one small business. But if our decision making is typical, a lot of small businesses might not start in Oregon or avoid moving there. Last time I checked, something like 75% of U.S. commercial activity was due to small business.

No doubt people here are tiring of my posts. I'll ease up.

Doh! Replace hyperbola with hyperbole. Apologies.

Yee Haw! We have nothing to fear now re our collapsing economy!

We Progressive Democrats have yet another "victory", and we know it's a progressive victory because we were in favor of it.

Ben Bernanke Must Go: We Need a New Wall Street and a New Fed:

"Wall Street, with Bernanke's help, has instituted a system of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. If Wall Street wins, their executives receive millions in bonuses and they keep all of their profits. If Wall Street loses, taxpayers bail them out, and their executives still keep their bonuses.

"As the middle class of this country continues to suffer, we need a chairman of the Fed who is more concerned about expanding the productive economy – increasing decent-paying jobs for all Americans – than continuing to fan the flames of Wall Street greed that precipitated this crisis."

@Hank: "When taxes are increased, I no longer have a meaningful say in how that money - which I made - is spent."

It always comes down to their contempt for democratic governance for people who are obsessive over business' overweening ambitions.

They are an isolated oasis of industry that owes no man for the success they have enjoyed (not) while utilizing the common infrastructure supported by every man jack in their community. They say they have no "meaningful say" in the use of community funds because they cannot veto expenses they don't like. They don't feel the contempt the founding fathers heap on the like of the East India Co. of our day because they have no appreciation of the history that got us here.

Posted by: Elaine | Jan 27, 2010 9:17:07 AM

Oh, the trolls are out today. Folks who think that reading Ayn Rand's works of fiction provides a good understanding of economics.

So is the word "Libertarian" trashed beyond usage? I can tell you that I know five- count 'em- registered libertarians, that voted yes/yes.

It seems that the microdot-L libertarians have taken over the show.

"I don't want to leave my fellow citizens destitute. But I don't want to be forced to give them a handout either."

Because Hank, and only Hank, should be allowed to decide who gets unemployment, whose children should be allowed to receive S-CHIP funds, and which neighborhoods should be allowed to collect food stamps.

"I have my own ideas as to which causes are worthy of support."

And guess what Hank - so do I! In fact, I'm not too keen on your brand of religion, so I'm going to talk to the mayor about disconnecting your church to the public water system. And I don't care too much for "your kind" (if you get my drift) so I don't want to see your kids in our public schools. Fact of the matter is I don't want a single dime of my taxes to benefit you or your family in any way, shape, or form.

Ed Bickford: We were discussing welfare for our destitute fellow man. You extract a single line and turn my dislike of enforced charity and bloated bureaucracy into an unwillingness to pay for the infrastructure I use.

It would be dead right for us to pay for that which we use. But rest assured, we pay more than our fair share (comparing our taxes against others with much larger "footprints"). Our business has relatively tiny energy and transportation requirements. What additional value would we receive were we in Oregon, paying yet more?

And why do they use the third person plural?

Scott in Damascus: Yes, Hank and only Hank should get to decide what WELFARE (not infrastructure) is funded WITH THE MONEY HE MADE. You do not have a better idea than I how I should contribute, just as I do not have a better idea than you what you should do with the wealth you create.

Your illustration as to how the police power of government might be used to deny others based on little more than bigotry is wonderful. You highlight the fundamental problem with using government to redistribute charity far better than I could, given that it comes from your keyboard.

When all is said and done, you can dislike my view on these things until you are, well, blue in the face. Oregon's existing and new taxes reduce any desire to move there. Meanwhile, another state - with lower taxes - gets the revenue.

OK, I think my position is clear. I yield the floor.

Hank:

You keep claiming the government is forcing charity and you have no say in who gets it.

For one thing, we are talking mostly about quality education, maintaining roads, and keeping cops on the beat, not welfare.

But even if we were talking about welfare, as a citizen, you do have a say. You have a vote. You can contact your representatives and ask them to do what you want with taxpayers' money. You can organize your neighbors and get them to call their representatives, you can organize and get new representative elected. You have the power to get your state's money spent on whatever you think is right, as long as your ideas are convincing enough to gain support from your neighbors, and as long as you put in the effort to participate.

Just because you have no interest in participating in your community, and just because you may not be able to get anyone to listen to your crazy ideas doesn't mean you don't have a say. You do.

Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne

Contemplate your own mortality, Hank, and become a better citizen. . . of Texas.

We won, Oregon won, you lost suckas!

One should note that these measures were not uniformly opposed by "big" business. The money raised by the No campaign was rather paltry, it could have been much larger if there was real business opposition. This was a "conservative" cause, meaning wingnut, teabagger, loony. The Oregonian disgraced itself by getting on board. The majority of Oregon businesses are good corporate citizens, or at least understand that their future is linked tightly with local conditions.

Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 27, 2010 8:45:12 AM

I would add that there's nothing about this vote that had to do with liberals versus teabaggers or urban versus rural........This is no time to create political ill will.

Let's behave like the good stewards of Oregon's future we hope to be.

Isn't that priceless?...and so typical!

I live in Malheur County. I've been unemployed for 5 months....and I STILL don't think it's your responsibility to take care of me. Oh....I'm also a member of the Tea Party! How ironic is that?

If it's not about power and control, why is it that "progressives" believe everyone needs a nanny? Don't tell me it's about compassion either. I never see a progressive volunteering their own money, without demanding it be taken from everyone else! How many of you have ever voluteered for Special Olympics, or do special needs foster care? I do!...Yet "Conservatives" are supposed to be so cold hearted and selfish.

I have survived without being on one single government program. NOTHING! If you have compassion and want to prove it, send me some money, while I train for the new job I start in about a month! Otherwise, you're exposed!

Sorry I didn't spell it out for you lestadick. Progressives believe in the Nanny State! Government must do everything! The people are helpless!

Hey, keep "progressive" in quotes, as you were, peckerwood! True progressives find this crap more tiresome than your surface percept crowd can imagine!

Hope there's a beaver in your future. Fucking dittohead judging my knowledge of history? I miss Beaverbrook and his #bringbackdueling twitter campaign. He hit the nail on the head that if you are going to debate policy with these guys, with an eye toward moving society ahead, it will only be done with an issue you can start by seeing eye to eye on, and changing the law to allow dueling seems a very logical place to start.

You can't start to hate tepid Dems like real progressives do. They're little threat to you. They're trying to each our lunch, just so Rush can't call them a bad word (liberal). Hey, tepid Dems, grow some. Lambasting right wing radio for their hatred of a word based on "freedom" shouldn't be a bridge too far, ever for you all.

@Zarathustra

Hate suits you! I guess that's very....progressive. Carry on!

I voted for both 66 and 67. Now I am questioning a "yes" vote on 67, only because it seems to create this gross receipts tax on gross (vs. net) sales, not profits from sales. Please somebody explain why we should be taxing businesses on anything other than profit? For businesses that have high sales but low or negative profit margins on annual sales, this is a no-brainer: CLOSE DOWN THE BUSINESS! ...or, at the least, move to another state. Punishing businesses for losing profit or breaking even can't be the answer. Somebody without an ideological slant, somebody with insight into the logic of the GRT concept, please clarify. Thanks.

That was discussed on here ad nauseam. If you're just getting to it, you're a week late and $150 short!

Actually, it hasn't been discussed by either side in detail, here or anywhere else.

But I do thank you for your cynical attempt at another diversion. Obviously, you don't understand it any better than anyone else. Rage on, hairball!

Posted by: mattie | Feb 7, 2010 10:47:13 AM

But I do thank you for your cynical attempt at another diversion. Obviously, you don't understand it any better than anyone else. Rage on, hairball!

Yeah, I'm a shill for the measures and my comments never get to the details. Congrats. You've just made the greatest mis-characterization in the history of the blog!

TORRID, Thanks for the thoughtful, well-informed explanation. No one in their right mind can dispute your point that tax codes, state and federal, are so easily manipulated by corporations to hide or exempt profits. And I think that's why legislators in many states are thinking seriously about all ways that they can improve revenue. Oregon's budget problems are mirrored natiowide.

Actually, as of 2007, only seven states imposed a GRT: Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and Washington. I haven't been able to find if other states have created a GRT since then, except, of course, in Oregon.

One analysis, a bit too technical for me, explains why the GRT is a rising trend for state governments:

http://www.rsmmcgladrey.com/State-and-Local-Tax-Watch/Gross-receipts-taxes-A-growing-trend-in-state-taxation?itemid=403&mid=403

In large part, it boils down to Congress's actions to limit the ability of states to tax. I guess that's additional proof that belies Republicans' claim to ardently defend states' rights and limited federal governance.

I still have doubts about the wisdom of taxing start-up, small, and profitless businesses, but agree that the large and multi-national corporations have had a free or near-free ride on the backs of citizen taxpayers. There is also conflicting information about whether the GRT only kicks in at a certain level of revenue, which makes a huge difference in the fairness of the tax. Some say it starts at $250,000, other say $500,000 ...

I really believe that our state should be doing everything to attract small to medium size businesses so that Oregon does not become a state beholden to the large corporate culture. We need to encourage local, sustainable manufacturing and self-sufficiency every way possible.

At any rate, thanks for the fair and balanced analysis, and please keep writing explanations for the likes of me and for the simpleton likes of Zarathustra.

DEAR SHILL, Thanks for your honest confession.

mattie, look at the world around you. Are torrid and I the best combatants you can find? Of course, if the others get proportionately more haranguing, then by all means carry on! Digs are wasted on people that are humble enough to appreciate them, anyway. Many here (not saying you) mistake the strength with which social justice positions are presented with person ego. Projection, that. And of course anything slightly prophetic gets the reaction that it has since Boomer was a pup. "Reform your minds and your lives for the end is nigh", is never going to be immediately palatable. It is, often, unfortunately true. Great societies find a way to heed the warning and change course after, of course, they have discredited, broken and killed the messenger. Lesser societies only bother with the latter.