"... their latest diatribe is an attack on the concept of progressive taxation. That’s the principle that taxes should be based on ability to pay."

It seems that most, if not all, states with lotteries agree with The Oregonian. The lottery is a cynical device that takes advantage of the ill-educated and vulnerable to make up for a shortfall in state revenues that others who are in better financial condition could and should.

Chuck, I looked at the ITEP report you linked to. (At a debate last night at PSU, a questioner asked a question obviously based on the report, so I'm glad you provided this link.) It's too bad you didn't include the whole report for everyone to read. The report (based on its methodology, which definitely has an ideological bias, but I'll accept it for purposes of argument) indicates that Delaware has the "least regressive" state tax system. (Although it doesn't rank all the states, as far as I could see, scanning the numbers, Oregon was definitely one of the "better" states.) Delaware taxes the lowest income quintile at 6% and the highest income quintile at between 4.5 and 5.2%. Oregon taxes the lowest income quintile at 8.7% (definitely higher than Delaware) but the highest quintile at between 6.2 and 7.4% (also way higher than Delaware). Oregon taxes all quintiles substantially more than Delaware. The report seems to say that Oregon takes quite a bit more from all of its citizens in state taxes than Delaware, the "best" state, that Oregon already taxes the highest income quintile at a substantially higher rate than the "best" state, and that Oregon overtaxes the poor. The problem, from the point of view of this report, isn't that Oregon's well-to-do don't pay enough in taxes, it's that our poor pay too much. Raising the effective rate on the rich isn't going to help reduce regressivity nearly as much as reducing taxes on the poor would. Bob Wiggins

I'm amazed Chuckie, that after supporting-endorsing every tax increase, for God knows how long, you have the audacity to whine now about the Oregonian's flip.

I guess I shouldn't be amazed though since you'd probably pick my pocket too and think that was legal.

I also received a "phony" piece of mail today and noticed that one of 66-67 supporters is AARP. No wonder they are losing members in droves.

After 40+ years of the left/progressive/liberal crowd like that that largely haunts BO here actively attempting to push religion out of day-to-day society as much as possible and continual caterwauling about the need for separation of church and state, it's odd indeed to read Chuck here invoking Luke Chapter 21 as a text for his latest sermon in The Church of Soak The Rich.

First of all, it's important to note that the widow in question here voluntarily cast her two small brass coins into the treasury of the temple - not to Ceasar's treasury under threat of fines, imprisonment, or (in those days) worse. Jesus was specifically speaking of people giving money to the church/temple for religious purposes to the glory of God - not to the Oregon state government to the glory of Kulongoski. What happened to the sacred liberal doctrine of separation of church and state all the sudden?

Further, Jesus' observation here only occupies two verses of Luke Chapter 21 - the PRIMARY message in the other 30 odd verses is summarized best by Luke 21:36 "Therefore be watchful all the time, asking that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will happen, and to stand before the Son of Man."

Do we have a Christian duty to share our God-given blessings with others? Definitely. But not through government coercion. When government becomes the central hub for the distribution of wealth, people's work no longer belongs to them; it belongs to the greater society. As Americans, we are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." By burdening upper-income earners with ever higher taxes in order to "restore fairness," we're in effect saying that some of us are entitled to happiness without the pursuit.

For accuracy, the context in which Adam Smith is making the assertion you quote here specifically regards his discussion of house rents, which is a commodity widely differentiated by quality, convenience and splendor, and it begins:

"A tax upon house-rents, therefore would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

When quoting from Adam Smith, it is incumbent on the writer to make clear the context. Otherwise a particular statement by Adam Smith can be given a general meaning, in this case for all forms of taxation, when he very obviously intended it to refer to a very particular case.

Smith preferred that taxation should fall, where possible, on luxuries rather than basic necessities. Housing is a necessity but housing came in all levels of opulence and was therefore treatable as a luxury for some taxpayers, who in consequence should (and do yet today) pay more tax on their houses and palaces.

Citing a selective compilation of modeled tax data expressed in % of average household incomes where two of the three tax components (property and sales taxes) are NOT levied on the basis of annual income to demonstrate tax regressivity is a rather meaningless exercise. And as someone pointed out here already, per this modeled data, Oregon's state/local tax burden is less regressive than many if not most states.

Alcatross makes an excellent point worth repeating -- of the 3 major components of "family tax burden" described in the linked ITEP report, only one is structured based on "ability to pay" (i.e., income tax) with the other two (sales and property taxes) being based upon the value of items purchased or property owned.

If you examine the actual ability-to-pay component of taxation, Oregon is clearly quite progressive as it is, with burdens ranging from only 2.2% at the low end up to 6.5% at the high end.

I understand the complaint about levying higher effective rates against a lower basis -- i.e., a true "regressive" tax structure. But it seems that this is being conflated with a very different argument, to wit: the poor are more sensitive to prices than the rich. Which, frankly, has nothing to do with tax policy and ought to have no real bearing here.

In other words, the cost of a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas is a larger percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's income. This much is not in dispute.

However, what is disputable is the "logic" that effectively claims: "A poor person can not as easily afford to purchase a gallon of gas, therefore it is more fair that a rich person should pay increased income tax."

Allow me to demonstrate that fallacy with a hypothetical:

According to the ITEP report, the lowest-rung earners pay 1.8% of family income in "Other sales & excise taxes", which I presume to mean primarily gasoline taxes (are there other individual sales & excise taxes in the state?)

Would those of you worried about the claimed regressivity of the overall tax structure be willing to grant credit to a high-income earner who chose to drive a fleet of gas-guzzling sports cars, such that the total gas taxes paid for the year worked out to 1.8% of his family income? Such a person would certainly then be paying a significantly larger overall percentage of family income than the poorest person. Should those who pay more taxes by dint of overconsumption relative to income level be given a break?

What if a high-income person chose to purchase a very expensive house with significantly higher value than average for his income group, and therefore paid significantly higher property taxes relative to his income -- say up to the 4.2% of income listed in the ITEP report for the lowest rung? Should those who overspend on housing relative to their income be praised for helping to "restore tax fairness" through their actions?

One other question regarding methodology in the ITEP report -- what exactly is included in the category "Property Taxes on Families"?

Does this include some implied property tax component for rents?

I find it curious that significant numbers of families with incomes in the lowest 20% bracket would be directly subject to property tax, as I would naturally expect a very low proportion of property owners in that group.

Since the property tax element in that bottom 20% category makes up more than half of the "total tax burden" for that group (4.4% property tax out of 8.7% total) I think it is very important to understand how that number is derived.

Increasing the taxes paid by the well to do will not change much. It'll just mean more services for the well to do.

The government has known for sometime that the well to do pay at a lower rate than the poor and get more services which is why instead of taxing them just bill them.

College subsidies should be based on need. That is means test them.

The transportation marketplace should be opened up and the damn occupational licensing laws that protect lawyers and other so called professionals from competition should be abolished along with a host of other changes.

Get the government off the backs of the people and they'll be able to stand up!

Paulie,

Not only was the dairy letter sent from the warehouse district of Salem, but from the parking lot of that building one can see some state office buildings.

We got the great Our Oregon mailer yesterday.

Today when we visited my sister and her family up in Washington County, I took it and left it at her house.

David Wright commented: ...what exactly is included in the category "Property Taxes on Families"?

Does this include some implied property tax component for rents?

I find it curious that significant numbers of families with incomes in the lowest 20% bracket would be directly subject to property tax, as I would naturally expect a very low proportion of property owners in that group.

Since the property tax element in that bottom 20% category makes up more than half of the "total tax burden" for that group (4.4% property tax out of 8.7% total) I think it is very important to understand how that number is derived.

I had this very same question. From a quick perusal of some of the accompanying text in the report, it seems they did exactly what you suggest - assuming some % of rent as 'implied' property tax payments. Good luck finding exactly how those numbers are derived though. Personally, I find the presentation of '% of average household income' and whole basis of the 'microsimulation' modeled data and use of 'averages' in this report rather dubious - designed/rigged to support a certain political idealogy/viewpoint. Not unlike some of the data extracted from the UN IPCC reports used as the basis of the whole global warming (oops... now 'climate change') movement.

But Chuck or someone else here cites this report in a post or comment with almost Goebbels-like regularity at least once every 3 to 4 weeks...

This tax stuff doesn't make sense. If you want to relieve the poor from excise tax that would be federal. If you make $20,000 you won't be paying tax at all. Income taxes are scaled based on income. Up to a certain amount you will pay the same as everyone that made the same, over that you pay a higher percentage. I can't remember the numbers and the break points but it goes something like this.

Let's say you earn $250,000. Notice I said earn. It may be foriegn to some here. The first, lets say, $25,000 you pay the same as any one who has earned only $25,000, 10%. The next $25000 you pay 25%. You notice the guy who didn't earn over $25000 did not have to pay the extra tax on something he did not earn while the guy who earned the extra $25000 paid 25% on it. Shocking huh? Now after the next $25000 he pays 45%. If you are keeping track we are at $75000 for those of you who can count. At a total of $100000 you pay and increase tax above the last $75000. It continues from there and yes there is a maximum I believe but I have never seen it so I don't know. I am sure some of the hypocrite journalists make more than I but they will never say they do, they want to fool you sheep that they are sheep to.

THESE ARE NOT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, but you get the idea. You don't pay the same or less as the "poor" family if you are "rich". A luxury tax is an invitation to socialism and loss of freedom. I have friends in Holland who are subjected to this type of socialist scam. You ever have the Federal Tax inspector visit your house to see if you bought a new TV? It happens in Holland. Why do you think our ancestors left Europe? Wake up idiots, these tax measures are bad!

But Chuck or someone else here cites this report in a post or comment with almost Goebbels-like regularity at least once every 3 to 4 weeks...

If you go to the home page for ITEP, you can see that OCPP's (Chuck) analysis is used in the report.

Why would you have that expectation? A significant number of retirees are home owners.

Very true Sal, I certainly thought of that... but the ITEP report is specifically on "Shares of family income for non-elderly taxpayers". (Emphasis mine.)

I think it's reasonable to assume that means most retirees are not included.

Having hated the Oregonian since delivering that stack of crap in the 1950s (thanks for the lower right shoulder, distribution), I don't even pretend to think of them ever as anything but the rich's cheerleader. I haven't read that crappy paper since the 1970s and have no clue as to what chowderhead would possibly read it.

A perfect waste of good trees, killing that "news" organization is a plus. Trees suck up CO2. The Oregonian undoubtedly still produces enormous amounts of farts.

Increasing taxes on the working and middle class families eats up a larger share of their disposable income and, dollar-for-dollar, has a greater negative impact on consumer spending than increasing taxes on high net worth households.

I would agree with that, as far as it goes, Sal.

But are you arguing that it is government's role to only do that which will provide the greatest boost to consumer spending? I thought the point of 66/67 was to increase state tax revenue, not prop up consumer spending.

There are two main points to be considered in the whole 66/67 debate, I think.

Point #1: Does the state require additional revenue?

Obvious room for disagreement on this one -- some say the state can cut less-essential services and meet the lower revenues if 66/67 fails, others saying there's no way to cut any deeper. The first step in convincing an undecided voter to vote YES is to make the argument that the revenue is absolutely necessary.

Point #2: If the state does require additional revenue, how should that revenue be generated?

Once you accept that the revenue is necessary, then you must argue that 66/67 are the best means to get that revenue. Hence the incessant drum-beat of "tax fairness" on this site to justify the specific mechanisms of 66/67. With, of course, the corresponding argument that anyone who opposes 66/67 is "anti-tax-fairness".

Of course, "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Given that the income-based tax component is up for discussion, and given that this component is already quite "progressive" even by the figures listed in the ITEP report, I might argue that making that tax more progressive isn't necessarily fair. In fact, I could argue that it would be inherently unfair, despite the repeated claims here to the contrary, because it requires a small percentage of taxpayers to contribute to services that are presumed essential to everyone in the state.

An alternative might be, for example, to impose a small rate surcharge across the board. Say, hypothetically, that the tax rate in each bracket is increased by 10% (the actual adjustment might need to be a little different but probably not much). Thus, the previous 5% bracket would become 5.5%; 7% becomes 7.7%; and 9% becomes 9.9%. Such a scheme would put all taxpayers in the game (which I believe to be critical to "fairness"), yet would still take relatively more from the rich than from the poor thus very slightly increasing progressivity of the tax system.

And, when I said:

[T]he poor are more sensitive to prices than the rich. Which, frankly, has nothing to do with tax policy and ought to have no real bearing here.

I meant that in regards to determining the relative "fairness" of M66. That a gallon of gas requires a larger percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's income has absolutely no bearing on whether any given income tax rate for any given person (rich or poor) is "fair".

One might indeed argue that the mechanism in 66 would be better for the consumer economy than a given alternative, but that also does not bear upon "tax fairness", which seems to be the preferred mantra of the pro-66/67 crowd.

You people remember what Thomas Jefferson said.

"A government big enough to give us everything we want is also a government big enough to take everything we have."

Think before you vote.

Dan Petergorsky commented: ...to quote Teddy Roosevelt, arguing against inherited economic power...:

Easy for TR, raised in privilege with summers in the country taking childhood vacations throughout Europe and the Middle East and provided an education at Harvard, to write those words likely from the comfort of his 23-room mansion on his 155 acre Sagamore Hill spread in Oyster Bay, NY (purchased at age 22...) Having read a number of books on TR, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't allow that either he or the country was particularly disadvantaged by HIS inheritance of Roosevelt wealth - it's just his view from his comfortable writing desk in his opulent library/study that such inheritances would not be good for everyone else (a typical Roosevelt elitist train of thought...) Easy for TR to write those words after he received and took every bit of advantage of his inherited wealth - and I know he didn't scrimp on providing a comfortable financial legacy for his first daughter Alice... not so certain regarding his other less well-known children but suspect they were supported no differently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying TR didn't work/play hard and deserve his successes... but there's also no denying he benefited from his family's wealth his whole life. So I've always found his writings against inherited economic power a bit disingenuous...

Speaking of the Roosevelts the Delano as in Franklin Delano Roosevelt made his money in the opium trade.

Posted by: Blue Collar Libertarian | Jan 10, 2010 6:20:26 AM

Speaking of the Roosevelts the Delano as in Franklin Delano Roosevelt made his money in the opium trade.

Hey! This is a respectable blog. Anything not in a grade school history text is a "conspiracy theory" and all conspiracy theorists are nutters.

As stated elsewhere:

I have a theory. Most people pay their Federal, go to their Oregon return, write off the Federal, which is usually more, and effectively pay little or none to Oregon. By taxing gross receipts the process will be reversed. Ricky's point that I can't remember anyone bothering to address though he's raised it constantly, about "doesn't this fly in the face of how Obama is trying to stabilize the economy" takes on new vigor, if you think I'm right.

So, this is good news, if I'm right. The beginning of the end of the Bush admin. came when Carl Rove tried to give the Rs a permanent majority. A lot of seemingly invincible political machines come unhinged when they get that heady sense of ultimate power, and decide to finish the game once and for all. How about Nixon after his big win? Reagan never had any pressure for his antics until he allowed 41 to set up a shadow government in the basement. 43 couldn't resist that favorite fascist plan to rid America of democracy by creating a financial panic. So, if the Oregon lege think they're going to permanently eat the fed's lunch, that's probably the last mistake they'll make. You mention the key. He's the only one that has been on the inside. It belies the fact that the party moniker is purely for the voters' consumption. It's like religion. Methodist, Jewish, Catholic Ph.D level theologians agree as much among themselves as between themselves, but they don't let the faithful know that. They would be shocked, so they play the "we're a separate religion" card.

The theory certainly explains one thing. It's more than a little odd how this blog has taken on the guise of the play-within-a-play in Hamlet, with Novick playing the King and Carla playing the queen. I'm left like Gertrude in the opinion that "methinks the lady doth protest too much".

Chuck as Polonius, lecturing the Oregonian as if they were Laertes. A number of threads have proved that no one is listening. This has become a soliloquy. BO contributor Kristin Teigen put it best, "I'm beginning to like the strategy of just posting something and then letting it go...realizing that the comments aren't going to make or break an idea...". Which is pretty much the definition of soliloquy, and fair notice to us that we are talking to the air. Better that. Less insulting and your pets may listen.

From above - I have a theory. Most people pay their Federal, go to their Oregon return, write off the Federal, which is usually more, and effectively pay little or none to Oregon.

No to the facts - unfortunately Oregon "caps" the amount of federal tax that is deductible from the state return. Even in the middle income levels lots of Oregonians pay state taxes on federal taxes already paid.

Heck, the controlling party in Salem DECOUPLED OR tax rules from the federal rules a few years ago. That is why the $2,300 exemption on unemployment even ends up in M66 (it could have been done many, many other ways); it was merely a mirror of Obama's federal tax exemption.

I was talking to 3-20 somethings yesterday at breakfast. They were tired that from middle school on they percieved education as being held hostage. They were tired of the high income taxes, they were tired of lots of promise and no change (one is even thinking of emigrating to the EU).

The one thing that they were all in favor of (without prompting) was a 5% sales tax, preferably all dedicated to public education for Oregon.

By reading this, I assume you are all for a Cadillac tax on those with great benefits to help support those with not so great benefits?

"a measure of redistribution not only promotes the general welfare"

A measure of redistribution only increases the size of the govt to administer it. All of these moneis that don't go to taxes do get spent: - Saving for retrirement - Paying for medical deductibles - Saving for kids tuition - Investing in our economy - Personal rainy day funds

Money does not sit in a lock box unused regardless of what you think. Everyone is looking to optimize their return.

Of course, some people have more money than others and engage in conspcious consumption. That might be a reason why I'd swap a consumption tax for an income tax. If someone wants to save their income now, they basiclly get taxed like the person who blows it.

"You people remember what Thomas Jefferson said. "A government big enough to give us everything we want is also a government big enough to take everything we have."

Snappy quote, but Jefferson didn't say it. Gerald Ford did, on Aug. 12, 1974. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford

Actually Ford did say it. But he was quoting Jefferson. I have multiple books on Jefferson, why would the author of those books make up stories when these are history books.

"tends to serve the long-term interests of the wealthiest"

It serves the needs of all. Mr Sheketoff's whole premise was that those who can "afford" more shoudl pay a higher rate. My point is that allowing the people with more to pay a flat rate would let them invest that into businesses which can gte more income (and pay more taxes) and hire more people (who pay more taxes)

Just giving a $1 to govt usually means we see 0.50 in benefits back, if we are lucky.

Besides the argument of paying a higher rate because you can "afford" it is really nebulous. An example:

1) Family making $70K/yr with tow kids at a private college 2) Guy who took stress disability from PFDR (say Hurley who opened a restaurant after retiring at 45) at $70K with full medical benefits.

Believe me the deduction for kids is not going to make up the difference in what each "should" pay.

"4 of these 5 examples help make my point about diminishing marginal utility"

Out of curiosity, which 4 are diminishing marginal utility?

"The biggest periods of economic growth during the past 100 years in the US have occurred at times when we implemented more progressive taxation."

You mean like when Reagan cut tax rates in the 80s? Or Kennedy cut top marginal rates in the 60s?

You show your facts.

The wealthy benefit the most from state services, ipso facto. They should be falling over one another to pay for those services, and shape them. Believing otherwise, they might move to somewhere else with lesser beauty and responsibility.

"The wealthy benefit the most from state services, ipso facto."

You mean like unemployment, public assistance, PERS, public (since they send their kids to private) schools?

Saying govt makes a state more beautiful is really stretching one's credulity.

"Correlation is not causation"

Actually a better and more direct way to answer my question is to show proof that raising taxes has resulted in a higher standard of living in the US or less poverty or more services.

Our ballots arrived in the Satuday morning mail. I filled mine out right after it arrived. Mrs. Pedro filled hers out in the afternoon. All YES votes. We took them to our local branch of the Multnomah County Library and dropped them into the ballot box.

Let's all quit arguing with right wing trolls and get our ballots in and start encouraging all our friends and neighbors to do the same. Now is the time to GET OUT THE VOTE!

I recently saw a Charlie Rose interview with Warren Buffet in which Mr. Buffet in effect said that the problem with our country is that the rich do not pay enough in taxes. He said that due to the tax laws his cleaning lady pays a higher percentage of her capital gains than he does. Clearly, the Oregonian and the other greedy scum that oppose a graduated tax prefer to keep all those that earn less completely under their thumb and subordinate to them and their elitist ways.

"WTF is this supposed to mean?"

Well, recently we got about $700M in fed stimulus and we still need more taxes. We got a $650M tobacco fund settlement and I don't think lung cancers patients got a commensurate return. Anecdotal, sure, but pretty demonstrative since the biennial increase from 07 ($48B) to 09 ($53.7B) was about $5.7B (about $1500/OR Resident) and we still need more taxes.

"that's a red herring"

Why? The whole purpose of tax increases is to increase the public's welfare. Unless you have a better reason, it'd help if you can demonstrate. My point is that taxes are a feed the beast scenario for govt.

"an extra 1 percent on net earnings over $250k"

We were talking "progressive" taxes and I gave you 2 examples of $70K/yr earners. Shouldn't the family with 2 kids in private colleges pay way less tax than the retiree who collects full benes and has another job to boot on that $70K?

I believe Mr Shektoff's note was about justifying M66 because it is progressive. I attempted a reductio ad absurdum.

BTW - $4K goes a real long way in paying private school tuition - not.

Chuck has it wrong, as do the majority of those who would raise taxes on the wealthy and business, merely because of their percieved wealth that they "can afford it".

I have given M66 & M67 a whole lot of thought. I AM VOTING "YES". Not because I think the legislature did a great job shaping the budget - because they didn't. Not because state employees have taken a representative share of the cuts - because they haven't. Not because the state runs their finances well - because they don't. Not because this is a step towards a rational and equitable tax/revenue structure - because it isn't.

I am voting in favor of these two putrid Measures because I truly believe that the state will punish the citizens via cuts to public education, public safety and public health. They will do so, and next year when public schools are out early, violent prisoners have been released (or never prosecuted) and the state is burning up with Wild Fires, the elected politicians will pull a Herod on us and calmly wash their hands.

I'm voting "YES" so that we can stabilize the state this biennium and then I am pushing for a rational and complete restructure of the revenue system, a committment to fund public education FIRST during each budget cycle and vote out every single incumbant R as well as D.

Paul Krugman may think you get a $1.50 for every dollar spent but how about getting $3.00 back for ever dollar spent?

Try this article by Greg Mankiw from the N.Y. Times: “According to the Romers, each dollar of tax cuts has historically raised G.D.P. by about $3 — three times the figure used in the administration report. That is also far greater than most estimates of the effects of government spending.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13view.html?_r=1

"Actually Ford did say it. But he was quoting Jefferson. I have multiple books on Jefferson, why would the author of those books make up stories when these are history books."

This alone is an argument to pass these measures and put more money into education. Is this what passes for critical thinking these days?

Please Remit - The MacDonald Group version...

Re: "Do we have a Christian duty to share our God-given blessings with others? Definitely. But not through government coercion."

And since we also have a Christian duty to turn the other cheek, we should cut our military budgets by 90%, return to home all our foreign-based soldiers, and end our corrupt arms-dealing practices. Furthermore, we should stop killing and torturing prisoners in our own prisons as well as in our torture-dens in foreign countries.

Neither war-and-corporate-worshiping party is Christian. All who acquiesce to the policies of the demon-dog parties are antithetical to the Christ.

We are supposed to believe in the economic views of this guy, a Bush economics guy who believes in the benefits of outsourcing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Gregory_Mankiw

Dan try this study its from this past Oct 2009 http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfisca

LT one doesn't have to believe anything but it does help to look at a number of points of view before coming to a conclusion.

Gee Sal I just passed the information thinking that perhaps people might wish to look at the info it contains. Maybe I was wrong.

The Statesman-Journal editorialized today against both 66 & 67 today as well. Perhaps this left-leaning group on Blue Oregon needs to step back and realize that when unbiased editorial boards of three of the four biggest daily newspapers in the state editorialize against these tax measures, these tax measures are indeed a mistake.

The Oregonian gets it correct once again. Not sure what is going on down there as the editors usually have their heads up their butts but for some reason they are getting this tax stuff correct.

I'll be voting no on both measures for various reasons including the "soak the rich" nonsense that the editorial points out. I also think it is stupid to send more money to Salem until the idiots down there understand how serious the situation is. I suppose it is our fault seeing how we elected these morons to represent us.

I read the opinion post in the Oregonian by Hunt (clown who brought these measures) and it was typical of the garbage that he spews forth. No facts, no answers to hard questions. Just a bunch of whining and a plea for some more money so he can give it away to people and projects that he likes.

Dan Petergorsky commented: "Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50."

Dan, I don't pretend to know all the answers but before we all bow down to this Economic Gospel according to Krugman - consider:

During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II.

Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant.

In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented.

In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen.

The most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November 2009, it topped 10 percent.

All recessions eventually end. The U.S. economy has proved resilient enough to eventually overcome even the most misguided economic policies of the past. Yet it would be fallacious to credit the stimulus bill for any economic recovery that inevitably occurs in the future. According to Keynesian theory, a $1.4 trillion budget deficit should have immediately overheated the economy. According to the White House, the stimulus should have created 3.3 million net jobs. Instead, the economy remained in recession and 3.5 million more net jobs were lost.

H. L. Mencken once wrote that "complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." He may as well have been referring to the idea that Congress can foster economic growth simply by "injecting" money into the economy. Government stimulus spending is not a magic wand that creates jobs and income. Repeated failed attempts in America and abroad have shown that governments cannot spend their way out of recessions. Focusing on productivity growth builds a stronger economy over the long term.

The Oregonian finally gets one right.

If it were only about increasing the laughable $10 corporate minimum and jacking taxes slightly on the rich these ballot measures would be a slam dunk. But, there's a whole lot of other stuff in there that maybe aint so good and I see both sides distorting the big picture. There I go being all "realistic" again.

I say raise the corporate minimum- way up. 10 bucks is way too cheap and jacking it should cause little heartburn. Then we get into semantics and paint those with gross family incomes over $200K as jet setters with billiard rooms. Seriously? That's where you lose me. I'd call folks in that range the successful middle class who make that economic engine hum and most are in debt up to their eyeballs these days. Sure, in the nineteenth century I'd call 'em rich too. Just sayin'.

Comrade Shekevoff,

The Amerikans deserve the high taxes because of the racism and pollution. Keep up the good work - capitalism will soon be destroyed and bush chenney on trial.

Solidarity, Slovotny

<img src="http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif"></img>

Canvassed yesterday morning. Voted YES at lunch time. Drank beer at the tavern and beat up a tea bagger in the parking lot before dinner. It was a great Saturday in rural Oregon.

Sal I didn't read what you wrote as an attack or anyway offensive. Maybe I was just being flip in my reply. It is interesting that they would start that way and I thought much the same. ;)

BCL

Its confusing for me to understand about it and how to believe in the economic views of this guy.

Dan I agree with the fact that wages have stagnated but who is responsible for causing the inflation?

"The two most significant examples of that are the 1925 tax cuts, which preceded the great depression, and the Bush II tax cuts on investment income that preceded our most recent collapse."

And during the post-war boom of the 1950s and '60s, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, the federal tax system was far more progressive than it is today.

It might also be noted that following the Clinton tax increase of 1993 ("The biggest tax increase in history!" as the right-wingers kept screaming) literally ALL the conservative pundits predicted economic collapse. Instead we had the biggest and longest economic expansion since WWII.

This is not to say that the Clinton tax increase caused the expansion, but obviously the conservatives' prophecies of doom did not come true. The relationship between tax policy and economic growth is not nearly as simple and clear-cut as conservatives want us to think it is.

Funny that when I say something you can't defend or I quote something that makes sense you don't counter wth anything other than. "Oh huh, that's not who said it." Typical liberal tactic. Don't attack the issues or comments, attack the messenger.

72ih, it's not about "liberals". Call them something else and stop soiling the word. You don't even know who you're arguing with. Look around. Plenty of dittohead trolls, plenty of spam, plenty of petulance, plenty of personal attack. Yet, BO is banning IP addresses left and right. Actually, not. Just left. To the managment, you're a pet. True progressives are the wolf at the door. But they really like trolls. Makes 'em look good. Yeah, keep imagining you're the gadfly. Oh yeah, they like you.

"Do you know that the man really likes you? He likes you. He really likes you. But he's got something in mind for you. Aren't you curious about that? I'm curious. I'm very curious. Are you curious? There's something happening out here, man. You know something, man? I know something you that you don't know. That's right, Jack" - Apocalypse Now

So much misinformation in a single post, I just couldn't let it go ...

"During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II."

The unemployment rate for the years 1923-29 was 3.3%. In 1931 it jumped to 15.9, in 1933 it was 24.9 percent. It then steadily decreased until 1941 when it stood at 9.9%. In 1942, after U.S. entry into World War II, the rate dropped to 4.7%.

(Source: "Annual Estimates of Unemployment in the United States, 1900-1954", from the National Bureau of Economic Research)

However when trying to compare historical and contemporary employment and unemployment rates, it is important to note that US employment and unemployment figures are now calculated differently than they were during the 1930s and 1940s. In general, current unemployment numbers would be between 5% and 10% higher if calculated in the same way as in the past; conversely, the numbers from the 1930s and 1940s would be 5% - 10% lower if calculated using our contemporary methods.

Busy day today - don't have time to correct all the other nonsense floating around today.

Re Adam Smith:

He was pre-capitalist in his conceptions.

For example, his basic argument for his rather nuanced views about markets: that under conditions of liberty they would lead to equality.

Or his one use of the term "invisible hand" in "Wealth of Nations," in an argument for what economic historians call "home bias," in effect an argument against what is now called "neoliberalism" or "neoclassical economics." Smith argued that the English economy, what he cared about, would be wrecked if British capitalists were to invest abroad and import from abroad, but it would not be a problem, because "home bias" would lead them to invest at home and use domestically-produced goods, and therefore, by an "invisible hand," Britain would be saved from the ravages of international markets.

Or his argument against division of labor, and insistence that in any civilized society, governments would intervene to constrain it, because it would turn working people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as a human creature can be.

Nothing remotely like capitalism exists. Is the US economy, relying crucially on the dynamic state sector, a capitalist economy? Is privatized profits for the rich and socialized costs and risks for the rest of us equal to capitalism?

<h2>Dan the government runs the money supply which is a factor in inflation. Over the last couple of decades the government has recalculated the way inflation is measured and it always comes out lower than if they had used their prior method. That make me wonder if they don't have a reason for their slight of hand. Of course we are the only nation to report core inflation. In my opinion the government's actions are pretty damn suspect and I'll sugest that anything figures that are inflation adjusted should be questioned. In fact we are worse off than the numbers show.</h2>