OR-Gov: Tax-Dodging Dudley becomes Tax-Evading Dudley?
Carla Axtman
The story of Chris Dudley bailing out on Oregon in an attempt to dodge income taxes while playing for the Portland Trailblazers isn't new. But now that Oregon media has begun to scrutinize Dudley on the issue, the plot is definitely beginning to thicken.
Nigel Jaquiss, Willamette Week:
Oregon law requires that anybody with Oregon source income—in this case, Dudley’s Blazers salary—pay income tax to Oregon regardless of where they live. (Dudley says he paid more than $400,000 to Oregon from 1994 to 1998.) But Oregon cannot tax out-of-state residents on other income such as dividends or capital gains earned elsewhere.
Given that Dudley had already played in the NBA for five seasons before he came to Portland, it’s reasonable to assume he would have had some investment income and would have earned money by investing his Portland salary.
Determining residency is not a simple issue, however. “There really are no hard-and-fast rules,” about what constitutes legal residency, says Rosemary Hardin, an Oregon Department of Revenue spokeswoman.
Hardin says her agency considers a number of factors, such as where the center of a taxpayer’s “financial, social and family life” is; which state the taxpayer considers his permanent home and where he comes back to when he’s been away. Other factors such as where a person votes, has a driver’s license or registers his car also come into play.
In other words, if you're a Washington resident and work in Oregon, you have to pay taxes on the money you make at your regular job. But, if you've got income from investments/capital gains (and in Dudley's case, endorsement money), Oregon can't touch it.
And this, dear readers, is where the plot becomes so thick you can chew it.
Basically, it comes down to intent, for the purposes of legal residency. Did Chris Dudley's life revolve around places in Oregon or in Washington?
Jaquiss notes that after joining the Blazers as a free agent in the fall of 1993, Dudley bought a house in Oregon, got an Oregon driver's license, registered his car here and registered as an Oregon voter. In December of the following year he bought his house in Camas, registered his car in Washington and got a Washington driver's license. What's weird though, is he never surrendered his Oregon license. When I moved to Washington in 1987 after college, I got a Washington license, but had to give up my Oregon one to get it. That was in Kitsap County, not Clark County, but I can't understand how the rules would be different for Dudley on that one.
Dudley also never changed his voter registration to Clark County. And Dudley kept a house in Portland, which was actually closer to the Blazers Rose Garden facility and significantly closer to the Hillsboro Airport, where the Blazers flew out for away games. Here's a handy map for perspective (pdf).
It seems quite reasonable to believe that Dudley was spending a lot of time at the Portland house during the NBA season, even though his spokesperson claims that Dudley held on to the house as an "investment". The real question is, was Dudley living in the house at all while he was supposedly living in Camas? Is that enough to keep him from establishing Washington residency? I'm not a legal expert on such matters--and those that are seem to think it's not an easy thing to pin down. Dudley says he moved to Camas to dodge Oregon income taxes, but the murky issues surrounding his actual legal residency are now sparking questions about whether Dudley might actually owe our state a big chunk of change in the form of those very taxes.
As an aside, the comments from Dudley supporters to the Jaquiss piece are rather interesting. There's no real defined reason to vote for him--except that some admire that he'll run out on the state to avoid taxes. Others: it's all about what they think Dudley isn't, without much real substance to it. It's like they're starving for a home-cooked meal but will take the empty calories of KFC because that's what they saw on TV--even though the home-cooked meal is set up on the dining room table.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:35 p.m.
Sep 8, '10
Ms. Hardin is correct that there are a lot of factors that are considered. IMO, I wonder where the family was. That is another important piece of information, that has not been raised. That is why I have commented before that just becasue he bought a home in LO does not mean we can assume he filed as a resident. Again, he can put this to rest by providing details...
6:50 p.m.
Sep 10, '10
I think Ms Hardin quote is very important and a great catch for those politicians cheating the system
"Hardin says her agency considers a number of factors, such as where the center of a taxpayer’s “financial, social and family life” is; which state the taxpayer considers his permanent home and where he comes back to when he’s been away.""
It appears Ron Wyden center, his family and kids are living in New York. Great catch, Ron Wyden should only represent the place where is kids, wife and center is, and please investigate his taxes and divided income due to his marriage to a sugar women, I beleive he is very rich...Again ,Ron Wyden by Oregon rules is now a New York resident.
Wow!!!! and lets do whats right here at Blue Oregon and clean out the "currently" cheating politicians.
With Kitz sharing both bedpartner and being a past board member of a company that both State and Federal official are investegating fraud with State and federal contrats. WOW again!!!!!!
I beleive the real focus should be on today's issues, instead of working hard to fabricate something that happen 10 years ago.
Top leaders are breaking rules left and you attack Dudley, what a joke!!!!!!
9:03 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
Geez Carla, I'd have thought you'd understand the basics by now.
First, taxes are Evil, and especially so when applied in a discriminatory fashion, against those who happen to have a lot of money.
As a Social Justice advocate, Duds was required as a matter of conscience to leave Oregon to avoid paying those taxes.
So really, Duds fleeing to Washington, if he did violate the law in doing so, should really be viewed as an act of Civil Disobedience, not merely the act of a greedy punk who thought he could stiff the taxpayers of Oregon.
Don't you feel better now? ;)
9:14 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
So, Carla, is there actually an inquiry at this point into matters of illegality?
9:22 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
Good question, Bill. I'm not sure yet. I've made a few calls this morning asking that very question to some legal folks. If/when I hear back, I'll post an update.
9:21 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
I was required to surrender my Montana driver's license when I wanted to establish legal residency in Oregon in 1977, after paying 4 years of out-of-state tuition as an undergrad. I was required to surrender my Oregon driver's license when I wanted the benefits of a Hawaii driver's license, although my legal residence was still Oregon, as the move to Hawaii was still speculative, my income was derived from Oregon work, but I was trying to get a job in Hawaii. Sure, the legal concept of residency is slippery and somewhat subjective; but in Dudley's case, the facts present a convincing case of intention NOT to become a Washington residence, but rather to avoid Oregon taxes. It's actually very simple. And, when I surrendered my ambition of relocating to Hawaii permanently, Oregon gave me back my same ODL number (that was news to me), with a new picture. I miss the old picture :)
11:00 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
Don't we all? ;)
9:42 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
Beyond whether he was registered to vote in Oregon, DID he actually vote in Oregon during those years? Presumably by voting, he's affirmatively stating that he's actually an Oregon resident, yes?
10:34 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
"it’s reasonable to assume" and "It seems quite reasonable to believe" must be new codespeak for "I've got no friggen clue if what I am saying has any truth to it or not, but it sure helps make my story sound better."
1:34 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
What it means is that Dudley has some substantive questions to answer and until he does, we can't know for sure.
I doubt Dudley is stupid and given the layout of the map, living in the PDX house (if they weren't renting it out--another question to ask..did they have rental income?) would be an obvious thing to do.
You're asking people not to do basic math when the numbers are all laid out in front of us, Michael. Maybe that's code for you, but it's pretty basic stuff.
10:59 a.m.
Sep 9, '10
That's hardly inculpatory, since he never seemed to bother to vote no matter where he was registered. (wry grin)
2:30 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
The people who are voting for Dudley don't really know him, but they will fill in the blanks with their imagination and then be absolutely shocked (shocked!) when some egregious information comes to light because the media didn't adequately scrutinize and ask the questions. Thanks for keeping the spotlight on this fraud.
P.S. Nifty map too!!
3:03 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
Funny, I heard the right say the very same thing about Obama during the last election.
3:32 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
Did Chris Dudley write two books? Or can the Right just simply not read?
11:19 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
I think the difference there Sonya is that Dudley had at least accomplished enough to write two books about versus the other guy
8:45 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
Please rejoin the planet Earth. Dudley has played basketball, done some work publicizing the difficulties of diabetes, and given away money. I guess to the extent that any second-tier athlete could write a book, OK.
9:56 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
Are you serious? Obama already at least held public office when he wrote them. Oh yeah. That's right. Dudley had a childrens book written about him.
My point is, if you want to find out about Dudley you can't go and read two books in the library about him. Anything you THINK you know about Chris Dudley, you've made up in your mind. There is no track record or anything that can be verified other than he played basketball, he has a charity, and he was a rich guy.
7:08 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
oh please. the state of Hawaii proved Obama's residence. his actions in Illinois for 20 years proved his religion. the charges against Obama were proved baseless beyond doubt -- which is why disbelieving Obama is a matter of faith.
Duds' problem is that he'll not be able to prove his intent, which means his actions -- which he freely admitted to being in his self-interest -- will not redound in his favor. something he brought on himself by choosing his own financial interests over the common good of the state that was providing him the bulk of his income, not to mention the services that made that income possible.
3:16 p.m.
Sep 10, '10
"I heard the right say the very same thing about Obama during the last election."
And the left said the very same thing about GW Bush during the 2000 election. They were right.
I don't think we need any more empty suits in public office, no matter which party label they wear.
8:31 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
Say it ain't so! You moved to Washington for a while? Are you a cheat and tax dodger too? The shame. :)
11:07 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
There's an old political analysis tool (the Harkin Grid? the something-or-other Grid?) -- basically a SWOT analysis where you look for the narratives that emphasize your own strengths and your opponent's weaknesses, vs. the ones that do the opposite. Supposedly the "national security" conversation played to Bush's strengths in 2004, and the "economy and environment" conversation played to Kerry's strengths -- in the minds of average voters at least.
Assume for a moment that's true. Then the way to play the game is to keep the conversation centered on the TOPIC that favors your candidate. You're less interested in winning any given debate point than you are in focusing on the favorable narrative.
Kerry arguably played into his opponent's hand by talking about his Vietnam service.
So if there's something to this, then it would seem to me inadvisable for the Kitzhaber folks to want to talk about TAXES at all, especially in the absence of anything substantive (so far) with which to crucify Dudley.
So I guess what I'm saying is, Carla, please keep it up.
11:33 p.m.
Sep 9, '10
Carla is starting to sound like a 'birther', 'denier', 'conspiracy theorist' with all of her crazy, 'so what' rumor, speculation and half truthing. Here is better story: After reading jack Robert's column today I checked in with Google to find out more about his girlfriend with so many Oregon city, county and state clients and this woman graduated from Evergreen College in Olympia the hot spot for turning out Eco-terrorists, whack o destructive environmentalists and anarchists. This woman who is whispering into the next governor wannabe's ear every night comes from a college that makes Reed look conservative. That's a better and REAL story for you Carla. Glad to help!
12:26 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
Eco-terrorists, whack o destructive environmentalists and anarchists
Gee, that's funny. I know lots of Evergreen alumni - including my mother-in-law. And so far, none of them have come across as "Eco-terrorists, whack o destructive environmentalists and anarchists"
Maybe we should get back on topic now, y'think?
3:20 p.m.
Sep 10, '10
"Evergreen College in Olympia the hot spot for turning out Eco-terrorists, whack o destructive environmentalists and anarchists."
Oh, fer cripe's sake. How many "eco-terrorists, whack o destructive environmentalists and anarchists" has it turned out? Names, please.
I graduated from the same college as Aaron Burr. Guess that makes me a traitor, right?
Jeez.
1:27 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
The earlier post on this had quite a few reasonable explanations:
2.The Trailblazers holding his contract most likely paid the taxes on his contract to the State of Oregon as an organization with all their player's salaries included.
My opinion, this is a non-issue that could present considerable blowback to Kitzhaber's campaign. Pursuing legal action against Dudley for a situation 10+ years ago and requiring him to pay back taxes would make Democrats come across as vengeful state operatives who want an individual's money regardless of whether he lived in Oregon or Timbuktu.
Furthermore, how is this issue a positive? Do we hold the same standard for Wyden, Merkley, Wu and all the elected Oregon politicians who work in D.C., but retain property in Oregon? Do Federally elected officials have to pay state taxes on their Federal salary?
7:09 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
I see Willamette Week has requested copies of tax returns from Kitz and Dudley. Kitz has agreed, Dudly is "considering". Even if Dudley has nothing illegal, it is politically damaging that he moved out of state " on advice of his accountant" to avoid paying taxes in a state where he is now making a claim to empathize and take up the mantel on behalf of average Oregonians. So he's branded now, if he wasn't already, as the multi-millionaire rich boy, who gets into Yale on a legacy admission, and now settles into Lake Oswego comfort making a claim to be just like the rest of us, and oh-so-concerned about the working families of Oregon when he doesn't play by the same rules or share the same concerns. His accountant rules his life decisions.
7:14 a.m.
Sep 10, '10
the only "blowback" against Kitz comes from people who think pointing out a fact about their opponent is negative. and that's stupid. Duds lived in Camas, and he did so for personal gain. we know this because he said so.
the point is that Duds is asking for something extraordinary from Oregonians: to be their next governor in a time of unprecedented crisis. he asks that we trust his judgment and, more importantly, his dedication to our state. yet he has demonstrated at least once in his life that his dedication to Oregon came second to his dedication to this already huge bank account.
and he has not stated that he was wrong in this. in fact, he condones & excuses his actions. so while as a businessperson his actions may have been the right thing to do, as someone who wants Oregonians to believe he'll do all he can for the state -- well, he's shown us that we can doubt his commitment to the cause. he's already proven once that he'll put himself first. for a few bucks.
12:52 p.m.
Sep 10, '10
Rasmussen- Dudley 49% Dr. K 44%
You're grasping at straws and it looks that way....and taxes in general aren't a winning subject for Democrats.
But keep it up. :)
1:42 p.m.
Sep 10, '10
I'll take an instate pollster over a national Republican consistently outlier pollster anyday.(Rassmussen has a likely voter screen which says Dems don't vote.)
Kitz up by nine: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/09/poll_shows_uncertain_fate_for.html
I think we'll get a more currently accurate picture of the race when Hibbitts and Public Policy Polling publish their current polling.
5:20 p.m.
Sep 10, '10
Oh really?
Gallup released a new poll today showing that America is still just fine with making the rich pay their fair share of the taxes and eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the upper bracket:
More Americans back the Democratic position the 37% who still cling to the GOP position of failed trickle-on tax policy.
8:48 a.m.
Sep 11, '10
Yes really.
If you want to tell yourself that Americans want unamerican class warfare rhetoric, higher taxes on job creators & small businesses, high unemployment, unsustainable debt, and unpopular legislation like the health care bill fiasco or failed Keynesian stimulus nonsense you can't even run on, go right ahead.
Nice platform. LoL
"More Americans back the Democratic position the 37% who still cling to the GOP position of failed trickle-on tax policy."
The tax cuts under Bush created 8 million jobs, under Reagan 25 million, and according to Rasmussen and Gallup, generic Congressional balloting has Republicans up by 10 to 12%, historic highs.
Tax increases, after prolific wasteful spending & historic unsustainable debt, proven failed central planning, race baiting politics, vilification of opponents and large groups of Americans, and a complete disconnect with economic reality, and a disregard for the will of the people on nearly EVERY issue, aren't very attractive positions.
Keep it up.
You guys make me smile. :)
....and Bill, in lieu of a single winning policy issue, I'd pin my hopes on another poll too, as that's all you got. I still can't believe you guys ran Kitz and Bradbury. LoL
By the way, Rasmussen, by results is the most accurate polling over the last 20 years.
Attempting to discredit the polling data, smacks of desperation.
Actual governing is difficult. Oregon is a mess, and Democrats have been irresponsibly in charge of everything.
Tough to run on that.
Denial or attempts to deflect this basic fact, won't change it and appears as desperate as is it.
9:16 a.m.
Sep 11, '10
"The tax cuts under Bush created 8 million jobs, under Reagan 25 million ..."
I am taking offers on the Burnside Bridge ...
11:32 a.m.
Sep 11, '10
Devin,
Stupid comment in lieu of facts.
Look under the bridge if you want to see liberal policies at work.
High taxes, especially progressive punitive taxes that punish the job creators, result in higher unemployment.
What's Oregon's unemployment rate? What's California's? How's Michigan doing? How's Greece? How about Spain?
Our government does not have a revenue problem, it has an expenditure/spending problem.
The answer: ..... spend less, not tax more.
Keynesian economics is a discredited failure.
"the more the planners plan, the more the plans fail"
~Ronald Reagan~
Taxing the job creators, the backbone of job creation when we need them most, while we have near 10% unemployment and the unofficial rate when counting those under-employed and those who have given up is over 20% is just plain stupid, but if you want to stick to stupid as a position, be my guest, but you're in denial of all economic historical data while harming your nation's future, wealth, prosperity, and growth, and with it, the opportunity for Americans to live the American dream and support themselves.
You're making us dependent, instead of independent and free.
Dependent on whom becomes the question?
The government? It makes nothing, only redistributes inefficiently, politically, and wastefully. The truth, our nation is dependent on taking from the income producing, and borrowing from our children and our future. Our success is dependent on the people and the private sector.
Simple economics says cut out the middle man, the government, instead of increasing the burden on ANY Americans especially including the most productive.
After reckless profligate spending and debt, the likes of which we've never seen in American history, you don't raise taxes on ANY Americans during the worst economic downturn of our lives and then claim it will help the U.S. or is needed to pay for the ridiculous debt you just incurred by choice.
Whether it comes out of Democrats or Republicans, progressivism has failed.
We're out of other people's money.
I understand without a Clintonesque pivot, you're going to go down with the ship, because you have hung your hat on class warfare, more government spending, finger pointing, blame, and debt in spite of all polls showing that is the exact opposite of what America wants or needs.
It's must be that the American people are just to stupid to realize what's good for them, or maybe it's you.
11:58 a.m.
Sep 11, '10
Hah, this post is so full of platitudes, talking points and even concern trolling I have no clue how to respond. Then, at the end, you had the good courtesy to call me stupid. Please feel free to post your statistics. I'm not interested in platitudes and talking points, nor straw men.
1:34 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.
Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.
In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.
Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.
How could the CBO and Democrats have gotten it so wrong?
It's very simple. Forecasts are guesses. When rates change in either direction, the CBO does linear forecasts on tax revenues, never estimating the stimulation or retardation of economic activity resulting from the changes. It is all policy permits them to do. Accordingly, CBO forecasts for rate changes are always wrong. CBO results, on the other hand, are facts -- the same facts that appear in reports from the OMB and the IRS. Four years of factual history on the 2003 tax rate reduction on capital gains and dividends in the CBO's own report showed that contrary to their expectation of revenue declines, the Treasury actually received record revenues from this class of tax obligation. For that matter, including the 2001 rate reductions on income, Treasury revenues set records through 2007, at that point exceeding original forecasts by roughly twice the cost of the two wars in which America was engaged. The CBO was wrong about that as well.
Politicians and their enablers who embrace old, wrong guesses and ignore newer facts are either a little stupid, or they think we are.
Despite those circumstances, at the rates of economic growth through 2007 and with simple spending restraint, the Bush-era 2001 and 2003 tax rate reductions should have yielded a surplus by 2009 with no increase in taxes.
Unfortunately, federal expenditures have been setting records, too, and are increasing drastically. A typical Congress has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This Congress is no exception, except that its members are spending at exceptional rates and have no will to stop.
Today, the top 1% of earners pays more taxes than the bottom 95%. Who really believes that taxing this top group even more is going to pay everyone's tab for the ambitious and irresponsible spending objectives of the Democrats in Washington?
12:37 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
When Bill Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was 7.3%. During that year, the marginal tax rate was increased from 31% to 39.6%. According to conservative economic theory that should have led to an economic disaster. But, instead, the unemployment rate fell during Clinton's first year, and was at 6.6% a year later and 5.6% two years later, eventually falling to as low as 3.9%, the lowest unemployment rate since January, 1960.
So much for the "taxes kills jobs" theory.
1:14 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets.
Often overlooked in the debate over tax policy is the success of the Clinton-era tax reductions -- reductions that, though fairly recent, are unknown to most Americans. That may be no accident.
The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.
In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.
The Clinton tax policies of the early '90s were based on rate increases and luck -- the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.
1:22 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
It's not a theory, it's economic reality based on historical data, and your ignoring it to the detriment of your Country and our economy.
What is a theory, is when you predict the unemployment rate won't go above 8% if you spend an unGodly amount at the expense of our children and our future based on Keynesian nonsense, and it then goes above 10% and stays there.
3:40 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
John,
You're not answering the question. How is the unemployment rate going from 7.2% to 10.8%, and staying above 10% for 11 months "working"?
And it actually was over 10% for only 3 months this time around.
The unemployment rate did not drop below 7% under Reagan until 5 years into his administration. Bush II never saw again unemployment rates as low as they were in his first two months.
The unemployment rate dropped steadily during the Clinton administration, even though marginal tax rates were raised in his first year.
You talk about "economic reality" while ignoring it.
5:45 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
Reagan's policies are recognized as bringing about one of the longest peacetime expansions in U.S. history. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, with peaks in 1982 and 1983. A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred. The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at over 20% in June 1981) The latter caused a brief recession in 1982 that your mentioning. Stagflation and unemployment were beat back with this,tax cuts, and a combination of deregulation, a believe in America, and a pro-business approach and we again endured one of the longest uninterrupted periods of peace time growth and prosperity in our history.
No reason to try that approach.
Go ahead and tell yourself that Americans want unamerican class warfare rhetoric, higher taxes on job creators & small businesses, high unemployment, unsustainable debt, and unpopular legislation like the health care bill fiasco or failed Keynesian stimulus nonsense.
Go ahead. No one is buying it.
No one. :)
8:59 a.m.
Sep 12, '10
"Reagan's policies are recognized as bringing about one of the longest peacetime expansions in U.S. history."
By people who have swallowed the right-wing Kool-Aid, maybe.
Funny, if you look at the unemployment rate, Reagan doesn't look so good. Average unemployment in his first term was 8.6%, compared to 6.5% in Carter's administration, and 6.0% in Clinton's first term (they all inherited unemployment rates that were about the same)
The Reagan administration didn't see a single month better than Carter's 4-year average until over 6 years in, and the average unemployment in his second term was THE SAME as Carter's average.
1:22 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
John,
After the tax cuts under Reagan were passed, the unemployment rate went from 7.2% to 10.8%. How would any "reasonable" person define that as "working"?
11:53 a.m.
Sep 11, '10
"The tax cuts under Bush created 8 million jobs, under Reagan 25 million"
Bullsh*t.
The unemployment rate was high--between 7% and 7.5%--but stable early in Reagan's first term. Then the tax cuts were passed, and the unemployment rate immediately started climbing, and stayed above the 7.2% it was in July, 1981 until June of 1984, and didn't fall below 7% until January, 1986.
In Reagan's first term, the unemployment rate was over 9% for 19 months straight, from March of '82 until September of '83, and over 8% for 27 straight months, from November of '81 until January of '84.
The unemployment rate in George Bush's first two months was 4.2%. It was never again that low during his Presidency.
12:43 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
in re: Hillsboro airport and PDX house
What if he spent the night at the portland house the night before they flew out for road trips, but stayed in the Camas house the rest of the time.
12:54 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
Michael,
From my understanding of it, the issue is different because he had already established his domicile in Oregon. Merely buying his house in Camas doesn't necessarily relinquish his domicile in Oregon for tax purposes.
He may have taken some steps to establish his domicile in Washington, but it seems as though at least some steps are missing. For example, he didn't change his voter registration from Oregon to Washington, though he didn't seem to show much interest in voting in those days.
I've seen conflicting information about where his cars were registered.
The point is, he's already admitted that he cares more about his own tax burden than the well being of the state of Oregon.
4:19 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
"The point is, he's already admitted that he cares more about his own tax burden than the well being of the state of Oregon."
That's YOUR very partisan opinion.
4:39 p.m.
Sep 11, '10
Well, of course he didn't phrase it that way, but that's what it amounts to.
And, again, you're missing the point that once he'd established Oregon as his residence, it took a little more than buying a house in another state to relinquish it.
At least one of the steps that would normally indicate a change of residence to another state he failed to do--he didn't re-register to vote in Washington.