I am expecting my petition forms any day now. I'll probably be able to garner 45-100 signatures without much effort.

When it comes to whose job gets killed by either taxes or budget cuts, my choice is to swat the parasites in Salem rather than tell anyone to bleed just a little harder.

WOW! Let the People decide instead of the Union funded Facist Democrat only tax increase to grow the budget by $2 BILLION yet again far faster than Inflation or Population (even with 12% + unemployment)so they can have even more big Brother Government Union/Mafia jobs.

I promise to gather at least 1,000 valid signatures by myself.

If the People vote No on the tax increases(which really means NO even though the D's want it to mean yes) then the D's will hopefully be nullified in 2010, as they should be for the insane and idiotic handling of their hopefully short term power.

I warned everyone they would go overboard with their power and boy oh boy did they!

I want to personally THANK the Democrats for doing exactly as I predicted, YOU have no solutions but to STEAL from us even more of OUR money, that has never in World history solved problems and never will work, SEE YA!

Mapes is also reporting that the coalition has already raised $200,000 to fund the effort:

Associations representing homebuilders, restaurants, grocers and auto dealers each kicked in $25,000. Several oil distributors kicked in at least $40,000, two beer distributors gave a total of $20,000, Associated General Cotnractors gave $12,500 and the Realtors donated $10,000....

Again, neither Carla nor Mapes mentions that the largest single contribution ($100,000) is from a union. Who the hell are these guys and why is Rick Hickey still broadbrushing "unions" when apparently they are among his staunchest allies?

Let the lying begin......

Hahaha!!! Nothing more funny than a bunch of looney rightwingers calling Democrats "fascists." Ummm... understand the ideology before you make yourself look stupid.

Whether you are fascists or communists really is an issue to issue discussion. There's no accepted neologism for a fusion of communist social policies and fascist political tactics. Sorry for the confusion in the meanwhile. The new label will be coming along any time now.

Boats says: "my choice is to swat the parasites in Salem rather than tell anyone to bleed just a little harder."

Sure... you just want to ak people who receive said services bleed a little harder.

If you're against these tax increases, then so be it. But don't pretend that you're doing some great service to the people who are going to see their services get cut: - Schoolchidren facing less school or more crowded classroms. - Senior citizens receiving less (or no) care and less covered medications. - Less transportation options for people without vehicles. - Less State Police coverage for Oregon's most vulnerable rural areas. - etc, etc.

You seem to think that this money just arbitrarily goes to the "parasites in Salem," when in reality it's heading back out to communities all over the state.

So be against the taxes if you like, but don't kid yourself into thinking you're some kind of folk hero to the masses.

Perhaps just a folk hero to the paying part of the masses. Being a villain to the consuming part of the masses is of no importance to me.

• Schoolchidren facing less school or more crowded classroms. --Deport/ drive away all of the illegals in this state and there'd be plenty more money for schools.

• Senior citizens receiving less (or no) care and less covered medications. --I was under the impression that Obama had all of the answers to this dilemma already. When one gets under the hood of his plan, one sees that it's Grandma's duty to die for the regime.

• Less transportation options for people without vehicles. --BFD.

• Less State Police coverage for Oregon's most vulnerable rural areas. --If a community wants police coverage, they should self-finance it, even if they have to share the constable. It's done like that in rural areas elsewhere, so why not here?

• etc, etc. --All of that "etcetera" is why the budget was so bloated in the first place.

Salem Democrats don't get that we Oregonians don't want to be California. Go to a law library sometime. Count the volumes of the Oregon Revised Statutes. Then go count the volumes in the California Code. Then if you want a real laugh, go compare the Oregon Administrative Rules against it's Golden State counterpart.

Apologists say, "Well, California is a big state with complicated problems to address and a massive population."

Most of the state would function just fine if Sacramento fell into a sink hole, never to return.

The parts of the state that are always dysfunctional will remain so. They have bad leadership regardless of the state of the laws or of the budget. Rather like Portland for the past two decades has had.

No amount of money in the world can address the problems of people who wouldn't know self-reliance if it threw them through a window.

Rafts - why do you want to cut services in order to maintain the $4.9 billion in unused cash sitting in Salem?

When the taxes are rolled back, why not use that money to preserve services?

Seems the numerous mouthbreathers who feel that police, fire, education, and basic healthcare are optional services have forgotten the massive BUSH tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001. Two recessions, two wars, double digit unemployment, and a collapsed financial market later they haven't learned a damn thing.

And they never will.

BUSH'S tax bill produced exploding deficits, protected the special interests, undid the progressivity of the tax code, and laid more of the burden on wage earners while almost completely eliminating the tax burden on those with investment income. Hell Cheney paid less than 7% total taxes on his last $1 million in earnings a couple years back. So good on Ted to start the claw-back to a more fair and representative tax structure.

But hey, don't mind me. People like Boats already received their free public (in his case, limited) education so the rest of you can go f*** yourself.

He got his and that's all that matters.

Anonymous asks: "why do you want to cut services in order to maintain the $4.9 billion in unused cash sitting in Salem?"

OK, this is the lamest urban legend in Oregon politics, and you should be embarassed for falling for it.

To those who aren't aware, the State Senate Republicans put together a list of all of the existing fund balances, added them up, and said "Hey, this money is left over from last session!"

But of course, if you look into it, you'll find that most (if not all) of those agencies have contractual obligations pending on that money.

It's like this: If you have a checking account and you write a check at the supermarket, that money's spent. Just because it's still in your account until the check gets cashed, doesn't mean it's a good idea to use those funds.

But some people think that Oregon has all the money it needs because -- after all -- we still have checks in our checkbook!

Anonymous, do you really run your personal finances like that?

Boats, this is really interesting!

" I'll probably be able to garner 45-100 signatures without much effort."

A friend of mine set up a table in a Central Oregon mall in the mid-1990s for a ballot measure he supported. In one day, he collected 500 signatures.

If you do collect 100 signatures, will they all be valid? I signed a petition for a local county measure and was reminded to sign and print my name exactly as it appears on my voter registration card.

Will you be careful enough to remind signers to do that? If you collect 100 signatures and make sure all are valid, exactly what fraction of the total needed valid signatures will that be?

Money alone does a lot of things, but it can't force people to sign petitions or the petitioner to take care with such details as accurately signing the name on registration card.

"Less State Police coverage for Oregon's most vulnerable rural areas."

We need use/need State Police for rural protection. It's called Peace Through Superior Firepower. It's very effective.

I'll also be getting my petitions and signing on friends and families. Pretty easy to do in these tough economic times.

I cannot believe how many rich trolls there are posting on Blue O these days. Hey... Joe the Plumber...you ain't netting a quarter million now and you probably won't be anytime soon. My husband and I both own our own businesses, a boat, a motorhome, three cars, two houses, and have a kid in college. Living life pretty grand - and we are still about only half way to $250.

Why do you want to protect bonuses and limos for the rich while your kids pay through the nose to go to community college?

"We need use/need State Police for rural protection. It's called Peace Through Superior Firepower. It's very effective."

Ah, well that's the perfect solution then, isn't it! Whomever has the biggest weapon shall prevail.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that stellar logic (or grammar). After all, it's a system of government that worked for cavemen. Bravo.

"- Schoolchidren facing less school or more crowded classroms."

Y'know what whenever we have a bad economy, good economy, high/low taxes, we here the one constant cry about how bad the schools are. Maybe Oregon just cannot run schools.

Besides why would I trust Salem? From the budget summary: http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/Publications/GRB0709/2007-09_Budget_Summary.pdf Growth in Gen Fund Revenue (Kicker/Pension Adjusted): 03-05 7.4% 05-07 23.0% 07-09 8.7% Unless something happened, I don't think population grew by that much in those years. Yet we still don't have enough money for schools and they are getting worse.

Excuse me if my tears remain in their ducts refusing to be jerked.

Steavis says: "Unless something happened, I don't think population grew by that much in those years. Yet we still don't have enough money for schools and they are getting worse."

OK, stay with me here.

The 05-07 budget represents the restoration of cuts that went through during the previous economic crisis, so let's focus on the change from the 05-07 to 07-09.

Say you have 100 people.

During the 1990s, Oregon's growth rate was hovering around 2%, but that slowed down to about 1.5% per year between 2005 and 2007. (So says the Office of Economic Analysis)

So at 1.5% growth, after one year you have 101.5 people. The next year it's (101.5 x 1.015) 103.0225.

If each of those people require $1 in services in 2005, that's $100 you need in 2005, and $103.02 you'd need in 2007 to provide those same services. BUT... you need to account for inflation!

Luckily, our friendly U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a handy online inflation calculator.

If you'd have needed $103.02 in 2005, how much would you need for the same buying power in 2007?

$109.37. ... which is an increase of 9.37%

And here you are getting all hot and bothered over an increase of 8.7%, which -- considering population and inflation -- is actually a reduction.

It's easy to just "think" up your own facts, isn't it?

Well maybe you'll have to excuse me if my tears remain in their ducts! :)

These pro taxation diatribes do get so old. The state government has no business being in the health care business. If the fringe benefits of public employees are too much to afford, that work force should be slashed.

The state has no business having a statewide police force like the OSP. That force is a Prohibition Era relic. People act as if we've had it forever. It shouldn't exist. A Fish & Wildlife Department? Yes. A state crime lab? Yes. A protective detail for the Governor? Yeah. A multi-hundred person force to roam the highways and byways? No. That money could be devolved down to the county level to beef up the local Sheriff Departments so as to have more effective community policing. The OSP is an unnecessary public safety sinkhole and duplicative of local law enforcement efforts in the first place. Every sworn officer in every county can already cross county lines in pursuit in cases of mutual aid. The OSP is a dinosaur.

So, I guess this gets to my general objection to modern state government. It always grows and it never shrinks unless hacked at from the outside. It doesn't matter what the state of the taxpayers is, the beast must be fed, and fed at the rate of "inflation plus" or have the feeding referred to as inadequate by the beast's minions.

It has nothing to do with "having gotten mine." It's about people demanding an ever expanding class of services and "protections" out of the government that they have no reasonable right to expect save for a class of dolts who perennially stand willing to give it to them in exchange for power.

I'll fight that to the last.

Boats said: "A multi-hundred person force to roam the highways and byways? No. That money could be devolved down to the county level to beef up the local Sheriff Departments..."

But before that, Boats said: "If a community wants police coverage, they should self-finance it, even if they have to share the constable."

So which is it? Do they self-fiance... or do the more affluent aeas just cut a check to the poorer local governments? (Or, do we adequately fund our current system, which polices the whole state and is run by the state?)

When Governor Meier established the OSP he consolidated a number of disparate agencies and law enforcement bureaus and made a cheaper, more effective force. The Oregon State Police is a great example of government saving money through more efficient service delivery.

But if you want to go ahead and bash the OSP, go to it! See how many signatures you get on your signature sheet with that genius message.

We already have a fund dedicated to the OSP. It could be redirected to assist rural communities to hire more deputies. These posts aren't policy papers. My one consistent view on this is that the OSP, as it stands, is largely a duplicative waste of money and time.

Meier melded the OSP from the enforcement arms of, get this:

The State Highway Commission The Secretary of State The Fish and Game Commission The State Fire Marshal The Prohibition Commissioner.

The only statewide force even arguably necessary from that hodgepodge of empire building crap is the analog to the modern ODFW.

The state doesn't need statewide traffic cops. If it needs Staters to enforce the fish and game laws, then the enforcement arm of ODFW needs to be hacked. What is the OSP, should be a much smaller entity, consisting of expert investigation unit for tough cases and wide ranging criminal conspiracies, a forensics unit, a training and standards unit, a protection detail, and an arson investigation unit. Any more than that is just a bureaucratic fiefdom.

I know that I cannot get the OSP disbanded, though I would do it if I could and reform it into a much smaller and elite agency freeing up funds for communities to do their own hiring. Going up against the herd mentality that says every governmental service is essential is a hard slog in this soft-headed state.

If we cannot get the state out of the retail liquor business, getting rid of the other vestiges of Prohibition is going to be well nigh impossible.

"If we cannot get the state out of the retail liquor business, getting rid of the other vestiges of Prohibition is going to be well nigh impossible."

Well I do honestly agree with you there. I would love to see the OLCC just go away. :)

Plus, I'd like to see the Highway Fund be re-designed so that it's funding the State Police again (the State Police were kicked out of the Highway Fund dedications and placed in the General Fund around 1979 or so). 'Course, that would take a constitutional amendment.

Clearly this thread should be retitled "A Rising Tax Floats All Boats."

"It's easy to just "think" up your own facts, isn't it? "

I am glad to hear someone likes to do math. It restores my faith in the crumbling school system.

OK, let’s use your population and inflation figures: Inflation from US Labor $1 in 2003 = $1.17 in 2009 per the WEBsite

Pop growth at 1.5%/yr 2003-2009 = 9.3% increase $1.17 * 9.3% increase = 27.9% increase 03-09 for population and inflation growth.

<hr/>

Now let’s look at what happened to Oregon revenue from 03-09: Oregon Revenue growth 2003-2009 = 7.4% * 23% * 8.7% = 44% cumulative

<hr/>

For comparison sake:

A little more math shows (Revenue Growth) / (Population AND Inflation Growth) = 44%/27.9% = 58% greater. So from 03-09 Oregon’s rev, on average, grew 58% faster than population times inflation.

I understand about health care costs, but I believe a lot of the state budget is NOT health care (like education) so I am hard-pressed to buy Mr Chisholm’s arguments.

Kurt Schrader said as much when Teddy spent every extra penny he could in 05-07 that the budget would be DOA when 07-09 rolled around. When are you people going to realize Ted/Legislature really have no clue on how to run a state and provide services taxpayers pay for?

Posted by: Steavis | Jul 23, 2009 7:08:31 PM

I want to know what members of Ways and Means you actually talked with, this session or any other session. Or would you rather carp from the outside?

If this is how you really feel, " When are you people going to realize Ted/Legislature really have no clue on how to run a state and provide services taxpayers pay for?" I suggest you run for the legislature. The bill passed making it easier for candidates outside of major parties to get on the ballot.

Run a campaign of "This is how I would run the state and provide services if elected" with bullet points. Then the whole district (if not state) will know exactly what you propose.

Otherwise, it sounds like you would rather complain than offer specific proposals.

You do know that any budget item must first pass a Ways and Means subcommittee, then full W & M, then get at least 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate, don't you?

If you got overwhelmingly elected to the legislature but took an attitude that you alone had all the answers, and thus alienated other members to the point they were not eager to support your ideas, whose fault would that be?

"I want to know what members of Ways and Means you actually talked with, this session or any other session. Or would you rather carp from the outside?"

I've sent emails to both Devlin and Bruun pointing out where I think they could save. In addition, the Rs presented a plan that Teddy K would not even consider, rather he decided to call it trash without specifics.

I've stated numbers from the State of Oregon WEBsite, so I am assuming they are accurate. If you'd like to debate realities. If you'd like to not talk actual numbers, then present a solution better than cutting down everything you disagree with.

It should be obvious, as of today, we don't have enough money. We keep getting told we elect people to be our representatives and if we don't like it to un-elect them. So what is the alternative besides public outcry?

"it sounds like you would rather complain than offer specific proposals."

Fine, Teddy being the equivalen ot top boss needs to put pen to paper and start with his top-line managers who are supposed to be intelligent and tell them you need to cut x% on the top-line without reducing customer service. Believe it or not, this happens in private industry all the time.

If you want suggestions, OK, drop OLCC, cut the Econ Dev peopl since they have not created one job.

Steavis says: "So from 03-09 Oregon’s rev, on average, grew 58% faster than population times inflation."

Yeah, no kidding. The state was restoring deep budget cuts that occurred to the 01-03 budget. Remember?

Steavis also says: "I understand about health care costs, but I believe a lot of the state budget is NOT health care (like education)..."

But a monumental chunk of that education cost isn't just books and chalk... it's teacher salary and benefits. The fastest-rising element of which is health care coverage. (Government-purchased health care isn't just about Medicare and old people.) If you don't take those costs into account, then you don't understand health care costs.

Steavis also says: "the Rs presented a plan that Teddy K would not even consider, rather he decided to call it trash without specifics."

You're either talking about one of two plans:

1. The plan the R's released just before the May revenue forecast in which they spotted themselves an extra billion dollars. (Hilariously, it was presented in comparison to the Democratic plan, which did not have the advantage of imaginary money.) I seem to recall the Oregonian calling it a "fantasy".

2. The famous We've Still Got Checks In Our Checkbook" plan, which would involve promising the same pot of money to several different creditors and then screening all of the state's calls from here on in. (Remember: it's not a surplus if the money's been promised to someone else already.) I already panned this in a previous comment. (Jul 22, 2009 4:41:56 PM)

Steavis, I'm interested to know not only which plan you're talking about, but also what cuts you would make.. because I'm fairly sure that the OLCC is self-supporting (though still lame) and Economic Development would save how much money?

"Yeah, no kidding. The state was restoring deep budget cuts that occurred to the 01-03 budget."

So 6 years of revenue growing almost 60% faster than the index to fix 2 years of budget cuts. Pretty breath-taking still.

"but also what cuts you would make"

OK, let's just pull a Cali and force the issue by letting stuff go to breaking point and issue IOUs. Ted has managers for each business unit and in the real world manager look for efficiencies all the time to offer same/better service at reduced costs.

Why is this such a hard concept to do with education, for example? What about the cost of education has risen that fast? I haven't really noticed any major changes in the way students are educated in the past 5/10/20/30 years, unless you can point out something.

I mean Ted's whole solution is to cut public worker's salaries. That's it? There are absolutely no other opportunities for efficiency in govt?

Steavis said: "So 6 years of revenue growing almost 60% faster than the index to fix 2 years of budget cuts. Pretty breath-taking still."

Well, consdering that the inflation rate from 2001 to 2003 was 3.9% and that Oregon's budget fell something like 20% (does anyone have exact numbers?) during that period, you could say that the budget fell at -513% of what inflation was.

Steavis said: "OK, let's just pull a Cali and force the issue by letting stuff go to breaking point and issue IOUs. "

Sure! The State just issued about $3.3 billion in bonds this legislative session, right? Even in this economic climate, the State of Oregon is paying a favorable average of what, like 4 or 5% in interest for its bonds. Meanwhile, because of their willingness of let things go to the breaking point, California is paying upwards around 8-9% in interest! A spread of 4% on our debt service means that we'll be paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $130,000,000 EXTRA PER YEAR during the life of those bonds.

So, no.

Steavis said: "What about the cost of education has risen that fast?"

Look at the previous posts. Health care costs. It's not just for senior citizens; it's for every school employee too.

Steavis said: "I haven't really noticed any major changes in the way students are educated in the past 5/10/20/30 years, unless you can point out something."

How about the fact that if we want our students to actually come out of school prepared to meet the world, they need to have an education that now includes a lot more technology than was available in schools 5/10/20/30 years ago.

Steavis said: "I mean Ted's whole solution is to cut public worker's salaries. That's it? There are absolutely no other opportunities for efficiency in govt?"

No, there are other areas. The Employment Department, for example, is saving money by issuing benefits in automated card form rather than checks. But efficiencies like that are a super-small portion of the budget.

Where exactly do you think the lion's share of the state budget goes? Post-it notes? Capital costs are taken care of through borrowing, which is less than 5% of the budget. Other than that, you're really looking at salaries mostly. The state's information technology systems, I'm sure, cost a pretty penny... but save more than that over the old paper systems.

So other than making us pay more in debt service costs, where do you think we should cut?

Damn italics.

Deborah Barnes:

So, if voters chose to defeat the funding for police officers...

Bob T:

Are they playing that game again? Whenever the politicians threaten to lay off police, or firefighters etc, unless they get more money, the people lose. This is a squeeze. Look at a list of all of the employees of the state (or the city, county etc) and the job titles, and tell me that police and firemen etc are the only ones left.

They are, in fact, the easiest lay-offs to threaten us with to make us cry "Uncle".

If they say, "Give us more money or we'll fire the Coordinator for Bolivian Immigrants School Lunch Program" or something that ridiculous, almost everyone will say, "Go ahead". So they try the police and firefighters and teachers first. Odd, isn't it, that the politicans so often threaten to get rid of the types of positions that would be the very few positions that would exist if government was very basic and small, as in first hired and first needed.

Bob Tiernan Portland

“Well, consdering that the inflation rate from 2001 to 2003 was 3.9% and that Oregon's budget fell something like 20% (does anyone have exact numbers?) during that period, you could say that the budget fell at -513% of what inflation was.” Well, your math is a little off. Since you seem to be running out of facts, iIf you look at the link to the state of Oregon, here are the rev increases vs. pop+inflation. Taking the BLS calc for inflation from ’96-’09 = 1.37 or 2.45%/yr * 1.5% pop growth/yr = 3.9%/yr Rev Inc/Yr Rev Inc PopInflation/Year Pop/Inflation
vs. ‘96 Inc vs.’96 1996 20.60% 20.6% 3.9% 3.9%
1998 15.50% 39.3% 3.9% 7.9%
2000 12.80% 57.1% 3.9% 12.2%
2002 -6.20% 47.4% 3.9% 16.5%
2004 7.40% 58.3% 3.9% 21.1%
2006 23.00% 94.7% 3.9% 25.8%
2008 8.90% 112.0% 3.9% 30.7%
112.0%/30.77% = 3.65, so since 1996 revenue has grown 3.65 times as much as populationInflation in the past 13 years.

Of course, medical insurance for teachers is where all that money has gone, which is wrong. If that is the case, then how about asking state employees to contribute towards their medical coverage?

If Teddy could come up with a list of (heck, maybe just one) things where he has saved or tried to save money, a tax increase might have a chance. But its more likely people will remember things like multi-millions for a solar array that saves $1000/year in electricity.

Sorry, it didn't format right, but each column is:

Budget year, then rev % increase over previous year, then cum revenue increase since 1996, then 3.9% for pop & inflation increase each year, then cum increase for pop * inflation since 1996.

Was really fun watching bald Bob T trolling the the wealthy partisans of Lake Oswego for his anti-income tax referendum. It made perfect sense, Bob Tiernan, to go there to get your numbers. Having lived there, not just an outsider's view of those wonderful people who surely must worry month to month how to pay the heat bill for the jacuzzi, eh.

There was an entertaining interview with a bleach-blonde lady spluttering heatedly about the great temerity of asking the top wealth-holders of this state to pay 2% of their personal income to move thru this time. GOsh, she's just ready to abandon her house on the hill with the gardener for fairer climes, er.... tax laws that are fair to such as she, that is.

Bob T, the interview with you made sense, but your cause was rendered hysterically stupid by that blithering lady's street-level testimony. If she represents the numbers you were quoting to us, thank god for visuals. If not, I'd do what you can to take utter control of the media hype you will be seeking thru to September.

NO sympathy for Lake O denizens. Better get your photo ops on an off day in a neighborhood you are unlikely to get your best numbers from - the rich who want to hang onto it.

Kudos for the Lake Oswego resident who felt civic duty to pitch in.

Does anybody know where I can get a petition? I want to gather some signatures. email me at [email protected]

Dear clueless Jerr---if that was a serious question, you are more likely to get a serious answer from Oregon Catalyst or some such site than here.

Boats, Make sure the signatures are valid---that the signed name matches the printed name, etc.

If you succeed in your goal of 100 valid signatures, then congratulations--you will have collected 2% of the needed signatures. ...........

"Constable"? Is that what they call law enforcement where you live? Or is it all theory to you?

Loved this: Posted by: joel dan walls | Jul 23, 2009 3:07:08 PM

Clearly this thread should be retitled "A Rising Tax Floats All Boats."

Boats, you sent emails to Devlin (on a Ways and Means subcommittee) and Bruun ( who served on the Revenue committee). Staffers will tell you how many emails they got per day. Did you ever make a phone call?

"Back to Basics" was basically a fund sweep. My Republican state senator is on Ways and Means and had a town hall meeting featuring experts from Legislative Revenue and Legislative Fiscal offices. They said some of the funds listed were not funds to be used for general fund purposes. Of course, if you want the SAIF situation from the 1980s that is another story. The state of Oregon was ordered by a court to pay back the SAIF money with interest because they had no right to use it in the first place---in a budget balance during the days of Gov. Atiyeh which DID include a tax increase).

So don't make this a partisan issue. If Back to Basics was a serious budget, why no one from Ways and Means involved? Because the GOP attitude was "support our budget without asking questions" and W & M folks from either party wouldn't accept that attitude?

Do you like the California budget balance? Gov. Arnold said, "at least we didn't raise your taxes". What if there are California voters who would prefer services funded adequately rather than low taxes? Prop. 13 was a generation ago. What if new voters want something different?

The very real Oregon cuts after the Measure 28 and 30 elections may have paved the way for the 2006 Democratic takeover of the House. The Calif. budget balance may set the stage for reform efforts in California if voters there don't like the results.

Boats, find yourself a candidate for the legislature and work on that campaign, going door to door. You'll find that asking people what they would like to see in government (problems they want solved, etc.) rather than telling them what to believe is a more successful strategy.

Respect is earned, it cannot be bought. In a free country you can say whatever you want, but no one is required to agree with you.