Falling Off A Cliff… Or Not: The Choice Is Ours
We didn’t need the Pew Center on the States to tell us this, but they did it anyway: Oregon is facing a severe financial crisis. Based on several factors, the Pew Center has listed Oregon as one of the ten states in most “fiscal peril,” tied with Nevada for #5. California’s fiscal state is so bad, it’s in a league of its own.
The report takes into account Oregon’s rise in unemployment, our decreasing ability to pay for basic services … and, pointedly, a system in which legislators’ power to act is undermined by the ability and willingness of corporate lobbyists to spend millions of dollars to protect their embarrassingly low taxes.
But what the report highlight more than anything is this: We have a choice in how this turns out for Oregon.
In January, Measures 66 and 67 will give us the choice between two Oregon futures. Do we vote YES, and protect schools and other critical services, or do we vote no to protect the antiquated $10 corporate minimum?
The corporate lobbyists opposing these measures have made their choice known, and that’s what worries the folks at the Pew Center:
“Limited ability to
act. In most of the 10 states, including Arizona,
California, Florida, Nevada and Oregon, lawmakers’ latitude to respond to the
fiscal crisis by raising taxes or cutting spending is limited by their states’
constitutions, ballot measures passed by voters, or other statutory or legal
impediments to change.”
In other words: the ability and willingness of the corporate lobbyists to use the referendum system to overturn legislative decision-making undermines our fiscal health.
But I have faith that in this time of crisis, Oregonians will do the right thing and vote YES on 66 and 67.
This report highlights the need to work to support Measures 66 and 67. By keeping $1 billion in the Oregon economy – much of which will come from big out-of-state corporations, and from Federal matching funds – we can protect Oregon jobs, preserve services, and put our economy back together. We can avoid the Ghost of Oregon Future that haunts the Pew report.
As the economy struggles, it’s critically important to maintain basic services for people who have nowhere left to turn. These measures will make sure that our most vulnerable—children, seniors, and struggling families—aren’t left in the cold.
(Measure 66 also helps Oregonians who’ve found themselves out of work this year by making the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits tax exempt for 2009.)
In the months leading to January, we have a choice: Do we allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to throw our schools, seniors, and other vulnerable Oregonians off a cliff, or do we come together to protect the Oregon that we all value?
|
November 12, 2009 |
Steve Novick | Comments (123 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 12, 2009 5:08:27 PM
While it's easy to argue about the principles involved, the fact is that defeating this goes zero towards changing gov in the way the anti-taxers want, but does throw the money managers in state gov off balance. The $2,400 exemption is some of the only social progressive leg I can remember in some time. Anti-taxers can't face that a disproportionate number of them will be helped by that. (Assuming employers lay off their dimmest witted employees first, that's going to disproportionately be Limbaugh's lemmings). Yeah, I know they don't but it was too tempting with the title.
I intend to vote for it. May take a few pints to forget the ham handed tactics Dems have used to support it (particularly here) that BEG me to vote against it, but I won't be goaded.
My take on this is stoopid simple. A large ship of state is going down, right next door. As the sinking whirlpool develops, this is not the time to be sitting nearby, watching, with the engine off. Effectively TEA protesters are advocating that we empty the fuel tanks. Oregon's boat has sputtered in calm waters, for years. We either point away from the sinking neighbor and get a move on, under reliable power, or we end up going under for no better reason than California did.
You think there are too many Californians here now?! We'd better be firing on all cylinders when THAT tidal wave hits. If not, the best hope we might be left with is a 9+ subduction zone earthquake that makes the state uninhabitable to economic refugees. I'd rather vote for Measure 66.
Posted by: Ricky | Nov 12, 2009 5:57:44 PM
It just doesn't make sense to promote taxation of businesses during a depressed Oregon economy. We should be offering tax breaks to invite companies to the state to employ more Oregonians. Not quibble over why businesses should pay an extra nickel and dime in order to provide more wasteful spending to our schools and other programs. Our schools are failing, particularly in the metro areas, with or without the premise of 66/67. And who cares if unemployed doesn't pay taxes on their unemployment benefits? Think, man, think. You are smarter than buying into this horsecrap. Businesses are bolting from California, yet you compare that and try to paint it as favorable to Oregon? They're not going to come here. No, we vote NO on 66 and 67 and stop the peril we are self-creating.
Posted by: Dan Gicker | Nov 12, 2009 6:25:43 PM
Ricky, in a depressed economy, you can only take money from who has it and give it to those who don't. Who has it? Pfizer, Chevron et al. who doesn't? Students, Patients, victims of fire and crime, (google Palin rape kits, for example).
Show me the data that says giving large corporations tax breaks they don't need creates more jobs than providing infrastructure and supporting small businesses, the biggest creator of jobs in the state.
You can't just mouth republican talking points here without data. I mean you can, but I don't believe you.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 12, 2009 7:07:45 PM
Funny steve, when you're a hammer, the rest of the world is a bunch of nails. Perhaps you should let everyone know that you are a paid lobbyist for YES on 66 67.
REAL leadership would have advocated for a sales tax.
Posted by: a trial attorney | Nov 12, 2009 7:22:06 PM
Where to begin?
Ricky, if keeping taxation extremely low for corporations is supposed to draw corporations here, then why, when our corporate tax is so low, isn't it happening already?
Kurt Chapman: a sales tax is extremely regressive and only serves to hurt the poor on a disproportionate level because they have to spend just about 100% of their take-home income on the necessities of life.
Posted by: Steve Marx | Nov 12, 2009 7:48:35 PM
Here's my problem, if we do what Steve N says, then next year they'll still be in the hole and we'll need more taxes. For god's sake within the past 3 years Oregon went thru $700M (tobacco settlement) and >$1B (stimulus payments) and it didn't make one bit of difference in better schools (unless you count teacher benefits.)
Unfortunately, govt is going to have to cut something else besides customer service - like the private sector does.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 12, 2009 8:07:21 PM
"We should be offering tax breaks to invite companies to the state to employ more Oregonians."
That's an absurd argument. Companies already get a tax break for employing Oregonians. How steep? Huge. In fact, 100% of the cost of an employee is tax deductible. After all, staff costs are business expenses.
Moreover, can you provide any Oregon evidence that suggests that lowering taxes boosts employment? Oregon has the second-lowest business taxes - so where the hell are all the jobs?!
Posted by: Lou Fleming | Nov 12, 2009 8:12:47 PM
Marx,
Stop with the nonsense of teacher benefits. The stimulus money didn't enhance anything for schools. It only served to save jobs. If you look around Oregon, there are lots of towns where the local public school district is the largest employer. It makes good economic sense to protect the jobs of your largest employer.
In the end, it is sad that so many school districts are the largest employers instead of a strong core of private industry. Instead of whining about taxes and jostling for government handouts in the form of tax credits, maybe Oregon business should looks themselves in the mirror and realize that private industry is suffering because the state is not creating quality businessmen and women to run the companies. We have pitiful infrastructure. No military bases. Unstable K-12 and university funding. We don't spend enough to get federal matching funds. Did you see the new green car plant that Delaware just got? Get some trains and skilled laborers and presto there might be some jobs that follow. It is time that Oregon small business stopped being shills for national libretarian political causes and started actually doing something reasonable about creating jobs. The government is not the enemy. Stop being used like chess pieces and screw your heads on right before its too late.
Posted by: LT | Nov 12, 2009 8:13:33 PM
Here's an idea--create a job, get a tax break.
Not "give tax breaks and they will come".
A major problem with the budget in this state is unexamined tax breaks treated as if they can't be questioned. Fortunately, it sounds like maybe the 2009 session finally created a process to look at them and decide whether they should be sunsetted.
Posted by: bonzilliac | Nov 12, 2009 8:14:27 PM
a trial attorney commented: 'a sales tax is extremely regressive and only serves to hurt the poor on a disproportionate level because they have to spend just about 100% of their take-home income on the necessities of life.'
45 of 50 states levy sales tax rates between 4% to 7%. Somehow I doubt Oregon has a significantly lower % of poor people due to our lack of a state sales tax - nor do they likely have a higher standard of living than the poor in those other mean 'regressive' 45 states.
You can't have it both ways here. When people are trying to claim what a low tax haven Oregon is for business, they always cite reports/studies that include state sales taxes as a tax on business - and Oregon's glaring lack therof always results in a high ranking for favorable business tax environment.
(Incidentally, if you subtract out the sales tax revenue component, you'll find the sum total of Oregon's overall businesses taxes is comparable to other states similar to Oregon)
But now you're arguing we shouldn't have a state sales tax because it's a tax on CONSUMERS that will disproportionately affect the poor?
Now... which is it? Is a state sales tax a business tax or is it a tax on consumers?
Or are you advocating we should raise the other business tax components significantly above average to compensate for the lack of a sales tax?
Posted by: Ralph | Nov 12, 2009 8:19:46 PM
I didn't search the word but I'll bet ya the word "PERS" is nowhere to be found on this post concrening the Liberals in Oregon, you guys, needing more of taxpayer $$$$ to cover the Bankrupt PERS.
Where's your integrity?
Posted by: LT | Nov 12, 2009 8:21:26 PM
ATA, as with much in life, the slogan matters less than the details.
5% on everything everybody buys is regressive.
An intelligent tax reform proposal (which might include lowering one tax by raising another tax, or a carefully worded sales tax with exemptions for everyday items) might just come up with a good plan.
In the oral history video shown on the Oregon Channel, former Gov. Roberts talks about the Conversation with Oregon reform plan which lost out in a battle on the House floor with Speaker Larry Campbell, but she still thinks is a good plan which deserves discussion.
Kari, do you suppose you or someone else at BO could talk to Gov. Roberts and either have her write a blog post (or have someone from BO take the information from her and write it) here detailing the plan ? It was roughly a decade and a half ago that happened, which means Oregonians (incl. legislators?) under 30 would have just been school kids when that happened.
Let's have that openly debated and see what comes out.
My experience talking to people on various sides of this issue convinces me there are a few Republicans (Winters and Morse come to mind, and maybe a few House members) who believe in the sort of intelligent debate such a proposal might spark.
But I suspect there are many who dread intelligent debate because they are so used to argument by talking point.
Posted by: bonzilliac | Nov 12, 2009 9:09:02 PM
LT commented: 'Here's an idea--create a job, get a tax break.'
Nah... Didn't you hear? One of the many noted tax law/policy experts here says businesses are already getting a HUGE tax break because they can deduct the cost of their employees.
Posted by: Steve Marx | Nov 12, 2009 9:19:46 PM
"and started actually doing something reasonable about creating jobs."
Well.I really don't think raising corporate income taxes is the way to do this. Why not ask employers why they take their jobs to other states instead of assuming building streetcars and condos will attract them?
So if you have another suggestion . . .
Posted by: matthew vantress | Nov 12, 2009 9:32:59 PM
hey mr novick how about the 5,000 you ripped off from portland public schools last year to tell them how to be stimulated?how about the thousands and millions of dollars in hidden taxes like fees,system development charges,taxes on their profits and etc businesses in oregon pay mr novick that you are too scared, lazy,and afraid to mention in your arguments?that 10.00 mininmum you liberals harp on is not even a tax its a registration fee and thats what you are too lazy to mention.how is it absurd kari chisholm to offer tax breaks to businesses to com to oregon kari?tell us if our tax rate is so low mr chisholm then why is our unemployment rate so high?can any of you liberals honestly answer that and please include every tax, fee,system development charge and etc businesses pay in your answer back to me too.and start telling us that public employee benefits,including increased pers costs will suck up most of this tax increase something you liberals are too afraid to tell us.the govt and schools have enough money now and need to spend money educating kids not millions of dollars wasted on consultants that never save them any money or do anything for the kids.the private sector is hurting now and its time the greedy selfish state govt and schools really felt the way we feel and live with what they darn well get now and shut up for once.i am tired of the nonstop incessant whining about money from them to pay to maintain increased state worker health care and pension costs.school funding is stable now and has been for years lou fleming at 10,000 bucks a kid.thats more than enough money and thats full funding to give kids a quality education.same old tired lame scare tactics argument about education steve novick.
Posted by: Blue Collar Libertarian | Nov 12, 2009 10:08:01 PM
How about shutting one of the smaller state colleges?
How about tuition subsidies based on need?
How about opening the local transit market to competition?
Hint: businesses will see that the state is serious about finding other ways to fund things and maybe locate in Oregon.
Just look around and I'll bet you can find lots of ways to reduce expenditures.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Nov 12, 2009 11:32:55 PM
If history according to the Oregon Blue Book is any guide, I predict both of these measures to fail. I suspect they will be closer than the 60/40 margins, which the sales tax and other tax raisers usually fail by.
Blue Collar Libertarian brings up a very good point about consolidating the Oregon University System. Rearrange Southern Oregon University as University of Oregon-Ashland, rearrange Eastern Oregon University as Oregon State University-La Grande, and either let Western Oregon University fail or have the 2 big state universities fight for it.
Rearranging the smaller regional state schools as smaller campuses of U of O or OSU is a perfectly reasonable idea. Not only would you be able to cut administrative costs by doing away with redundancies, but you would give students who choose to go to one of the smaller regional state schools a more worthwile degree with the U of O or OSU on their degree. Finally, the consolidation of the smaller state universities may allow for a sharing of resources where students at Oregon State University-La Grande would have more resources and classes offered to them due to the sharing of monetary resources with the mother campus. Then again, U of O and OSU could consolidate them and drain them of resources leaving those who choose to go to a smaller regional school in a worse off position.
Anywho, it could work, but I do not think that more taxes when people are finding it harder to sustain their current lifestyle will not bode very well for the proponents of 66 and 67.
Posted by: Ricky | Nov 13, 2009 12:53:24 AM
"You can't just mouth republican talking points here without data. I mean you can, but I don't believe you."
If my opinions and thoughts on Measure 66 & 67 are seen as "Republican talking points", then I guess I am in agreement with whatever those "talking points" are. I haven't seen them. There is PLENTY of data out there to look at to know that voting YES is a bad idea.
Look at the largest employers in the private sector in Oregon and the numbers of people they employ. Almost all of them made a decision to locate here because Oregon was a promising climate to prosper in. Then , the jobs created not only employed an individual, but fed and clothed their families, as well. Tax exemptions invite the types of big business who employ thousands. Non-partisan studies are all over the place, and you can find them if you simply spend a few minutes looking, that all say the measures will create a net job loss in the state.
And do not forget that these businesses contributed enough to the till that we have had KICKER rebates sent to all of us, fairly recently. So much for the "peril".
Why are we expected to blindly believe, and blindly vote for a measure just because we are liberals? I realize it's a soft sell, but the fact is, the depressed state we are in is not linked to conservative legislation, but the direct result of Democrats' legislation.
The entire Tea Bag phenom should have taught us a lesson. It's an easy reaction to simply write that off that they are all crazy Republicans, but more and more I see that people are tired of the over-regulation and over-taxation that doesn't even allow some poor schmuck to set up even a food cart business cheaply.
We should be inviting and trying to win back industries who set up operations in China and India. The revenue we gave away from that global experiment would sure come in handy.
Posted by: paulie | Nov 13, 2009 3:32:53 AM
The point is Oregon is West Virginia with a beach along with 9 other states in a deeply serious fiscal crisis. We already lead the nation in the shortest school year. What next? Lop off another 20 days?
Combining all the school districts in Jackson County, population 200,000, we are the counties largest employer. The NO campaign lays off more teachers. The NO campaign quarantees a lesser trained workforce.
The corporations currently pay 5 cups of coffee per week for their right to do business in Oregon. They pay $10 per year and have since 1931. In 78 years many corporations have paid a grand total of $780 to support public schools in Oregon.
All of the "fixes" mentioned in this thread require years of negotiating, litigation and legislation. Meanwhile school districts across Oregon have to prepare school budgets for next year.
Posted by: HGH For Sale | Nov 13, 2009 5:28:00 AM
It’s critically important to maintain basic services for people who have nowhere left to turn.but you would give students who choose to go to one of the smaller regional state schools a more worthwile degree with the U of O or OSU on their degree.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 13, 2009 7:27:54 AM
WhatNovick and company fail to mention is the Pew study specifically cited Oregon's OVER RELIANCE on the income tax as a chief revenue source. They went on to point out that a sales tax, reasonably set up could help states such as Oregon even out the roller coaster ride of over dependence on the income tax.
The Pew report cited huge job losses in manufacturing, high tech and forest products as the leading cause for the drop in the income tax receipts.
A sales tax that exempt basic food, medicine and rent would not be regressive. Furth breaks against AGI for families under 200% of the poverty level could also be part of the plan. At 5% it could bring in far more from business and "the rich" than the amounts proposed by 66 and 67. face it folks, the dems in salem lack the cajones to even attempt effective leadership.
66 and 67 do absolutely NOTHING to address the huge revenue needs for PERS beginning 7/1/2011. The rates for PERS 1 and PERS 2 go up by about 50% then. A sales tax evens out these revenue hills and valleys.
Posted by: Tom Vail | Nov 13, 2009 7:30:21 AM
I always wonder why the argument starts with laying off "teachers." Why not mention Administrators? Non Credentialed staff?
I also wonder why we don't talk about less government. I hear businesses cutting 20% of personnel costs through layoffs, retirement, etc. I hear them cutting overhead by consolidating facilities, etc. When was the last time you heard of our state government or school districts shrinking?
I also believe that one of the main impediments to job growth in any state is the perception of government involvement in business. If I am considering moving a business to Oregon from outside of the state, I will be checking carefully to see just how oppressive will be the government in the state. Will it make me jump through more hoops than another state? The state with the biggest and most intrusive government is probably California. Businesses are leaving that state in droves.
By approving the tax measures we may preserve a few teacher's jobs for a year or two. If we deny the tax increases, push will come to shove and legislature will need to shrink our government in some way. If we never deny funding to Salem, there will never be an end to the increases.
Is Steve Novick really a paid lobbiest for Yes on 66/67? If he is, I am disappointed that Blue Oregon allows him an unpaid advertisement without any disclaimers. He may be a friend of Blue Oregon, but he should pay for his ads like everyone else. Or is he another of the political animals who feels that the end justifies the means?
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 8:37:23 AM
Between BO Democrats and today's lead Oregonian editorial Oregon is doomed to follow California's track record.
The rhetoric here at BO is a clear message echoed by the madness in today's editorial.
The editorial says keep the kicker, which triggers more spending, which increases the size of government and that's how we "avoid" following California?
How can Blues be so oblivious?
David Sarasohn during a 2001 or 2002 episode of Seven Days stated that had the kicker been over turned in the 90s all of the money would have been spent. The rest of the panel nodded and after some silence they changed the subject.
Now here we are in an even deeper recession and there is no learning curve.
The elephant in your blue living room is Oregon taxpayers and businesses cannot afford YOU.
Expanding goverment as was done last session with the 9% increased spending is exactly how Califoria got where they are.
Is it your thinking that Oregon Democrats are smarter than California Democrats and you'll somehow make the same approach work?
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Nov 13, 2009 8:41:43 AM
"Tax exemptions invite the types of big business who employ thousands."
Wrong.
If this were true, then one would expect that Costco, Microsoft, Expedia, Amazon.com, Paacar, Nordstrom, Alaska Air Group, Starbucks, Weyerhauser, and Itron to all close their Washington corporate offices and move to Oregon tomorrow - all because of Oregon's lower corporate tax rate.
The fact is Oregon has 6 Fortune 1000 companies, Washington 12, and California has 98.
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 13, 2009 9:20:59 AM
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 8:37:23 AM
Between BO Democrats and today's lead Oregonian editorial Oregon is doomed to follow California's track record.
Oh nooooo! They're endorsing electing a photogenic no-experience conservative, at the behest of right wing talk radio? You saying Sarah Palin is relocating to Oregon?
Posted by: Tom Vail | Nov 13, 2009 7:30:21 AM
I always wonder why the argument starts with laying off "teachers." Why not mention Administrators? Non Credentialed staff?
Because the Dem logic is, "We mean well. the ends justify the ends. Better hold a gun to their kids' head so they do the right thing." Yeah, point taken, they could help a bit. Middle management is not a career, competitive with the private sector, it is service. And when 20% bitch at that, fire 'em. That immediately generates as much as M66.
But, by all means, do both!
Online schoolers... Great idea. OU and the universities lobby will fight you to the death, though. They would play the role that the current health care providers do in the health care debate. And for the same reason.
Posted by: JJ | Nov 13, 2009 9:21:45 AM
Steve..I'm sorry dude, but when it comes to the economy, you just don't get it...at all. The reason Oregon is struggling is because our largest city is one of the most liberal, and least business friendly cities in the country...with a city council that is more interested in wasting money on garbage like bike paths and kite festivals than on tax incentives for corporations that might want to move here.. We have a Democrat legislature that is hell bent on raising taxes at a time when our citizens can least afford it..the same legislature that fails to recognized the irreparable harm the labor unions cause to our local economy... There is a reason why Oregon's unemployment is more than twice that of state's that institute conservative fiscal policies, like South Carolina and Tennessee...there is a reason Oregon is unable to attract any new, large corporations to our state...and the reason is that the state and local government offices are occupied with people who are as confused as you are on these issues.
If Oregon is to survive this recession, and position itself to grow in the future, we need lower taxes not higher taxes, less regulation, not more of it. These are not Republican facts, these are just the facts and they are not debatable. If you care about this state and our economic viability...you need to get on board with reality..or at the very least, stop advocating for policies that will further destroy our state, we simply can't afford it.
Posted by: Note to Republicans/rightwingnuts | Nov 13, 2009 9:42:17 AM
"Where's your integrity?"
Not a good idea to site things like integrity when your a morally bankrupt corporate prostitute.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 9:44:18 AM
Here's the perfect example of blue thinking.
Peri posted
-------
"Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 8:37:23 AM
Between BO Democrats and today's lead Oregonian editorial Oregon is doomed to follow California's track record.
Oh nooooo! They're endorsing electing a photogenic no-experience conservative, at the behest of right wing talk radio? You saying Sarah Palin is relocating to Oregon?"
-------
What a loopy leap without any connection.
Blue Peri imagined something entirely different from my comment and responded to what he/she imagined.
And the vagueness of both what he/she read and the response is supposed to be got?
Geeze, bluey, at least spit it out.
The chronic use of vague inferences by blues is maddening.
Is that technique used because you're not really sure yourself what you are trying to say?
But assume at least your fellow blues always get it?
Now is there any response to
Keeping more or rasing taxes= more spending=more government to support=more like California?
Posted by: Sales tax on luxury items | Nov 13, 2009 9:46:25 AM
A sales tax on luxury items would be a good idea. Food, healthcare, etc. could be exempted. We need the revenue and it would serve the environment by providing incentive to consume less.
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 13, 2009 9:53:09 AM
One Eyed Snake, that's not a rebuttal. You never answered "how". That's just name calling, so, as you will notice, I'm speaking the only language you seem to know.
OK. You've convinced me. It's hopeless. We go down in a talk radio inspired frenzy of self harming.
And you'll love my next move. Buying a gun. 9mm. I will dutifully practice at the range with my Hannity target, and when society falls apart, I will lead gangs of displaced Calis into your precious homes and shoot it out with you for your precious material fetishes, food and water.
Happy?
Posted by: Count Bodies, not Votes, Election Day! | Nov 13, 2009 10:01:55 AM
I'm voting for it, even though every point about how they could spend much better is well taken. I also call for liberals to come out in numbers. Shadow TEA protesters and let's get a database of where they live. Radical action groups are baying for blood and I say they shall have it!
You're right Peri, you'll have to pull him out of his hole, cowering.
I've called these idiots out for weeks (#bringbackdueling) and only liberals have twitted. Not one of those cowardly dittoheads has dared engage in debate with those that are prepared to spew right back at them. They can only exist in polite company, playing the bratty child.
You know, next time you see a kid doing that, just backhand him with all your strength and see how long it continues. Meanwhile, doting Aunt Kari offers the little troll their fix of white powder...
Get validated IDs already! This is so insulting to your serious readers.
Posted by: Lou Fleming | Nov 13, 2009 10:09:52 AM
"Why not ask employers why they take their jobs to other states instead of assuming building streetcars and condos will attract them?"
I think there is a reason why we don't ask employers about taking their jobs to other states, as you request, because it does not happen as much as you would like us to believe. Sure, there is the Freightliner example but the whole jobs fleeing the state argument is an over-hyped scare tactic. Jobs have not fled. They have disappeared in almost every state that doesn't end in Dakota.
The real focal point is not about jobs fleeing. Business needs to focus on the fact that people keep coming to Oregon and we have a growing population. The righties like to convienently forget this while they whine about their taxes. Increasing population means increasing business opportunity, but our prone to failure business minds in this state are too busy whining about taxes and being played by the right wing extreme and not prepping themselves for this trend and the money that can be made.
The Dick's Sporting Goods and Wallgreen's of the world are not going to miss out on this population expansion whether they dislike the corporate taxes or not. It'll be a Carl's Jr. on every corner or bust. In the meantime, the real question is how do we create middle class jobs? My answer, Marx, has nothing to do with street cars or condos--I avoid liberal veneer. My suggestions would center on bridge repair and construction and a high speed rail corridor. I think there is opportunity to manufacture small scale portable nuclear power to be exported to the third world as has been designed at OSU. I think we need to reduce restrictions on the urban growth boundaries to encourage more conference centers and hotels in the wine country. And most importantly we need to stabilize revenue for the state for a simple and obvious reason---we need government. To the rightie hogwash machine--Alexander Hamilton died a long time ago. Get over it. Vote yes on 66 and 67, as Paulie points out, it is our only choice at this time.
Posted by: LT | Nov 13, 2009 10:25:35 AM
"The reason Oregon is struggling is because our largest city is one of the most liberal, and least business friendly cities in the country"
During the 5 special sessions (back when Republicans controlled both Oregon House and Senate), there was a rush to gimmicks because there apparently weren't the votes for the "cut it all" agenda, but a devotion to the anti-tax agenda.
Let me tell you as the granddaughter of a Republican elected official and the daughter of an accountant that this is not about ideology.
The House Ways and Means co-chair back then was one of the last truly logical Republicans. He was candid with the general public and talked common sense, not ideology. For that, he was replaces as W & M co-chair the next session because the Minnis crowd wanted a true believer instead.
This House member became a state senator by appointment when his state senator got a job which meant leaving the legislature.
Then he left the Republican party and became an independent. Then he became a Democrat.
In 2008 we elected him our State Treasurer.
I have heard Ben Westlund talk about what this state needs for the budget to be truly stable and balanced.
It is not about ideology. It is about having open public discussions about budget reform, tax reform, kicker reform.
I suspect there are some people who don't want that open public debate because it would involve ordinary citizens, not just lobbyists, activists, ideologues, people who do politics for a living.
The way to solve problems is to set a goal (which can be debated), discuss the steps to achieve the goal, then do the work to complete those steps.
Call me "liberal" or any name you want. But I want concrete answers, not just blame against "government" because someone doesn't like the individual actions of certain officials. For the record, I have talked to my state senator's office in the last 24 hours, have often argued with legislators, school board members, and others. How many of you have done the same?
What part of the $2 billion in cuts in the 2009 session did not go far enough?
Kurt, are you aware of the tax reform proposal St. Sen. Frank Morse had in the 2007 session? He took a slideshow to civic groups in his district, and had the slideshow online for people to look at. But there were those (esp. in his own party) who just wanted that proposal to go away. It was more complex than just "a sales tax" or any other single idea.
It is the fault of those who like the status quo (not "liberals" or "government" or any other generality) that such ideas aren't more widely discussed. I believe there are legislators (my Republican state rep being one of them) who don't want open public discussion because they want all this only to be debated on their terms and inside the capitol building by the party caucuses.
I don't think people doing name calling want to answer that question.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Nov 13, 2009 10:38:12 AM
The editorial says keep the kicker, which triggers more spending, which increases the size of government and that's how we "avoid" following California?
How can Blues be so oblivious?
Dick - the Oregonian editorial board actually expressed support for repealing the kicker, not keeping it. And the point was not to increase spending, but instead to funnel kicker money into a strategic reserve fund so that the state will not have to go scrounging for revenue when tax receipts drop when the economy declines.
Kurt - Do you have any idea how many times well-intentioned politicians on both sides of the aisle have attempted to pass reasonable sales taxes in this state? What makes you think that the brass in anyone's cajones is going to make Oregon voters more receptive to a sales tax now than they have ever been?
btw, LT is right about Senator Morse's leadership regarding his VAT proposal.
Regarding PERS, I was recently sent a very disturbing white paper on the amount of additional money state and local government will have to spend to meet their contractual obligations to retirees. I agree that the legislature needs to address the issue in a serious way in 2011.
But how would M66 or 67 failing improve the PERS situation?
Tom - You are correct about the need to get a handle in spending. However, it's important to remember a couple of things:
First, the 2009 legislature did trim $1.3 billion from the budget level needed to maintain the level of services in the current biennium that was provided by state government in the 2007-2008 biennium.
Second, inflation and population growth, particularly among retirees, are among the main reasons why government expenditures grow during any biennial period. Looking at the budget pie, one of the most disturbing trends is consistent double-digit growth in DHS expenditures -- i.e., rising health care costs.
Those things aside, I tend to agree that the state should use incentives such as targeted tax breaks to try to lure new industry into the state. But as we've seen with BETC, such programs can be difficult to administer effectively, and it's important to remember that in the absence of new revenue, every dollar spent in such tax credits is a dollar taken away from some other program.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 13, 2009 10:47:11 AM
A sales tax that exempt basic food, medicine and rent would not be regressive.
Yes it would be. Any sales tax that covers enough items to actually bring in enough revenue to make any type of difference is regressive by its very nature. You can't have a tax on non-essential goods that provides a revenue stream that is stable or large enough to match the streams from property and income taxes. The fewer categories of items and services you tax, the smaller the revenue stream. The less essential the categories of items and services you tax, the less stable the revenue stream.
The study's conclusion that Oregon's problems lie in an over-reliance on income tax rest on the hoary notion -- hashed out here several times in the past -- that a sales tax is more stable than an income tax. Economic theory says it should be but data shows that's not necessarily the case. As we have seen over the past year, economic theory may not be all that it's cracked up to be. And considering that all of the other states on the bottom ten of the Pew list (including California) have sales taxes, it's certainly not a guarantee for success.
Posted by: matthew vantress | Nov 13, 2009 10:49:01 AM
hey lt how about we cut the size of the state govt to the absolute bare bone and get all non citizens and their anchor babies off all state services?funny you liberals dont want to and wont talk about that.we have talked to legislators lt and the problem is unless you are a state woreker belonging to a public employee union you are ignored.how about spending reform lt and the state stop wasting millions of dollars on consultants that never save them any money lt?kicker reform is not needed.sorry the kicker money is taxpayers money and it came from our pockets and its ours lt not the greedy selfish state govts.tax reform is not necessary.give them the kicker and i gurantee you this they will spend every dime of it to benefit their public employee union buddies and it wont go to a rainy day fund.ben westlund became a rino republican and i will vote for him for anything.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 10:52:01 AM
LT
You're hopeless. The 09 session increased spending 9%.
What matters is how one defines "truly stable and balanced".
Nothing but unlimited ability to extract more from taxpayers is the liberal definition.
Here you are noting that the '09 session made $2 billion in cuts when they increased spending.
With the liberal definition of "truly stable and balanced"
the '09 session would have raised taxes and increased spending enough to avoid all the "cuts".
That "stabilizing" move probably would have increased spending over 20%.
You want an open public discussions about budget reform, tax reform, kicker reform so that spending can be increased every session by at least 20%.
That is the liberal road to ruin you refuse to face.
And why many on the right view today's "liberalism" (progressives) as a mental disorder.
Is there any wonder so many Democrats like Marc Abrams have not joined the liberals turned progressive on the insane far left?
You can't even do simple math on the road to ruin and avoid advocating the California model.
Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Nov 13, 2009 11:13:25 AM
LT, Peri, you can't debate with right wing zealots.
Totally serious (for once). I have friends working at Human Rights Watch that have been receiving threatening phone calls from Mossad agents at home, recently. Don't take my word for it. Someone here must know someone that works there. She said it's happening to everyone.
At some point allowing these people a forum can be regarded as actionable suborning of harassment.
That is the liberal road to ruin you refuse to face.
We've been on the Reagan rode to Mourning in Amerika for 30 years and are paying the price! I told zealots back then to have an abortion. But no, and now, 99% of the dittoheads are useless male gen X ers. That's you Dick! Just like battery hens, bred to purpose. Alien in nature, fit only for the chopping block.
End human domestication and you'll not have to deal with barnyard types like Dick.
Posted by: genop | Nov 13, 2009 11:22:02 AM
Since the state's green tax credit is considered over generous to business, and it has started to work in attracting new business to the state, I think the least we should expect is a modest return through increased corporate taxes. Vote yes - the job creation already in the pipeline with the tax credits more than offsets any discouragement a slight corporate tax increase might entail. Wake up people.
Posted by: LT | Nov 13, 2009 11:26:16 AM
Thank you Sal for your comment.
Richard,
How much of the increased spending was on construction projects, on help for needy Oregonians, on criminal justice spending?
And how do you account for my high respect for Sen. Frank Morse--is he a "liberal" too because he is an old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Republican legislator?
Richard, how many elections have you won recently by saying "You want an open public discussions about budget reform, tax reform, kicker reform so that spending can be increased every session by at least 20%.
That is the liberal road to ruin you refuse to face. "
Marc Abrams is a Portland Democrat---many downstate residents (esp. those who have ever been active in Democratic politics) don't think too highly of Portlanders telling the rest of us what to think. And in a ranking of best Dem. State Chairs, not everyone would put Marc in the top 5.
But bringing him up does point to a certain frame of mind.
There are those (both Sen. Frank Morse and Sen. Wayne Morse in Oregon history) who have believed in the idea that individuals think for themselves, and that at a table of 5 people there is nothing subversive about having 4 factions and a moderator.
However, there are others who stereotype:
"you're a woman, why aren't you supporting Hillary?"
"you're an environmentalist, therefore OLCV speaks for you"
"you own a business--is it NFIB, AOI, or OBA which makes your political decisions for you?"
"you work in a unionized job, therefore your union has decided that you believe...".
Guess what, Richard! Some of the biggest fights in this state in recent decades have not been along ideological lines. They have been among those who believe all members of a group conform to what they are told to believe, and those who choose to think for themselves, thank you very much.
This has a lot to do with why the numbers of NAV + other party registration is now the deciding number in many races. If Democrats are somewhere over 40% registration, and Republicans something over 30% registration, either could have 100% straight party voting and lose an election if the NAV + other voters choose the other side.
But go on believing that calling someone "liberal" will win an argument if you wish. Or maybe all you want to do is name-call because accomplishing anything takes actual work.
Posted by: Tim | Nov 13, 2009 11:36:50 AM
"Oregon is facing a severe financial crisis. "
The solution is obvious: Increase spending and raise taxes.
Fee's need to be raised across the board, property taxes need to be raised, and a special wealth tax needs to be created. I'd also like to see 90% estate taxes.
And I am sick and tired of hearing those anti-tax sissies complaining.
Posted by: Sales tax on non-essential goods | Nov 13, 2009 11:37:21 AM
Sales tax on goods wouldn't provide all the revenue needed for essential services, but it would certainly provide enough to help..... and also would provide an incentive to consume less.
Posted by: Darin | Nov 13, 2009 11:47:55 AM
Good ideas. Raising fees and news taxes, like a Sales Tax would be great. I know Portland was looking at a leaf tax at one point, as a means of funding street clean ups; so this is another good possibility.
I was also thinking about a "newborn" tax. Basically, each additional person born in the USA would be taxed, which would go to offset global warming.
~Darin
Posted by: Greg D. | Nov 13, 2009 11:55:37 AM
An economic war has begun between the low cost states of the Southeast and the higher cost states of the West Coast. Jobs are leaving Oregon, Washington and CA and heading to what I lovingly refer to as the "Cracker States". I suspect that the Cracker States will ultimately win this war, just as Mexico, China, Vietnam, India, etc. etc. have won the international competition for low end manufacturing jobs.
Oregon and the other West Coast states need to prepare for this economic war with people in states like Arkansas or Mississippi or Louisiana who consider $8.00 per hour with no benefits to be an elite opportunity. How can Oregon compete with the Cracker States? I don't know, but I have a feeling that it will require slashing public service costs to the raw bone, eliminating public employee unions, cutting state benefits, etc. etc. etc.
Turning Oregon or Washington into the equivalent of South Carolina to compete for low-end jobs sounds like my vision of hell, but economic forces are like glaciers, they just keep grinding you down.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 12:08:45 PM
Beaverbrook,
What makes me a "right wing zealots".
Stating the fact that the 09 session increased spending 9%?
We haven't been on any "Reagan rode" at all. President Reagon couldn't even get the spedning cuts he was promised by th eliberals of his day.
Now Progressives are rewritting that era and everything since.
We've been on the expansion of goverment road at all levels for 30 years. Including the fiscally reckless expansion during the Bush/Chaney years.
Like so may progressives you seem to have imagined some era of conservative policies being adopted by congress.
Just like LT imagined deep cuts when spending was increased.
genop,
Any increased taxation will simply increase the rate of increased spending and government expansion which we cannot afford or sustain, period.
That's the California model progressives love so much.
LT,
Good to see you acknowledge the "increased" spending.
It doesn't matter how you cast and shape the increased spending. It must stop and move backwards to a level that works. That means mission reduction not more taxes and continued mission creep.
So what if you respect Sen. Frank Morse?. Yes is he a "liberal" too in some ways.
Not because he is "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Republican legislator".
Because he supports a sales tax, reversal of M5 and the Kicker and a legislative review of initiative petitions.
Among other Liberal stuff. But he is a well respected guy.
Do you have a point to make in the context of his liberal side?
We'll see about winning elections with you blues, in the face of deep recession, touting more tax increases to support expanding government.
I think that is all coming home to bite you.
California's model isn't selling any more. It's plain to see BS for too many people.
Marc Abrams is an "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Democrat who is reasonable. That's why he, and many other prominent Democrats are not the "progressive" liberal.
They aren't the ones telling democrats what to think either. Progressives are the ones doing that.
I'll pass on your "guess what" lecture on stereotyping, group thinking and ideology.
I don't think you even know who you are talking about.
As for my "believing that calling someone "liberal" will win an argument", you need to pay attention.
I was explaining that today's liberals, "progressives" are advocating a California model road to ruin with demanding tax and spending increases in the face of deep recession.
Expanding spending and government in a shrinking economy is crazy.
Why don't you explain how it makes sense?
Don't wander off into something more cozy.
I'll wager not a one of you progressives can stay focused long enough to stick to that point and justify your advocacy for increasing taxing and spending.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 13, 2009 12:19:16 PM
Beaverbrook,
What makes me a "right wing zealots".
Stating the fact that the 09 session increased spending 9%?
We haven't been on any "Reagan rode" at all. President Reagon couldn't even get the spedning cuts he was promised by th eliberals of his day.
Now Progressives are rewritting that era and everything since.
We've been on the expansion of goverment road at all levels for 30 years. Including the fiscally reckless expansion during the Bush/Chaney years.
Like so may progressives you seem to have imagined some era of conservative policies being adopted by congress.
Just like LT imagined deep cuts when spending was increased.
genop,
Any increased taxation will simply increase the rate of increased spending and government expansion which we cannot afford or sustain, period.
That's the California model progressives love so much.
LT,
Good to see you acknowledge the "increased" spending.
It doesn't matter how you cast and shape the increased spending. It must stop and move backwards to a level that works. That means mission reduction not more taxes and continued mission creep.
So what if you respect Sen. Frank Morse?. Yes is he a "liberal" too in some ways.
Not because he is "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Republican legislator".
Because he supports a sales tax, reversal of M5 and the Kicker and a legislative review of initiative petitions.
Among other Liberal stuff. But he is a well respected guy.
Do you have a point to make in the context of his liberal side?
We'll see about winning elections with you blues, in the face of deep recession, touting more tax increases to support expanding government.
I think that is all coming home to bite you.
California's model isn't selling any more. It's plain to see BS for too many people.
Marc Abrams is an "old fashioned, common sense, well mannered Democrat who is reasonable. That's why he, and many other prominent Democrats are not a progressive loon.
They aren't the ones telling democrats what to think. Progressives are the ones doing that.
I'll pass on your "guess what" lecture on stereotyping, group thinking and ideology.
I don't think you even know who you are talking about.
As for my "believing that calling someone "liberal" will win an argument", you need to pay attention.
I was explaining that today's liberals, "progressives" are advocating a California model road to ruin with demanding tax and spending increases in the face of deep recession.
Expanding spending and government in a shrinking economy is crazy.
Why don't you explain how it makes sense?
Don't wander off into something more cozy.
I'll wager not a one of you progressives can stay focused long enough to stick to that point and justify your advocacy for increasing taxing and spending.
Posted by: Paul Cox | Nov 13, 2009 1:00:43 PM
So how do Church schools, home schoolers, Madrassahs, etc. do it?
There are lots of models for schooling, all less expensive. They're non starters though. Public education isn't about learning to think or cope in adult life. Obviously, it is pitiful at that, considering the money invested. Can you imagine sitting with 40 people for 12 years and saying the same thing and, when, asked, it's news to them? Most classes are smaller. How unsuccessful can you be?
No, what is CRITICAL that they cannot learn in the alternatives, is that participation is more important than results, the content of your urine is more important than the content of your mind, "negro" is an unacceptable word, exercise is an option and that catchup with fries is a vegetarian meal!
Talk to a middle manager looking for a job. Find a good one. Met a guy that had been with US Bank for 10 years and he is having trouble. Now imagine you push paper for Clackamas School District, and get $86,000/annum. Think you're going to make a lateral move? How much is left after their bubble inflated mortgage payment goes out each month? How many kids have they invested in? Is the breadwinner supporting a stay at home fraud as well? That person CAN NOT leave the school system, without their world totally falling apart. But all they have to do is convince you to pony up, and it's back to life per the usual. What you are seeing now is what they do instead of standing in the roadway medians with placards. If they can just convince you to throw a few coins in their tin, they won't have to change their life decisions one iota.
Richard was expelled from our local TEA group for basic rudeness. That poster got one thing right, for once. He is not up for an honest debate. Just a bratty, whining little boy. How would you react if someone's ratty 12 year old kept interrupting the Governor's speech, with dumb questions about it, everyone introduced and concluded with puerile name calling? Even hapless Ted could manage that one. What's the difference between "media" and "news"? Management. So do some. Decide, is this 21st century media, or the wall of the bathroom stall where anyone can write whatever? Come to think of it, the discussion on here about Mayor Ale-in' are almost verbatim what I've seen in that particular, notorious City Hall stall!
The fact that Blue Oregon lets people that have set out to be an irritant, with no thought of debate, have their way with the blog, is evidence of the kind of thinking that you can only learn at a public school. The desperation you see in these posts is genuine. If others can make it via a different course, then they didn't have to go through it. Doomed to that narrow perspective, they are "concerned" that we are trying a path that "cannot work". Facing that it can work means facing that they could be different. Too lazy to change, enraged by groupthink, they attack the messanger as if it were the end of the world. We agree. The subject is the end of their world.
That's where I disagree, too. The choice is YOURS. Not ours. Whatever your political beliefs, when a party, especially the one in power, says "we is you", run the other way. Run very fast.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Dan Gicker | Nov 12, 2009 4:56:21 PM
Let me be the first to champion the right of Pfizer, Chevron et al to pay 10 bucks a year to Oregon and my right to subsidize THEIR cost of doing business in Oregon. Hooray!/snark.