The point is they laugh at what you say.....
(H/T to Daniel Powter)
Well, you need a blue sky holiday
The point is they laugh at what you say
And I don't need no carryin' on
You had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lie
You work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day
Recent days have not been kind to the conservative/Republican folks hoping to move things their way.
On November 13, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled to essentially uphold the ballot titles for Measure 66 and 67 despite a serious whinefest from the anti-tax fairness cabal. Just four days later, a Marion County judge judge rejected a legal challenge to the ballot title process that drafted the language.
The kids at the Oregon version of Freedomworks tried to sell the idea that Measures 66 and 67 "target the middle class". But only their true believers are buying. Jeff Mapes did a little fact-checking, and that Freedomworks claim only flies if you're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. In other words, it's a lie.
Finally, the Oregon Senate Republicans were forced to eat a plate full of crow this week when they sent out a press released with wild-ass claims on state employee pay. It turns out that they were wrong..and gave a stupid excuse to Mapes. In addition, the GOP talking point that state workers are doing better than private sector workers is bad and therefore we should hack back state worker pay just slays me. Is this the how the GOP makes life better for Oregonians..playing to the least common denominator?
Update: 7:20PM: Oops..forgot one. On Monday, State Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Central Point), issued a press release with the BRILLIANT idea of having the first $2,400 of unemployment payments be tax exempt. The idea is SO good in fact, that it's already IN Measure 66! Perhaps the "Vote Yes!" campaign should hire Atkinson to be a spokesperson. Somehow I doubt the GOP would like that very much.
Hear that sound, Oregon GOP/conservatives? We're laughing AT you, not with you. There's only so many times you can be asked (begging, pleading) to clean up your act before it just seems too futile to try.
|
November 19, 2009 |
Carla Axtman
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Insider | Nov 19, 2009 8:46:59 PM
Bonzill:
Jason Atkinson did NOT abstain from these votes. He was absent. He skipped out to avoid these votes.
And if these measures fail, the Legislature will have to cut $1 billion. There won't be any money to pay for new tax cuts like this one.
Try again.
Posted by: LT | Nov 19, 2009 8:59:32 PM
Seriously, do you know that Atkinson "skipped out "? You know where he was ?
I don't agree with his politics but he and I share an experience---mobility problems, having to learn to walk with a cane, and then learn to walk without one.
You are right about what will happen if the measures fail. But once in awhile Atkinson shows a serious streak, esp. since his injury.
Posted by: Cheesus Cripes | Nov 19, 2009 9:08:54 PM
Word on the street is that Atkinson went on a bicycling junket to Colorado in order to avoid having to vote on the bill. Some leadership.
In the meantime, watching the Republicans pretend they care about the unemployed is downright vomit-inducing. They actually could have chosen to not refer the unemployment provision--you know, so that Sen. Atkinson wouldn't have to RE-introduce the bill--except that they cared so little about it that it didn't even come up for consideration: http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/10/ignoring-27000-unemployed-oregonians-the-hypocrisy-of-the-anti-tax-campaign.html
Posted by: KV | Nov 20, 2009 12:53:34 AM
Carla, YOU should get your facts straight. It was the DEMOCRATS who decided to disconnect from the federal tax code in February. It was the DEMOCRATS who decided NOT to follow the federal lead and exempt the first $2400 taxed in unemployment benefits.
Senator Atkinson, then, introduced SB 975. Then it was the DEMOCRATS who gut and stuffed his bill into HB 2649, along with the income tax changes, which the Democrats KNEW conservatives would put on the ballot. So the if the Democrats ACTUALLY cared about the unemployed in Oregon instead of playing politics and caring who gets the credit for what, they would have passed Senator Atkinson's bill instead of putting it with a bill they knew would get sent to the public for ratification. Instead, they chose to play politics.
Do you hear that sound Carla? You're laughing because you're too stupid to know what's going on.
Posted by: just down the street from u | Nov 20, 2009 3:35:49 AM
Carla - I will be voting *No* on Measures 66 and 67. The Abyss Beckons. Enjoy the ride.
Posted by: anon | Nov 20, 2009 4:59:20 AM
NW Republican posted a story about the G.O.P. claims about state employee pay:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:VfuBNlgFm4AJ:nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/11/oregon-public-employees-earning-more.html+nwrepublican+public+employees&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
It's still cached, but they've taken the story down without comment and without acknowledging that they posted a false story.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 20, 2009 9:39:01 AM
We're laughing AT you, not with you. There's only so many times you can be asked (begging, pleading) to clean up your act before it just seems too futile to try.
If you're going to ditto what progressives have been saying about BO since last November, at least credit it!
Posted by: dartagnan | Nov 20, 2009 9:56:32 AM
"the GOP talking point that state workers are doing better than private sector workers is bad and therefore we should hack back state worker pay just slays me. Is this the how the GOP makes life better for Oregonians..playing to the least common denominator?"
The GOP doesn't give a damn about making life better for ordinary working people in Oregon or anywhere else, as I'm sure you know. This is just another example of the "politics of resentment" the GOP loves to play -- make one group of working people resent another on whatever grounds (they make a little more money, they have health insurance and pensions, they have a little more education, they're a different color) so they won't perceive their common interests and enemies.
This game has worked so well for the GOP that it has about 30 percent of Americans convinced that organized labor is their enemy and Exxon is their friend.
Posted by: Mud Wrestler | Nov 20, 2009 10:39:14 AM
Carla-
Is Jeff Mapes' Kool-Aid tasty? I actually read the news release from the Senate GOP. No one is disputing the fact that the average state employee will make $897 more in 2009 than they did in 2008. I won’t go into the fact that this is taking place while more than 125,000 Oregonians are out of work.
What we are debating is the furlough days. There are two possibilities here. Either the $2,600 deduction is prorated over the biennium or, since public employees are taking 2 days in 2009, the average public employee makes $1,300 per day in salary and benefits. It can be only one…
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 20, 2009 10:49:06 AM
"Mud Wrestler", when you commented on this post, were you doing it on the taxpayer's dime? Cuz your IP says that you're on a state.or.us computer. Since when did the taxpayers start ponying up for anonymous commenters on blogs?
The answer to that question would certainly be more illuminating than watching you make excuses for the GOP futzing around trying to cover their ass on this screw up.
Posted by: Paul Cox | Nov 20, 2009 10:58:53 AM
I came by to see the liberal river of tears, now that there will definitely be NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS. Wanted to see how you would spin it. There's a river all, right, but its an A-rab river.
What a surprise. Distraction posts from all the majors. Why is it Carla is always laughing as her party humiliates itself? I think she has a Krishna complex!
Meanwhile, conservatives are already on to their next agenda item. Do you know what it is? Of course not. You're not in the loop. You cannot comprehend that, can you? In power, but not in the loop. The Democrat condition in the year of our Lord 2009.
Oh, but they scream, we are a major factor inside the beltway. So are the bums sleeping under the bridges in D.C. They dream and scream too. Sometimes they think "their people" got elected. Do they have any real power? That's the difference between them and you. They know it.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 20, 2009 11:02:32 AM
Paul:
There hasn't been federal funding for abortions for a gazillion years.
But there's a good amount of state funding in Oregon..and then there's also the nice donation that I plan to give to Planned Parenthood, since you brought it up.
You were saying? :)
Posted by: Paul Cox | Nov 20, 2009 12:11:36 PM
That's great. Ask a question, delete the response. In the intervening 10 minutes how many Viagra ads have gone up OK?
This is right out of comic strip. I don' eat lunch. Too much work to do. Bet you do, though, and I'm going to guess early. Let's try this again.
In my last two posts I made the point that even when you enact liberal legislation, it gets enacted by civil servants that are conservative, hostile to it, and can make it fail without repercussions. Of course, you're too high and mighty to address that, but go blithely on and "discover" that a conservative tormentor is on the job in state gov?
Bloggers here have catalogued over 50 cases of that kind of behavior and not once have the talking heads at Blue Oregon addressed them civilly. Only fodder for one upmanship. This is like trying to make a high school clique operate on any basis besides social game playing.
It also amazes me how many people seem unable to understand what a VPN is. IP addresses are becoming a lot less useful as people use centralized connection points for everything. S(he) could be at home today and didn't bother to change the internet config.
If you're really concerned about what your public employees are doing, how about wading through the archives and answering some of those detailed accusations. "Outing" someone as a cheap point, laughing at the opposition and name calling are what attracts trolls. Most blogs won't tolerate that. Naturally, when they see an author doing those things, they feel like they're at home. And, like most the game play that inspires Carla, it's borderline actionable. But, then again, what do you expect from a westside liberal? At least the SE version can be debated, have some integrity. What's a Washington Co lib about, anyway? "We want to live exactly like conservatives, while blowing off every principle that got them there". Just the type I expect to become a journalist or talking head.
Speaking of the homeless under the bridges, they are grateful! Used to be trolls lived under bridges. Much roomier now that trolls live at Blue Oregon! These are nice digs.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 20, 2009 2:29:04 PM
Paul...with all seriousness: you're just babbling now.
Posted by: Rick | Nov 20, 2009 3:54:55 PM
Carla,
Outing the IP of commenters who disagree with you? Seriously? Yeah, I know you didn't give the whole thing. But you are quite close to killing much of the communication on this site.
Many people will only talk about these issues with others if they feel safe, in many ways. What indiscriminate use of my info might you or Kari decide to do next?
This is wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot, it would still be wrong. And you should apologize and stop it.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 20, 2009 4:05:22 PM
Rick: Man-up. Seriously.
Someone is using a taxpayer funded IP to leave anonymous blog comments. Kinda against the GOP "government shouldn't be wasteful in their spending" mantra, dontcha think?
And I'm supposed to worry about a public employee "feeling safe" to comment anonymously on blogs during the work day?
Give me a friggin break.
Now if you'd like to actually talk about the topic of the post, feel free. If this is going to be a BSfest about how your feelings are all hurt and you need an apology, don't bother.
Posted by: Rick | Nov 20, 2009 4:18:11 PM
It's called ethics, Carla. You shouldn't have done it. Man up and admit it. Gimme a break. Your bullying is legendary. I didn't expect you to admit your mistake, but when you refuse to admit it when called on it, it isn't a mistake. It's purely your approach.
Would you have done it if the person was agreeing with you? You could not convince me that you would. I expect that, in the thousands or hundreds of thousands of posts here, there have been comments from this ISP before. But no comment on it. Which shows that you will do unethical things to advance your cause. Why don't you ask those who are staunchly Blue if you should expose their IP's in every response? I remember a response to me from a teacher during a school day. Where was your condemnation of him? Exactly. No response.
You were wrong. And frankly, if it is manly to ignore when someone does something like this, then call me un-manly.
Yeesh.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 20, 2009 4:27:28 PM
Rick:
Yes, it's called ethics. Apparently you think it's perfectly fine for public employees to anonymously comment on blogs on the taxpayer dime. I would think "Mud Wrestler", clearly being a Republican flack and all, would not. Or do you think that the GOP is not for careful spending at the state level?
Now I'm asking you nicely to go back to the topic of the post. Consider this fair warning.
Posted by: Rick | Nov 20, 2009 4:33:06 PM
Off-topic comment deleted.--Editor
Posted by: Rick | Nov 20, 2009 4:42:00 PM
Weak.
On topic, tell me in what way the GOP should clean up their act? Off-topic comment deleted--Editor
Posted by: Meg | Nov 20, 2009 5:41:07 PM
Off-topic comment deleted--Editor
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 20, 2009 8:25:03 PM
First of all, even government employees are allowed use of their computers during breaks and lunch.
Second, while the republicans were notoriously off kilter, their message remains - please explain to the Oregon voters why taxes should be increased in order for state workers (MANAGERS AND SEIU) to continue with outrageously great health insurance that they pay nothing towards AND pay raises in the form of step increases or the false 2% minimum COLA?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 20, 2009 8:46:36 PM
Kurt:
The better question is: "why isn't everyone getting exceptionally great health insurance?" Not "how can we get everybody else to suck more?"
Posted by: meg | Nov 20, 2009 9:21:25 PM
Carla, with all due respect I think Kurt has the better question.
Posted by: rw | Nov 20, 2009 11:25:59 PM
Carla, though Kurt is sounding peevish and envious, still.... to beg the facts of these disparities that we are required to continue to feed is to ignore reality that is not changing. Both are good questions, but one is about visionary wishing, the other about the stark reality we daily must support.
Posted by: rw | Nov 20, 2009 11:28:42 PM
Mud Wrestler and his/her ilk: could we please move on from those vapid Kool Aid references? Jim Jones and those hundreds of murdered people are long in the past and you need to stop abusing their memories. Find a new slogan. Be clever enough to use your own words. Maybe?
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | Nov 21, 2009 4:30:22 AM
Kurt wrote:
Second, while the republicans were notoriously off kilter, their message remains - please explain to the Oregon voters why taxes should be increased in order for state workers (MANAGERS AND SEIU) to continue with outrageously great health insurance that they pay nothing towards AND pay raises in the form of step increases or the false 2% minimum COLA?
Carla was right when she asked how can we find ways to improve health care options for everyone? As a public employee who does pay a chunk of change for my health insurance who gave up days on my contract, I have to ask, what do you think is going to happen if the two ballot measures don't pass in January?
I can tell you. We will have less teachers in the classroom (and there are already fewer of us now). We will have more students in those classrooms (that are already crowded). We will spend less time with individual students (and teachers need to spend more time with individual students because there is even more need to connect with those kids now).
Oregon stands to lose more than a few teachers, law enforcement officers, and those that care for those in need if those measures don't pass.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 21, 2009 9:42:41 AM
Posted by: rw | Nov 20, 2009 11:28:42 PM
Mud Wrestler and his/her ilk: could we please move on from those vapid Kool Aid references?
He was, rw! He's been rehearsing his "Kool-Aid" lines as a replacement for "tin hat". Rumor has it that Kraft is paying Glenn Beck beaucoup sponsorship bucks for mentioning it constantly. Besides, asking a dittohead to remove vapid references is directly reducible to "please shut up".
The spam has gotten so thick here, of all varieties...the signal to noise ratio is awful. Please point out one if I've missed it, but this is arguably the most spammed blog on the net. Doesn't help when the article comes out trolling...
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 21, 2009 9:48:52 AM
Oh, but to answer Carla's question, which is a bit odd. Your party is what is preventing what you want. While I can see that puts you in a bit of a quandary, progressives conclude that it can only happen by electing legislators that go beyond the tired old two faced, one party system.
Is that the point of laughing at the Repubgants? Better than crying at the Dems? You might be right. Personally, I prefer less of an interpreted perception, no matter how hard it bites.
Posted by: Corn Hugger | Nov 21, 2009 10:06:42 AM
West coast elitism! The cognition reduced right does not own "Kool-Aid"! I'll have you know that it is the official State beverage of Nebraska (which has more progressive MJ laws than Oregon).
Personally, I like what it was called before the inventor learned to dehydrate it. It was called "Fruit Smack". Conservatives need a good fruit smack.
Meanwhile, in pseudo-progressive, bought and paid for OrAGun, that fatty, useless to adults, industry hyped liquid, milk, is your state beverage. Maybe learn from the La Leche league. "La leche de vacas es por los ninos de la vaca".
Cattle. Dairy herd laughing at the wild bulls. Guess it's not supposed to be high art. Glass of milk instead of a bhang lassi. Very disappointing. I thought Oregon was more than progressive talk. Reading this thread, I have to stand corrected.
Posted by: LT | Nov 21, 2009 11:29:52 AM
This is why when Jeff Mapes did the piece on Novick debating Chandler (or when Novick debated McCormick at Salem City Club), the OAJKT side did not make a great impression outside their own "base".
"Oregon stands to lose more than a few teachers, law enforcement officers, and those that care for those in need if those measures don't pass. "
Why are the anti-taxers so afraid of debating what will happen in Feb. if their side prevails? Same reason that they didn't like the ballot titles---budget cuts seem to be the only way to fill the budget hole if the taxes are not upheld?
All the rhetoric about how business lobbyists were upset with the legislature (I thought we elected legislators, not lobbyists) is to mask the fact that there is no alternative.
Is this all business lobby turf battle? Or could it be there are Republicans who believe the taxes could be killed by the Jan. election and the Republicans would do such an excellent job of responding to that crisis that they would win back majority in the fall?
From the conversations I have had with Republican legislators and staff on these measures, I think they need to get out more.
My guess is that if the taxes go down, we see cuts (or the kind of circus we had in 2002 with Measure 28 because the votes weren't there for the cuts needed) and ordinary voters get so disgusted they elect more Democrats and maybe even a member or 2 outside the major parties (now that the idiot law about choosing between partisan primary and signing a petition for someone not in a major party to get on the ballot has been repealed).
We have seen this movie before, folks. It was led by the likes of Dan Doyle and Betsy Close. Neither are in the legislature anymore. Have the remaining Republicans learned that people are tired of gimmicks and want serious public debates about solutions?
Posted by: rw | Nov 21, 2009 12:39:53 PM
Zara: o dear, you have plunged me into a funk. It is true, I am SO grateful that the Faithful here have stopped going on about jackboot, brownshirt, thug and other tired Nazi references. But that Kool Aid reference is just as irritating as miller moths - that kind you inadvertantly bring home from the store and then can never get rid of. I hear you have to trap and kill the male of the species to get rid of them.
Mud, are you XX or XY?
Why do I ask? Ohh...... no reason..... .
Yes, sadly, Z'stra, I'm part of the noise. If I left there might BE a ratio, instead of noise. :)
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 21, 2009 6:38:27 PM
Carla, the real question remains that health insurance costs are astonomical and so are the projected costs of PERS. In order to not sound peevish I will attempt to put it another way - with other government employees paying AT LEAST 10% towards their health insurance costs why can't state managers and state SEIU covered employees do the same? It isn't about jealousy, it is about affordability.
Unreasonably high health care and retirement costs are what finally killed off the US steel industry; what GM was willing to give $5.5 BILLION to the UAW to get out of; what is killing most state budgets.
When family costs for insurance approach $17k/yr, state employees must be compelled to step up and assist. They pay NOTHING towards PERS and NOTHING towards health insurance. Those against tax increases will rightfully focus on this huge discrepancy between state employees and everyone else. When city, county and school district employees all share and state employees don't, the 66 and 67 campaigns will become a vocal and messy referendum on those costs rather than the state's revenue.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 21, 2009 9:06:22 PM
Yes, sadly, Z'stra, I'm part of the noise. If I left there might BE a ratio, instead of noise. :)
Rubish!
Is the woman at a funeral wailing and rending her garments any less the message than the one giving the eulogy?
Posted by: Ricky | Nov 21, 2009 10:03:46 PM
I don't really understand why Carla takes such an adversary tone towards all things GOP. They have rights, some of their ideas are not bad. They provide a choice between the activist viewpoints and the viewpoints of those in the middle. I consider and evaluate postings made by the few conservatives here. I do not "laugh at them".
There are even some kooks who post on other websites about how the Portland Democratic Party has gave them permission to be armed to keep people away that were deemed on the spot as unwanted in any public debate on issues. Seriously. One lunatic wrote that he would be armed and was going to be the bodyguard at this summer's health care debates and would determine who should be allowed in or not based on if he thought they were teabaggers or not. That's crazy. I could name names if I wanted to. Hell, might even make a good guest column to point out specifically what some of the people out there try to do to stifle debate.
But I suspect what some in the party write is just a projection of their sad internal anger. I'm really not sure why Carla wants to also participate in this kind of online bullying by attempting to provoke Republicans with her comments. The hostility in her remarks is obvious. Maybe she believes she will drive traffic to the website. In addition to the link spammers which you guys have yet to be able to stop visiting this site.
You know, you don't have to blindly support measure 66 & 67 simply because you are a progressive. Carla reminds me of the lunatics trying to keep people away from going to informational public meetings by posting they will be standing at the door armed. I don't personally believe measure 66 & 67 are beneficial to the direction our state is heading. It's this kind of attitude where Carla wants to laugh at people and others want to stand outside of meetings armed and even go as far as stating they were given permission by other Democrats to do so that makes me sick sometimes to be a Democrat. What happened to the big tent?
So rather than explain politely why 66/67 should pass, we should laugh at anybody who doesn't think so and post about how if you don't really agree and want to find out more about an issue and ask about it at a public political meeting you are in danger of being stopped by armed men put there by the party. It's dangerous and wrong.
Posted by: Bud Wright | Nov 21, 2009 10:18:47 PM
Posted by: Ricky | Nov 21, 2009 10:03:46 PM
I don't really understand why Carla takes such an adversary tone towards all things GOP
Cut him some slack, girl! That's a very charitable way of characterizing "nyah, nyah nyah nyah, nyah"!
I feel your pain Kurt. If you can stop laughing long enough, how about a post on a PERS solution, Carla? As a point of order, the elephant in the room is always off topic. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be mentioned.
Posted by: LT | Nov 21, 2009 10:33:19 PM
" If you can stop laughing long enough, how about a post on a PERS solution, Carla? "
Carla is a blogger, not an elected official.
Bud, if you have a PERS solution which could actually be adopted (as opposed to Saxton's PERS = Enron nonsense and then not taking part in the discussion of a solution) then let's hear it.
Maybe you want to go back in a time machine and change decisions made a long time ago?
Maybe, although there are Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, you want to ditch every contractural obligation made with public employees?
There is a Guest Opinion link at the top of the page. If you have a proposed solution, not just rhetoric, write a guest opinion and then let people comment on it.
Posted by: LT | Nov 21, 2009 10:38:23 PM
Ricky, Republicans are individuals just like Democrats. Although I strongly disagree with some of their votes, St. Sens. Morse and Winters have some very intelligent ideas.
But that doesn't mean we should give any more respect to the GOP as a party than they did when Democrats were in the minority.
"But the Democrats..." was supposed to answer all questions.
The GOP made it very clear awhile back that they didn't want those subversives who had voted for Tom McCall and Gerald Ford--such people were RINO or some such.
OK, they are reaping the whirlwind now, and when they come up with intelligent ideas, they will deserve respect.
Carla is actually milder on Republicans than some Republicans were on Democrats. Remember when Newt Gingrich said that a woman drowned her children because of Democratic social policies? Apparently he has seen the light and is now involved in actual problem solving. There are Republicans who all but call him RINO because he supported the REPUBLICAN candidate in the NY special cong. election instead of the Conservative Party candidate.
Such nonsense deserves ridicule, just like some Democratic actions.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 22, 2009 9:59:09 AM
I don't really understand why Carla takes such an adversary tone towards all things GOP.
You're starting from a false premise, Ricky. But setting that aside--I take an adversarial tone against those things which I consider stupid, silly or generally harmful. More often those things appear to come from conservative sources. But as I've demonstrated here quite recently, I have absolutely no problem pushing hard on a Democrat when I consider it warranted.
They have rights, some of their ideas are not bad.
In this very post I note that Jason Atkinson's idea is BRILLIANT. So brilliant in fact that it's already in the ballot measure. So your point here makes little sense.
They provide a choice between the activist viewpoints and the viewpoints of those in the middle. I consider and evaluate postings made by the few conservatives here. I do not "laugh at them".
Sometimes laughter is the best medicine. :)
Posted by: Also in Primate News | Nov 22, 2009 10:12:01 AM
Sometimes laughter is the best medicine. :)
Yes. That's the question all right. How much is that the motivation?
It's also the way we communicate social ostracization. Among the ignorant, it's a reason of itself.
We want to believe the former. There are cases that seem to only be explainable by the latter. That is why you get asked this all the time. I'm prepared to take you at your word.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 22, 2009 10:17:28 AM
Social ostracization can indeed be an effective tool. Sometimes its also warranted and necessary.
I'll leave it for you to decide which this is.
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.
Posted by: bonzilliac | Nov 19, 2009 8:16:14 PM
Carla posted: Update: 7:20PM: Oops..forgot one. On Monday, State Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Central Point), issued a press release with the BRILLIANT idea of having the first $2,400 of unemployment payments be tax exempt. The idea is SO good in fact, that it's already IN Measure 66! Perhaps the "Vote Yes!" campaign should hire Atkinson to be a spokesperson. Somehow I doubt the GOP would like that very much.
eh... State Senator Atkinson was promoting ending taxation of an individual's first $2400 in unemployment compensation even before it was part of HB2649. Also note that HB2649 exempts the $2400 of unemployment benefits received in 2009 ONLY. And one should also note that State Senator Atkinson abstained on the various votes for this measure - presumably he felt he could not support the portion of targeted tax increases in HB2649.
State Senator Atkinson's latest press release here says he's going to RE-INTRODUCE in 2010 the bill he first introduced this year to eliminate taxation of unemployment benefits permanently (i.e., not just in 2009) So even if Measure 66 fails, his proposed legislation would still have validity.