East Oregonian: Yes on 66 and 67
Carla Axtman
The East Oregonian Newspaper (Pendleton) endorses Measures 66 and 67:
The vote on Measures 66 and 67 is a critical decision for Oregon. It comes at one of the most difficult times in our state's history.Oregon's financial problems in 2009, primarily created by the national recession, centered around its $16 billion general fund budget, which pays for schools (52 percent), health care, senior and children's services (24 percent) and public safety (17 percent).
State legislators, faced with a $4 billion shortfall, finally worked out a solution, which included $2 billion in cuts and specific tax increases of $727 million - specifically Measures 66 and 67.
Measure 66 raises taxes on an individual making $125,000 a year or a household making $250,000 a year. Personal income taxes pay for roughly 85 percent of the state's general fund.
Measure 67 raises the corporate minimum tax, business minimum tax and corporate profit tax. Corporate taxes pay for roughly 6 percent of the state general fund.
Oregon voters now have the chance to say if they agree with that solution (a yes vote) or if they want their Salem representatives to cut $727 million from the budget (a no vote).
It is up to you. It is also important to note that the two measures, while they have been linked by supporters and opponents, are separate - voters, if they so choose, can support one and reject the other.
Despite the emotional - and often misleading- political rhetoric from both sides, individual voters should make their decision based on facts.
Read the rest here.
Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:58 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
My guess is the editorial in the Eastern Oregonian will have the same impact on its mostly Republican readers as the editorial in the Oregonian has for its mostly Democratic readers; nada
10:17 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
John: I suspect that's probably about right.
11:18 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
Uh, John and Carla, seriously??! Aren't there somewhere on the order of 350,000 non-Republican registered voters east of the Cascades? If not the East O, what paper do they read?
And aren't there Republicans who value detailed analysis and try to make informed decisions?
I'm kinda surprised at that line of thinking, actually. The East O's editorial seems pretty decent to me. It does a better job with the "what is corporate tax" issue than WW and the O did, for one thing. And it provides useful facts that can inform decisions. Anyway, thanks for posting it.
11:29 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
Pete:
I agree that the Eastern O did a much better job at analysis and information than did WW or The Oregonian. But we only know this because we're soaked in the details..being crazy wonks and all.
Non-wonky folks are going to weigh the paper's endorsement through their lenses (conservative, liberal, or wherever they fall on the spectrum) along with the other information they're getting. I suspect that it won't hold any more weight that they've given newspaper endorsements in the past.
I sense that newspapers hold a lot less credibility when it comes to this stuff than they used to.
I'd love it if folks in Pendleton and the EO's circulation area weigh their endorsement heavily. But my gut tells me that won't be the case.
11:40 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
Okay, less hasty numbers: as of this month, there are 250,708 non-Republicans registered in the 2nd CD. That's out of 2,153,736 total registered voters -- or about 12%.
That's a lot of people to blow off.
(Of course, yes, the East Oregonian only advertises a print circulation of 10,750. But I think it's true of any paper that it's only going to reach a small fraction of its potential audience. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have influence.)
Jan 11, '10
I find that article to be a good reason to vote no on both measures. I know that isn't the effect that the author wanted but whoever wrote that article wasn't really smart enough to even connect the dots. The thrust of the article is that we need to keep spending money (not challenged by the author) and that only a small fraction of the population will be forced to pay the taxes (why is that good?).
A more thoughtful analysis would start with why does Salem keep spending more and more each year? Why are the increases steadily more than the rate of inflation and/or the rate of population growth?
Then if you can provide a good reasont to continue to support an ever increasing flow of money to Salem you have to get around why only a few people should pay for it. If the benefit is to everyone then everyone should be paying.
These measures fail on both accounts so I'm voting no on both. Too bad the author of that editorial couldn't even work their way thru the basic issues at hand. They ended up doing their readers a real misservice.
11:56 a.m.
Jan 11, '10
Well, I suppose if your point is that newspapers in general have less relative influence than they used to, that's fine. Seems like an odd direction to take the discussion, but it's fine.
But the stuff about "mostly Democratic" and "mostly Republican" seems like at best a red herring, and at worst a dismissal of eastern Oregonians as mindless rubes.
Jan 11, '10
So, is the East Oregonian editorial board representative of Pendleton, or is it a valley paper, published in Pendleton?
Sitting behind a live blogger and contributor to this blog who shall remain anonymous, last cycle, I can tell you that your characature of their attitude is much more generous than some of the things that were actually said. Seem to recall an old stereotype about sheep...
But they really, really, do need your money. Oh, and vote. Not a big deal though. If you wanted your vote to count you would move to the valley!
Jan 11, '10
While Oregon's class size certainly appears to be above average, at least the data from the National Center for Education Statistics (commonly referenced by The Oregonian) does not substantiate this East Oregonian editorial's claim that that Oregon has the LARGEST class size in the nation. Nor have I been able to find any data supporting the claim that Oregon has the SHORTEST school year. There are several states that normally have shorter school years than Oregon simply by statute - and Hawaii made national headlines several months ago in reducing the school year by 17 instructional days due to state budget cuts. I'm not saying these are goals we should aspire to - but lets not overstate reality either.
Saying 'we'll still have the lowest business taxes on the West Coast' (3 states) is really reaching for something good to say considering California has among the highest business tax rates in the nation. Business taxes in neighboring western US states like Wyoming, Nevada, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Colorado are all either lower than or comparable to Oregon.
1:39 p.m.
Jan 11, '10
Alcatross - You are correct. Oregon has the 6th highest student-to-teacher ratio in the nation. We won't have the highest ratio unless these measures fail. It may also be true that Oregon does not have the shortest school year. I believe that state law basically requires 165 days of instruction for high schoolers (990 hours at 6 hours per day), but we are clearly near the bottom in that area as well. Most states require 180 days of instruction.
Jan 11, '10
Hillsboro Argus NO on 66 NO on 67
2:18 p.m.
Jan 11, '10
@anonymous Andy,
Looking this editorial over again, I agree that it doesn't do a fantastic job of connecting the dots or establishing a reason to vote yes.
The "thoughtful analysis" you're seeking was published recently by Nigel Jaquiss at WWeek. It revealed your <s>talking points</s> premises to be false, namely:
3:08 p.m.
Jan 11, '10
Sal
Actually according to this website we are number 4 on student/teacher ratio (4th WORST that is).
Expenditures per capita: number 14 (14th worst that is.)
But I am surprised at you, Sal. You are not enough of an Oregon booster.
I think we should vote NO on 66 and 67 AND SHOOT FOR NUMBER ONE!!
Jan 11, '10
The WWeek article doesn't change the facts but it does provide an example of picking data to match a preconceived premise.
Grab another set of years and the Oregon budget easily has grown more than inflation and population. The farther back in time you go the bigger the growth rate is so the answer all depends on what time period you select. Fairly cheap trick, I'm surprised people fall for it. I'm not really surprised that a rag like WWeek would print worthless data though. If the conclusion is something they like then they'll print it. They probably don't have a single person on staff who took college level math anyway so collectively they might not even be smart enough to figure out that their data is wrong.
3:20 p.m.
Jan 11, '10
Paul - Yes, you have me pegged. Clearly I hate Oregon because I don't want us to be #1 in something and am willing to pay more in taxes to prevent it. Of course, like most small business owners, I'm only on the hook for the $150 minimum.
BTW, doesn't 6th highest student to teacher ratio mean the same thing as 6th worst?
Also, I'll go the the Dept. of Education's statistics over statemaster.com. 6th worst/highest is still terrible.
Jan 11, '10
E. Oregonian, often harshly right wing partisan, actually demolished an argument being used esp. by some no on 66 & 67 legislators and others,
"we don't know what will happen if the measures fail".
EO said, "yes we do".
Measure 5 hit them very hard, as I recall, and only the NW quadrant of Oregon passed that one.
Jan 24, '10
Shame on EO for going paid-only online!
Jan 26, '10
LIARS all of you.
Our "big, greedy corporation" directly employs six people, and creates jobs for another several dozen individuals ranging from truck drivers to accountants. We're not sure what currency the "Yes on 67" folks are using when they say we only pay $10 in taxes, but in U.S. dollars, last year the business activity of our corporation generated over $1,200,000 in fuel taxes for the federal government, $700,000 for the State of Oregon, $16,000 in environmental protection taxes, $91,000 in Oregon and Federal payroll taxes, $22,000 in Federal income taxes, and $4300 in Oregon excise taxes. The wages we paid our employees generated another $35,000 in Federal income taxes and $21,000 in Oregon income taxes, and the earnings paid to contractors, truck drivers, and others employed as a direct result of our business created at least another $50,000 in taxes for the State of Oregon and the Federal government. After taxes, the corporation cleared just over $70,000 profit to reinvest in growing the business and providing new jobs in our community, less than the average salary and benefits package of just one typical State of Oregon management employee.
To summarize, last year our company was directly responsible for providing over 2 million dollars in taxes to the State of Oregon and the Federal Government.roughly $28.50 in tax revenue for the Government for every $1 in profit made by the corporation.and that is in a profitable year. Some years we make a profit, and some have a loss. What is disgusting about these measures is that, if they pass, we will pay an additional $15,000 in taxes, even in years that we have a loss. This is because the tax will be based not on whether we made a profit for the year, but rather, on our gross sales (before any expenses, taxes or payroll are taken out).
The measure actually requires us to pay this additional tax on the $2 million in taxes we have already paid out of our sales for the year!
To survive, companies will simply be forced to pass this sales tax on to their customers.YOU. There is not a grocery store you shop at, gas station you buy from, or anywhere you buy anything that you will not pay this sales tax if these measures pass, because everything that is bought or sold ultimately is manufactured, shipped, or sold by companies affected by this tax increase.
Supporters of these measures portray our business as "a big, greedy corporation that only has to pay $10 per year in taxes.they need to pay their fair share" and uses this to justify a new tax on sales (sales tax) to apply to companies that are not making a profit. They claim that this tax will not cost you one cent. They are lying in the worst way.
After decades of trying to get Oregon voters to pass a sales tax, Oregon politicians finally figured out that, since the voters were too smart to fall for an up-front tax increase, they could sneak the sales tax in by simply forcing the companies that supply virtually all goods and services to everyone in the State to collect the sales tax for them by passing these measures.the voters simply will pay the tax through increases in the cost of virtually everything. Our legislators figure that, like the proverbial frog in the frying pan, the voters won't even realize they are passing a huge tax increase on themselves.
We are not opposed to paying our "fair share", but it is important that you see through the outright lies and please send a message to our Oregon legislators.any tax increases should be based on profits companies make, not by passing a Sales Tax and further penalizing struggling families, businesses and our economy!
Jan 26, '10
LIARS all of you.
Our "big, greedy corporation" directly employs six people, and creates jobs for another several dozen individuals ranging from truck drivers to accountants. We're not sure what currency the "Yes on 67" folks are using when they say we only pay $10 in taxes, but in U.S. dollars, last year the business activity of our corporation generated over $1,200,000 in fuel taxes for the federal government, $700,000 for the State of Oregon, $16,000 in environmental protection taxes, $91,000 in Oregon and Federal payroll taxes, $22,000 in Federal income taxes, and $4300 in Oregon excise taxes. The wages we paid our employees generated another $35,000 in Federal income taxes and $21,000 in Oregon income taxes, and the earnings paid to contractors, truck drivers, and others employed as a direct result of our business created at least another $50,000 in taxes for the State of Oregon and the Federal government. After taxes, the corporation cleared just over $70,000 profit to reinvest in growing the business and providing new jobs in our community, less than the average salary and benefits package of just one typical State of Oregon management employee.
To summarize, last year our company was directly responsible for providing over 2 million dollars in taxes to the State of Oregon and the Federal Government.roughly $28.50 in tax revenue for the Government for every $1 in profit made by the corporation.and that is in a profitable year. Some years we make a profit, and some have a loss. What is disgusting about these measures is that, if they pass, we will pay an additional $15,000 in taxes, even in years that we have a loss. This is because the tax will be based not on whether we made a profit for the year, but rather, on our gross sales (before any expenses, taxes or payroll are taken out).
The measure actually requires us to pay this additional tax on the $2 million in taxes we have already paid out of our sales for the year!
To survive, companies will simply be forced to pass this sales tax on to their customers.YOU. There is not a grocery store you shop at, gas station you buy from, or anywhere you buy anything that you will not pay this sales tax if these measures pass, because everything that is bought or sold ultimately is manufactured, shipped, or sold by companies affected by this tax increase.
Supporters of these measures portray our business as "a big, greedy corporation that only has to pay $10 per year in taxes.they need to pay their fair share" and uses this to justify a new tax on sales (sales tax) to apply to companies that are not making a profit. They claim that this tax will not cost you one cent. They are lying in the worst way.
After decades of trying to get Oregon voters to pass a sales tax, Oregon politicians finally figured out that, since the voters were too smart to fall for an up-front tax increase, they could sneak the sales tax in by simply forcing the companies that supply virtually all goods and services to everyone in the State to collect the sales tax for them by passing these measures.the voters simply will pay the tax through increases in the cost of virtually everything. Our legislators figure that, like the proverbial frog in the frying pan, the voters won't even realize they are passing a huge tax increase on themselves.
<h2>We are not opposed to paying our "fair share", but it is important that you see through the outright lies and please send a message to our Oregon legislators.any tax increases should be based on profits companies make, not by passing a Sales Tax and further penalizing struggling families, businesses and our economy!</h2>