So apparently whoever is writing the editorials at the O isn't paying attention.
Carla Axtman
From yesterday's Oregonian editorial, continuing their anti-tax-fairness inanity on Measure 66 and 67:
This is a two-way street. As critical as we have been of the Democratic leaders in state government, who shut out moderate business voices on their way to these ill-advised measures, it is unfair to single them out. Republicans in the Legislature also have repeatedly put their party's electoral politics ahead of their obligation to work for the good of all. Ultimately, the state budget -- including the decision to refer the ballot measures -- passed on a party-line vote. If this has become the norm for resolving crucial questions, Oregon is in deep trouble.
Uh...wrong.
The legislature didn't vote to refer the Measures to the ballot. They passed the tax increases on a bipartisan vote during the 2009 session. The anti-tax-fairness folks gathered signatures and had the Measures placed on the ballot.
I can't understand how anything besides carelessness can explain how the editorial writer could get this wrong. Unless the person(s) is just flat not paying attention.
Which might explain their entire editorial stance on this issue.
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
Jan 18, '10
Either someone was as careless as not putting PAID AD in bold type on the top of the wrap around ad, or they want people to think there wasn't a ton of money (how much of it from out of state?) to pay petitioners to put this on the ballot.
Put another way, if even the Oregonian is starting to hold Republicans responsible for the action of Republicans.....
Jan 18, '10
Gosh folks... this is a pretty public meltdown you're having. Are you sure you're not mad you didn't jump at the opportunity first?
8:32 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
Yeah...asking the paper of record to get basic factual information correct is a "meltdown".
Hyperbole much?
8:35 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
TO - our state's leading paper, and they can't get a basic fact right? like, one of the most important ones: the reason we're having this election! nice attempt to ignore the O's screw-up -- or lie. given how they've gone to war on this, duplicity isn't out of the question here.
good catch, Carla.
Jan 18, '10
Good catch, Carla. Maybe they need to go back to school. Fact checking 101. Seems to be a lot of that going around that camp...
Jan 18, '10
A) this is obviously a mistake, B) it is completely irrelevant to the issues of the day and C) it is sad that all you have left is to nitpick, fact check and rant.
You guys sound like desperate Martha Coakley campaign workers. I hope that is prescient.
Jan 18, '10
Westside, ta is making the point Walter Cronkite used to make.
If a house burns down on First Street and the newspaper reports the fire was on First Avenue, it is likely only the people on First Street and First Avenue will know about the mistake.
But unless there is rigorous fact checking, eventually the sloppiness could lead to someone misquoting the mayor, then everyone would know the paper made a mistake.
But then, if you don't believe in fact checking (unless you can play gotcha on someone you oppose)..........
Jan 18, '10
I would say that is tip-toeing the line pretty close to actionable.
That really pisses me off. Do you know how much money has been spent on this crap? I might be rounding high, because I'm assuming "no" has spent as much as "yes", and I can't immediately see that that is so, but this has to have run into the millions, and close to two figures in the millions. Why, and on account of whose actions that was spent, isn't some minor detail. It's the most salient fact in the campaign's history.
You would just assume, after all the latest, that more than a few pairs of eyes read that, too. At this point, is it the Alberto Gonzales defense- "Yup, we really are that dysfunctional"- or is this reckless disregard for procedure that would have lead any reasonable person to regard that as a false statement?
They should have tried to follow it up with an interview with Tina Kotek on why the lege decided to do that.
Jan 18, '10
They lie. Why is that so hard to accept?
Jan 18, '10
If the anti-tax, anti-government crowd are so sure they will win the election on the 26th, why are they going local?
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/01/anti-tax_advocates_quietly_rol.html
Could it be they have given up on a Republican legislative majority any time soon?
Jan 18, '10
Carla, Kari, and Steve Novick are providing us tremendous insight into the world of the opposition.
THEY HAVE NOTHING!
Great work you guys. Thanks
Jan 18, '10
Context, people... context - you need to read the sentence in CONTEXT!
But first, 2 GOP 'Yes' votes (out of 25) in the House and 0 in the Senate (out of 11) on the final reading of HB2649 and 1 GOP 'Yes' vote and 0 in the Senate for HB3405 is hardly a 'bipartisan' vote in the most commonly used sense of the word... unless you just mean that representatives of both parties voted YEA or NAY on these bills... in which case EVERY vote is a bipartisan one.
Ultimately, the state budget -- including the decision to refer the ballot measures -- passed on a party-line vote.
You are correct that the Legislature did not refer the Measures.
But all the author is (inartfully) trying to say is that the two separate actions here on the state budget proceeded along party-lines: the passing of the budget (with nearly unanimous GOP opposition) and getting M66/67 on the ballot (with, it's safe to say, unanimous Democratic Party opposition)
See?
I'll agree the sentence could have and probably should have written more clearly - and that the author took some license on the latter reference to the Measures. But I'm reasonably sure the people at The Oregonian, wrong-headed as you all think them these days, know that the Legislature didn't directly vote the measures on the ballot.
However, many Dems knew that, in passing the bills with nearly unanimous GOP opposition as they did, it was likely the tax increase bills would end up on the ballot. So one could make a case their party-line vote led to the referral.
Jan 18, '10
@alcatross "However, many Dems knew that, in passing the bills with nearly unanimous GOP opposition as they did, it was likely the tax increase bills would end up on the ballot. So one could make a case their party-line vote led to the referral."
This is what I mean when I say "they lie."
Quod erat demonstrandum.
9:36 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
Alcatross - Carla is 100% correct.
Here is the definition of bipartisan:
bi·par·ti·san (b-pärt-zn, -sn) adj.: Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.
Besides, the Democrats did not pass these measures unanimously in the house.
9:37 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
Also, there are 24 Republican votes in the House, not 25.
Jan 18, '10
Sal- The operative word here is 'supported' by members of two parties. If getting just one or two GOP votes out of 20 or more now allows Dems to claim 'bipartisan' victory, fine... I'll file that revelation away for the inevitable hullabaloo that will result here at Blue Oregon on nearly unanimous 'bipartisan' party-line votes when there is a Republican majority.
And note I was always very careful to say 'nearly unanimous'...
Jan 18, '10
@ Sal
You are better than that. Defending Carla's highly (and intentionally) misleading " ... passed the tax increases on a bipartisan vote during the 2009 ...." is beneath you.
If you truly believe your dictionary definition, I may be wrong.
I, however believe that the vast majority of people will agree with Wikipedia which says, "In a two-party system, bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement. Often, compromises are called bipartisan if they reconcile the desires of both parties from an original version of legislation or other proposal."
By that definition, nothing could have been much further from "bipartisan" than the way 2649 and 3405 were crafted.
10:00 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
Alcatross - I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not claiming victory on anything. What I'm doing is sharing a definition. These bills did not pass on a straight party line vote -- for or against -- in the House.
That bit of history is going to become important in both the May Primary and in the November election.
10:23 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
Tom - So your point is that no bill can be considered "bipartisan" unless a majority in both parties agree? I don't think that's right, particularly in this case where 2 out of 10 Republicans supported the bill in committee as well as on the floor, but I'll gladly concede that the discussion is rather pedantic.
Jan 18, '10
My point was that the error (that there was a vote to refer these measures to a vote) doesn't really help or hurt the argument. It was just incorrect. I think everyone (except maybe the Oregonian) is pretty clear on the fact that it was a signature gathering initiative that got these on the ballot.
This is certainly not some October Surprise.
Jan 18, '10
Joe Hill commented: This is what I mean when I say "they lie."
Okay Joe, sure - suit yourself... I just made all that up. And Kulongoski didn't really purposely delay signing the tax increase bills until late July to make it more difficult for the signature gatherers that had been queueing for months to get the tax measures on the ballot. And the commentaries on several GOP legislator websites and in the press during the run-up to those votes - never happened... If many Dem legislators DIDN'T know the tax increase measures would likely face a ballot challenge, then you really should question their political astuteness.
fortis est veritas...
Jan 18, '10
Top 2% of Oregon's producers pay for 1/3rd of the state's services.
Tax Fairness NOW!
10:40 p.m.
Jan 18, '10
Westside has it right.
Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes
Jan 18, '10
Fidem scit! (have to use ecclesiastical pronunciation). Both sides know the faith.
Jan 18, '10
It is simply a fact that these measures were not "referred to the voters" by the legislature. To claim that they were is a lie.
Yes, it is a significant lie, especially given Oregon's history of right wing conservative wingnuts (and if this shoe fits, by all means, put it on) putting anti-tax measures on the ballot. This lie obscures this relationship.
And yes, many people, perhaps even most (although I'd like to see the polling) know that this was done by petition of the usual corporate stooges. However, I'm willing to bet that there are a significant number of voters who do not, or, who when faced with this kind of typical lie, "remembers" it differently. There is actually quite a bit of empirical research about these kinds of matters (false memories and consciousness being manufactured and becoming internally indistinguishable from "real" memories and consciousness, sometimes innocently, sometimes not so much).
So, yes, an error that falls in a particular direction with particular results. You know, like the one that the right wing publisher acknowledged about "I should have put the advertisement marker in bolder type." The kind of error that you feel it is necessary to write a scurrilous and quite ridiculous apologia for saying, well, if you read it in context you might understand it THIS way and, heck, the legislature should have known it would have been the subject of a petition campaign so that's ALMOST like having the legislature referring it to the voters.
Let's acknowledge all these for what they really are. Lies.
Jan 19, '10
Also note the THIRD FACTUAL ERROR in that same Oregonian editorial paragraph:
The O claimed that Democratic leaders "shut out moderate business voices", when in fact those corporate lobbyists were the ones who walked away from the negotiating table and left the legislators to balance the budget without their help.
So the Dem leaders did NOT shut out the business voices.
And they did NOT refer these measures to voters.
And they did NOT pass the measures on just a party-line vote.
One Oregonian paragraph with three major factual errors. Did the O lay off all of their fact-checking editors?
Jan 19, '10
So much latin, so little to say. If M66/67 goes down to defeat, as trends indicate it might, who plays Caesar... who plays Brutus for the Vote Yes campaign? If only this tragedy played out two months from now, the play would be -- accompli.
1:45 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
....and, for the record: The Oregon Small Business Council recommends a YES vote on both measures. The Oregon Business Association is neutral. Those are the moderate business voices in this state -- AOI are the hard-line ideologues.
Jan 19, '10
Manipulation has been rampant from all sides on this important pair of tax measures. I studied all analyses I encountered before voting no. Economists disagree in their own profession on the impact and long range consequences of passage, or rejection. The tax measure may pass, but if it fails, several political careers will be impacted.
Jan 19, '10
Sal Peralta commented: Also, there are 24 Republican votes in the House, not 25.
Yes, sorry... I overlooked Schaufler's NO votes.
Jan 19, '10
"2 GOP 'Yes' votes (out of 25) in the House and 0 in the Senate (out of 11) on the final reading of HB2649 and 1 GOP 'Yes' vote and 0 in the Senate for HB3405 is hardly a 'bipartisan' vote"
Yeah Carla that's some kind of bipartisanship your're peddling.
You're too used to that kind of BS.
Every time any crappy policy is advanced by your Blue people you try and prevent Democrat blame by caling it bipartisan.
Jan 19, '10
The "Oregon Small Business Council" is a sham organization lead by a person with virtually no business experience that was hastily cobbled together to make it look like small businesses support 66/67.
Some small businesses do, but this organization is simply a front.
Jan 19, '10
Sal Peralta commented: ...These bills did not pass on a straight party line vote -- for or against -- in the House.
And once again I say that I've always been careful to say 'nearly unanimous' - and I've never said 'straight party-line vote'... However, a swing of one or two opposition party votes in each column does not make it a 'bipartisan' vote... and it's damn well close enough to a party-line vote for government work. Arguing dictionary definitions and semantics here doesn't change common everyday perceptions of word meaning/usage.
8:21 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
Arguing dictionary definitions and semantics here doesn't change common everyday perceptions of word meaning/usage.
Indeed. When members of both parties vote the same way on legislation, it's "bipartisan". Even if it's just one or two. Parsing it out isn't making the case.
There isn't some arbitrary threshold where you get to decide for everyone else what constitutes common usage/understanding/meaning.
Jan 19, '10
@Joe Hill...
I borrowed Sal's dictionary there on 'scurrilous'... At no time did I resort to using coarse language, obscenities, abuse, or slander in my post. As to whether it was a 'ridiculous apologia'... well, that's your opinion. I admitted the offending phrase was poorly written and the author's reference to the Measures obscure.
Dem legislators DID know the tax increase bills as they passed them would likely be challenged - and it is not incorrect to say their nearly party-line vote led to the referral. It's not a blame game - it's just fact.
Jan 19, '10
Bi-partisan? On what planet?
My definition of bi-partisan is when a majority of both parties agree on something, not just a few minority members.
If Republicans still had control in the House, these tax increases would've never made it to the House floor for a vote, or would've been killed.
There's nothing bi-partisan about these measures. To say so is misleading.
8:37 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
Dem legislators DID know the tax increase bills as they passed them would likely be challenged - and it is not incorrect to say their nearly party-line vote led to the referral. It's not a blame game - it's just fact.
Uh...this is your trail to defense of the Oregon editorial? Really?
It's factually incorrect to say that the legislators referred it to the ballot. Did many or all of them know there would be a signature drive against it? Sure..because there always is. But that's a far leap from what was printed.
Seriously...it's not defensible.
Jan 19, '10
The DEMocrat leaders were told that if the taxes were made permanent instead of TEMPorary, they would be put on the ballot. So The Oregonian is correct as they reported that in '09.
Gov. Ted knew this as well as that is why he delayed signing the bills, to delay signature gathering. Yet enough signatures were gathered in record time.
If this fails, even with over 300,000 illegal aliens allowed to vote for them here (pg. 88 voters pamphlet), the only two Republicans that voted for it are gone. And the people WILL remember whom voted overwhelmingly for this-DEMocrats. I'll make sure of it this fall.
The Oregonian, a company going down after years of far left Democrat only biased stories, can't afford to pay these new retroactive taxes and are against these for their own survival, as many other needed businesses here are as well.
Democrats/Blue Oregon/Socialist wanna be's, NEVER EVER saw a new tax they didn't beg/cheat or steal to get. big cry babies.
N.J. and now Mass. next...
Jan 19, '10
Nice try Kari. The Oregon Small Business Council is about as neutral as you are. No posts to their web site before October 21st. Puff pieces on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Jeff Merkley in rapid succession.
(the love letter to Merkley was particularly objective)
They don't even list their members. I could have a group up by lunch claiming to be Oregon Small Businesses Against Ketchup and could make it look more professional.
Jan 19, '10
CORP/BUSINESS' DO NOT PAY TAXES-IT'S A COST OF DOING BUSINESS PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER--YOU. ANY ONE THAT SAYS DIFFERENT HAS AN AGENDA.
Jan 19, '10
Carla Axtman commented: Indeed. When members of both parties vote the same way on legislation, it's "bipartisan". Even if it's just one or two. Parsing it out isn't making the case.
Fine, Carla - just remember then to still call it 'bipartisan' here at Blue Oregon if/when a bill is passed by a Republican majority along a nearly unanimous party-line vote. No railing or scurrilous broadsides here about bills passed by right-wing conservative wing-nut legislators when it's 'bipartisan'... even with only one or two opposition party votes supporting it.
Jan 19, '10
The Dems were taunting the business community and the anti-taxers to put this on the ballot. It was perceived as an opportunity to to show the full power of the public employee unions, and finally put a stake through the heart of the anti-tax movement.
Lest we forget: "no means yes, yes means no" and the gamesmanship in the legislation regarding ballot title drafting and appeal procedure.
Jan 19, '10
"The Dems were taunting the business community and the anti-taxers to put this on the ballot. It was perceived as an opportunity to to show the full power of the public employee unions, and finally put a stake through the heart of the anti-tax movement. "
Do you mean every registered Dem? The party leadership? The legislative leadership? In Sen. or just House?
Sept. 27 Sunday Oregonian had an AOI lobbyist in a front page article (title was Taxes on the Ballot but Clout on the Line) demanding the legislative leadership take orders from them and pass their plan or they would take it to the ballot, "it will be war and it will get ugly".
Legislature did not give into the threat. How much money (from people outside the state? from Oregonians who can't afford an increase in taxes or they will have to lay off workers?) went into paying petitioners to put this on the ballot?
Not saying Nolan is the best ever Majority leader or Hunt the best ever Speaker, but to say AOI acted without hubris is a stretch.
Jan 19, '10
Carla Axtman commented: Uh...this is your trail to defense of the Oregon editorial? Really?
No, 'Dem legislators DID know the tax increase bills as they passed them would likely be challenged - and it is not incorrect to say their nearly party-line vote led to the referral. It's not a blame game - it's just fact' was specifically in response to Joe Hill's previous attack against my original comment here.
For the 3rd time, I've already freely allowed that the offending phrase in The Oregonian was poorly written and the author's reference to the Measures obscure.
But The Oregonian editorial primarily just laments that the passage of the bills and the resulting drive to get them on the ballot were nearly straight-partisan efforts.
As has now been pointed out here by several others, Dem legislators DID know the tax increase bills as written/passed would not only lead to a signature drive - but highly likely a SUCCESSFUL signature drive. The contention that the nearly party-line vote led to the referral is more mine than the editorial's.
10:03 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
Shorter right wing nutjobs: The legislature passed tax increases knowing that we would gather signatures and put them on the ballot. Therefore, that is exactly the same thing as the legislature referring them to the ballot.
And while we're at it, the sky is purple and that green cheese in your sandwich comes from the moon.
Jan 19, '10
Carla, I've consistently said that 'the vote led to the referral'... In the future, I'll refrain from such subtle use of the language when addressing your posts and/or comments.
Jan 19, '10
Yea Carla!
And I wonder how many of the people here getting so incensed at what the legislature did understand how much of the voting population even pays attention to blogs.
Right after the measures qualified, while at a family reunion, I said that there had just been an announcement that there would be a Jan. ballot measure election and what the measures said---and that it was a referendum after collected signatures, not a legislative referral. I had a serious conversation with one 30 something relative who is part of a 2 income family with a toddler.
Christmas breakfast, I mentioned that the ballots would be arriving within weeks, and that same relative said "OH! That's Right!"
As anyone who works full time and has children at home knows, there are only so many hours in a day, and only so many things one can think about at one time. If the uppermost concerns are the everyday concerns of home and family, the motivation of legislators in passing a budget that some people did not like is not likely to be uppermost in such people's minds. And yet, "sending a measure to the ballot" means such folks have just the same one vote as any blogger.
As a friend said when giving up politics after decades of activism, her basic frustration with insiders was "They are maybe 5% of the population who spend all their time on politics and think they decide elections. Actually, it is the other 95%, even if they do nothing other than vote, who decide elections!".
It will be interesting next week to see what the 95% decided. If parents agree with the PTA, if anyone who knows either a public employee or someone who depends on state provided services votes to maintain those services, all the rhetoric on blogs may not make a difference.
10:26 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
alcatross: I wasn't necessarily referring to you when I said "shorter right-wing nutjobs". Perhaps you're simply taking something on that might not be yours..for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread? Only you know for sure.
Jan 19, '10
There's nothing bi-partisan about these measures. To say so is misleading.
Back in the day bipartisan had your meaning, and those votes from the other side were called "cross-over votes". Then bipartisan came to mean manufacturing consensus, and now it's a "well, I call that bipartisan". Like Sen. Franken said, "you're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts". Unfortunately, definitions seem to fall under "opinions" anymore.
I can't believe this logic that says, "Hey, when you get too progressive- sane even- you KNOW that will be challenged, so you asked for it". And in the next breath you'll hear how the lege doesn't lead...
Jan 19, '10
How much more would the Oregonian and its parent corporation (Newhouse) stand to pay under Measure 67? How much more would its publisher and top executives stand to pay under Measure 66? These are questions worth asking.
12:26 p.m.
Jan 19, '10
Noah: "Lest we forget: "no means yes, yes means no" and the gamesmanship in the legislation regarding ballot title drafting and appeal procedure."
I wondered if this slam against those sneaky no-good Title writers was going to come up. Let me ask this: if instead the reverse were true -- that a NO vote meant "yes, let's enact these taxes", and a Yes vote meant "no, we reject the increase the legislature approved" -- wouldn't you be screaming more loudly about a deceptive Ballot title?
How exactly are they supposed to do it right?
Jan 19, '10
The Dems in Salem screwed this whole thing up. Not sure they are smart enough to even understand that yet but if both measures are defeated they might get a clue. There were a number of "maneuvers" taken that I'm sure people thought were clever at the time but now just look stupid. The delays, the attempts at a confusing title, the description of the measures, etc. It is rather obvious that the State has been putting their thumb on the scale the whole time trying to influence a positive vote. I can see through it and voted no for both measures but I'm sure some people will be fooled into making a mistake. In the end the ones behind all the lies and distortions look silly.
Jan 19, '10
My County claims to be short of money, but they apparently had enough to send out two mailers at taxpayer expense advocating a "yes" vote.
This is what you "always say yes to taxes" types don't ever want to get. The State, the county, they always have enough resources to do political activism and interfere with private property rights, but then they claim they'll have to cut schools and libraries and law enforcement because "there isn't enough money." First they fund the frills, then they go begging for the basics. Exactly the opposite of how the real world works.
Then there is the misleading ballot titles.
You all may have fooled enough of the people this time, but it is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-fiscal discipline Party. You are making it easier for people to say no next time.
Jan 19, '10
The "anti-fiscal discipline Party" is of course the one starting with "R". You know, the one that let the Banksters run wild and wreck the economy. The one that wanted to shovel $Billions to bail-out the same crooks, with no strings attached! They only know how to say "No" already; it's all they do.
Jan 19, '10
In '99 a favorite independent rallying cry was, "Dems may tax and spend but the Republicans just spend"!
Jan 20, '10
i really hate some liars. It's incredible how they deduct poor peoples. So insolent! That pissed me off! sry!
<hr/>