Are Oregonians ready to reform the kicker?

Carla Axtman

53% of Oregonians say they support putting half of the kicker into a rainy day fund.

Buried at the bottom of yesterday's Portland Trib story on a poll about taxes and spending in Oregon is this interesting little nugget about the kicker:

In the survey, 53 percent of respondents favored amending the constitution to place one-half of the kicker in a reserve fund — up to a maximum of 10 percent of the previous general fund budget — to help the state during bad economic times. Forty-three percent opposed the proposal.

“There’s support for reforming the kicker, but it’s very soft,” Davis says.

Historically, the kicker has enjoyed wide support among Oregonians. In fact, former Oregon Senator Gordon Smith rode into office in part on the back of the kicker.

It's quite possible that this is a shift away from keeping the kicker as-is and into some pretty solid support for changing the law. Given how the current formula for the kicker consistently screws up the state's ability to budget and appropriately forecast for revenue, it can't happen soon enough.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    the Oregonians who have to answer this are the ones in the Leg: they need to pass a strong Rainy Day Fund based on kicker reform, they have to do so without qualms, and then they have to get out & sell the damn thing aggressively. even the Rs who bitch about govt spending have to get on board; they know the state can't cut it's way to fiscal stability. it matters far less what voters think. we need the Leg and Gov to do the right thing, create a RDF out of the kicker and stand tall & proud in that decision.

    then we can do our part & win the referendum challenge. but they need to pass it their own damn selves first.

    • (Show?)

      "it matters far less what voters think" Spoken like a true democrat. What the voters think should be all that matters TA and fortified with those thoughts the legislature needs to go make the tough decisions about what stays and what goes. Just like we all do at home when our wants out run our means. It's not the legislature's job to duck that responsibility by continually coming up with new things to call 'reform' and take money that is not theirs. Where do you get the idea the legislature has any right to keep our money? ? simply because it would make their lives and jobs easier? AS long as I can walk into any DHS office in this state and see a room full of illegal aliens waiting for us to feed their entire families, house them, pay for all of their medical care for them and even give them cash I will assume we are awash in extra cash

      • (Show?)

        Cameron:

        Out of curiousity, when was the last time you walked into a DHS office.

        • (Show?)

          I drove a woman from my church to her DHS appointment earlier this week.

          • (Show?)

            And then you walked around confirming that the people you saw were illegal immigrants?

            • (Show?)

              No Jonathan I used my racial profiling skills (what the rest of us call common sense) instead. The place was packed with no empty seats at all and there was not 1 person who didn't look like they were from another country in the place. It's possible I suppose they were all naturalized citizens except I think you need to have basic English skills to pass the test. You are missing my point unless you are saying that NO illegal aliens receive any benefits from any of our social programs funded by our tax dollars? Is that what you are saying? Why do you feel an illegal alien family should be ahead of the legal citizens in line for the OHP?

              • (Show?)

                Um, "common sense"? You mean, you saw a bunch of low-income brown people and immediately concluded that they were all or mostly illegal?

                How do you know that they weren't here legally? Do explain your magic powers.

                • (Show?)

                  None of them spoke english and the or at least chose not to that day. I realize there was the possibility that some of them might be legal so I didn't call any of them out and demand to see their papers based simply on their skin color like most of us who are repulsed by foreigners violating our laws and sucking our country dry always do. lol

      • (Show?)

        You would not have the right to vote as a female if it were left in the hands of voters back in the day.

        Just sayin'

  • (Show?)

    T.A. is right. It's not enough to ask a generic question about repealing or modifying the kicker. It's like polls on sales tax in the past. A lot more people say they will vote for a sales tax if properly conditioned (rate locked into the constitution, reduces other taxes, revenue dedicated to schools, etc.) but no actual sale tax proposal ever seems to get over 25%.

    I think a realistic effort to fund a rainy day fund with the kicker will take an unusually strong political allignment, not just encouraging poll results.

    • (Show?)

      I think you are right Jack. The government here seems to think that because they get to touch they have some legitimate right to try and keep it. It's MY Money and if I overpay any of my taxes I expect to get it back. I like my poll question better : "do you think that the government should live within it's means and establish a rainy day fund out of the money they have already been given"? How would that poll Mr. Roberts?

      • (Show?)

        It's NOT your money. Paying taxes is part of the social contract. Or to take the conservative tack in the 1970s, if you don't like having to pay for the services that you use, and that facilitate your ability to earn money, then leave.

      • (Show?)

        But you didn't overpay your taxes. You paid your taxes (assuming you pay taxes) correctly. If however based on the predictions of what the projected revenue by the state's economic forecaster made two years ago, if he guessed wrong, the state pays you money based on that wrong prediction.

        Unless you paid by mistake more taxes than you owed, then you didn't overpay anything.

        Do you also think you overpaid for a movie ticket because Paramount Pictures takes in more on Ironman 2 than they thought they would when they green-lighted production 2 years ago? Or conversely, do you feel you didn't pay enough to go see Gigli because it was a box-office (and critical) bomb?

        • (Show?)
          With all due respect Mr.Radmacher where did I say I wanted to “avoid paying my part of the 'social contract'? And what (Mr. Cole) would lead you to believe that I don’t pay any taxes at all?  I am one of the 50% of American’s who does pay taxes; lots of taxes. For the legislature to arrogantly think it’s okay for them to unilaterally overturn the expressed will of 62% + of Oregonians who voted for this change in the state constitution is misguided, foolish and wrong. The efforts that would go into “taking this money from all of us to give to the State to blow on more unnecessary program  is not “reform” under anyone’s definition but more likely conversion of funds or  theft
          

          Since the law was changed in 1995 the money returned in the kicker check has been accurately described as a “tax refund” With all due respect, Mr.Radmacher when the state determines I am owed a “tax refund” then IT IS MY money. Any decision by the state to try and keep my money by "reforming" the current kicker law is a tax increase...how can you possibly claim it isn’t? How are we supposed to be able to have an honest discussion of these issues when you aren't willing to have that discussion in good faith? And Mitchell, I don't have to make that determination, the law and the state do it for us. Do you guys really believe like TA says “it doesn’t matter what the voters think?” as long as the state feels the need to satisfy its unquenchable thirst and hunger for more money to spend?

          • (Show?)

            Cameron, the kicker is NOT a tax refund you're due. It's the difference between what economists guessed revenue would be, and what it actually was. Would you support a law that says that if the estimate was too high, you'd pay extra taxes? Of course not. So we should be keeping the kicker in a rainy day fund, to make up for times when the economists estimate too high.

            • (Show?)

              Maybe a better idea would be to extend the privilege of paying taxes to the 50% of Oregonians who don't pay any yet are the largest beneficiaries of the states entitlements and giveaways

  • (Show?)

    53% seems awful low to me as a place to start a campaign.

    I'd like to see proposals that talk about retaining the first, say, $200 of the kicker as-is -- and then doing something different with anything above that.

    That's not ideal, the kicker is just plain stupid policy, but political realities intrude.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe a higher trigger would work: the first 5% of revenue over projections goes into the reserve fund, and anything over 5% is kicked back.

    Again, not ideal, but Kari's right -- it'll be politically impossible to just dump the stupid thing.

  • (Show?)

    Carla, you've got that right. The current formula figures the kicker on a taxpayer's gross taxes, before credits. So, if a taxpayer's net tax is zero, they still get a kicker. I think there were several viable plans offered during the last regular session - plans that, I believe, do not require amending the constitution. For instance, raising the bar that triggers the kicker. I think any campaign must include educating the public on what the kicker is and how it's calculated. And the cost to administer it.

  • (Show?)

    why does the left call every single tax increase "reform" ... Healthcare "reform" lacked anything resembling 'healthcare reform" ...it wasn't even 'health insurance 'reform". What it was is exactly what kicker 'reform' is ...another name for higher taxes with a false and misleading label that is supposed to make us fel good about it. What were the poll numbers to the question: "do you support state government living within it's means and establishing a 'rainy day fund' out of the money they already have? I would be willing to bet it would poll better than 53%. The government doesn't have to take morew of my money in the form of my kicker (my overpayment of taxes being given back to me) they have the power to establish a rainy day fund anytime they want. If this state needs a rainy day fund so badly then why hasn't the bluer than blue state legislature created and funded one? When I see this state using the money they are given effecieintly for the benefit of the legal citizens of this state and we still can't make ends meet thats the time we should have this conversation and not before. AS long as my tax dollars are being spent to feed and provide cash and medical care for people with no legal right to be in this country, I am going to assume we are swimming in excess cash. Keep your hands off of MY money until you demonstrate you can be responsible stewards of the cash we have already given you. If tis rainy day fund is as important as everyone wants me to believe then why hasn't anyone done anything to establish one? Go into any DHS office today and look around ....thats where you have chosen to spend our rainy day fund. Thank you for putting this states legal children and all school and college aged children at risk of not having the education they should have in order to support and mint some brand new left leaning voters

    • (Show?)

      Cameron's right on -- let's let the kids of illegal immigrants starve! That's some excellent family values at work.

      • (Show?)

        I hope the fact that life isn't fair isn't news to you Jonathan? No one wants anyone to starve but currently in this state there are legal U.S. citizens who are waiting in line to get onto the Oregon Health Plan ...why were they wait listed? because there are people who aren't here legally taking their spot or the spot of someone who isn't them. We can't feed the world especially with only 50% of us currently pulling the wagon for all of the rest. I would be more than happy to sit down with you someday and have a session of "wouldn't it be nice if?" with you but REALITY dicates that we have limited resources chasing unlimited "WIBNI'S". Illegal aliens are the people responsible for making sure their kids don't starve...not oregonians. How about we fix all of our problems before we go out adopting the problems of others?

        • (Show?)

          The problem with this line of reasoning Cameron is that those here in the country illegally are heavily contributing to our society. Speaking generally: they pay taxes, they work hard at all kinds of jobs and enrich our nation culturally.

          Your comments here indicate that you believe those in the country here illegally are somehow just a massive drain our resources. It would be helpful if you could please back up this premise with factual data.

          • (Show?)

            Thats exactly what I am saying Carla...the people here illegally ARE a HUGE MASSIVE drain to all facets of our economy. here are legal residents of this state and country who would perform those same jobs Carla AND they would pay taxes. This nation has laws that govern how people are allowed to immigrate to this country so thats it's done in a thoughtful rational way. I personally would rather give citizenship to someone with something to offer this country to make it better and I am not talking about Cocaine, Meth and Heroin. Multiculturalism is a failed policy objective and I would prefer to use our immigration laws to improve our country and not just to add to our welfare rolls. The research I have seen recently says each illegal household costs this country a NET of -20,000 A YR!

            • (Show?)

              Cameron: What research, exactly, are you citing for the -20k a year? Source, please? I'd very much like to read it.

              And what exactly about "multiculturalism" is failed, exactly? Given that we're all interconnected in a global way--if we're ignoring cultures that are unfamiliar or we don't understand that seems like a poor way to compete. Certainly we can't compete with what we don't understand.

              And how are people coming here, working and paying taxes not making the country better? Seems to me that's exactly what we want from those who come here.

              • (Show?)

                What about Multiculturalism has failed? Most of it. and once again they ARE NOT working and paying taxes and with the drugs and gangs and the siphoning off of jobs and welfare and anything else they can get for free they ARE NOT making this country better. Making those jobs available for legal citizens would make this country better. We all didn't just wake up yesterday and discover that we lived in a global community ...we know who and what other world cultures are and aren't. We don't need to import them to learn about them. What I want from those who come here is for them to go back to their countries and if they want to return I want them to follow the laws we have all agreed to follow. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Why should they be exempted from our laws that we aren't exempted from? and why should the people who do follow those laws and immigrate into this country legally have to wait for 1-2 years to do it our way when there are millions who thumbed their noses at us and walked on in? But mostly ...AN OPEN BORDERS POLICY LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW CANNOT CO EXIST WITH A SOCIALIST SOCIETY. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE

                http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/2843-multiculturalism-cultural-insanity-run-amok

          • (Show?)

            How much tax does a guy making 10.00 an hour pay at years end? Especially one with children? It's a rhetorical question

        • (Show?)

          Cameron, your world view would equally fit with people who would say "I'll contribute to non-profits when I have enough money." Those people never give, because in that mindset, one never has enough money. Clearly, you also oppose any aid to foreign countries, with the same logic.

          • (Show?)

            There is no product or service in this world that the government can deliver as cheaply or efficiently as the private sector. I can tell from first hand knowledge that those people not only give but give in amounts that would boggle your mind coming from the mindset of "they never give" My own family's charitable trust disproves your statement here are some other Oregon charitable trusts and the values of their holdings

            http://www.foundationdatabook.com/Pages/or/ortop25.html

            • (Show?)

              "There is no product or service in this world that the government can deliver as cheaply or efficiently as the private sector."

              Military. You lose. Do I get a cookie?

              (And there are plenty more, but I don't care to do the research to argue with you.)

              • (Show?)

                Yes you get a cookie ... two in fact because you were also smart enough to leave it at that. As a country we are really really good at the business of warfare. I am glad you also managed to mention on of the few things the government does that the constitution authorizes them to do. See me after class ! :)

    • (Show?)

      Same way we call every tax cut, or every decrease in welfare spending reform as well. Try actually using a dictionary about what the word reform means and you may be able to answer your own question.

      BTW, do you not consider making recessions (dropping insurance when they actually make a valid claim) reform or not?

      Do you consider outlawing deal of coverage over pre-existing conditions reform or not?

      Do you consider requiring everyone have insurance instead of sponging off the system by walking into an ER with no insurance, reform or not?

    • (Show?)
      "AS long as my tax dollars are being spent to feed and provide cash and medical care for people with no legal right to be in this country, I am going to assume we are swimming in excess cash."

      So why did the GOP insist that provisions of the Healthcare reform bill outlaw undocumented immigrants for even being able to buy private health insurance?

      Seems like what the GOP pushed was encouraging freeloading off the system by advocating that we not insist on everyone having insurance.

      BTW, it is our taxes dollars, not "mine".

      • (Show?)

        Because we are tired of footing the bill for illegal aliens with no legal right to even be in this country. I don't get free healthcare do you? then why should someone here illegally feel they can be supported by our tax dollars? It's not the governments role to insist everyone have anything except a legal right to be here.

        • (Show?)

          Not an especially Christian attitude...but then I'm not a Christian, so I guess maybe I don't totally get how that whole thing really works.

          The way I understand it, those here working illegally in fact DO pay taxes, in general. The Social Security Administration estimates that about 3/4 of those working in the US illegally pay taxes. In fact, many pay more than they actually owe because they don't have someone assisting them in figuring their taxes.

          Just because someone didn't come into this country legally, doesn't mean they don't pay their share. In fact, they're choosing to live here and being taxed with absolutely no representation in government--which would make them the real candidates for the Tea Party, since that was what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

          • (Show?)

            Because they come into this country illegally, the way we allow them to drop anchor babies, apply for a SSN for that baby then immediately jump onto the public dole and feeding from the public trough absolutely without any question whatsoever means they don't pay their own freight. People in our states prisons also have no representation in our government because they too are felons. I have never heard such a ridiculous argument ...they have no representation in our government Carla because they aren't legal residents of our state or country!! What part of illegal don't you understand?

            • (Show?)

              Evidence that "they" are dropping "anchor babies" and then "jumping on to the public dole" and "feeding from the public trough" without paying their way? As I mentioned, the vast majority of these folks are paying taxes--in some cases much more than they owe (according to the Social Security Administration).

              Yes Cameron, they're not here legally--but they're working, paying taxes and contributing--with absolutely no say whatsoever in the policies around them that effect their lives. So yes--that makes them very much like those who participated in the Boston Tea Party: taxed without representation.

  • (Show?)

    Smoke and mirors. There will be no surplus in the state budget for at least the next 4 years according to the State treasury department.

    I am in favor of discussing kicker changes (not "reform") in the context of a wholesale reform of tax policy for Oregon. Let's spend time now on issues that can actually affect the next biennium in a positive manner.

    • (Show?)

      I agree there needs to be major tax reform but sometimes major policy changes need to be approached one manageable step at a time. I do not, however, agree that there will be no surplus for at least 4 years. It is possible routine tax collections could trigger the kicker. It has happened before.

  • (Show?)

    If we are going to maintain the notion of "getting money back" if our taxes exceed projections, then shouldn't we also expect to PAY more in taxes when revenue comes in below?

    The logic on the kicker escapes my feeble brain.

    • (Show?)

      The logic on the Kicker law was the generally held belief by a majority of people that if you give the government money ...and it doesn't matter how much ...they will find a way to spend it and still need more. Some of the extra revenue has come close to a half a billion dollars in some of those years. If the government guesses low then I would have no problem paying my share of the difference ... The state needs to establish a rainy day fund out of the money they already get and not from new clever rewrites to the Oregon constitution

  • (Show?)

    How about if we just take a pause to let M66/67 settle down, before going on another divisive tax campaign?

    • (Show?)

      I disagree. Fix the kicker so it funds a rainy-day fund so we never have to face another 66/67 situation again because of the bottom falling out in the economy/revenue for public services.

  • (Show?)

    Yes, God forbid that we would actually codify some fiscal restraint when the bottom falls out of the economy.

    Fix the spending along with the taxes... oops revenue.

  • (Show?)

    We have a spending problem that needs to be fixed first

    • (Show?)

      What "spendng problem", specifically? Which items in the budget would you cut?

      • (Show?)

        I would layoff state workers, and I would immediately halt any more funding for the Oregon Health Plan giveaway. and I would start requiring everyone who lives in this state to start paying taxes to operate it. I was shocked and dismayed that the 50% of the people who pay no taxes in this state and who receive the bulk of the benefits from other peoples tax dollars were allowed to vote to increase the taxes for other people so they wouldn't suffer any degradation in the free services the they receive. Unbelievable! State workers getting raises of any kind at a time when the effective unemployment rate in Oregon is closer to 20% than 10%. Your overly optimistic belief that illegal aliens working in this state pay taxes is wholly incorrect as is your attempt to compare those people to the original tea party members. The I.D. thieves who do receive a regular paycheck (vs cash under the table) claim S or M and 99 and pay nothing but SS tax. That is the minority as a large percentage of these workers work in construction and are 100% off the books employees and pay zero! Most importantly Carla these people consume far far more than they contribute based upon anyone's analysis. I would like to just have the interest each year on the bad debt they pass onto all of us in this states ER's and Dr's Offices. Until we can find a way to export this problem back to whereever they came from we need to immediately STOP subsidizing them.

        • (Show?)

          This sounds a lot like the routine disconnected argument of "there's too much government" and "there aught to be a law". If you lay off the state workers who enforce taxes, who do you propose is going to make sure everyone who lives in the state starts paying taxes to operate it? And who will serve the Oregonians on the OHP? Who will provide safety and protection on our highways? Who will fight forest fires? Who will maintian our parks? Who will clear and sand the roads when we have snow and ice? Who will build and maintain our roads? And don't say private. It's been proven over and over that private contractors do not cut costs or provide a better service. The IRS tried to use private collectors and abandoned it because it was a waste. BTW - state workers are taking pay cuts with furlough days. But must still find a way to provide services - services federal or state laws say they must provide - with fewer resources and hours.

          • (Show?)

            She probably means to only lay off the state workers that are helping all those illegal people at the DHS offices or at the Oregon Health Plan. You know, the ones that only affect "THEM", not us true Oregonians.

          • (Show?)

            "If you lay off the state workers who enforce taxes" Based upon what I’ve read, no one is enforcing this state’s tax code. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was close to 4 or 500k people did not file and of those there were 77k who the state rec'd income information for and they collectively owe over 100 million in state taxes for 07 alone! This state squanders millions of dollars by requiring "prevailing wages" be paid on most or all highway projects. 22.00 hr + for sign holders who earn only 10.00 an hr on non-govt jobs? Where has it been proven that private contractors don't lower costs or provide better service? Doing what? The IRS is not even a govt agency, and the OHP is a luxury this state can't afford. The point I am trying to make here that people seem to be missing is this: If we can't afford it we should not be doing it ... the answer to budget shortfalls is not to go out and raise taxes on cigs or gas or to find some new thing to tax or to raise fees the answer is to live within your means. When cuts need to happen then the legislature needs to overlay the priorities of the citizens of this state and start chopping. Education is at the top of my list over free medical care for everyone who wants it. Maybe the OHP should continue but only for the children age 0-18 plus prenatal care for mothers and that’s it. In our zeal to get all of our children covered we mistakenly allowed their mothers and fathers to piggyback onto their coverage and run up the tab. I haven’t gone thru our state budget line by line looking for the soft spots but granting large pay increases to state workers this year (or late last yr). The argument is only as disconnected as the people who read it and don’t believe it. All of the 100’s of 1000’s of tea party members across the USA aren’t clamoring for more gov’t (or more cowbell) The only reason I initially responded to this thread was because the first thing out of TA’s mouth was “to hell with what the people want do it anyway and apologize later” (Not an exact quote but words to that effect) after reading comments like that it’s not me who is disconnected. That was the same exact attitude we got from the US Congress over the health care tax a large majority of us did not want and objected too and by hook or by crook got anyway. It’s the same attitude we are getting on Cap and Tax (the death star of all job killers) and the same response we are getting from gov’t and Obama over illegal immigration. It doesn’t need to be “reformed” the laws just need to be enforced!

            • (Show?)

              Whoa! It is NOT true "no one is enforcing this state's tax code." If you read the Secretary of State's audit - which Dept. Of Revenue requested - they state the agency collects 81% but there are areas they could improve. (BTW - the audit is on line and it was 66,000 non-filers. Not 4 of 500K. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!) And one area they could improve is mining data because the current system is cumbersome. This agency ALWAYS exceeds what the legislature asks of them. The recent amnesty program is one example. Before you speak, you should get off your high horse and job shadow some of the state workers you think are so expendable. If the real point of your posts was the kicker, you have an odd way of showing it. Most of your comments have been off topic. While I agree that, in some cases, we just need to enforce the laws we have, it takes resources. I don't see your name on any ballots so if you think you can do better, why aren't you running for public office?

              • (Show?)

                Ahhh Lea I stand corrected the number I read wasn't 400k it was only 278,000 then 233,000 people with Oregon addresses and income who filed a federal return but 2 years later still had not filed a state return. I would advise YOU to DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Here is the quote from that audit:

                "Using IRS Data Would Identify Many Non-filers We first combined and summarized about 33.5 million Oregon tax records and 26 million federal records to isolate tax year 2007 information. We then compared these two data sets and identified 223,000 individuals who filed a federal return from an Oregon address, or had more than $12,000 in gross taxable income earned in Oregon or reported to an Oregon address. None of these 223,000 individuals had filed an Oregon return by the end of March 2009"

                Additionally, I have witnessed plenty of state workers in action and hardly feel I would benefit in any substantive way by "shadowing" one for a day. I would get just as much out of it if I just met them all at magoos at 5pm. The other statements you made which you are guilty of fudging on were your praise of the DOR's revenue officer's job performance. Bill Bradbury didn't agree with your view of the job they were doing and neither did Kate Brown. WW asked him how he would improve Or. Govt and he said: "he’d get the Oregon Department of Revenue to do a better job collecting unpaid taxes from deadbeats".(Ouch!)When Secretary of State, Kate Brown, saw the results of the audit she said "they are not very effective. The state collects about 81 percent of the income tax it is owed, the audit found, and does a poor job of collecting the rest" (Ouch!) Here’s what Brown’s auditors found about the DOR: We reviewed DOR’s collection practices,... we determined that DOR does not timely contact taxpayers by phone, does not have a strong performance management approach to collections and does not sufficiently use technology and automation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its collections efforts"

                I would say poor use of data mining was the tip of the iceberg of what they determined needed immediate attention. The reason we get off topic is because I am nice enough to respond to all of the ad hominen remarks and additional questions I am asked and because responses to my comments like yours are filled with so much untrue nonsense I feel like if I don't say something it would be like I was agreeing. The reason I don't run for public office in Oregon is because at this writing my legal residence is in Medina Washington not Portland Oregon. I am seeing someone down here and live here well over 50% of the time and have since February (in a house we own and pay taxes on)

                Lastly, can you try being a little nicer and stop being so catty! We are supposed to all be adults not 12 yr old's besides I don't treat you that way.

        • (Show?)

          Cameron,

          Others have asked and you've yet to provide it, but I'll ask as well. Source material please for your assertions...

          "the 50% of the people who pay no taxes in this state and who receive the bulk of the benefits from other peoples tax dollars were allowed to vote to increase the taxes for other people so they wouldn't suffer any degradation in the free services the they receive."

          Source or I'll assume you're either pulling this info from your daydreams or that you're repeating some group's talking points without having verified them.

          • (Show?)

            Here you go ...I read alot and those numbers can easily be sourced in a lot of different places here are some of the easiest places to ferret them out. Please note that I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration and legal immigrants coming to this country to seek a better way of life and to make a positive contribution. NONE. Shouldn't we have the ability to decide for ourselves who we want to live among us? shouldn't we use our immigration policies to improve this country with people who have something to offer us all? and who won't show up at our door step with their hand out? When you find something wrong with these stats for whatever reason just ask because these are essentially the exact same stats that can be found in 100's of different places on the net and I will shoot you some alternative links. Here is one last stat to consider: This country has a long history of putting legal americans in line ahead of illegal foreigners. first link has that history

            http://conservativecameron.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-do-these-3-men-have-in-common.html

            http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/ethics-population-and-immigration/immigrants-and-welfare-use.html

            http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/the-fiscal-cost-low-skilled-immigrants.html

            http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/baby-chaining/anchor-babies.html

            http://www.numbersusa.com/content/issues/americas-jobless.html

          • (Show?)

            Here are some of the links to the 50% statistics: • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958260423012269.html •
            • http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2009/09/30/nearly-50-of-households-pay-zero-taxes/ •
            • http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2009/09/nearly-50-of-american-households-pay-no.html

            • http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/04/is-obama-winning-in-dc-and-losing-the-country.html

        • (Show?)

          Shorter Cameron: Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

          LOL..jeez.

          So in an economy where unemployment is already an entrenched problem, your solution is to make it worse?

          No thanks.

          Of course those in poverty or who aren't working right now are getting more services from the government. That actually shocked you? Gosh...you're pretty easy then, I'd say. Those systems are in place to keep the bottom from dropping out for people. Whenever there's a downturn in the economy, there's always an uptick in the need for services.

          "These people consume far far more than they contribute based on anyone analysis"? Really? Cuz it seems to me if they're paying taxes--in some cases more than they owe--then somebody is playing fast and loose with the "consume" numbers.

          The first link you provided below to back up what you're saying is your own blog, which contains absolutely zero information outside your own diatribe. No numbers, no links to studies or independent analysis.

          The rest of the links are from Numbers USA, a group that admits it wants lower immigration and they cite numbers from the "Center For Immigration Studies"..another group doing the same.

          Thanks for the Ponzi scheme of pretend research, but all you've provided is a pile of BS--nothing from anybody who isn't completely biased against immigration.

          Try again. Post information from independent, credible sources and then we'll have some solid premises to go from. Until then, there's really nothing more to discuss on this issue with you.

          • (Show?)

            I'm with Carla here, Cameron. There are credible groups who do independent research on the subject of illegal immigration and the cost of same on society. Since you read so much, it shouldn't be hard to come up with some of those studies to support your statements.

            • (Show?)

              Yup, not really what I'd expect from someone who claims to be a Stanford MBA.

              • (Show?)

                If you could only see the surprised look on my face right now. When faced with the links you were wringing your hands to get, you immediately do exactly what I said you would do ... remember when I said this: “When you find something wrong with these stats for whatever reason" (CONTD) For me, It' like it's groundhogs day or something or like Yogi Berra said "it's déjà vu all over again" because it didn’t matter what links I would have posted. Even if God himself handed down the information witnessed by three wise men you would have all done the exact same thing: thrown your hands up in disbelief and said exactly what you said. This isn't my first Rodeo guys and gals. I also made sure I told you when I posted those links the following... “Here you go ...I read a lot and those numbers can easily be sourced in a lot of different places here are some of the easiest places to ferret them out" I am willing to bet you didn't even bother to plug in those links and look. You know those stats are correct, I am sure when you read them the first time you googled one or all of them and found out for yourself. If you had linked over to where those links sent you then you would have discovered the raw data that bears all of these statistics out, did not come from Numbers USA. They don’t compile their own data …they have no way to get the numbers the government has already at their fingertips All they do there is analyze that data. If you had taken the time to look you would have discovered the real source for those numbers were people like the US Census dept. or from the CBO, or from one govt agency or another. I thought I was doing you a favor by linking you to the quick read readers digest version complete with all of the tables and graphs it would have taken you hours to find another way. I don't know too many other entities who are able to access this type of data so they can generate their own data never being forced to rely on the gov’t?

              • (Show?)

                (CONTD HERE) But I also told you in that same paragraph that this exact same information is available on literally 100's of other websites ...even Arianna Huffington’s post contains some of these exact same statistics and conclusions. So where does that leave us on this topic? I have presented sources of the date supporting the statements I made. Since I have supported my statements the ball is in your court to show me that my information is wrong and why, if you want to try to slide one past everyone by impeaching the first set of evidence I have given you then you will need to do more than assert that all information posted on a pro legal immigration website is flawed and a lie... show me what part of it you can prove is flawed. I don't need to prove anything to either one of you at this point. If my numbers are wrong show me where and show me what the right numbers are. I know you can't and so do you, so can we please stop the charade. That's the difference between the way you believe and clutch your ideology closely to your chest and the way I think, I m forever open and curious and willing to be proven wrong and have my mind and my position on anything at all changed and I am willing to read whatever anyone thinks will do that. My mind is wide open. Yours is screwed shut and then duct taped closed. I am not married to any political opinion and if you can show me where I am wrong and why then I would change it. You two unfortunately have blinders on and you actively stop anything from getting between your ears that might upset your foregone conclusions about anything….you will even actively perpetuate a lie if doing so allows you to hang onto one of your political absolutes for one more day. If my info is wrong then show me where otherwise I will assume you can’t …the ball is in your court. Take a chance and open up your brain and let some sunshine in.

connect with blueoregon