DefendOregon's got a great video on it.

Over at PurpleOregon, there's a thread that shows how the state budget today would be $65 million if TABOR was in the original constitution.

From what's on the DefendOregon site, it seems that anti-TABOR sentiment is where people with any shred of common sense come together, regardless of their political affiliation.

We should be concerned about this measure because it will cut revenues so drastically that it will force the state to sell off public lands. In combination with the eminent domain/Measure 37-style accompanying ballot measures the same group is putting forward in all the states where TABOR is being proposed, the result could be a worst case scenario for those who treasure state parks. I continue to support Measure 37 and am fairly certain I'll vote for the eminent domain measure, but the TABOR measure would very devastating on many levels and must not be allowed to pass.

I am interested in thoughtful suggestions on how a progressive should campaign against this harmful measure. Keep in mind that the middle and "lower middle" classes are being brutalized by direct and indirect tax increases as well as the overall increased cost of living. How do I tell my neighbor that TABOR is evil, and that he should reject it, notwithstanding the fact that his family can't afford to go on vacation this year due to the increased cost of gas, groceries, health insurance, etc.?

Kari writes:

BlueNote -- he should reject TABOR, and then help Democrats in the legislature fight for closing corporate tax loopholes and shifting our tax system to a progressive one, in which the wealthy pay their fair share.

I fully agree with the first part of your sentence, but think your second part requires some clarification. By most standards (except if you measure us against the West Hills set and Phil Knight), my wife's and my income would classify us as "affluent", if not wealthy. I take great exception to your characterization of us as not paying our fair share (of Oregon taxes). All our income is earned and is exposed fully to Oregon's 9% marginal tax rate. We pay taxes to Oregon well into 5 figures annually. The federal writedown of our Oregon income tax barely makes a dent in our overall tax bill as we're stuck deep in the federal AMT territory. I'm not looking for any additional tax breaks, but I sure as hell don't like to be held up as a poster child for Oregon tax reform. Amend the Oregon tax code to decouple certain federal tax preferences that benefit those who have "unearned" income and I'll support such efforts. But simply extend the marginal tax rates to ensnare "affluent" two income families and I'll fight it like hell. We literally give at the office, ever other week.

""""in which the wealthy pay their fair share"""" Yes Kari please clarify this

And do you really think it is honest to call it "Colorado Spending Trap Qualifies for Oregon Ballot"?

I mean half of TABOR is not in the Oregon version.

TABOR reduced spending in a down economy Oregon's will not.

The two are not the same. If you want to argue against the Oregon spenging limit why not do so on it's merit and not the TABOR it isn't?

Hey "Vote Yes" - if you're going to take issue with the name of the author's post, then point the finger at you and your pals first. I mean why have the proponents gone from calling it 1) TABOR, to 2)SOS for about two months in the spring, to now 3) Rainy Day Amendment (nevermind that it does not create a rainy day fund, regardless of overly broad allowances made by the clueless boobs in the secretary of state's office). Read the text of the measure. It does not create a rainy day fund. It just doesn't forbid or preclude one. It also doesn't forbid world peace, so I guess we could start calling it the world peace amendment (and Bradbury would allow it as a possible outcome, I'm sure). If it's so fabulous, if it's been so great in Colorado, why don't you and Dick Armey et. al call it what it is? Call it Oregon TABOR. Call it a spending cap. Why isn't your website Oregontabor.com? Why is it now rainydayamendment.com? Did SOS not poll well? If it's the cat's meow, you shouldn't have to dress it up as something else or sell it on some theoretically possible second stage outcome.
And you're right, it isn't precisely the same as Colorado; the Oregon version is actually worse. It has even less flexibility.
Finally, this may be partially off topic, but since Saxton is waffling on this, did he or did he not sign the petition to put this on the ballot? Is that verifiable?

Kari, I didn't hear mrfearless47 pleading poverty. What I heard, and can readily relate to, is a plea to knock it off already with the blanket statement that the "wealthy" don't pay their "fair share" in taxes.

The data is pretty hard to find (at least in a form that allows ready comparison), but by my calculations based on Oregon Department of Revenue data it looks like the average net state tax liability for joint filings in 2004 (most recent year available) in the AGI range of 60-70K was about $3,300 give or take. That's true net liability after accounting for deductions, credits, etc.

So while mrfearless might be "within striking distance" of twice the state median family-of-four income, it looks like he and his wife may also exceed THREE times the state median family-of-four tax liability. (We're talking rough numbers and broad generalities here, of course...)

Considering somebody who makes twice the median income "wealthy" is frankly absurd, but it's not an uncommon mindset here. And then blaming such "wealthy" people for getting out of paying a "fair share" of taxes when they're already paying perhaps 50% more (proportionately) than those of median income, is downright offensive to some.

Particularly when those of us who happen to make higher-than-median incomes do so as a result of honest hard labor, just like most of those who make less-than-median incomes. Not everyone who enjoys some moderate degree of financial success is a trust fund baby who never worked a day in his (or her) life... though you wouldn't know it from some of the comments around here.

I don't want to speak for mrfearless47, but that's what I took from his comments...

Sorry, should have included a link to the tax data (PDF file) I used in my calculations above...

Fed up, (with reality?)

"And you're right, it isn't precisely the same as Colorado; the Oregon version is actually worse. It has even less flexibility."

No you are simply making things up because you can't address the REAL measure, the REAL limit and the REAl rainy day fund it will ENABLE. The only way it won't is if your elected officials decide to send it back to the taxpayers. What are the blue odds of that, my friend?

It's not TABOR. You can stomp your feet all you want about Colorado's TABOR but we won't be voting on that.

Find something REAL about OUR Oregon measure to object to and move on.

I don't understand all of the hand wringing here at BO.

If this measure is a give-away to the "wealthy", then the masses (those paid within a standard deviation of the average) will see this measure for what it is and vote it down.

After all, this is "Blue Oregon" right? This state is "progressive" and votes Democrat. So what is the concern?

Blue Oregon should be celebrating the chance for the people to demonstrate (at the ballot box) just how offensive a taxation control measure is.

dan j misses the point. Oregon as a state leans progressive when progressive leaders of substance stand up for progressive values.

Blue Oregon is neither progressive, nor are the movers and shakers of Blue Oregon of notable substance.

The fact we have little K at the top of our ticket rather than a true Democrat of leadership stature, and that there is no progressive community with Blue Oregon at the center to which he feels he must appeal in meaningful ways says it all.

One example: with Democrats in control of the governor's mansion and the upper chamber of the legislature, exactly what did he call a special session for this past spring, and what did the session "accomplish"? And how instrumental was the progressive community/Blue Oregon in driving the agenda?

Of course, knuckle-walkers like dan j and their worship of the madness of the mob at the ballot box is hardly a constructive alternative. Come on dan j, give us your best display of how pre-social primates live, since it is clear you really don't believe the development of 'gubmint was much of an evolutionary step forward.

Dear askQ1st,

Your name calling is childish. It is your right though.

And yes, it is mob rules. That is why we actually vote in this country.

Maybe you'll get your socialist wish and someday we'll have a Castro style dictatorship & just decree laws. That is the opposite of "mob rules".

And you called me a "knuckle-walker".

Mirror time for you!

Point of clarification here. TABOR is not a tax cut. It is a spending cap tied to population & inflation. That means that state spending cannot increase more than population & inflation from one budget to the next. Sounds good at first but then do the math. There is a reason Colorado is the only state in the country that uses this flawed formula. It doesn't work.

The prison population in Oregon will increase by 21% between now and 2015 but the general population will increase 11%. The senior population in Oregon will increase 82% (yes, 82%) between now and 2025. The general population will increase only 26%.

Doesn't make sense.

And Becky is 100% correct in her earlier post. TABOR specifically excludes public property from the spending limit. That means if the state gets in a bind and all revenue is eaten up to pay for senior services and prisons, there will be increasing pressure to sell state lands to fund education and other priority services.

Those who say Oregon TABOR is worse than Colorado's TABOR are completely correct. The Oregon TABOR is so poorly written that it includes university tuition and fees under the measure. So our privately spent tuition dollars count against the cap. It's like this thing was written in the dark with a crayon by a monkey.

And kudos to those who aren't fooled by the rainy day smokescreen. If these folks really wanted to create a rainy day fund they would have run a measure to create a rainy day fund. It's not hard. TABOR does not create a rainy day fund and any reserves set aside for the future are limited by the TABOR formula.

David writes:

"Kari, I didn't hear mrfearless47 pleading poverty. What I heard, and can readily relate to, is a plea to knock it off already with the blanket statement that the "wealthy" don't pay their "fair share" in taxes.

This is precisely my point. I can assure you that our income is substantially higher than the Oregon median income (mine alone is twice that) and my wife is a physician (draw your own conclusions). But our 98% of our income shows up on W-2 and 1099R (pension income) forms. When the income is fully exposed, it is fully taxed. We have modest deductions and have been in federal AMT territory for the past 9 tax years. When I said that we've paid well into 5 figures for our state taxes, I meant exactly that - well into 5 figures (one year we paid $37,000 in Oregon State income taxes). In addition, we paid 3 full years of the MultCo income tax.

I'm not pleading poverty at all and I don't know how you could have possibly inferred that from my earlier post, unless you were itching for an argument. My point is exactly the same. Don't assume that some of us who EARN our money by working hard and who had the good fortune to have all our education (2 PhD's and M.D.) result in well-remunerated JOBS don't pay every penny we owe in income taxes to both the state and to the feds. And don't assume we're asking to pay any less. What we're asking for is to be left out of these sweeping (and baldly untrue) generalizations about "the wealthy who don't pay their fair share". We pay our fair share and complain only when someone accuses us of NOT doing so.

Hey 'Vote Yes'... according to the spending limitations in Oregon's TABOR, the state budget -- if it had been Tabor'd since statehood -- would be $65,000,000 today.

Now, that's allowing for the unlikely event that money had actually been put into a rainy day fund and spending had indeed kept pace at a maximum rate.

So how exactly would we be dividing this $65-million-per-biennium pie? Should we just cut ALL budgets 99% or only keep the Oregon State Police and call it a day?

Because if you can convince me that we could run a fine state on $33M/year, I'll vote for it.

Uh, Vote Yes -- Nice reaction, though somewhat incomplete. Still waiting for you to explain the evolution of the measure from TABOR to SOS to Rainy Day ( Sorry, I probably lost you by using the term evolution; please explain how it was intelligently designed to go from TABOR to SOS to Rainy Day).
Please site where within the ballot measure it specifcially ENABLES a rainy day fund any more than current reality ENABLES a rainy day fund. This is very simple. Site the language in the measure and this blog entry is trashed. Are you implying that there is some prohibition or other legal or formal structural impediment to a rainy day fund? More accuratly, your measure doesn't prohibit one or, at best, allows one to be created just as current law allows one to be created. Do any of the following phrases appear in the measure? -Creates rainy day fund -Establishes rainy day fund -Requires legislature to create a rainy day fund -Directs legislature to establish a rainy day fund -Tax reciepts or portions thereof in excess of spending cap formula are directed to rainy day fund. Any of those phrases would seem simple enough to include in the measure if that were indeed a directed outcome or an actual intent of the measure. Please direct me to the text if I have overlooked it.

Patty, Does your gang thinks it's slick to use "TABOR"?

Fed up, Pull out of it and try and grasp reality.

With the spending limit in place, when revenue exceeds the limit the legislature cannot spend it. Get it. Without the spending limit they will spend everything they get up to the kicker trigger and NEVER create any rainy day fund.

That is precisely why we don't have one now. They spend everything trying to keep up with Patty's gang demanding more and causing costs to rise above the ability of taxpayers to keep up.

Vote Yes... But how would you spend the $65 million? (Amount of the current state budget if TABOR was in the original OR constitution.)

Which programs would you designate as unnecessary government expansion? The DMV? In the 1860s, state government didn't think it'd ever have to manage a DMV. So by your spending-limit logic, since it wasn't around back then, it should never have been around.

Come on... you answered everyone else; I'm beginning to feel left out.

"Vote Yes... But how would you spend the $65 million? (Amount of the current state budget if TABOR was in the original OR constitution.)"

What an absurd hypothetical.

There is no relationship between today's government programs and agencies and your ridiculous question.

The fact is our Oregon measure is not TABOR, allows for increased spending every year and will automatically set up the legislature to create a rainy day fund. Unless your fearless blue leaders choose to return the spending limit surplus to the taxpayers, fat chance of that, they'll be building rainy day fund right out of the gate.

Muddying the debate with hypotheticals and repeated use of "TABOR" and Colorado avoid the real substance of the issue.

Patty and Our Oregon will use any and all public deceiving methods to distort the measure.

Are you helping them?
Or are you interested in the truth?

Haha... all right, whatever you want to call it, then... the "Rainy-Day-Fund-Maker"

There is no relationship between today's government programs and agencies and your ridiculous question.

That's right. It would be ridiculous hyperbole to suggest that the state run on a hypothetical budget of $65M. But with an 1862 budget of $55K, that's exactly what today's budget would have been pegged at -- even allowing for the contingency that all the excess $ was put into a rainy-day fund.

So, there is a relationship between my question and the state government of today... it's population growth + inflation.

Basically, you're saying that a similar "Rainy-Day-Fund-Maker" in 1862 wouldn't have made sense, correct? (I'm interested to know if you would have supported the same measure in 1860? 1900? 1940?)

So I guess what I'm hearing is that the logic for passing a "Rainy-Day-Fund-Maker" is contingent upon the voters being able to see into the future to note whether a $65 million budget 140 years from now is ridiculous or not.

,,"the logic for passing a "Rainy-Day-Fund-Maker" is contingent upon the voters being able to see into the future"

yeah but not your future, or that far.

The more immediate future because as Patty builds her public deception over the RDA her rank and file gang want spending to increase 14% or more every biennium. The Rainy Day Fund measure would allow spending to increase 8.5% per biennium. Much more sustainable and workable for Oregon Taxpayers.

The other nonsense in your spin is this notion about deciding now for 100 years or more. Why would voters need to look at that straw man logic?

Voters can change the RDA limit anytime if needed.

Once again for those who are deliberately lying and those who have been mislead, the Rainy Day measure is NOT TABOR.

The only similarity is the use of inflation and population as the limiting device.

TABOR limits collection or appropriations. Rainy Day limits spending. TABOR limits ALL government collections. Rainy Day limits only State spending. The state can take in any amount they want, but only spend within increases allowed by inflation and population growth.

As I already clarified, the rainy day fund is nearly unavoidable despite what games Patty plays with "Our Oregon" and what Defend Oregon teaches voters.

The only way NO fund is created is if your blue legislator pals decide to send the excess back to the taxpayers. Fat chance of that. More likely is a huge rainy day fund will build and earn millions in interest.

Something the legislature will never do without a this RDA.

Another distortion is that proponents have gone from calling it TABOR, to Rainy Day Amendment.

Pay attention here. It never was TABOR. The proponents of the RDA NEVER called it that. Period.

If Patty, Our Oregon and Defend Oregon want to pile lie after lie upon the voters while pretending to be "educating" them they'll get clobbered in November.

They could be honest and just make the argument for why spending should increase 14% or more and why 8.5% is not enough.

Tell the voters that public employee compensation packages must increase faster than the voters ability to pay does. Tell the voters that every failed and/or inefficient program and agency must be protected.

Defend Oregon = The Government Class Protection Association

Our Oregon = Organization to Keep Unions Controlling Oregon Policy

Voters can change the RDA limit anytime if needed.

Okay. I follow. So, you're saying that it's got to be periodically adjusted now and then if need be... but that power should reside in the hands of the people -- and not the legislature. Sounds like a fair enough point.

But I must protest. Such an act would deprive me of my very clearly-enumerated right to a republican (and not a direct-democratic) form of state government.

Your quarrel, good sir (or lady), seems more to be with the U.S. Constitution.

And incidentally, any initiative that is conceded to necessitate adjustments from time to time deserves no place in the Oregon Constitution... but I suppose that's just the principle where you and I differ.

"Even with the differences in the Oregon initiative"

The differences are significant.

Patty's gang wants people to focus on TABOR & Colorado because the RDF is NOT TABOR.

Kari, You know RDF is not TABOR. Why are you using your blog to distribute falsehoods. I thought only Republicans used such tactics.

Somehow,I have a sneaking suspicion that TABOR or whatever you want to call it will pass. Isn't there a saying about how Oregonians never see a tax cut they didn't like? Of course, they act without consideration of the future ramifications of what is immediate gratification (ie. Measure 5).

Mr. Fearless, I understand your annoyance. We do not have much unearned income, most of it is exposed fully to federal and state taxes. We own a small business and pay our employees good wages with benefits. We're transplants with post-graduate degrees and work hard, probably 70-80 hours/week. Despite the stereotype that we fit in, we are not Republicans but vote for progressive causes and candidates. But frankly, I'm tired of this "soak the rich" attitude. We're by no means rich, we work hard, and pay our fair share of taxes. I really resent those that imply that those who happen to succeed in what they do, are in some way bad or "not paying their fair share".

Arnold, I totally agree with your first statement. Oregonians never seem to learn from the lessons of others, i.e., Colorado's Tabor experience and California's colossal failure with their tax cutting measures which was followed by Measure 5 here. I could never quite figure out how Oregonians expect to have services such as education, health care, etc, but never want to pay for them. No sales tax, limit property tax, etc etc...don't require businesses to pay their fair share. And yes, I do think that corporations get about $25 billion a year in tax cuts, although that is still unclear, since Oregon doesn't require that amount be disclosed. I wonder about the sanity of the folks here at times. And yes, sadly, I think TABOR could pass here easily, since folks never seem to understand that.

"You don't like us calling it TaBOR?"

Since it's not and the differences are enormous why are you and yours calling it TABOR?

"You guys have been referring to it as the "rainy day" initiative since oh, last February? Too bad it doesn't create a rainy day fund OR direct the legislature to do so."

The rainy day fund doesn't need tobe directed. It is automatic. You can deny it all you want. The only way it doesn't is if your blue pals choose to send the money back to taxpayers instead of banking it. It doesn't "direct" them to send it back.

"A rainy day fund could be easily created without this initiative (and it should be.)"

That's real funny. The number one reason there is no fund and will not be under your fantasy is your blue Patty pals demand that every dime that comes in is spent. Up to the kicker trigger anyway.

You should learn to take on these issues honestly instead of by way of fabrication, distoriton and tantrum.

"You should learn to take on these issues honestly instead of by way of fabrication, distoriton and tantrum."

Dude, you're trying to wiggle out of addressing the real problems that the-initiative-in-question would cause... EVEN WITH A RAINY DAY FUND IN PLACE.

You've said that the initiative would have to be re-adjusted every so often by the voters (which is what... a Full Employment for Political Campaigners Act?), which basically admits that this initiative is a poor reflection of the long-term financial needs of the state. But rather than address that fact, you seem content to argue over what to call it.

If this initiative needs regular tune-ups, why does it deserve to be enshrined in the state Constitution? That's like putting your wallet in your bank's safety deposit box.

"You've said that the initiative would have to be re-adjusted every so often by the voters"

No you said that.

But so what? Over a 100 years or so I would imagine something else will change. Stop diverting.

You don't want to focus on you and you pals misrepresenting the RDF amendment.

The rainy day fund is unavoidable if this passes.

It's not TABOR and you can't stand accepting the truth.

To clarify, this is what you actually said: "Voters can change the RDA limit anytime if needed."

So, you're saying that you don't really think that it would have to be readjusted.

Which means that you never answered my original concern: without readjustments, today's budget (WITH RAINY DAY FUND) would have been $65 million compared to the original state budget.

If you think that's an absurd number, you're admitting that readjustments are necessary. If you don't think it's absurd, then you're advocating for a 99% budget cut across the board.

You're trying to straddle two conflicting arguments here... 1. Don't worry about the spending limit over longer periods of time, because it can be readjusted. 2. It's based on the sacrosanct principle that gov't spending shouldn't exceed population growth + inflation.

(And by the way, that $65M figure is based on RDF language -- not TABOR.)

"And by the way, that $65M figure is based on RDF language -- not TABOR.)"

No it's base on your BS which doesn't do squat for addressing the real details of RDA I listed above.

Your ridiculous 65$ million strawman crap is just that and is completely concocted and irrelevant.

The fact is you want spending to increase 14% or more every bienniuum and call 8.5 % a cut.

The RD fund will appear and you can't stand the fact that the voters and the initiative systme will have created it and not your pathetic legislature.

Haha... Okay. Ya got me.

What are the real details that I'm not taking into account to come up with that number?

• Do we agree that the state budget in 1862 was $55,000?
• Do we have access to the same inflation figures and census figures?

They YOU TELL ME:

If RDF was enshrined in the original Oregon Constitution, what would the state's spending cap be at today? Feel free to assume that a rainy day fund is created and spending increases at the greatest levels allowable. If it's got to be adjusted by the voters, then say so.

I'm starting to think that you can't tell me what that figure is, because you obviously haven't done any actual research into the policy involved... you've just been taken in by talking points and campaign strategy.

Maybe if you actually sat down and crunched some numbers you'd understand where all of this opposition is coming from.

By the way, I think we're like the last two people on this board. :) I salute your fortitude.

"Referring to the bill as you do is disingenuous. Which makes your complaint about comparisons with TaBOR hypocritical at best."

Are you people crazy? I don't think you know what disingenuous is.

Even the rag O has the 2.2 Billion excess/rainy day fund that will be immediately created if this passes.

You can't acknowledge anything you don't like to hear can you?

The rainy day fund is CERTAIN, this isn't TABOR by a long stretch, and you can't make your pitch without lying, spinning, and concocting wild hypotheticals.

It assinine to pose the what if about the original state budget and our constitution. There are so many additions to government and variables outside that simplistic question it's laughable.

I hope you are entertaining yourself.

You know, you keep crowing about a "Rainy Day Fund" being created...

But what's the point of a Rainy Day Fund if you can't spend it? We've shown that even with a hypothetical RDF maximizing the spending increases each year, thge state budget would be pegged down to ridiculous levels.

<h2>(And then there were three...)</h2>