Since the dawn of Time, there has never been a battle fought that featured harder work, greater talent, or more perfect unity within so broad a coalition.

Le resistance, she is outdone?

I'd already cancelled mine back in 2008, over that ridiculous DVD they included in the paper.

Steve, great post.

And let me say that you did a great job on this campaign.

Could it be that the 2008 primary campaign was a learning experience?

This was a perfectly run campaign with conversations going on among individuals about the complexity of the issues involved (I managed to convince my friend who owns a small business to vote yes even though he abstained on M. 30 as too confusing), one of the best grass roots efforts ever seen in this state, intelligent commercials which respected our intelligence, the wrap-around ad on the Oregonian revealing the details about the AOI and OBA tax plans (no wonder they didn't want to talk about the details!).

Let me say that any statewide or district race run this year should use that model and would be likely to win.

Friends and I were talking today about how important such things are---there are counties where only calling on Democratic households works. But there are other counties where the years of Democratic victories in Republican held districts happened because as nearly as possible EVERY door was knocked on.

I bought the Oregonian today (don't live in Portland) and read the excellent kicker coverage. That's the next battle, no matter how exhausted some people are by the campaign which ended Tuesday.

Congratulations, Steve, to you and all of the others who made this important victory possible.

One note, the opposition was not "big business". Most of the largest corporations, e.g. Intel, sat this one out. The funds raised by the no campaign were really quite modest, far lower than one would expect if business really supported the opposition. It was much less than half that provided by tobacco companies for another recent initiative.

Opposition became a "conservative" cause, gaining support from Dick Armey and his army of dicks, teabaggers, and knuckleheads. That the Oregonian editorials went for this is a disgrace, and the appropriate managers should feel some heat. I don't want the Oregonian to die, but it would not make me sad if the publisher was exiled to the Daily Expectoration in Cretinville, South Carolina.

Got his license plate all ready for 'im...

Hey, if you have a no image tag policy, then publish it. Editing without placeholders or comments is no different than what you were complaining about with retweeting. Not that many would know about that, since you deleted the entire conversation.

We'll look kindly on submissions that are web-friendly, with bolded phrases, links to more info, images (just include a link), etc.

So there is a no image policy? Why?

Hey All!

Kudos to Canvass Director Kirby Torrance and favorite bike commuter & Office Manager Chelsea Watson representing the Working America Canvassers, the army of Field Managers, and Canvassers that knock on doors in every corner of the tri-counties!

19 days, rain or shine. All the eight hours shifts, and in my trusty "Si, Se Puede!" shirt and trusty sandles we pounded the pavement in the middle of January to restore tax fairness, tax sanity. I was paid, I was unemployed when I got this job, but I never felt as good about serving since I served in the Navy!

Thank you Working America for the opportunity to be as small part of Oregon history.

Happy Thoughts; Tim McCafferty

How magnanimous! Thanks for confirming that a troll is anyone that's not down with your clique. I was going to agree, but that's just me thinking like I like.

FWIW, I think that less than 60% turnout is not even a vote, legally, in the rest of the first world. That's OK. You can believe what you like.

And many of those countries that get a higher turnout of voters have a single payer universal coverage health system. Hell, if those get us in step with the rest of the world, I am for it.

It was a bright moment in an otherwise challenged situation. It says to me that engaging in conflict directly instead of starting with conservative premises and arguing from there is the way we will have to proceed. E.g. "Job killing taxes" makes enormous leaps in assumptions. We have to get out the message that discretionary spending helps the middle class, etc... I am incredibly proud of everyone who worked on this and especially happy with your work, Steve. Merkeley is a perfect example of what it will take: how many moderates said, oh Smith has seniority, is good on so many things, blah, blah, blah. Merkeley is becoming a blessing to us! (You men are team members. We need you both.) Again, my congratulations.

Kinda makes you wonder if the editors ever read their own newspaper. Wall Street Journal is the usual example of this phenomena, but now the Oregonian - Ugh!

Three cheers for everybody's hard work to pass 66 and 67.

Steve Novick posted: I told him to run over to the White House and tell the President that Oregon just issued a ringing endorsement of domestic discretionary spending.

heh... with a $1.35T budget deficit in 2010 with the CBO projecting $600B deficits 2011-2020, Washington, DC hardly need Oregon's 'endorsement' to spend, spend, spend. Just keep putting it on our credit card - eh, Steve?

Thanks for your hard work Steve!

I was beginning to think I might not get my usual 10% pay increase this year + bonus. Looks like I am good to go now thanks to your hard work. I think the unemployment numbers will eventually turn around for the slackers in the private sector. I don't know, but I plan on flying to Cabo soon!

Keep up the good work, and let's get that Kicker back!

Hey Steve, I was under the impression that my S-Corp, which some years makes very little and other years makes a reasonable number of projects go... well, in a zilch year such as this one, will I still be required to pay one hundred and fifty? I was under the impression, was told here on this blog that so long as I was beneath the threshold of the much-touted $250K, it would not affect me.

This year, my fees and that tax will equal more than I made.

So, curious, did something change during the crafting of this measure and I missed it during a hiatus from blog and news?

This is not a troll post, so I would appreciate an actual response. I am thinking perhaps I was wildly mistaken about something!

I'd like someone to provide me with undeniable proof that the state PERS system isn't severely flawed, and a huge drain on Oregon's budget. If you you can, I'm all ears. I don't believe it's the only problem, but it certainly contributes to the problem.

The state's budget office is reporting that state expenses will grow at an average rate of 7.9% a year through this decade, with revenues only reaching 4-5%. Call my cynical, but given Oregon's current fiscal policies, the only solution I see to this problem is more taxes.

I don't see lawmakers on either side having the backbone to actually restructure our tax system. I'd be all for a sales tax, as long as income and property taxes were adjusted appropriately. What we have now is completely unsustainable.

The Institute for Trend Research (ITR), says for every dollar government spends, it gets a dollar back. And for every dollar the private-sector spends, there's a return of $8-$9 on average.

I sit on the board for the Partnership to End Poverty in Central Oregon, and I see what an impact non-profit agencies and other non-government groups have on social issues. I'm convinced that if state government spent more money on these groups, rather than on government programs that require prevailing wages, and other costly requirements, the money would be better spent, and the return for the dollar would be much greater.

I truly hope 66/67 work efficiently to plug the budget gap, but they are only a band-aid. What I really want from our lawmakers is the leadership to solve a train-wreck that's Oregon's budget. But given the stalemate on fiscal policy (even when Republicans were in control), expecting real solutions from out government is like my daughter believing she will live in a castle with handsome prince, and live happily ever after.

That might be justification for cancelling your subscription for, like, a week.

I'll subscribe to the O when the publisher is replaced with someone who is more Portland and less Orange County and Colorado Springs. The fish rots from the head.

I feel compelled - speaking only for myself and no longer for the campaign - to respond to the "I"m going to cancel my subscription" movement. And my response is: Please don't.

My family cancelled our Oregonian subscription YEARS ago (during the Opus Dei/David Reinhard extreme gay bashing era)

And we have not missed it ONCE..!

I actually just listened to political reporter Jeff Mapes on OPB, and couldn't help thinking "why should anyone trust this guy's analysis at all? He flacks for a shrinking, uber-conservative, out of state corporation that clearly has little interest in the well-being of our state..."

And in fact, any discussion of Measures 66 and 67 should have included at least a mention of the strenuous, failed political efforts of this tri-county paper (I love the way their editorials tend to provoke the exact opposite response in local voters!).

But interestingly, there was no mention of this issue, or Jeff's association with one of the bigger measure opponents, AT ALL on OPB...

heh... with a $1.35T budget deficit in 2010 with the CBO projecting $600B deficits 2011-2020, Washington, DC hardly need Oregon's 'endorsement' to spend, spend, spend. Just keep putting it on our credit card - eh, Steve?

His 10 year projection of 9T is what has me floored. When folks debate Iraq and Afghanistan, one has to wonder where this well we could or we couldn't attitude comes from. They are helping to bleed us dry.

Posted by: Jason | Jan 29, 2010 9:00:51 AM

I'd like someone to provide me with undeniable proof that the state PERS system isn't severely flawed, and a huge drain on Oregon's budget. If you you can, I'm all ears. I don't believe it's the only problem, but it certainly contributes to the problem.

It's a SYMPTOM of every problem.

Posted by: Ben D | Jan 29, 2010 8:24:12 AM

I guess it's never too late to spread falsehoods about state employee salaries.

And the #1 falsehood is that it makes sense to talk about management and rank and file in the same breath. There is no monolithic "state employee salary". Talking about the average is like talking about the average income of a Saudi. Yeah, it's about $80,000 too. Problem is that no one makes remotely close to that. At least use the median in such a distribution. But, better yet, talk about two different distributions. Rank and file need more. Management needs to take a whole lot less. If you can't talk about that, then PERS continues to grow and eat your lunch.

Does everyone that addressed comments to the author realize he hasn't responded to a comment since before Thanksgiving (and that was because it was a public debate with the woman at Gresham Ford, one assumes)? I guess I should understand that it's kind of like saying, "Dear God". Doesn't mean you think he's literally tuned into your voice; just a rhetorical statement to those forces that are greater than ourselves. Must be chuffed at the compliment in the title!

Kari wrote: "(Of course, profitable S-Corps distribute dividends to their owners, who would pay personal income taxes - and that tax increase starts at $250k.)"

After the months that this campaign went on, you would think you would know by now how these measures work Kari. Shareholders of S corporations (and owners of other pass-through entities) are subject to personal income taxation on the entity's taxable income, regardless of whether or not the business distributes any cash dividends to them. Probably not too many people reading this care at this point, but that's how the rule works.

Bob Wiggins

"heh... with a $1.35T budget deficit in 2010"

And how much of that was from Bush? Oh yeah - most of it.

By the way, why don't you tell the rest of the story. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $1.3 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, which is slightly SMALLER than last year.

You deficit virgins really crack me up.

So this year, when I'm in the hole in every way possible, I'm now gonna pay one hundred and fifty dollars, thought I was not profitable. Plus my regular fees.

And I apologize for not reading breathlessly every single word uttered these months "many many many many times" about the ins and outs. I guess that makes me partially moron.

Sweet. So sweet.

That sucks.

Oh, careful, careful there Becks... That was "Peri's" point, and you are often suspiciously approving of my sentiments. Sure way to become labeled a Z sock puppet by the blog management!

What few responses the point got during the debate were clear. Real corps make money. Statutory ones are cheap tricks; just stop it.

In over 75(!) threads on the measures, no one would address the fact that limiting liability and 501(c) considerations make it a reasonable course of action. Back when the lege passed it, I could find no rep that would consider a waiver for corps without $150 in activity. When someone posted a legal loophole that they could use to escape the tax, right here, he was summarily lynched as a "give nothing back to society luddite". The same people celebrating the measures' passage literally said, to him, "you make me sick".

So, that's where we're at. Non-profit corps that don't squander their income with full-time staff positions and do what it takes to get financial throughput to that level, and sweat equity operations are our stupid little hobbies. We probably SHOULD be liable. What makes my blood burn, is that I know of more than a dozen cases, and every last godamned one of those people voted "yes" on both measures. Yeah, muchas gracias for your thanks from a significant part of that "amazing coalition".

I feel really sad. I asked my question VERY CLEARLY and was assured it would not affect me, or so I thought.

And so I did NOT read the rest of the spam for months because I thought the answer I was given as regards whether I, a single mom deeply in the hole right now from some of life's chances and NOT paying mortgage, fancy car, cable TV, credit card or dinners-out kinda debt...... just LIVING and going to ceremony each year --- I asked if people who earned nothing or very little that year would be the target. The answer came back as "only the $250K and above set".

And so, reassured that I had a specific answer to a specific question, I did not scrutinize every word posted on BO further.

For your info, I am going to go on my break now. And I'm going to cry a little bit, because right now I'm not making it, but hanging in there.

And this feels like a punch in the gut. I voted yes, I believe in blah blah. But I do have to say that taking another one hundred and fifty bucks from someone who dedicates more than one paycheck to the rent each month and is just kind of rebuilding after crashing with a lot of others in the gutting of our jobs-sector......

It rankles. I just kind of want to cry. I pay my taxes gladly, and my kid too. We work hard, do all we can like otheres here. There just is no fat there, only bone right now. I kinda don't understand what just happened.

Sheesh. I am a fucking idiot to believe I ever understood piece one of this nutty business!

Z: I will make sure to bite you in the ass once or twice. Just to keep my good name as MISSUS Anathema to you. :)

:(... I feel kind of sick right now. WHERE am I going to come up with that money?

That was the eyeglasses I bought my son yesterday. I did not realize I was supposed to keep that in my sock, ready for tax season 2010's iteration.

"The Institute for Trend Research (ITR), says for every dollar government spends, it gets a dollar back. And for every dollar the private-sector spends, there's a return of $8-$9 on average."

This is false.

We'd been thinking of canceling our Oregonian subscription for a while now, just to cut back on monthly expenditures in these tough times, but we finally did cancel last week. Not because of the editorials, but because of the "spadea" incident. If the front page is for sale, it's no longer a newspaper.

We cancelled our 15-year run last week not just because of the crap they printed in the last month, but just because of the overall tone and quality decline we have noticed in the last year.

And don't even get me started with Margie Boule and her internet scams "report" and the god-awful travel and food sections (I mean really, who under the age of 87 reads Gerry Franks?). Ugh.

The internet didn't kill the Oregonian - the Oregonian killed the Oregonian.

Margie Boulet is really a piece of work. Yugh...

OK: I really DO know how to spell, edit, punctuate and protect the writer's voice in fine arts writing, come to the point clearly in business and proposal writing, and my work product does not go out all wonkybonkers wabi sabi.

So - so as to service my new responsiblity to the State of Oregon, please do let all of your confederates know that this writer will like to earn a small project or two next year so as to pay that bill.

Bestest regards, A Retired Researcher Whose Analysis Button Appears Broken and Out of Warranty

What a great win! As a native Eastern Oregonian, I am disappointed but not surprised at the no vote there, although it was close in Umatilla and very close in Wasco. How ironic that the rural counties that see the most positive cost/benefit from these measures opposed them, big time. Sherman County voted 75% no. The wins in Republican Marion and Polk compensate for that, though.

I am curious what Steve and others think the prospects are of voters revoking the kicker. Considering that 62% of Oregon voters voted to put the kicker in the constitution in 2000's Measure 86, it would seem like a very uphill fight. After supporting these recent measures, I'm guessing that a lot of Dem legislators from swing districts don't want to take on another tax fight so soon, and one that would affect all taxpayers.

I think it was Senator Russell Long who said of tax legislation, "Don’t tax you, don't tax me, tax the one behind the tree." We in effect taxed the one behind the tree with 66/67, but it still took a ton of money to pass and with the typical urban rural divide, although not as severe as with other measures.

I, like the Governor and many others, would love to see the end of the kicker, but I don't know how realistic that is.

Scott in Damascus commented: And how much of that was from Bush? Oh yeah - most of it.

By the way, why don't you tell the rest of the story. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a $1.3 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, which is slightly SMALLER than last year.

You deficit virgins really crack me up.

Sorry Scott, but you deficit whores don't do anything for me...

When we're talking trillion $ deficits, forgive me if I can't get excited about a $50B reduction. A trillion dollar deficit is a trillion dollar deficit, I don't care if it came from George Washington - at some point the Obama Administration will have to own it.

With Oregon sucking down over $4B in federal stimulus to make ends meet in our bloated General Funds budget, it wouldn'be be a surprise if Merkley DID run over to the White House to cheer for more domestic discretionary spending. He probably sees the same wall looming for Oregon's budget in 2 to 4 years if/when the federal stimulus $ run out. The 'long, slow recovery' in which Oregon is already lagging makes it seem likely we'll be having another Measure 66/67 battle in the very near future.

I applaud President Obama's proposed three-year freeze in domestic spending - but, unfortunately, it's largely symbolic... saving only $250B over 10 years. It would be better if President Obama ran over to Jeff Merkley's office with a ringing endorsement for a three-year freeze on Oregon's discretionary spending.

Hey Alcie - suspecting this is a lot like understanding revolving and compounding interest in usury. Good money after bad. I wish you would just allow it to be really awful that Bush did what he did, and also call it awful what is happening now too.

Just because someone here is throwing hubcaps at your hero does not mean YOU should jettison reality. Neither spending blitz is a happy moment for those of us who now know we must not hope for more than a slow crawl with small sweet pleasures till it's time to be tipped into the grave.

Eh? Bush did irresponsible things with our money. And right now I'm not feeling so thrilled about the irresponsible way out of it that must be taken. Neither the consequence of not doing it nor the consequences of doing it have much palate to me.

My son resolutely squares his shoulders to a live that probably will not offer more than the small pleasures of deep living. Many thanks to BOTH heads of state, frankly.

One for instigating, one for doing whichever part of the what must be done delivers unhappy results for us to tolerate.

He understands it's either fullscale collapse and crawl out for generations (maybe) or spend ourselves forward, never to crawl out of THAT hole, but no fullscale collapse - mere serfdom to keep what little there is.

Bestest regards, A Retired Researcher Whose Analysis Button Appears Broken and Out of Warranty

or might mean that you've risen about the gregarious political saw, "people vote their own interests". Meaning, narrow, of course. A data driven, fish-eyed view often contradicts that. That it should not be so, is what I find most attractive about the mega-L libertarian party.

Sorry, I cancelled several years ago after subscribing my entire life (I'm 50) when they decided to play lead snare in bush's drumbeat to illegal, immoral invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It got worse when the jerk distributor called to try and get us to re-up. We said no, we don't want to read any more of the editorial board's rightwing crap. He actually tried to argue with me and became extremely rude and bullying. I said no no no. He called the next day and gave my husband the same treatment, claiming "most complaints are the opposite, that the paper is to liberal."

Nope, not going to give them my money, sorry.

But you still rock, Mr. Novick!!

"A trillion dollar deficit is a trillion dollar deficit, I don't care if it came from George Washington"

So when, exactly, did you become soooo concerned with the deficit? Was it after Bush blew the budget surplus he was handed in 2001 or was it after 2 failed wars and 2 tax cuts for the wealthy?

"I applaud President Obama's proposed three-year freeze in domestic spending"

Well that makes 2 - you and Herbert Hoover (and we all know how well that worked out for him).

Makes me proud to be an Oregonian. And, well, if you insist, I won't cancel my subscription! :-D But I'm tempted!

Badger Sings Grumpily as he slips away from Mr. Toad: "I HATE Companee;eeeeeee!"

"If the State of Oregon should last for a thousand years, let it be said: This Was their Finest hour."

Hey Z - when my kid had to do volunteerism for credits for H.S. he doorknocked for the L's.

RW, you have received little comment on your plight. The others are perhaps too busy congratulating themselves over their new taxes to notice that you're now going to be hurt by them. I wonder what advice Steve Novick has for you.

Forgive me for saying so, but perhaps there is a little poetic justice in this. You say you voted yes, but only after you figured someone else's ox was to be gored.

Still, I'm not gloating. I know how hard it is to start from scratch. Evaluate your options. Would it be better for you to ply your trade elsewhere (where you won't be taxed even when losing money)?

sure howard, not gloating at all. Listen up bastard: the issue is that I am making NO money. Not that I would pay. I'd be happy to pay up if I made any money.

Gloat as you wish and twist the sounds of it in your own ears.

And I will judge Mister Novick by whether he DOES speak to me and the actual injury done me. Howard, make sure to let us know what damage this has done to the $250K earner.

Eh. I'm in a don't fuck with me mood at the moment. As I work the frontlines of the depressed, suicidal and desperate. For the sum I was paid fourteen years ago. Before taxes. No, there is not a choice - it is a JOB. And I shan't bail on my good manager before I've learned what this bootcamp job can teach me AND before the job scene assures me I shan't find it crumbling at my feet again too.

rw, I do alot of counseling with single mothers in my spare time and will be traveling on a great trip (Thanks 66/67) to Cabo if you'd like to come along. I enjoy dominate womyn, fruit drinks and Michael Jackson cd's. I am a vegetarian and life-long Democrat. Give it some thought and let's get together.

PS: I usually take a 2-hour lunch if you'd like to meet for lunch.

PSS: Like John Edwards, I am married, but I am a great guy and defend gay rights.

Bureaucrat: heh. You nut. Fun times.

RW, my apologies if you took my post as an attack. It just seems to me crass how the others here are absorbed with patting one another on the back for getting taxes increased while essentially ignoring the obvious pain said increases are causing you.

No doubt you reacted to my comment regarding your vote. But you did say that you voted yes under the assumption that you wouldn't be paying more. As so often happens, such tax increases turn right around and bite the people who can least afford them.

And I had to start at the bottom too - with my fair share of difficulties. So no, I'm not gloating.

"patting one another on the back for getting taxes increased while essentially ignoring the obvious pain said increases are causing you."

Was just talking with someone who campaigned for NO on 66 & 67 and admitted it was not the world's best run campaign.

What was the alternative? Would small S corps really have done better under the AOI or OBA plan? Or was that why there were no details about those plans discussed by the NO folks?

As for "pain", will the NO folks be able to document that for ordinary Oregonians? Or just rich people and out of state corporations?

Where's the data?

Scott in Damascus commented: So when, exactly, did you become soooo concerned with the deficit? Was it after Bush blew the budget surplus he was handed in 2001 or was it after 2 failed wars and 2 tax cuts for the wealthy?

Last year, when we started measuring the deficit in trillions. I don't think any and all budget deficits are bad - but when a country's deficit as a % of GDP heads up over 10% on it's way to 15%, that's not a situation most countries want to be in.

Well that makes 2 - you and Herbert Hoover (and we all know how well that worked out for him).

I see you've been listening to those noted economic historians Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.

First of all, Obama is not trying to balance the budget like Hoover (and later FDR in 1937) He seeks only to freeze spending on anything that is not related to defense or the entitlement programs (the latter 2 categories plus interest on the debt comprising ~80% of annual federal spending) Obama's proposed spending freeze would not commence until FY2011. Between now and then, Obama and Congress are likely to agree to an ~$100B jobs bill - plus nearly half of the stimulus $ will be spent during 2010 and 2011. So have no fear, Washington will still have those printing presses geared up to pump out dollars just as fast as they can print and spend them.

We're talking about a big whoopee-do savings of ~$250B over 10 years or an average of ~$25B a year... less than 0.7% of the federal goverments projected annual outlays during that time.

So like I said, the freeze is largely symbolic... but will carry weight across the aisle in Congress and the other (sizable) half of the electorate. This is a long-haul decision with low downside and low upside - but the upside is there... and it's part of the political calculus of governing.

Howard, you continue NOT to understand me, or you are not accepting me at my word.

I voted YES because I believe that any of us, me included, who are making enough to be secure and have extra NEED to do more right now while we can. Further, if you are clearing more than two hundred and fifty thousand in profits (this is after all bills, folks, don't whinge about your bills and that sum, that sum is AFTER all the bites are taken out), you surely can afford to give a minscule slice.

What I hear you, Howard, and the rest who are like you, saying, is that you would rather hang up the fiddle and watch Rome burn for a fucking principle, no matter whether the fact of the outcome is a negligibly noticeable temporary itch.

I was reflecting on this Thursday. That most of you up here would rather go around in endless circles because all you truly care about is "the principle of the thing" as a theoretical construct you can lather up aboug. Sometimes a fact supercedes a principle. And sometimes you damned well have to bite down and suffer up for a while, and stay engaged.

I'm not being clear.

Howard you do not hear me or you simply choose not to trust me. I have paid my share and pay more always. And had I earnings, I would continue so. It is how me and my son do it in our house. I voted yes because it was the extremely well off. If I were extremely well off I would pay.

I prove this fact of myself consistently year in and year out. I will not bore you about waht I do in my ceremony community life, but let's just say I'm doing the equivalent of what is being asked of the extreme wealth holders of this state... and I do it to the tune of the fluff in my pocket at times like this, but I do it.

I am dying to earn a reasonable living b/c there are things I want to be a part of supporting.

Please take a big chance and believe this. I understood erroneously that once my s corp MADE money I would pay more. GOOD. But to force such a sum out of my pcket when there is no cashflow?

I'm ready for the streets. Just let me know where and when. That was stupid, and I hope it gets fixed in the next round. Let me pay when I'm earning. Make sense?

Or is it CORPORATE WELFARE to let a little contract editor pay when her 2500 dollar job happens, and not pay when she has no earnings?

Did you get my point yet? Have I indulged in prolixity sufficiently to aid you in getting it? Or are you going to reiterate the only point you wish to make, using me as an ill-fitting vehicle?

So stop using me. Your pretense at sympathy followed close behind by more tendential, assumptive and off-target sameness..... is drivel.

Leave me alone: I'm not the example you are looking for.

And I notice that Steve Novick had time to toot the horn and tell people they are Awwwwweeeeesssommme.... but not any time for a constituent who just woke up this morning and discovered that buried in this well-wrought "progressive legislation" is a very regressive thread.

Steve: am I a troll? Or is there any plan of engaging the people you serve - a dialog? In fact, I'm really bored with the Harolds of this blog. I'd really like to know what you are thinking or have to say about me and peole like me. Or is that not worth acknowledging now that you got it all passed? All legislation has unintended consequences.

Here is one. Maybe that is not of any interest to you and the folks who campaigned on this. Maybe you really only care about principles and not people. I'd like to keep believing otherwise. Explain this piece to me, and why I should feel ok about it. I feel dumbfounded that intelligent people over looked this piece.

rw commented: - I asked if people who earned nothing or very little that year would be the target. The answer came back as "only the $250K and above set".

And so, reassured that I had a specific answer to a specific question, I did not scrutinize every word posted on BO further.

While I acknowledge your plight, your apparently allowing yourself to solely rely on isolated advice on an issue like this from a partisan biased blog site (be it BO or a conservative one) was obviously not a wise choice.

Several people here at BO for months posted valid reasons, the direct as well as indirect consequences, for opposing M66/67 - especially on small--business owners. But people like Chuck Sheketoff and Steve Novick, cheered on by an adoring BO crowd, waved them away with their carefully sliced-and-diced statistics about how only 2.5% of earners and a negligible number of small business owners would be directly impacted by M66/67. And that any indirect consequences would be minimal because businesses can afford to suck it up and give a little more - and should only be happy to do so! It's always easy to tax the 'man behind the tree', you see... Of course, they didn't address the negative impact of the 'gross receipts' tax on high-volume, low-margin businesses - or that not a small number of small business owners with incomes over the $250K limit depend on that income to help finance the 'float' in their business, advance inventory costs, extend credit, hire new workers, absorb some/all higher costs of benefits, finance expansion of their business, etc... Sure, they may be able to write off some of these business costs eventually - but how/where do they get the money before then? Tried to get a bank loan recently?

Nope... Chuck and Steve assured us that 'the over $250K and above set' were all rich corporate types rolling in dough with their million dollar homes and multiple fancy cars sending their children to private schools - sitting around their pools all day waiting for their dividend and undeserved/unearned bonus checks to roll in while planning their next European vacations.

So, welcome to the 'negligible number' of small business owners and the land of unintended/indirect consequences, rw... Come on - it's only $140!

RW-

I'm curious, why do you have an S corp? The usual reasons are tax advantage and/or limited liability, and neither seem to apply.

Also, you do know the S loss flows from the K-1 to the 1040 and reduces federal and state income tax liability, right?

I got that to protect my earnings and settle into paying, gladly a FAIR SHARE of every dime I've made on my side work. Instead of nearly fifty percent, I pay an honest income tax. I NEVER hide ANY of my side jobs, no matter how small, NEVER ask to be paid cash under the table. So I resent the poor useage of my name by that troll above there pretending to be sympathetic, starting in a reasonable tone with a knife under his cloak.

I used to land a good number of gigs regularly, it was my living, then did a fifty k telecommute consult in online pharmacy - very interesting work - and was perfectly happy to pay my fair share on that, and would not bitch about an extra one hundred and fifty out of my work at that level.

But in the past seven years, I've seen that one must compete desperately and double masters and PhD people for the same gigs that were just naturally shipped over to me. And the content shops call ME to ask if I've heard of any projects floating around out there.

So this year, when I made ZILCH, it pisses me off to pay money on money not earned. Year before, I did not make a lot but did do a Regulatory consult thing for a few months and that would have given enough to definitely maybe feel it a little but to be able to give that extra one hundred and fifty and call it a tithe to keeping our families and communities going.

So - tell me, given that I've had zero gigs this past rough year, how does one pay a tax such as this and then write it off? Is that what the fat cats who won't even feel it except that thier MINDS reject and are bothered by the mere principle or idea of it? Will they be writing this off somehow?

I think the principle is sound. The application was not thought through by people who pay any attention to those of us who are not of their class. Clearly.

If anyone like me spoke up (and I did), they goddamned well did not listen or respect what we were trying to tell them. These must be awfully secure folks who do not understand you can have a bone-lean couple of years. You don't charge a stone an ounce of blood. You ask it to stay in its place. And then when there is water flowing over it, once the water reaches a trheshold, the stone must pay.

Mixed metaphors. God loves 'em. Hadda do it.

Anyway, now that I see I'll get a rather ungentle screwing, I'm putting my mind somewhere else from here on out. When it is time to roll the dimes and nickels I will do it. And try to keep moving. It is bad for my health to allow this shit to stick to me too hard.

I have to just accept it and live with it.

And Steve Novick is nowhere to be found. Most interesting. He will talk to the ones who think God's spaceship just landed. But not me. I voted ignorantly. And want to understand how it is I missed it, why the campaign only talked about that one element/threshold... and I'd just like to hear from him as a person who WILL pay her share no matter what. And still keep voting for progressive support to our communities no matter what.

Steve Novick has nothing for me, I guess. And that disappoints. We know he watches this blog. But aside from lots of love and kisses back and forth in the congratulatory threads, he's disengaged, apparently, entirely from the next step.

Bummer. POlitics moves on. Pooh.

The Oregonian looked better as trees.

I cancelled my subscription after the 1968 endorsement of Bob Packwood over Wayne Morse. Thank you.

Posted by: rw | Jan 30, 2010 12:43:03 AM

And I notice that Steve Novick had time to toot the horn and tell people they are Awwwwweeeeesssommme.... but not any time for a constituent who just woke up this morning and discovered that buried in this well-wrought "progressive legislation" is a very regressive thread.

rw, "Peri" laid your point out with chapter and verse in, by my count, at least 5 different posts. When she bothered to write her own piece and send it in, complete with bio that attached alias to real person, she received no response and was flamed by Kari and Carla for being my sock puppet, not a real person, and a tiresome troll. They never bothered to call the numbers/respond to the email she gave. Her last post was identical to yours in tone. I remember something to the effect of, "fine, just screw the cat rescuers, screw everyone that doesn't equate charitable help to how much green you're making". Then, within 5 hours, her email account, which she has had for 5 years, was viciously hacked. Then, just so no one misses the memo, Carla was promoted to a full editor, from intern, on that very day.

I raised the point, back when he still deigned to speak to us, just why no one could have thought of such an obvious exemption. No answer from the regulars, but a few trolls bothered to say, "because no one gives a freaking damn about your special case". When the point was rammed home, the post was deleted, sandwiched between ads. for Viagra and Penisverlevering. Kari commented on the Mercury blog that we were nit picking about "their not keeping up with the spam, over the holidays". As recent as this morning, Bob Tiernan had to go to an old thread and attack "Think Green" with, "why are you too cowardly to use your name". Most on here have no ability to see anything from a third person point of view. Or at least it works to feign that attitude, to get a cheap shot in. This blog is legendary for it. Oh, and don't forget dear ol' Kev, piping up in the conversation to say, "uh...clearly you're unhappy. Why not go someplace else?". You can really tell the progressives.

She's still not speaking to me, because I wouldn't investigate the various options with my legal counsel. Almost every person I know is going through what you are. For my part, I am letting people know what they have to do to satisfy the letter of the law, and about the loopholes that exist. The last time someone said that, a regular with the initials EB literally posted how our ilk makes him want to vomit. "Corporations that can't be bothered to contribute to the communities that they sponge off of". COMPLETELY ignored that most that were mentioned were non-profits.

Intense enough for you? No, these sycophants care far, far, far more about an alpha male nodding in their direction than anything that is actually going on in your life. I've commented before about the "post and run" technique, or Kristin's comments that "the comments don't really affect the post". At least Carla has taken that good advice and closed posts to comments when she intends to "leave the building". If you unpack the assumptions in the other statements you find real contempt, not just an attitude being copped.

You think I exaggerate? Re-read the post. "And by the way, an even greater alpha male did the same thing to me!!! And I mentioned yet a greater one! Isn't this what we live for!".

This is what you get with parties. Party animals. The venom they spit at true independents is born of envy. Americans appreciate individualism and free thinking, even if they don't ever like what an individual or free thinker has to say. They sit in awe that you can exist outside the herd without anxiety. And your life is infinitely better, where it matters. Living well is the best revenge. The unreflective life is not worth living.

If you want a list of the party animals, rank ordered by their ability to think for themselves, go back to the "Paula's Bakery" thread and notice all those that congratulated Kari for a "good catch". Look at their comments and logic. Do you really think that kind of mind could appreciate the issues you are raising? But they're herd animals. It's beyond "can"; they have no desire. When one lives in the barnyard, those varmits that wander in from the wild are to be met with loud calls of alarm and all the vestigial rage that one can muster. After all, it's not like they ever get to face the real thing from the corral. The fine balance of real world nature never intrudes into their domesticated lives. The only contingency their need attend to is the will of the farmer. He is god, family, law and order. The dominion exercised by him, and the dominion claimed by evangelicals, on behalf of the great domesticating god, is no different. This is why they insist on one's being born, only to enumerate the ways they would like to kill you. It has nothing to do with respect for life. It has everything do to with your getting the message, loud and clear, that it is not your life to take up or lay down, based on your own will, logic and ambition.

There. Now, since "the comments can't possibly affect what I've written", I will leave the building as well. Yeah, kind of lacks something when getting the last word in isn't your raison d'etre.

And this is so much more important than me putting up some tiny bit of money for nothing:

"All My Relations... It is hard to fathom, but there are nearly 8,000 (not 800) telephone poles that fell...along with the 60 High Voltage Towers that toppled from the weight of the 5 inches of ice that accumulated on them.
The National Guard has been deployed to the areas hit hardest and a state of emergency has been declared and curfews enforced.
Many power companies have converged to restore power so the people will beable to return to their homes where broken pipes and flooding of homes will have to be dealt with. They are in desperate need of our help and prayers. Tok'sa ake"

This is in the north Indian Country. There is one house where eight families of old folks have taken shelter, sleeping all over floors, they cannot go back to their own homes, I know one grandma taking care of twelve kids from different families, isolate there on the rez. The people are suffering, and word is not getting out.

THIS is what matters to me. There is real life happening to some people who've had much more than their share meted out and still suffer one such as me to try and learn in their midst.

I will now turn my attention to trying to get the news of the people, verify it and ask the communities who use these ways and try to live by them to give back and save lives in this moment.

Forget all this bullshit here.

Life is outside: and waiting.

Thanks for the dialog. Interesting that I said I was a moron, but several find it needful to tell me how much of an asshole I was. And maybe ONE person in your lot even caught it that this is possibly going to cause real pain.

Some bills will remain unpaid so as to pay that tax.

THAT kind of pain. It is not about skipping a fancy cup of coffee for two weeks and we are done.

But my discipline in the face of lack is nothing on the threat to their very lives our native families now face in this very moment.

I turn my mind now to something REAL, and basic as breathing.

RW,

I'm a tax accountant, not a lawyer, and I can't give specific advise without knowing more about your situation. But I'm not at all clear on how having an S Corp "protects" your earnings. It all passes through to your 1040, and as a free-lance writer I don't see how you need a corp for liability protection.

The advice I would give you is to consult with an experienced tax adviser as to why you need a corp at all. As a sole-proprietor you would possibly save money.

RW, you wrote that you have and would gladly pay your fair share, help others, etc. Wonderful (seriously). But perhaps the danger of MANDATORY charity is now a little clearer.

New taxes inevitably work their way down to those who can least afford them - one way or another - directly or indirectly. You, who by your own admission cannot afford to pay more right now, will be FORCED to pay. No choice. Compulsory.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm just some anonymous poster. Lash out at me if it makes you feel better. But remember, you voted for that which now bites you.

Steve,

Again, thanks for your leadership. About the O, I agree with you: some good reporting makes up for the deterioration in the reasoning of the editorial board.

At my age I think I'm too used to reading a daily to stop now. (Though if the O's board ever became even more outrageous, there are still other newspapers that deliver daily . . . .)

RW

Look into forming a single member LLC. That is what I use and it allows me to be taxed as a sole prop while maintaining the liability protections of a LLC.

I was at one of the ARCO stations in Bend yesterday. They have not filled a position due to the tax situation that hits revenue from gas stations especially hard.

As Oregonians wait in line for gas they should remember to thank themselves for the double jeopardy of not being able to pump their own fuel AND station owners not being able to afford enough people to keep patrons moving through easily.

You keep it classy Oregon!

Phil and Patrick must be church types. Come by, genuflect, and say a few words to the guy that isn't there, and isn't listening to you! It's a good example to society, tho.

wonderful.Since the dawn of Time, there has never been a battle fought that featured harder

Really! What could possibly compete? The peace protesters that followed Ghandi that let themselves be beat bloody by the police, or the protesters at the 1968 Democratic convention came to mind, but you're right. They don't come close to the tireless dedication of the phone spammers!!!

Ignorance is bliss, and we all couldn't be happier!

Kurt, I was in an Arco station the other day which seems to be well staffed.

But by all means provide us with examples of jobs not filled because of the 66/67 election.

There was a number thrown around by the NO folks. Any bets on whether that many "job losses" can be documented before the end of the year?

Or will that turn out to be as flawed a prediction as the 2004 prediction that everyone would find jobs if only Russ Walker got his Measure 30 win. He won, how many people actually got hired---and if it was a sizeable number, why was it never mentioned during this campaign?

Hey Kurt,

I'll give you a hug and not be mean to you, but I won't agree with you. ;>) So the Arco owner says he's withholding a hire. The Arco's in my neighborhood (there are 3) have only one person on the islands and one behind the mini-mart counter. I wonder which one they could do without? If he is leaving customers waiting he is going to lose sales to his competitors who have hired to meet the demand. And does he not hire or lay-off when the rent or utilities go up? Or is his one of those Oregon businesses that keep people on that don't make them any money? "We lose $XX dollars per employee, but we make up for it in volume". I've yet to meet one of those companies. Actually we just hired staff this last fall (true) to be certain we would make enough extra money to pay the tax increase,, since I new the measures would pass. I guess it all evens out. And the notion of Oregon or Portland's "unfriendly" business climate is totally bogus. There are companies, of course, who have earned people's animosity, but I don't know anyplace else like Oregon or Portland where a small business can enjoy the array of valuable public services at such a reasonable (ie. low) price. I know numerous business contemporaries in other states and they pay way more for much less.

Once again we see the inverse relationship between the merit of a post and the number of responses. This thread has 10 times the responses of Jeff's excellent post.

That's me told. Kari, the email address is the primary key. I leave it the same as a courtesy to you. The alias is a literary construction, part of the post. Was that supposed to be another erudite "catch"?

I have no problem with how you manage the blog. I can't. You don't.

I am so grateful to the thousands of small donors & volunteers who made this campaign a success. A close friend of mine, a single mom, just got onto the Oregon Health Plan during the last lottery for admission. Had these modest taxes failed, it's very likely that her coverage would be canceled. It does suck that we have to organize & fight just to keep our crappy status quo (as far as the level of state services & support for education is concerned), but the alternative is so much worse. Most states haven't been able to stop or reverse the past 3 decades' slow & pernicious transfer of a large share of the tax burden from the rich & powerful onto the shoulders of the middle class; Oregon was the first to take a firm step in the reverse direction... hopefully it won't be the last.

As for newspapers, we need a new model for journalism in this country: I think that state subsidies for non-profit news sources (where there are layers of editorial protection for the reporters, so that they can't be pressured to squash stories embarrassing to the state) might be worth looking into. Having billionaires like Steven Newhouse controlling our primary source for news & opinion isn't working so well, as evidenced by the big O's selfish, blatant electioneering against M. 66 & 67.

P.S. When right-wing lobbyist Mark Nelson loses, WE ALL WIN!!

as evidenced by the big O's selfish, blatant electioneering against M. 66 & 67.

of course, had they supported your position, you would still be in love with the O. Some of you are no better that Fox New followers, if they don't say what I want, I won't listen to them.

I guess "some" means 97%!

This is a toxic little clique, mp, and you are not a member (to your credit)!

Kari, you can be an asshole.

I actually talked explicitly about my S corp. Kari, your smug ways are grating.

I wonder what Kari's problem is, today? Not very much on the side of professional expression.

Guilt by association, rw. Not saying which way...

Not a word from Novick. Maybe he sent Kari to rub salt in it for me? I am curious at the nasty and defensive, even sneering nature to his current comments.

During the time period you reference, asshole, I had to accomplish two moves and the start of a new job, all together. I guess I just kind of FORGOT to read you.

Kari, we are waiting for Steve Novick to stop reading HERE, not THERE, and to comment. HERE, not somewhere else. I am truly interested to hear what he says to those who supported suddenly realizeing they did NOT learn one regressive thread. I have found it enlightening how you faithfuls characterize this. "buyers remorse"... yah, usually when a car charadesman sells you something with a hidden lemon, this is the feeling you entertain. :).... you've been made an asshole, and, as seen here, the ones who did it then enjoy it to the max.

Me, I just want to know what the politicians in the lead of this have to say to me, and to the husband of a coworker acoss the building from me. I'll look into that LLC status. So that when i actually EARN money I will pay money. And if nothing was earned, I'll pay what is right for that!

Baldwin, before I had my S corp, nearly one-half of earnings from research gigs was taken by taxes. One year I forgot to claim one, as the pay did not come till months later, on the next year. I got slammed to many thousands for including it on the year in which I was paid, and treated like a tax dodger! It was a real comedy.

Oops - someone "up there" thought I blamed BO for me not seeing the shit threaded into the measures? no. would love to see the quote where I blamed BO.

Over and OUT

In the past week I've learned about 3 different companies based here that, in response to anticpated tax increases, are either moving this year (1 company) or are currently crunching the numbers (2 companies) on pros/cons of a relo. I was surpised at how quick some of them seem to be moving on this.

Could someone who is informed on this (Steve?) comment on whether or not the revenue projections were dynamically scored; i.e., did the bill originators factor into their totals that some businesses and individuals will change their behavior (move) in response, thus lowering the anticipated tax revenues? (Also will have a multiplier effect, but leave that out to keep simple).

If so, what was assumed/figured in? And if not, why?

Thanks

RW - I apologize for not responding; I have been on vacation and have not even looked at BlueO. I think if you look at our literature you will see it always mentioned the $150 that partnerships LLCS and S-corps would pay. See my Leuthold dairy letter post for example. Personally I think that if you are going to seek out protection from personal liability by incorporating rather than acting as a sole proprietorship, $150 a year is not too much to give in return. I don't mean this to sound harsh and am sorry if you did not know the facts (although it was in the ballot title), but nobody forces anyone to incorporate as opposed to just doing business as a sole proprietorship. You can disband your corporation and go that route for the future.

"In the past week I've learned about 3 different companies based here that, in response to anticpated tax increases, are either moving this year (1 company) or are currently crunching the numbers (2 companies) on pros/cons of a relo."

When an actual company decides to relocate, please post the name of the company here and where they decided to go.

Novick: thanks for your response. I don't feel the respect from you. So I suppose it does not need to flow towards you from me either.

<hr/>