Chuck, not so sure if Tea Party protesters are angry about what has occurred over the past decades. Their argument seems to be with the direction we are about to take.

Yea RM

Worst than that most of the data is complied before and upto 2007.

Of course this is more "ALINSKY" modeled cooked numbers.

So let me understand Chuck uses numbers based many years even before the Tea Party was formed, and then Chuck's quote's "It’s unfortunate that the protestors ignore the reality"

OK my questions your policy "Because Facts Matter" is this hypocritical or just parody on honest reporting.

I guess this is what the government class does when they want to obscure the trend of government.

"as a share of Oregonians’ income"

How funny.

Is this supposed to be a more enlightening way of measuring than just the simple revenue and spending trends?

It's not. In fact it could just as easily be used to show the stagnant income of non-government Oregonians.

But even more funny is your use of Sam Adams who in current Oregon is a poster child for reckless spending and the common detriment.

It would be easier to "celebrate" tax day and the common good if there were not so many Sam Adams and so much spending which never reaches the common good.

But, you're trying to misrepresent the tea parties and government spending.

On that you're successful.

Hopefully the voting public will be hearing your greater message all the way through to November.

"Oregon taxes and fees are too low".

Question, Did you take time off from your work on government waste like Urban Renewal to put this together?

Gee, I can be funny too.

I would also posit that Tea Party supporters are not against taxes in general but protest unfair taxation. The kind that imposes an unfair burden on a minority of citizens as did the passage of Measures 66&67 and a system where 46% of the citizens pay no federal taxes at all.

Everyone needs to pay their fair share.

Chuck, without a doubt you are a master at the art of Spin. You miss the mark entirely and obsfucate well. the size and complexity of Oregon government grows at an astounding rate. The intrusion into our lives grows unrelenting daily.

We have a government we can not afford that is growing more and more expensive.

I see Buckman septic tank of stupidity is overflowing with the tired "47% don't pay taxes" lie.

If your reading AND comprehension levels were just a tad bit higher you would be able to understand Tuesday's New York Times David Leonhardt's article urging Americans to "look closer":

"With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes."

Buckman, like other bottom-feeders commenting today, prefer to parrot right-wing papers including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Even Grandpa McCain argued, "Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give 'welfare' to those who pay none." While Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani echoed the "welfare" charge in January, on Monday, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer kept up the drum beat, deeming Obama's middle class tax cuts a "moral problem" when "50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them."

Alas, they do pay for them. As FactCheck among others noted, Republican conveniently ignore sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center concluded, "three quarters of filers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."

That's all true. But why is it always black and white? Isn't the obvious position that our taxes are lowish, but they are often used wastefully? We need more tax revenue AND better use of it. Isn't it just as conniving of the facts to NEVER address waste, because it sounds like it might play to the TEA partiers?

Pat excepted, those same points about the Tea Party were mentioned by people here and dismissed by regular contributors. Now its "something YOU should know".

Hey, it's time to drop this crap about "Blue Oregon is a collection of pixels...it does not have an editorial policy." Clearly certain points are picked for repeated emphasis, so much so that when the regular person "covering" it isn't, another is assigned to keep whatever it is in the fore.

I'm glad the "you can't make me" attitude about the term "teabagger" has been largely dropped. That could have been a simple thing, if the blog didn't have to have a food fight with every progressive that dared point up the hypocrisy. Of course all this with the TEA partiers could have been much better managed, particularly since Zarathustra called all these issues in October, 2008, when Dems became the party in power. In fact, it is pretty freaking amazing how close he came on what would happen to the look and feel of BO. That could have been a major heads-up. Instead it was taken as a contest of wills.

Hey buckman you not alone, that's what they do is attack, attack, attack, it's the "RADICAL ALINSKY" model. It's part of the democratic/union game plan, and it works very well if your not ready for it. It never ends on this board. I've been called so many names, you would not believe.

PS Pat Ryan link is older than Chuck's

PS Sal quote; "Brilliant and frightening don't begin to describe it." yea using 2007 and older data to say what happening today, this to me is very frighting, I agree their Sal.

richard wrote:

I guess this is what the government class does when they want to obscure the trend of government.

"as a share of Oregonians’ income".

No, richard, it is what economists do when they want to gauge the size of government over time while the value of currency, level of economic activity, and population change.

Please get beyond the troglodytic rhetoric. Which brings me to Buckman Res, who posits:

Tea Party supporters are not against taxes in general but protest unfair taxation.

The just released NYT/CBS poll suggests that TeaPartiers or largely old, white, relatively well-off Republicans who are concerned that Congress and the Obama administration may favor the poor and minorities over old, white, relatively well-off Republicans.

This is about "unfair taxation" in the same way that the Southern Strategy was about "states rights". What is going on, in both cases, is the ability of the wealthiest and most powerful to drive a wedge between whites and blacks and between the middle class and the poor. This is the divide-and-conquer strategy that has characterized class warfare in America since before the Revolution.

Hey duh3#$%blahblahblahe-i-e-i-OH! for a guy who "has three companies" and employes "lots of people" and installs windows in violation of state building codes in your spare time - you seem to have a lot of free time on your hands to offer your opinions that have absolutely no foundation based on any facts of any type.

I've been called so many names, you would not believe.

And each one so rightly deserved!

The commenter formerly known as rdurig may have facts but does not understand them, so don't bother responding.

This % of income line just doesn't make sense to me. Whether I make 30k, 60K or 120K per year, the amount of service I get from the state doesn't change. Wouldn't per capita spending figures be a better judge of what is going on?

Corporations have shifted their responsibilities onto Oregon families. In 1980 corporate income taxpayers contributed 4.6 percent of total own-source general revenue in Oregon. By 2007, their share had declined to just 2.2 percent.

Isn't this due to the fact that the population has grown significantly while the number of corporations has decreased somewhat over that period of time?

Chapman said, "The intrusion into our lives grows unrelenting daily."

'Paranoia strikes deep' for you and the rest of the Wal-Mart Hippies. Maybe you should trying laying off the weed and the 1950's sci-fi. The only blob that is coming is the one that is overtaking your reason.

. Wouldn't per capita spending figures be a better judge of what is going on?

No, it would not for several reasons. What we can afford is based on what we have, for one. Demand for services increases with increased economic activity, for another.

@mp97303: Since you didn't read the report cited, I'll skim it for you.

"Ranking state revenues and expenditures in terms of personal income accounts for variations in states’ ability to raise revenue and fund programs. A relatively wealthy state — one with a high average income — can raise more revenue than a lower-income state with the same tax level."

I am always astounded at people like Kurt Chapman that have such disdain for democratic governance that the sight of their fellow Oregonians working together to build an evolving and responsive answer to the challenges of empowering a burgeoning population is a cause for panic and an effort to stamp it out!

"I would also posit that Tea Party supporters are not against taxes in general but protest unfair taxation."

That is not what the signs at the Tea Party protests say. They just say they are against taxes. Nor do they say anything about the greatest waste of taxpayers' money - illegal wars and hundreds of military bases around the world. Ron Paul is no "liberal" but he has the sense to recognize the enormity of this waste.

I've fallen for this before, but that's over now. Back in 2006 the Dems ran on a platform of, "Look how bad the other side is on Iraq." Well, the Dems have been in charge of Congress for going on 4 years and we're still in Iraq. Meanwhile, President Obama has expanded our efforts in Afghanistan where US soldiers risk their lives to stand guard next to the world's heroin supply. Now we're getting a new rallying call: "Look how bad the Tea-Baggers are." I agree that they're misguided, and downright dangerous with their rhetoric, but what about the Dems? Where's the angry protests by the Progressives? I'm sick of Democratic party-types pointing out how the GOP has sold out to the corporations on healthcare and financial reform - while they just give us a lesser version of the same sell-out. At some point the Dems should try representing their base, and the Progressives should be the ones in the streets demanding...what was that phrase again? Change we can believe in? The Tea-Baggers appear to me to be duped morons, but at least they're involved. I admire them for that part. This business of putting them down for being so angry is a political trick. The real question should be, "Why aren't progressives and the anti-war movement 10 times as angry?"

Nice to hear that Bill M. likes to have duped morons screaming from the curb, but I for one don't go for the screamin' mad modus operandi; tried that in the anti-war rallies in 2003. Do you remember W's response to world-wide screams of outrage over his war-mongering? He turned his back on them and went for (sic) Mission Accomplished!

Working for real change in the political sphere isn't easy, and it aint pretty. Working with cantankerous humans (and corporations, which aren't human beings BTW) is tough, dirty work, but it is real.

Dear Chuck, How much is enough? We are in a down economy (if you worked for state or local govt you might not have noticed this), Teddy K. added to our state budget by 10% or 2.7 billion, and now they are saying they could be 2.5 billion short? Am I missing the math here? The problem is that the public sector never has to "shrink" like the private sector has had to in the last couple years. My 401k finally got back to where it was before the 2001 debacle just last year, as my income fluctuates with the economy. This is unlike a PERS participant, who would have double what he had in 2001, WITHOUT contributing a single dime since then. All taxes restrict the flow of business, ahem, private business. Your need to maintain PERS bennies and retirements, maintain teacher salaries by cutting positions and not PERS costs is not my problem. Cut all public employees and public benefits by 20% across the board and you will begin to feel what the private sector has felt for 2 years. Completely idiotic posting. The reason we are here is that state spending IS TIED as a percentage to our gross and growth, REGARDLESS of need, and once budgeted, nothing can ever be removed. This system cannot possibly do anything but bankrupt us, the question is when. Get another job.

Chuck, you know better than to imply that tax incidence has shifted in line with the corporate and personal income tax rates.

The changing tax rates aren't the same as the incidence, and it's important that people know the difference.

For those who haven't taken economics classes, incidence is who finally pays. That is, if a landlord pays a tax, then increases the rent to cover it, the renter ends up paying it. Similarly with corporate taxes - costs go up, consumers pay.

That's not to say, as many irresponsible folks will, that all corporate taxes are passed through to individuals - they're not. Sometimes the market just won't bear the price increase, so corporations DO end up paying. Exactly what portion of the tax incidence is on corporations and individuals is studied, outside of the tax rates.

So, yes, probably the amount eventually paid by corporations has fallen. But perhaps not, and probably not by the numbers you provide, Chuck.

Oh yeah! Shrink the public sector to save your 401k, good plan; everyone must suffer to save your retirement nest egg... not! We all are taking a hit from the recession, you too... Boo-hoo!

You did indeed miss the math, such as including the federal ARRA funding in the budget increase that is making you cry. Your problem is a lack of humanity.

So economics has taught you that you know nothing?

I'd say, without the "benefit" of such education, that corporations are better than most taxpayers at reducing their incidence. Your doubts are blown back in your face.

"46% of the citizens pay no federal taxes at all."

Bullshit.

try payroll, medicare etc. The 46% referred to income taxes ,not all taxes.

Scott in Damascus

Great comment:"you seem to have a lot of free time to offer your opinions". I pay my own freight as you know.

Knowing you, Ed Bickford, and many others are on this board where here most of the working day, like today.

Are you at a Government Job, being paid by us the taxpayers, or just as bad a private company?

Are you being paid for your work services, while posting on this board, complaining about corporate ethics, and government attacking others, while you yourself are possibly breaking your own employer rules.

Scott thanks for the heads up,

dddave wrote;

...state spending IS TIED as a percentage to our gross and growth, REGARDLESS of need, and once budgeted, nothing can ever be removed. This system cannot possibly do anything but bankrupt us, the question is when.

I am self-employed.

The commenter formerly known as rdurig is a troll.

When I read Bill M. I thought that the Dem herd wouldn't be best pleased and they popped up predictably enough. Suffice to say Bill M. speaks for many LEFTIST progressives.

That and getting rid of the italics.

If Bill M. speaks for Tea Party Mad Hatters and LEFTIST PROGRESSIVES, I write off the leftists too.

”Most "tea partiers"....don't realize that they are fighting against their own economic interests.”

Could it be that Tea partiers are erudite enough to put the interests of the country above their own narrow, petty self-interests? Possibly?

(Note to Scott In Damascus, “erudite” means wise or knowledgeable.)

Posted by: Buckman Res | Apr 15, 2010 4:04:09 PM

Could it be that Tea partiers are erudite...

I'll go you half way. I'll consider your hypothesis when I see a press release or newsletter from them that isn't full of grammatical errors. Somehow I can't fit "erudite" with confusing "your" and "you're" and "there" and "they're".

You really think the erudite would be listening to Sarah Palin and rooting for her? Puh-leese!

Ed Bickford wrote:

You really think the erudite would be listening to Sarah Palin and rooting for her? Puh-leese!

Or O'Reilly? Or Hannity? Or Beck? Or Limbaugh?