Archive for Ballot Measures

Rebuild Oregon – Phone Bank Rally – Sunday 12:00 – 3:00

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (1)
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Rebuild Oregon is hosting a Phone Bank Rally at No on 66 & 67 Headquarters this Sunday Noon – 3:00PM.

We need to get as many people as possible to man the phones to help get the word out.
No experience needed…we work from computers and it is very easy.
We are getting closer, We need to rally the troops and give it one last push to defeat these Job Killing Taxes.

PLEASE…Let us know that you are attending. Invite friends.
Goodies (eats & drinks) provided.

We look forward to a great turnout.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/RebuildOregon/202216984071?ref=ts#/event.php?eid=284144740796&ref=mf

Use above link or confirm with Janice at 971-344-2518 or email janice@orgop.org

Date:
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Time:
12:00pm – 3:00pm
Location:
No On 66 & 67 Offices
Street:
1980 Willamette Falls Dr.
City/Town:
West Linn, OR
Categories : Ballot Measures, Events
Comments (1)

Why Mike is worried…Why we should all be worried.

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (1)
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

The Northwest Connection

By Mark Ellis

Mike is not a corporation. He’s a sole proprietor who earns his living as a licensed contractor specializing in carpentry—frame to finish. He and his wife won’t make $250.00 dollars this year—or even $125,000—not even close. But Mike is worried about Measures 66 and 67, the new taxes Oregon is attempting to levy on corporations and high income earners in the middle of the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Mike pays his state and federal taxes faithfully. He carries the license, bond, and insurances required by the state to ply his trade as a legal contractor. His wife, Cheryl, works only part-time as office assistant for a home heating company, so they pay for the family’s high-deductible health insurance out of their own pockets. He doesn’t mind that his taxes are needed to pay for schools, roads, police and fire departments, and a safety net for society’s most vulnerable.

Mike and Cheryl are native Oregonians. He has a reputation among his customers as a dependable, honest, and skilled tradesman. She works while their two children are in school. Her income goes preponderantly to the various taxes and insurances they pay so they can have Mike’s earnings free and clear to live on, and plan for the future.

Mike has lowered his prices to remain competitive in these tough times, but can’t bid low enough to compete with immigrant laborers who work under the table, who regard $40 a day as a great wage, and who send the lion’s share of the money they earn out of the country. All while taking advantage of the entitlement programs Mike’s leaders have granted to the undocumented with the taxes he has paid.

While he works, climbing ladders, setting timbers, and installing trim moldings with his nail gun, Mike reflects on acquaintances who happen to be public employees. They seem to be doing OK—the ones who still have their jobs—but after reading the paper he wonders how their retirement benefits will ever be paid in this shrinking economy. He supports robust municipal permit/inspection regulations for his industry, but couldn’t suppress a gallows smile when he learned that many in his county’s building permits department were being laid off for lack of construction activity.

The year 2002—in the shadow of 9/11—was the last year he can remember it being bad, but that was nothing compared to now. After the “meltdown” of fall 2008 his phone just stopped ringing. He sent out flyers and made phone calls, but the response was politely nil. A couple of jobs he had lined up for spring of 2009 fell through. People were understandably holding on to their money. Mike was grateful when one of those customers let him keep the token down payment they’d made.

In May things picked up. A local corporation which has a chain of tanning salons got his name through a referral, and asked for a bid to transform some unused space at their locations into more tanning booths. After sharpening his pencil, he was awarded the contract, and with the checks from the corporation was able to start replenishing his family’s meager savings and paying down the credit cards he’d begun to use for everyday expenses like groceries and repairs to his work truck.

Then, in August and September, a welcome flurry of residential work: two additions, some room remodels, and some dry rot repair. In almost every case, as evidenced by the comfortably upscale homes he worked on, Mike knew that the people who were hiring him were the very people targeted by the new taxes.

When he and his wife count their blessings, they always include the people who provide the work to make their standard of living possible. They consider her fuel company’s loyal customers, the owners of the tanning salon chain, and the residents of Upscale Acres to be earthly angels.

They are thankful that the new corporate and high earner taxes will at least be put to a vote. They accept as part of life in the 21st century that the language on the ballots was made purposely obtuse in the hopes of clouding the picture. They, and just about everybody they know—not counting the public sector employees — will vote against Measures 66 and 67. But there is a sense that they may be outnumbered now. That they, the ones who sustain a vibrant work ethic in the private sector, who don’t think in terms of government help beyond a societal infrastructure, and who only want the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, are now in the minority.

Then again, Mike and Cheryl won’t be paying as much as in past years. In fact, if things keep on the way they’re going they may join a silent majority, the ranks of a vast underclass which pays no taxes at all.

Now, multiply Mike, and you’ll see why we all should be worried.

Categories : Ballot Measures, Oregon Businesses
Comments (1)

BREAKING: Secretary of State Finds $3.3 Billion in Funds

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (3)
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010
And they find the Money AFTER the ballots for 66 & 67 are sent…hmmmmm.
Monday, January 11, 2010
ThinkOregon

Via Senate Republican Office Oregon State Capitol

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Salem, OR – Oregon’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) released by the Secretary of State’s office last week states that more than $3.3 billion in “unreserved, undesignated fund balance… was available for spending[1].”  A budget plan pushed by Senate Republicans calls for $133 million from those balances to help finance this cycle’s budget in a way that protects the economy and preserves important services.

“We can protect important government services and Oregon’s economy by using the money already at the state’s disposal,” said Senator Chris Telfer (R-Bend).  “This report confirms that there are billions of dollars for use at the legislature’s discretion.  We should use a small portion of this money to protect K-12 classrooms, higher education, services for the disabled and public safety.”

The CAFR, prepared by the State Controller’s Division at the Department of Administrative Services to analyze the position of the Oregon’s fiscal affairs, states:

“As of June 30, 2009, the State’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $4.4 billion.  Of this amount, approximately 25.1 percent was reserved for nonspendable items, such as inventories and permanent fund principal, or for specific purposes, such as debt service.  The remainder was classified as unreserved, undesignated fund balance and was available for spending, subject to statutory and constitutional spending constraints.”[1]

Since by definition lawmakers write statute, any statutory constraints can be addressed.

“This is money that has piled up in agencies from over-collected fees and it is revenue that has not been expended as scheduled,” said Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day). “These are taxpayer dollars that should never be left stranded in the bureaucracy, but shifted to pay for services Oregonians need. If we use this money wisely, we can leave the economy to grow and recover.”

Senate Republicans have announced a budget proposal for the February session, saying that there are ways to balance the budget without increasing unemployment or drastically cutting services in the midst of a historic recession.

 

Categories : Ballot Measures, News
Comments (3)

Statesman Journal Editorial Board opposes Measures 66 and 67 because they are the wrong approach — the wrong taxes — because they include permanent increases and because they unfairly tax unprofitable businesses.

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (0)
Monday, January 11th, 2010

Oregon voters face the wrong choice in this month’s special election. The 2009 Legislature embraced needlessly divisive long-term income-tax increases, supposedly in the names of fairness and preservation of public services. But what Oregon needed were realistic, short-term fixes to help schools, state government and needy Oregonians make it through the economic slump. 

The Legislature still has a chance to get it right — at least to do better — when it convenes next month in Salem for a special session. 

That is why the Statesman Journal Editorial Board opposes Measures 66 and 67 on the Jan. 26 ballot. 

We believe that some tax increases are temporarily necessary so Oregon can continue to provide the kinds of public schools, colleges, law enforcement and social services that Oregonians want. Those increases would keep thousands of state workers and educators employed — people who provide critical services and whose paychecks contribute to the Mid-Valley economy. 

But Measures 66 and 67 are the wrong approach — the wrong taxes — because they include permanent increases and because they unfairly tax unprofitable businesses. 

Oregon’s business and civic leaders stand ready to work with the Legislature on more palatable tax increases and other steps to avoid the draconian government layoffs predicted if the measures fail. 

No one wants such drastic cuts. The bad economy has increased the demand for state services, and reasonable revenue increases are needed to pay for them. 

Many Oregonians would have supported short-term tax increases. But, as we have noted before, the Legislature’s Democratic majority overplayed its hand and insisted on permanent increases. 

Measure 66 would increase personal income taxes on well-to-do Oregonians, a concept that sounds fair on the surface. But its design would make Oregon’s unstable tax system even more volatile. 

It also overlooks the fact that well-to-do individuals generally pay proportionately more in taxes than lower- and middle-income Oregonians do. That is because of the way various deductions are structured. In fact, the 2.27 percent of taxpayers — individuals, families and small businesses — affected by the measure already pay nearly a third of the personal income taxes that Oregon collects. 

In that respect the measure penalizes people who are most equipped to help Oregon create jobs and rebuild the economy — entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and others with money to invest in businesses. It’s simply counterproductive to raise their personal income taxes to the point that they’re tempted to leave Oregon for a low-income-tax state — or for Washington state, which has no personal income taxes. 

Measure 67 possibly is even more onerous. 

It would increase the corporate minimum tax, which has been a measly $10 since the 1930s. 

A reasonable increase would have been to a few hundred dollars. But the Legislature set the maximum at an astounding $100,000 — and tied it to a business’ Oregon sales. 

It’s no wonder that business leaders were galvanized into referring the tax increases to voters. After all, the corporate minimum is a tax paid by businesses that show NO taxable profit. 

In this economy, it’s plausible for many businesses to lose money even though they make significant sales. Under Measure 67, they could still face hefty income taxes. That defies common sense. And it certainly isn’t fair. 

This is an election fight that didn’t need to happen. Business leaders were willing to work with legislators on short-term solutions. They still are. 

But to get there, voters should defeat Measures 66 and 67. And legislative leaders must put partisan ideology aside and be willing to work collaboratively for the good of Oregon.

Categories : Ballot Measures
Comments (0)

Portland Tribune “Reject state tax hikes – fix the system” NO on 66 & 67

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (4)
Saturday, January 9th, 2010

 Portland Tribune Urges for a NO VOTE on 66 & 67

The Portland Tribune, Jan 7, 2010

Tax increases approved by the 2009 Oregon Legislature, and now embodied in Ballot Measures 66 and 67 have serious, if not fatal flaws.

If approved by voters in the Jan. 26 special election, they will deliver a blow to private-sector employment in Oregon during the worst recession since the Great Depression. They will increase the volatility of the state’s budget. And they will delay a requirement for Oregon to once and for all confront its repeated budget woes by implementing long-term budgeting and meaningful spending and tax reform.

Voters should reject these poorly timed and harmful measures and send legislators a firm message that Oregon can and must do better.

The tax increases are proposed to fill a $733 million gap in the 2009-11 state budget that supporters say endangers public education, health care services and other important state-funded programs. We agree these programs are vital, but support for Measure 66 and 67 is based on the faulty assumption that only higher earning Oregonians and corporations stand to pay if these taxes are approved.

This logic can withstand scrutiny only if you believe that public-sector jobs are inherently more valuable than jobs in the private sector. Measure 66, which increases the top tax rate by 20 percent on higher-income individuals and families, and Measure 67, which increases taxes on corporations, would take $733 million away from the private sector and give it to the public sector instead, protecting government jobs while jeopardizing private-sector employment.

 

Misleading campaign

While we believe that supporters of Measures 66 and 67 are well intended, we are disappointed with their campaign. They have intentionally minimized the impact and the permanency of these measures on individuals. They have consistently ignored the danger these measures pose to Oregon’s economy. And the proponents’ campaign has wrongly painted the state’s business community as being uncaring about the needs of schools and health and human service programs.

In our view, the reasons for rejecting these measures are obvious, and include:

• Timing. Oregon’s unemployment rate at the end of October remained at 10.7 percent. These measures would siphon hundreds of millions of dollars away from the very people and businesses who create most of the jobs in this state. We believe the economists who say that millions in new taxes will create thousands of lost jobs.

• Increased state budget volatility. Oregon’s problem for decades has been its reliance on the income tax as the main source of revenue for public services. Measures 66 and 67 are permanent income tax hikes and would do nothing to level out the boom or bust cycle of public funding that plagues this state.

• Lack of fairness. Measure 67 assesses corporations as much as $100,000 in taxes regardless of whether they make a profit. Many corporations in Oregon cut their expenses deeper than they ever thought possible as they coped with falling sales during the current recession, and they are continuing to lose — not make — money. We believe corporations should pay more, but it is bad economic and tax policy to require businesses that operate in the red to fork over tens of thousands more in taxes. Their only option will be to lay off more employees, buy fewer goods and services from other businesses or simply shut their doors.

• Deceptive campaigning. Measure 66 proponents repeatedly make the claim that their target — Oregonians who make more than $125,000 (or $250,000 for joint filers) — would see only a 1.8 percent increase in taxes. But those same supporters also know that statement to be untrue. These high-income individuals — two-thirds of whom own businesses and combine their business income with their personal income for tax purposes — would actually see a 20 percent increase in their top level of taxation, from a 9 percent rate to a 10.8 percent rate.

Legislature has options

Despite flaws in Measures 66 and 67, voters will be tempted to support them because they fear the cuts in public services — something legislators have promised would happen if the measures fail. But Oregon has alternatives. When the Legislature meets in February, it can make plans to tap into cash reserves held by state agencies. It can use what’s left of rainy day funds. The governor can declare a budgetary state of emergency and reopen negotiations with state employees to secure further reductions in personnel costs.

One very fair measure would be to require state employees to pay a small portion of their health care insurance costs. If state workers were required to pay what the typical Oregon public school teacher pays for those same benefits, it would save the state as much as $130 million a biennium.

By utilizing such measures, by enacting temporary, smaller revenue measures and by finding additional ways to save money, Oregon can balance its $733 million budget gap without putting businesses and private-sector jobs at risk. This state’s citizens and its leaders then must turn to the larger question of how to provide stability for the future.

The tax increases represented by Measures 66 and 67 are not well-conceived. They are poorly timed. And they are inequitable. Voters should reject them and tell legislators to find the right way to protect public services.

Categories : Ballot Measures
Comments (4)

Another Oregon Newspaper says NO! – Calls 66 & 67 Blunders.

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (1)
Friday, January 8th, 2010

Bend Bulletin – January 7 2010

Pardon us for saying something so unfashionable, but hooray for Oregon’s system of direct democracy. A century-old product of the state’s Progressive Movement, the referendum allows voters to correct the blunders of their elected representatives in Salem. Blunders like Measures 66 and 67, which would hamper the creation of private-sector jobs and indirectly tax Oregonians across the income spectrum.

Supporters of the two measures claim they’re modest tax hikes only on the “rich” (Measure 66) and “big corporations” (Measure 67). Consider, however, that more than two-thirds of the taxpayers affected by Measure 66, which raises income taxes on individuals, report some form of business income or loss on their personal tax returns. Thus, the measure would affect thousands of small-business owners, not merely the faceless “rich” who, presumably, can afford to absorb any level of taxation.

Measure 67 would raise the $10 corporate minimum tax to $150 for thousands of small businesses. These include partnerships, LLCs and S corporations, like The Bulletin, that can probably afford the extra $140 per year. But for large companies — C corporations — the new minimum tax is based on sales, which means a company that sold a lot of stuff without generating taxable income could still face a staggering tax increase. Meanwhile, those companies that can pass the increases along to consumers will do so. The tax on “big corporations” will ultimately be a tax on you.

In simplest terms, Measures 66 and 67 would take hundreds of millions of dollars from the private sector and transfer them to the public sector. But that’s OK, we’re to believe, because the public sector desperately needs the money and because the private sector is an inexhaustible dynamo, spinning out wealth no matter how heavily it’s taxed.

But does the public sector really have it so tough, and does the private sector really have it so good? Not if job numbers are any indication. Between 1999 and 2009, Oregon’s population grew roughly 13 percent. From November 1999 to November 2009, government employment in Oregon climbed by 7.8 percent. This number includes not only state, local and public school employees, but also federal employees, whose numbers actually declined between 1999 and 2009.

And what about the private sector? According to the Oregon Employment Department, the state’s supply of nonfarm, private-sector jobs was 1.2 percent smaller last November than it was in November 1999. Yet the Legislature responded to the recession by raising taxes permanently on the companies that keep that shrinking pool of people employed. As policies go, that isn’t just bad. It’s ruinous.

Taxpayers understand that population growth inevitably drives government employment upward. As the number of kids in school increases, for instance, so must the number of teachers, administrators and support staff. But taxpayers also understand a few other things. They understand that the sacrifices economically difficult times require have been distributed unequally, and they understand that the private sector has sacrificed a great deal more than the public sector. They also understand that the powerful unions that represent public employees have been doing what they can to keep things that way.

Most Oregonians value the work that public employees do. They like their kids’ teachers. They appreciate their parks and their streets. And they like knowing that a fire crew will show up if their Christmas tree bursts into flame. But they also recognize how unfair — and ultimately how destructive — it is for public employees to, in effect, try to exempt themselves from the impact of the recession by demanding tax hikes on everybody else.

Business owners across the state have seen their profits vanish even as they contend with rising health insurance costs. Many of their personnel, meanwhile, have absorbed huge pay cuts, yet count themselves lucky to remain employed. Last year, by contrast, the pay and benefits package for the average state employee actually climbed despite a couple of unpaid furlough days. The jump was due, in part, to yearly step increases (automatic raises) and a health plan that exempts full-time employees from both deductibles and monthly premiums for themselves and their families.

No one should be surprised that such disparity breeds ill-will even among those of us with a deep appreciation for the work public employees do. So, no, we won’t be voting for Measures 66 and 67. You shouldn’t either. Raising taxes on individuals and businesses is a lazy and ineffective response to the problems that plague this state, from its staggering unemployment rate to the high cost of public-employee benefits.

Ironically, Measure 66 will actually exacerbate one of the state’s worst problems: its lopsided tax structure. According to the Legislative Revenue Office, “Oregon is already more dependent on the personal income tax for state tax dollars than any other state is on any single tax source. … If Measure 66 becomes law, this dependence will increase.” The huge fluctuations in tax revenue this imbalance creates will increase as well, leading to greater spending during good times and greater shortfalls during bad.

What Oregon needs right now isn’t massive tax hikes, but, rather, the kind of revolutionary spirit that moved progressives to shake up state government a century ago. A vote against Measures 66 and 67 is a vote in favor of such change.

Categories : Ballot Measures, News
Comments (1)

The Oregon Association of REALTORS® Opposes Ballot Measure 66 & 67

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (1)
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

New, permanent taxes will hurt all Oregonians and businesses

In the midst of the worst economic crisis in more than 70 years, the legislature increased overall state spending by $4.7 billion and voted to permanently increase taxes on businesses and higher-income Oregonians by $733 million – the biggest tax increase in Oregon history.

During the 2009 legislative session, a unified business community strongly opposed the permanent tax measures and proposed a balanced, short-term solution that essentially matched spending cuts with temporary, broad-based tax increases. Virtually the entire business community supported raising the corporate minimum tax. The legislature chose to ignore the recommendations of the business community to pursue new, permanent tax increases, including a gross receipts tax of up to $100,000 on businesses that are not making a profit.

The Oregon Association of REALTORS® Opposes Ballot Measure 66 & 67 for the following reasons:

1) Since the start of the recession, Oregon has lost 131,500 private sector jobs according to the Oregon Employment Department. In November, 64.4% of Oregonians were employed; the lowest labor-force participation has been since 1978. With unemployment at 11.1% and 211,424 Oregonians out of work, leading economists estimate that the new, permanent tax increases will cost an additional 70,000 Oregonians their jobs. The new, permanent tax increases are projected to further depress the struggling Oregon economy, negatively impacting efforts to stabilize and stimulate the real estate market. It is no secret that Oregonians must have jobs if they are going to be able to purchase and maintain a home. 

The health of the real estate market in many regions of Oregon is directly tied to in-migration from other states. With the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation, Oregon will become less appealing for relocation for businesses and individuals. In addition, the taxes will have a direct impact on the Multiple Listing Services, as a gross receipts tax has a disproportionate impact on those businesses that have high volume (regardless of any actual profit).

2) Tax proponents portray Measure 66 and 67 as the only way to fund education and other essential public services. This is simply not true. The Oregon REALTORS® are supportive of a strong education system and protecting essential community services. The fact is the 2009-11 General Fund budget is $485 million higher than it was in 2007-09 and includes $259 million in salary increases for state employees. The touted budget “cuts” actually reflect an increase in spending, just a smaller increase than anticipated. The legislature has an array of options (including $1 billion in cash reserves), and could maintain current budgets by using existing state agency cash reserves, reducing personnel costs or potentially pursuing a more responsible, short- term tax measure.  

3) The corporations that pay Oregon’s current $10 minimum tax are businesses that have not made a profit or have no taxable income. Businesses that make a profit pay the corporate income tax on those profits. Measure 67 changes the $10 flat fee for businesses that have no taxable income to a sliding scale between $150 to $100,000 — based on a company’s gross sales, not net profits. This new gross sales tax disproportionately impacts high-volume sales, low margin businesses like home builders, grocery stores, restaurants and gas stations.

In fact, most states have no minimum tax on businesses that aren’t making a profit. Among those states that do levy a minimum tax on corporations with no profit, 17 charge an average of $200. All but two of these states have a flat rate minimum, like Oregon’s. Only New York and Minnesota have graduated minimum taxes based on total sales, similar to Measure 67. Those two states levy a maximum fee of $5,000. The legislature’s proposal would tax companies with no profits from $150 to $100,000 — 20 times as much for the privilege of operating and losing money in Oregon, giving us the highest corporate minimum or ‘no profits’ tax in the country.

4) Measure 67 amounts to a 40% total increase in state corporate taxes for 2009-11. The corporate income tax rate will go from the current 6.6% to 7.9% in 2009 and 2010. That’s nearly a 20% increase in just one of the three components of Measure 67′s corporate tax hike. (Corporate income tax increases, corporate minimum tax increase based on gross sales and corporate filing fee increases.)

5) Under Measure 66, the tax rate goes from 9 to 10.8 % for individuals earning more than $125,000 a year and from 9 to 11% for individuals earning more than $250,000 a year. This gives Oregon the second highest income tax rate in the nation — higher than both New York and California. Furthermore, according to the Legislative Revenue Office, 66% of tax filers targeted in the personal income tax increase are small and family-owned businesses and farms who report their business profits on their personal income statements.

6) The proposed tax increases would be retroactive to January 1, 2009, and no money to cover the tax increase has been withheld from Oregonians’ paychecks during all of 2009. 

To learn more about Ballot Measure 66 & 67 visit:

Ballot Measure 66

Ballot Measure 67

For more information about the campaign in opposition to the tax measures, visit: www.stopjobkillingtaxes.com

The economic studies below illustrate the negative impact the new, permanent tax increases pose to Oregon’s economy and job market.

William B. Conerly, PhD, a Portland-based economic consultant and former Senior Vice President of First Interstate Bank, estimated the personal income tax increases in Measure 66 would cost up to 36,000 Oregonians their jobs by 2015. 

Taxing the “Wealthy” More Will Cost 36,000 Oregon Jobs
Bill Conerly

Another leading Oregon economist, Randall J. Pozdena, PhD, examined the impact of the business tax increases on Oregon employment.  He estimates that, over a 10-year period, the business tax increases in Measure 67 would cost 22,000 to 43,000 Oregonians their jobs – on top of the 30,000 lost to the personal income tax increases.  These job losses would be in addition to the 131,500 private sector jobs Oregon has already lost in this recession.

Raising Oregon’s Corporate Income Tax Rate Will Cost 43,000 Oregon Jobs
Randall Pozdena

Categories : Ballot Measures, News
Comments (1)

Gresham Government Affairs Lunch Forum – Measures 66 & 67

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (1)
Monday, January 4th, 2010
Government Affairs Council Lunch Forum  Wednesday, January 13  11:30 am to 1:00 pm

$20 for Lunch; $5 minimum   Heidi’s of Gresham  1230 NE Cleveland Avenue, Gresham

Topic: Measures 66 & 67  Speaker: RussWalker, Executive Director of FreedomWorks

RSVP Gresham Chamber Office – 503-665-1131

Categories : Ballot Measures, Events
Comments (1)

No on 66 & 67 is a Yes for Oregon Public Education

Posted by: Jeff | Comments (0)
Monday, January 4th, 2010
Wednesday, December 30, 2009 – From Think Oregon

       Sean VanGordon provides a cogent argument for voting against Oregon Ballot Measures 66 and 67 … and why a No Vote is actually good for Oregon public education. Sean’s contact information is at the bottom of this post.

In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed $1.6 billion dollars in new taxes and fees. This comes to about $435 per Oregonian. Lane County’s share of these new taxes is $150 million. In January, Oregonians will get to vote on $733 million of those new taxes in Measure 66 and Measure 67. As the election gets closer, Lane County will get bombarded with two messages. First, Measure 66 and 67 will kill jobs. Second, Measure 66 and 67 will protect essential state services. The choice is being presented as either jobs or state services. These tax measures will kill jobs. More importantly, these measures don’t protect essential services in the long term. The tax increases were designed to raise money that the legislature wanted to spend, but not that it needed to spend. Our state has lost its job, and the legislature wants to continue to live the same lifestyle on a credit card.

The state is addicted to spending. The 2009-2011 budget was $53 billion, which is a 9% higher than the previous budget. The previous budget was $48 billion. The last year that the state decreased spending was 1981-1983 budget. I know our local school districts are struggling with budget cuts. My question to the state legislature: Why wasn’t some of the $5 billion in additional money spent in schools? Just to put this in perspective, the total K-12 budget is around $6 billion.

The tax measures are a political response to the economic situation. The democratic leadership in Salem didn’t want to waste a good crisis. For years, the democrats wanted to reform the corporate tax structure. The current crisis gave them the opportunity and the political capital to do it. If the tax measures were actually a response to the economic situation, they would be temporary. I recognize that they do have temporary components, but they never expire. We will always be paying these taxes even when the economy is good.

Rep. Phil Barnhart (D- Eugene), whose committee sponsored the bill, is the Chair of the House Revenue committee. He supports removing the kicker, corporate tax increases, and a sales tax. As Lane County Citizens, we want our schools, state police, and roads to have proper funding. Now imagine that you gave Rep. Barnhart and the democratic leadership every tax increases that they want. Do you think your local High School would have enough money to hire the right amount of teachers the next year? What about the year after that?

The state understands that people will pay more taxes for essential services. That is why the state presented Measure 66 and 67 as funding for essential services. We don’t get to vote when a $122k/year job is created for Sen. Margret Carter in the Department of Human Services. By the way, DHS just hired her without a proper job search. We don’t get to vote when a $96k/year job was created on the Parole Board for Sen. Vickie Walker. The job fell through, but the Governor found her a temporary job at $86k/year. In 2008 while Oregon was sinking into a recession, the Governor gave raises of close to 30% to some department heads. Those raises were never on a ballot. DHS has an administrative budget of $200 million. The state spent $500k to recognize employees last year with trinkets and coffee cups. The state legislature wasn’t responsible enough to balance the budget by cutting the programs that aren’t needed in recessions. Our state legislators need to be honest with us about these measures. We are being asked to save funding for schools because they didn’t make schools a priority in the legislative session.

This recession has been hard for Oregon. It has been hard for families and small business in Lane County. The job picture in Lane County hasn’t gotten better, and isn’t forecasted to get better for months. I think local schools and governments are working hard to deal with the recession. Now, consider what the State Legislature has done. When they increased the budget by 9%, have they done their job during a recession? Have they questioned every expense in the budget or easier to pass new taxed? Have used our rainy day fund responsibly? Is Measure 66 and 67 going to fund your children’s education or six figure jobs for retired State Senators? Voting “no” on Measure 66 and 67, and ask the legislature to be responsible with our money.

Sean VanGordon’s website is Plan4Oregon.com. He’s on Twitter @Sean_VanGordon. You can email him at Sean at Plan4Oregon.com.

Categories : Ballot Measures, News
Comments (0)

Measure 66 and 67: Failing the clear and objective test

Posted by: default | Comments (0)
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

The voters’ standard for a ballot title isn’t too steep: something that’s clear, objective and allows for an informed and educated decision on the measure. Oregon law requires a “simple and understandable statement.” Unfortunately, the ballot titles for the January tax referrals drafted by a legislative committee meet neither of these standards.

As one of the six legislators appointed to draft the ballot titles, I was one of only two who voted against the final drafts. Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, and I were also the only two on the committee who voted against the two House bills that are being challenged by Measures 66 and 67. The final committee product is both biased and misleading. Reading the ballot titles for the measures is more like reading a piece of campaign literature than an objective description of the facts.

For example, the description for the result of a “yes” vote is nearly twice as long as the result of a “no” vote. The description also leaves out the fact that the Legislature’s tax package includes a brand new tax of up to $100,000 on businesses that do not even make a profit. And the ballot titles are grossly misleading and speculative about the possible affects of the measures if they are to pass or fail.

Oregonians have the right to a clear, concise and unbiased official description of what they are voting on, not campaign rhetoric.

I appreciate that the committee co-chairs were willing to listen to some of the overwhelming input requesting clarification. They made some additions to the explanatory statement and in a round-about way acknowledged that the tax increases are permanent and retroactive. But those inferences are only clear if you read the ballot title with a very discriminating eye. To my disappointment, of the 46 people who testified to the committee either verbally or by written submission, only nine were in favor of the initial tax referral drafts. All nine of those in opposition were representing organizations that would directly benefit by receiving state funds raised by these tax increases.

Perhaps my biggest concerns are the blatantly false statements in the explanatory portion of Measure 67. As a CPA and the only member of the committee with a tax background, I cannot ignore the misleading and incorrect explanations. One states that all other businesses that are not impacted by the proposed tax increase will pay no minimum or profits tax. This is incorrect. All businesses will pay tax on their profits. Secondly, Measure 67 claims that Sole Proprietors will not be impacted. But any Sole Proprietor filing under an assumed business name, or DBA, with the secretary of state will pay double in fees.

The fact that these taxes go into effect starting at the beginning of 2009 and that they continue in perpetuity are important factors in voters’ decision, and important in the bill language. To purposefully leave them out or muddy the truth around those facts is disingenuous at best. At worst, it’s an intentional attempt to deceive and mislead voters.

If the quality control test for these ballot titles is clarity and ease of understanding, then they most certainly fail.

Decide for yourself. You can read the entire ballot titles here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/jcomm66_67

Chris Telfer, a Republican, represents Bend in the Oregon Senate.

Categories : Ballot Measures, Oregon Businesses
Comments (0)

Categories

Contact Your Representatives

Senators

State Representatives

Get Involved

America is a product of an engaged citizenship. Get involved in local politics and add your voice to the choir.

Support a Conservative

Coming soon, an online and face-to-face business networking group for conservative business owners.

About Us

Based in Fairview, Oregon. We are a collection of Small Business people working together to improve the lives of every Oregonian. Using a principled, common sense approach, we hope to influence the direction of our state economic, political and educational processes.