2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

You can thank the OEA (of all people) for MIS-educating you.  Sorry to hear you voted before doing your due diligence in researching the facts.  That's exactly what the sneaks pushing for the yes vote are counting on, assuming all they have to fool is the majority of the products of their work, the graduates of the over-funded and under-performing Oregon public education system who have now become the voters.

If BM 67 was truly targeting the largest corporations getting away with minimal tax burdens as the TV ads characterize it, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.  Unfortunately that's NOT what it is.  There is good cause for being angry at self-serving executives who flat out lied to their investors about risk levels, received taxpayer subsidies for outsourcing jobs, drove their companies into the ground, and rewarded themselves handsomely in the process, but BM 67 does absolutely nothing to address that problem.

BD

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Yes - term limits for state (and federal) elected officials, and moving more appointees into the ranks of the elected.  I'd even take it a step further, and develop a short list of rules for the rulemakers.  If a legislator (or congressman/woman) violates the trust of the constituents after bamboozling them effectively during a campaign, their powers of lawmaking are immediately suspended for a period of time based on the degree of the offense (such as being "bought" by a corporation, union, or lobbyist group).  Repeat offenders' seats become open for replacement by the runner up in the most recent election.  Otherwise we continue to operate under the best legislature (or Congress) money can buy.

BD

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I basically agree with RichardK's assessement of Measure 67, and am similarly against adopting it as written.  The legislator did a poor job in my opinion in the wording of the house bill that was the origin of this measure.  The adverstisements sponsored by the OEA and AFLCIO are ludicrous.  If you could take the word "misleading" and multiply it by a billion, you'd be in the ballpark.  The $10 corporate minimum tax is a tiny sliver of the impact of this measure.  The tax is on gross sales in Oregon (regardless of profitability, or lack of), and capped at a level that results in ONLY impacting small to medium sized businesses in the state.   In other words, the biggest corporations with headquarters in Oregon, which sell most of their goods outside of the state, are off the hook.  The few that do (PGE, Northwest Natural Gas, and possibly one or two others) have revenues over 1 BILLION dollars annually, yet their tax would be paid only on the first $100M of revenue the way the ballot measure is worded.  Who's left to take the brunt?  The smaller companies.

This junk on the pro-66 and 67 TV ads about getting back at the evil Wall Street corporations is a load of bunk.  Bottom line: they won't notice ANYTHING.  It's like swatting a mosquito to them, and just try to think of one that's based in Oregon anyhow.  Small businesses are the catalyst for economic growth in the US, and in Oregon, and always have been.  Entrepreneurs create jobs, and are the core of the economic growth engine.  Punishing them for just staring to get off the ground to the point of being able to hire a few warm bodies is not only counter-productive, but I firmly believe that if BM 67 passes, the net income tax revenue collection by the State of Oregon will DECREASE within three years due to job losses.  The OEA should be ashamed of themselves for lining their members' pockets at the cost of decreasing job opportunities for graduates.

Legislature: go back to the drawing board and come up with something that makes more sense.   I have zero respect for those who think it's OK to pass OUR generation's debts along to our kids.   Not in my book!

Dan - Hillsboro

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context