2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal 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 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 portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

There are so many things in conflict about this it's hard to know where to start. 1. What irony to say to "stop threatening to cut services and cut government instead" Who do they think provides services? IT IS GOVERNMENT! WE elect the reps who set policy and funding levels, it's not someone else. The reps do what the most voices tell them the people want.  Many complaints come from people apathetic to the process after decisions are made.

There is very little wasted in schools and government offices. Workers take public service seriously, recycle, rarely get paid for all the time put in, and  there is a grossly erroneous sense of waste in schools and government. The legislature HAS considered the options and M66/M67 are the best result., It HAS made substantial cuts where possible/reasonable with the least impact on essential services. To MAINTAIN more revenue MUST come from somewhere. It is logical it comes from where the revenue is, the most wealthy. This was set as the top 2 1/2%. A tiny fraction of the population. Anyone resenting this re-distribution of wealth for the common good should feel lucky and priviliged to be in such an elite of wealth owners, not resentful of sharing it. Even those businesses w/ gross sales over 1/2 million will pay a comparative tiny amount more.

 Oregon still is in the bottom third of total tax burdens for commercial tax payers as a state. We have a modest tax burden as citizens. It may seem large as income tax because other states have a third source of revenue we have been able to access...the dreaded sales tax. Still the NET tax burden here is modest in Oregon. If protecting & promoting high end wealth was good for everyone why has there been a  horrific widening of the gap between the rich and poor since the Reagan began advocating trickle down economics?

The bottom lines of arguments on this are these: 1. Is more state revenue truly needed to provide essential government services? and 2. If so, HOW should this needed revenue be generated?  In reply to 1. YES. the legislature cut where it could, is doing what it can to spend and use savings wisely and 2. It  is seeking revenue where it can be raised with least impact on the most people.

 Nobody likes taxes, but as has been observed; taxes are the price we pay for civilization. A YES vote on both measures is a vote for the greatest good for Oregon society.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context