Print
EmailOregon's business leaders served notice Friday that they won't go quietly into the dark night of tax increases, and some $733 million that the Oregon Legislature is counting on to balance its 2009-2011 budget suddenly seems in serious jeopardy.
Tax opponents announced plans for a citizen referendum, which will require them to gather more than 55,000 signatures for each of the two measures; total costs for the petitioning and campaign are expected to top $1 million at the minimum.
The history of Oregon referendums favors the tax opponents. Since 1970, of 11 citizen referendums on the ballot, only two gained "yes" votes — approving legislative actions. Only one measure, in 1972, approved higher taxes (on cigarettes); the other, in 1974, clarified Oregon's obscenity and prostitution statutes. Most of the nine rejected measures would have imposed additional taxes.
Democratic leaders in the Legislature, who balanced a 2009-2011 budget on the two tax measures, have been preparing for a referendum, and are considering a highly controversial move to change the way referendum ballot measures are worded. For the century-plus history of the referendum, a "yes" vote affirmed the legislative measure being referred and allowed it to go into effect. Some legislators are considering reversing the process, so a "yes" vote would actually reject the legislative measure. In the case of the two tax bills under attack, Oregonians would currently be required to vote "yes" to vote no on the taxes.
While the reversal is not illogical, and could have been made at any time in the past 100 years, it may be too clever by half; its timing is suspect and it flies in the face of longtime practice. Voters already find referendums more confusing than the more straightforward initiatives they face every election cycle. Legislation making the change has not been approved, but has cleared a Senate committee.
Legislators have counted on the tax measures standing up because they don't hit the average taxpayer directly. One measure increases personal income taxes for persons earning over $125,000 annually, or $250,000 for joint filers; the other increases corporate taxes. But the word "tax" is viral in Oregon right now, and is sure to be front-and-center in advertising campaigns if the measures reach the ballot. Veteran lobbyist and political strategist Mark Nelson, who has had success in similar campaigns, is on retainer.
The referendum effort will severely test the forces of public-employee unions, school organizations, and social-service advocates, who pushed the proposals through the Democratic legislature with support from Gov. Ted Kulongoski, also a Democrat. Increases in school support and health care are among the major items funded by the tax increases.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jun 29, 4:38 p.m. Inappropriate
Good post, Floyd. And politicians wonder why the public regards them as so much pond scum. Sheesh.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Jun 29, 5:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Undoubtedly many of the public consider themselves patriots...but think of their own wallets first when it comes to taxes.
It's sad that much of the public acts in their personal self-interest, rather than "what's good for all of us in the state."
Posted Tue, Jun 30, 6 a.m. Inappropriate
People might be willing to pay more tax if most of it didn't go so far away from them; or if it didn't end up in giant Ponzi schemes like unemployment insurance or social security (that money is gone - current claims are paid with money borrowed from China, Saudi Arabia and others who buy treasury bonds)
Posted Tue, Jun 30, 7:43 a.m. Inappropriate
What's good for all of us in the state is that we're left alone to act in our personal self-interest. That's called liberty, and that's what the country was founded upon, the protection and preservation of which is the first priority of government.
The Piper
Posted Tue, Dec 20, 4:52 p.m. Inappropriate
The State of Oregon, counties, and cities are bent on increasing revenues lost by our bad economy. These governments have found that increasing fees for everything 3 to 4 times what they were pre 2008 as a way to keep income coming in without concern for the poor, the elderly and/or the voters. I beleive that the state can't raise taxes without a vote but raising fees they can do and have done. This approach has a real bad long term effect on our economy but keeps the status quo for government waist. The real question comes down to this; Is government hiding tax hikes using fee increases? Is this legal? Fair? Will this help our bad economy? Will they reduce the fees when good times return or use it to line their pockets further? If this were a business with costomers, employees, vendors, and competition in recessionary time what would we do to advert going out of business, (going out of business would have a bad effect on all stakeholders). First thing we would have to cut cost to the bone, executive wages slashed, employee benifits slashed, freeze all payrolls, freeze hiring, develop more trust with vendors and customers, and sell off holdings until the business became stable again. The last thing we would do is to overcharge the customer with hidden fee increases(taxes).