The case for voting No on 30

Oregon Magazine ^ | January 1, 2004 | Tom Cox

[WaterDragon]

The case for voting No on 30 (a measure to increase Oregon income taxes) is simple. It rests on some basic truths about Oregon's government and economy. Understand those truths, and you'll feel compelled to vote "no". Fail to grasp them, and you'll be tempted to vote "yes".

The "no" vote is based on knowledge, and the "yes" vote on ignorance.

Big Picture: Out of Control Spending

Oregon's state government spending has been growing at an average of 8.82% a year since 1991. Oregon's total private sector income, the source of money to pay for that spending, has grown at an average of 5.72% a year in that period. The following graph and table show the numbers.[graph]...(snip)

Our expenses are growing faster than our ability to pay.

On average, each point of private sector growth is met by 1.54 points of growth in public sector spending.

In other words, the state government is growing its expenditures 50% faster than the state’s citizens are growing our ability to pay.

In the long run, this rate of government growth is unsustainable...(snip)

Click Here For Immediate Link To Article

[WaterDragon]

Sustainable? Sustainable?

[pushforbush]

I like it when someone uses the liberals' buzzwords against them.

[Ganndy]

The "no" vote is based on knowledge, and the "yes" vote on ignorance

Don't confuse the issue with facts, let's talk about the way things ought to be....socialistic

/sarcasm

Out

[jocko12]

We in Calif. had to recall this type of spending.GOOD LUCK VOTERS!!!!

[eeman]

I presume you live in Oregon? I used to live in Portland but now I live in Spokane, WA. The income tax down in Oregon is such a job killer. If you are in a high-income bracket, you have to love Oregon very very much to stay there. I miss Portland (despite it being a liberal mecca) but not enough pay the usurious state income tax.

One thing that the article you posted does not mention about the Oregon Health Plan is how it atttracts the medically indigent from different states.

I used to be on the faculty at Oregon Health Sciences (OHSU) and several times per year, I would see people who lived in Oregon for only three weeks being sent to OHSU for heart transplant evaluation--courtesy of Oregon Taxpayers.

One final irony from the article: It mentions how the libs want to "restructure" the taxes to include a sales tax. Up in Washington state, there is no income tax, primarily we have a sales tax. The libs here want to "restructure" our taxes to include an income tax. In lib-speak, "restructure" is synonymous with grabbing more of your money

[AmericanVictory]

Public Choice just ain't what it used to be.

[elbucko]

A good read. The author has faultless logic regarding the situation of how state governments spend themselves into a hole, then beg for a tax increase that only makes the whole wider and deeper.

[elbucko]

Well said.

[WaterDragon]

In lib-speak, "restructure" is synonymous with grabbing more of your money

Precisely!

[WaterDragon]

The author has faultless logic regarding the situation of how state governments spend themselves into a hole, then beg for a tax increase that only makes the whole wider and deeper.

The Democrats are masters of destruction!

[WaterDragon]

The 'choice' Oregon's Democrat governor offers the citizens is to approve tax increases OR suffer the consequences of him emptying the prisons and cutting back on police protection.

[rogator]

IMO the author is not being totally truthful in his assessment of the reasons behind the sudden jump in state spending a decade ago.
Early last decade, as a result of high property taxes, we passed Ballot Measure 5 which resulted in a shift in the scool funding responsibilities from local districts to the state general fund. Education then became the largest expenditure in state budget. The author completely ignores this reality in his otherwise valid attack on government waste.
We also passed a measure prohibiting the use of gas tax revenue for state police funding thus requiring state police expenditures also to be part of the general fund.
I am not necessarily saying that these measures were a bad idea, but we have to be compleatly truthful when we attempt to influence others. Leaving out factors which have had a major, direct effect on the sudden growth of our state budget only gives the liberals ammunition to attack us and draw attention away from the real issues of big government and waste of our resources.

[WaterDragon]

rogator, Oregon has no mechanism for holding the different government divisions accountable for how tax money is spent by them. It is an open secret among long-time state employees that corruption and waste is rampant. This is true at every level. There is no independent media investigating government corruption and waste, no media attention to any of it except by Oregon Magazine.

As for the schools, there is no bigger sinkhole for tax monies in the state.

The point of the article is that the government has steadily increased expenditures beyond it's income from taxes.

Should the state of Oregon ever be required to document every expenditure of our hard-earned money, Oregonians would revolt!

[WaterDragon]

rogator, we're all concerned about our kids' schooling, but the evidence indicates that throwing more money at the schools is not the answer. Below is from another article (Enterprise board, teachers at impasse) in the January issue of Oregon Magazine.....

“The district spends more on medical benefits for retirees than we do for current teachers,” Royse said of the school board’s desire to reduce retirement medical expense.

Pace countered that the continuing retirement health premiums will actually save the district money by providing more senior members of the staff more incentive to retire early.

OMED: The problem with the text above, is that due to PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) payments, at least until recently, some members of Oregon's educational establishment receive from 100% to 130% of their working pay after retiring.

You don't save money by retiring experienced teachers at close to or above their working salary, and replacing them with inexperienced teachers who require their own salary and benefits package. This process dramatically increases the cost of education instead of reducing it.

There has been a great deal of talk about changes being made in that system, but the press reports we've seen focus on the guaranteed return aspect. (You, the taxpayer, guarantee that if the PERS retirement funds are invested in the stock market, for example, if the market drops, the PERS investments will still get a positive return. Their stock value will grow, no matter what happens. The difference between the stock price and that guaranteed growth rate comes out of your pocket.)

[freedumb2003]

OregonCalifornia has no mechanism for holding the different government divisions accountable for how tax money is spent by them. It is an open secret among long-time state employees that corruption and waste is rampant. This is true at every level. There is no independent media investigating government corruption and waste, no media attention to any of it except by Oregon Magazine.

As for the schools, there is no bigger sinkhole for tax monies in the state.

The point of the article is that the government has steadily increased expenditures beyond it's income from taxes.

Should the state of OregonCalifornia ever be required to document every expenditure of our hard-earned money, OregoniansCalifornians woulddid revolt!

Take a page from our playbook. Also: watch -- the revolution is just beginning. It is going to rin ex-politicians in California starting this year.

[WaterDragon]

Here's another, earlier, Oregon Magazine article (Who's Getting Milked?) on our school funding.....

"....In the 2001-03 state budget debate, a reduction from a planned $5.2 billion to $5.1 billion for k-12 is being called a "cut" even though this is an increase over 1999-2001 spending of $4.6 billion. -- MATT EVANS, Executive director, Oregon Tax Research

Did you understand that? The actual 1999-2001 budget was $4.6 billion. The proposed Republican 2001-2003 budget is a record $5.1 billion. Unless you attended a modern public school, you can probably tell which number -- 5.1 or 4.6 -- is the greater.....

The Oregon Left (mainstream media reporters and editors, liberal Democrat and Rockefeller Republican politicians, public service unions and teacher's organizations, lots of lawyers, almost all college students and every minority in sight with the probable exception of Asians) are calling a $700 million increase a cut.

They're calling it a cut because it's less than they wanted, not less than the previous budget.

Is it any wonder that your kids can't answer simple math questions?......

Check out the whole piece at the magazine, rogator. It's very enlightening about how our media 'informs' Oregonians about State spending.

[WaterDragon]

Yes! Excellent, fd!

[rogator]

I fully agree that there is a great deal of waste in state government that should be eliminated.
The point of my posting was that IMO the author is not being totally truthful in his assessment of the reasons behind the sudden jump in state spending a decade ago. The biggest single increase by far was that Measure 5 moved the responsibility of education funding to the state general fund. This distorts the true impact of other wasteful increases (OHP etc.)
In order to insure credibility the author should have at least mentioned the reality of this shift from the property tax. Due to this omission, I tend to question whatever else the author has to say, even if he is on our side.
Proper accounting of public spending should be made to the taxpayer. It is darn near impossible to know how our money is really being spent the way the public taxing districts report it.