Yeah, the same day the U. of O economists release a report saying we're probably headed for a recession. Yay! Ah well. When the state is slashing services and school districts are back to the layin' off folks and cutting school days hijinks of a few years back, it'll be that much more painful.

No recession in Oregon.

The state is gonna be flush with Kicker Cash. The folks over at BlueOregon are really stepping into the gap.

See the blogpost by Jeff Alworth. Hundreds of commenters have logged how they are donating part or all of their kicker checks back to their favorite dept in the state of Oregon.

Thank you Jeff Alworth.

Dave J; Do you ever want to ask the question "since the Oregon Legislature increased the budget spending over 20% in the last session, why is the state slashing services....?" What services are you talking about, which school district is laying off folks? Did your pay check go up by 20% this year?

What services are you talking about, which school district is laying off folks? Did your pay check go up by 20% this year?

Er, I was talking about two years from now, when that is the likely outcome of a recession.

I couldn't believe how long the line was at one WaMu in Freddies on Saturday... Must have been 50 people in line, and it stayed that long for over an hour. I just put mine in at the ATM, where there was no line.

Thank you Jeff Alworth.

You're welcome.

I don't have great expectations, which you presumably recognize, having read the post. It's what makes it so diabolical in the first place--checks go out in December? The time of year we have our worst cash-flow issues. It guarantees the worst return rates from even the folks who despise the kicker.

Any time of year, people who despise the government giving back their own money, can donate it back to the government, 5 days a week, 12 months a year. Regardless of this being Christmas or July.

The problem with your request is that you are asking people to donate THEIR money, when that group of people (IMHO) really only want to confiscate OTHER people's money.

I would love to see a demographic study done on who donates their kicker, by income strata, by political party. Of course, I will never see such a study.

But I will be able to see the results of your blog post, which I do admire you for posting, and I do admire you for your personal put back into the gen'l fund.

I just bet that BlueOregon will have more anti-troll donations than kicker give-backs to the general fund.

And I am sincere about thanking you for your personal kicker give back.

I think that people who put their money where their mouth is are a rare breed, in any party, or no party at all.

The problem with your request is that you are asking people to donate THEIR money, when that group of people (IMHO) really only want to confiscate OTHER people's money.

Ah yes, the old "taxes equal theft" argument. Never mind that whole social contract thing, whereas the only reason you have the right to life, liberty, and property is because society has created a government to protect those rights. In exchange you have to pay taxes, and those taxes are set by majority rule.

You're free to convince the majority to tax us less. I'm free to convince the majority to tax us more. There is nothing immoral about either position.

...whereas the only reason you have the right to life, liberty, and property is because society has created a government to protect those rights. In exchange you have to pay taxes, and those taxes are set by majority rule.

No, the social contract involves the "consent of the governed" to subrogate SOME of their freedoms for the the benefit of society.

If you're a signatory to a social contract like you describe, you got took.

CC, how is majority rule different than consent of the governed? You're not arguing that the governed have to agree unanimously, are you? If so, we'd be back to a state of nature, with no rights at all.

"you are asking people to donate THEIR money, when that group of people (IMHO) really only want to confiscate OTHER people's money.

Ah yes, the old "taxes equal theft" argument."
------------

MY focus was on the DONATE THEIR MONEY part of Jeff's post.

I, of course, said nothing about 'taxes equal theft', but hey, if that's the straw-man you want to knock down, more power to you and your false arguments.

I was also impressed that Jeff chose to donate his kicker, and curious as to how many commenters would do likewise.

I did notice that Miles said nothing about donating his kicker, either to the gen'l fund, or to a dept of his choice.

Sorry, Harry, but when you talk about "that group of people" (Blue Oregon readers) "confiscating" other people's money, it's hard to take you seriously when you then say you didn't really mean that taxes equal theft. But if you agree with me that taxes do NOT equal theft, then I'll burn my own strawman.

I'm not sure what I'll do with my large kicker refund. I already donate generously to charities, but they might see some more. I may put it in my kids' college savings accounts.

What I won't do is buy into the argument that it's hypocritical to keep the kicker while at the same time advocating for its repeal. See, I believe we should spend the kicker on schools and health care and law enforcement. But I also accept that the majority disagrees with me. That doesn't mean that I have to take on responsiblity for those things while you get a free ride.

whereas the only reason you have the right to life, liberty, and property is because society has created a government to protect those rights.

It has always been my understanding that those were god given rights. Government is the only entity that can deny them.

CC, how is majority rule different than consent of the governed? You're not arguing that the governed have to agree unanimously, are you? If so, we'd be back to a state of nature, with no rights at all.

Well, Miles, since we're tossing out terms, how about "the tyranny of the majority" - ever hear that one?

Your earlier comment says that we derive our freedoms from the government. I don't believe that and neither did ANY of the founding fathers. You say that your right to free speech, assembly, etc. are all dependent upon paying your TAXES? Baloney!

Freedom of movement, for instance, allows us to LEAVE if we disagree strongly enough with the majority. That right is absolute.

I don't know about you, but I have more faith in the individual than in government. The function of government should be to carry out those tasks which individuals effectively or efficiently cannot. Using the measures of effectiveness and efficiency, government fails as often, if not more often, than it succeeds. Your apparent belief that it somehow transcends human nature is troubling.

The primary mission of any government tends, in my opinion, to become that of self-preservation and expansion. Human nature being what it is, I don't know why one would expect otherwise.

Your earlier comment says that we derive our freedoms from the government. I don't believe that and neither did ANY of the founding fathers.

Actually, what I said was: "the only reason you have the right to life, liberty, and property is because society has created a government to protect those rights." Meaning that regardless of where you think those rights are derived from, you only have them because we've created a government to protect them. In a state of nature, your right to life, liberty, and property ends at the barrel of my gun -- unless you have a bigger gun. Even if you think those rights are handed down from God or some other higher being, it doesn't matter if there is no government to protect you. And that government only exists if we mandate taxes.

So the "confiscatory" nature of taxes is required in order to have any rights at all. The legitimate debate is simply over the level of taxation.

The primary mission of any government tends, in my opinion, to become that of self-preservation and expansion.

I don't agree that it's the primary mission, but I do agree that it's an unintended consequence. But that characteristic doesn't mitigate the fact that government does a lot of good for a lot of people. And at least in Oregon, we're a very long way from having an oppressive tax burden. (See the Tax Foundation and Census Bureau for more details.)

Tried to respond yesterday, but my post was "held for approval." Maybe it was the links. In any case:

Your earlier comment says that we derive our freedoms from the government. I don't believe that and neither did ANY of the founding fathers.

Actually, what I said was: "the only reason you have the right to life, liberty, and property is because society has created a government to protect those rights." Meaning that regardless of where you think those rights are derived from, you only have them because we've created a government to protect them. In a state of nature, your right to life, liberty, and property ends at the barrel of my gun -- unless you have a bigger gun. Even if you think those rights are handed down from God, it doesn't matter if there is no government to protect you. And that government only exists if we mandate taxes, so the "confiscatory" nature of taxes is required in order to have any rights at all.

The primary mission of any government tends, in my opinion, to become that of self-preservation and expansion.

I don't agree that it's the primary mission, but I do agree that it's an unintended consequence. But that characteristic doesn't mitigate the fact that government does a lot of good for a lot of people. And at least in Oregon, we're a very long way from having an oppressive tax burden. [Here I included links to the Tax Foundation and Census Bureau that, respectively, show we rank 37th and 40th in tax burden.]

Your earlier comment says that we derive our freedoms from the government. I don't believe that and neither did ANY of the founding fathers.

Actually, what I said was: "the only reason you have the right to life, liberty, and property is because society has created a government to protect those rights."

So it was - and the distinction escapes me.

Even if you think those rights are handed down from God, it doesn't matter if there is no government to protect you. And that government only exists if we mandate taxes, so the "confiscatory" nature of taxes is required in order to have any rights at all.

My turn.

I didn't mention God. I mentioned taxes only to dispute the notion that without them we have no rights and "confiscatory" is your word - not mine.

In a state of nature, your right to life, liberty, and property ends at the barrel of my gun -- unless you have a bigger gun.

In a state of "overnment oppression";), your right to life, liberty and property ends at the barrel of the FBI's or the ATF's gun - that's not necessarily an improvement.

Your apparent belief in government and taxes (or is it taxes and govenment) as some sort of benevolent guarantor of conditions for civilization ignores the innumerable past and present governments which abuse their power. You also ignore the possibility that man can live in harmony without government - that the obvious mutual benefits derived from peaceful coexistence cannot compete with government.

I didn't mention God earlier, but it seems to me that you just worship a different one. Your god IS government - and while you may or may not believe in a capital G god, you put your faith in man. Why you think an assembly of men can transcend individuals morally is beyond me. Ultimately, I believe we need help from the outside.

I know I do.

You also ignore the possibility that man can live in harmony without government - that the obvious mutual benefits derived from peaceful coexistence cannot compete with government.

True, I ignore that possibility because I don't think there's a single historical example in all of human history that shows it to be true. Men do not live peacefully with one another if there is no threat of punishment for an aggressive act, because it only takes 1 in 1,000 bad apples to upset the whole cart. Even tribal communities had governments -- the council of elders that could exile you from the tribe (which meant certain death in those times).

I don't put my faith in men. I put my faith in the institutions that men create to protect themselves from one another. Which isn't to say those institutions don't occasionally (or even frequently) abuse the trust that is placed in them. But it's folly to believe we'd be better off in a state of nature.