Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 20, 2008 8:41 AM. The previous post in this blog was Portland's blood drive for turnips. The next post in this blog is More barn door closing. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, October 20, 2008

Twisting Measure 59

Here's a followup to our post of last week in support of Measure 59, which would allow an unlimited deduction on one's Oregon income tax return for federal income taxes paid (as opposed to the $5,600 maximum deduction for federal taxes under current Oregon law). A group out there that opposes the measure -- something called the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) -- late last week decided to start telling the world as loudly as it could that Measure 59 would unintentionally raise Oregon income taxes on some of the state's elderly. It is drawing this conclusion based on a strange legal theory that doesn't sound right to us at all, and it relies on a casual e-mail from a state bureaucrat who does not appear to have given the legal question much serious thought.

Measure 59 is designed to cut Oregon income taxes. That is its clear intent, and to say that a court would interpret it to raise taxes is unrealistic. There are a lot of things that can be said in opposition to Measure 59 -- it would force the state legislature to rewrite the tax laws to make up for lost revenue, and it would benefit the upper-middle class and wealthy -- but whatever is said about the measure ought to be accurate. To state that the elderly will pay more Oregon taxes under Measure 59 is almost certainly wrong, and definitely reckless.

If you can stand the wonky tax law stuff -- which alas, is what you need to understand in order to to see what's going on with this -- here goes:

The OCPP states: "Because Measure 59 'supersedes any existing law or rule with which it conflicts,' it would no longer permit the state deduction of federal taxes paid on Social Security." Balderdash. That's based on the assumption that a court would find a "conflict" between Measure 59, which requires the state to allow a deduction for federal taxes, and the part of existing Oregon law in which the state already allows a deduction for federal taxes. Is that a "conflict"? Not in my dictionary, and I doubt in the dictionaries of the Oregon Tax Court and Supreme Court.

Measure 59 prohibits the state from imposing a state income tax on any of the federal income taxes that Oregon taxpayers pay, if those federal taxes are imposed on income that is taxed on both state and federal returns. Since Social Security benefits are not taxed by the state, Measure 59 does not apply at all to any federal taxes paid on Social Security benefits. (The feds don't tax all Social Security benefits, but for some taxpayers, they do.)

Under current law, the state generally allows a deduction for up to $5,600 of federal taxes paid in a given year, including any federal taxes on Social Security benefits. According to the OCPP press release, since the current Oregon deduction is not as broad as Measure 59 would require, the entire Oregon deduction "conflicts" with Measure 59, and so the entire existing Oregon deduction would be thrown out -- even the part having to do with the federal tax on Social Security benefits. As a result, according to the OCPP, Oregonians who pay federal tax on those benefits would (a) lose their Oregon deduction, and (b) therefore pay more Oregon tax.

Both (a) and (b) are highly suspect propositions. First, how can Measure 59 "conflict" with the existing deduction for federal taxes on Social Security benefits? Measure 59 by its terms does not apply to the federal taxes on those benefits at all. Under Measure 59, given its clear intent, it would be highly unlikely that a court would find a "conflict." Instead, it would allow the current Oregon deduction (up to $5,600) for federal taxes on Social Security benefits, and then on top of that an unlimited Oregon deduction for federal taxes on other types of income.

On what does the OCPP base its conclusion that there would be a conflict? Last Friday, Chuck Sheketoff, author of the breathless OCPP press release, copied me on an e-mail message he says he got on September 22 (interesting that he sat on it for a month) from Catherine M. Tosswill, Deputy Legislative Counsel for the state. She wrote to Sheketoff:

If you take a taxpayer who (a) is currently paying less than $5,500 in federal income taxes, (b) has income which is taxable at the federal level but not taxable in this state and (c) has other income which is taxable in Oregon, they could end up paying more in state tax than they are now. Under Measure 59 they would have a smaller subtraction from federal income. (People with no income taxable in this state would be unaffected, as might some people with only a small amount.) Measure 59 purports to supersede "any existing law or rule with which it conflicts." This would include ORS 316.680 and 316.685, assuming one views the current language as in conflict with the measure. It might also mean that taxpayer paying somewhat more than $5,500 in federal tax would also end up paying more in state tax, if they lose enough of their federal tax subtraction under this scheme.
Note that Ms. Tosswill never takes a firm stance on the "conflict" issue. She says that Social Security recipients "could end up paying more in state tax," and that's "assuming one views the current language as in conflict with the measure." Her message essentially assumes the conclusion that OCPP wanted to hear, and they ran with that assumption as if it were a certainty, on the day the ballots were mailed out.

Cheap shot.

The other false impression being left by the OCPP is that all the folks who would supposedly lose the deduction would wind up paying more Oregon tax. They're throwing around the figure 120,000 Oregonians, which seems high. (That's about 23 percent of the Social Security recipients in the state, if you leave kids and disabled people out of the count.) Remember that if Measure 59 passes, everyone will get to deduct all the federal taxes that they pay on income that's taxed by both the state and the feds. For many folks who pay tax on their Social Security, the Oregon tax that they would save with the new expanded deduction is more than they would supposedly lose under the OCPP's crabbed finding of the supposed "conflict."

Whatever reasons guide your vote on Measure 59, don't buy the "seniors will pay more" line. It does not appear to be supported by reality -- just reckless assumptions.

Comments (34)

Thanks for this posting Jack. Your knowledge of the facts helps immensely.

Yet another example, though, of the inevitably flawed drafting that gives us initiatives and referrals on a "take it or leave it" basis and leaves uncertainty, disputes and costly litigation in its wake.

At least with initiatives we get the opportunity to "take it".

The legislature will not touch this issue with a 10 foot pole unless we act by passing M59.

"Take it or leave it" is far superior to "leave it or leave it."

You say that Ms. Tosswill's "message essentially assumes the conclusion that OCPP wanted to hear." But aren't you doing something similar? You "assume" one thing, the opponents "assume" another -- but no one knows exactly what effects the measure will have unless it is enacted and the courts are required to construe it.

But two facts are indisputable: (1) Measure 59 will result in significantly lower general fund revenues for the State of Oregon. In the very same election in which Oregonians are going to approve massive new expenditures for prison construction (if the polling for M57 and M61 is to be believed), M59 will result in very large cuts to other state programs: schools, parks, roads, medical care.

(2) Measure 59 will result in lower taxes for higher income people. The higher your income, the bigger your tax reduction. It will provide no tax relief for lower income Oregonians.

If you think that Oregon will be a better state with less money to spend on schools and parks and roads, and with high income Oregonians paying lower taxes, then by all means vote yes on Measure 59. If you think the other tax-cutting measures promoted by the McIntire/Sizemore/Parks folks and approved by the voters in the past 20 years made Oregon a better place, then by all means vote yes on Measure 59. I don't, and I won't.

"Yet another example, though, of the inevitably flawed drafting that gives us initiatives and referrals"

THAT is a ridiculous statement. If all it takes to cast a measure as a flawed drafting is some reckless fabrication having zero merit than there can be no such thing as a well drafted measure.

59 is entirely crystal clear in it's drafting.

The OCPP has exposed their credibility for what it's worth.

Are you reading this stuff, Ben? The fact is that this poorly drafted measure tosses this issue up in the air. We may have opinions on how it will come down, but we don't know and won't until there's a court interpretation that becomes final. In the meantime, it is not hard to imagine the Oregon Department of Revenue aggressively pursuing social security recipients with their semi-official position reported here.

it is not hard to imagine the Oregon Department of Revenue aggressively pursuing social security recipients with their semi-official position reported here.

Allan, stop blowing smoke. The state has taken no "position," "semi-official" or otherwise. The state lawyer assumed the outcome that the OCPP wanted. She wasn't speaking for the Department of Revenue. And what she's doing giving free advice to ballot measure opponents, I'll never know. I thought there were rules about public employees getting involved in these things.

no one knows exactly what effects the measure will have unless it is enacted and the courts are required to construe it.

Nonsense. There is no realistic possibility that the measure will be interpreted the way the OCPP assumes.

Charlie, you make excellent points about the downsides of Measure 59. "It will tax retirees" is not one of them. That's a scare tactic, and it's shabby.

OCPP's "analyses" are almost always flawed. Sheketoff models his organization on the DC-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but whereas the CBPP's liberal position papers are virtually unassailable on the facts, the OCPP routinely issues papers that willfully omit or misrepresent data.

Still, assuming you don't want to castrate state services, I don't understand the argument for M59. Sure, state income taxes are levied on your entire income, including the portion you pay in federal tax, but what's the difference between a 9% tax on your total income, or a 10% tax on a reduced base? If M59 would force the state legislature to rewrite the tax laws to make up for lost revenue, then what's the point? In the interim, M59 shuts down some important state services and given a Bush-style tax cut to wealthy Oregonians.

Isn't it funny how the measures we oppose always suffer from "flawed drafting," yet the measures we support seem to channel the flawless wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Ex. A: Measure 37.
Ex. B: Measure 49.

In the interim, M59 shuts down some important state services and given a Bush-style tax cut to wealthy Oregonians.

No, it forces the legislature to rework the tax system, even if that is something as simple as simply admitting that the top marginal rate is something like 11 percent, not 9. If a special session is needed, they know how to call one, but I doubt that one would be. They start up again Jan. 12, I believe.

wealthy Oregonians

Debunked here. The benefits of Measure 59 would start at around $61,000 of income for a married couple and $46,000 for a single person. Hardly "wealthy." Just ask Obama, who says you're not wealthy nowadays until you hit $250,000.

Regardless of the petty arguments this is clearly an insane time to decimate Oregon coffers. We are heading for a financial crisis so why on earth make it a catastrophe?

A quick back of an envelope calculation tells me I would save about $3,500 if this thing passes. I’m still not voting for it. I’d save over $10k by moving to Vancouver, but I’m not doing that either. Of course the “savings” may not look so good if class sizes shoot up and I have to pay for private school. Then, if the education system fails my neighbor’s kids, I may have to pay for a new alarm system to protect myself from disillusioned youth. Then there’s the extra car maintenance due to the money I “saved” not fixing the roads. Plus, let’s me honest, I’ll feel really uncomfortable having to walk past those poor sick people that have lost what medical access they had.

I’m off to re-read my Ayn Rand so that I can spend my new windfall without guilt.

measures we oppose

Well, Gar, to scrutinize the example you gave, Measure 37 was drafted by the originator of an initiative petition, while Measure 49 came out of the legislative process conducted by our elected representatives, so the quality of the result might be affected by that. Don't get me wrong, though -- I also have no use for referrals as a way to make policy, and I stick to my principles by voting against any and all of them (I might make an exception some day for a measure that would eliminate this ridiculous form of democracy).

Allan L: I did not say which of M37 or M49 was flawed and which was flawless.

My point is the M37 supporters would say that M37 was flawless and M49 was flawed. M49 supporters would say the converse.

For what it's worth, both measures passed by roughly the same measures.

Chuck over at the OCPP is well known for his simple minded approach to economics. He is a second rate lawyer pretending to be an economist and mostly he just embarrasses himself in the process. He posts over on BlueOregon several times a month and his posts are always some sort of plea for more taxes and wealth redistribution. I'm not aware of anyone who considers the OCPP to be worth paying attention to since they never say anything new. Everything the OCPP believes in was written in Mao's little red book so if you want an answer just go to the source and bypass the middleman.


As noted in our report on M59, only 3% of middle income Oregonians would receive any tax break. And 66% of the tax break will go to households with taxable income in excess of $165,000, those in the top 5 percent. Jack, I don't care what Obama thinks, but I think being in the top five percent is "rich." You apparently think wealthy doesn't begin until someone is in the top 2 or 3 percent.

As the Legisative Revenue Office analysis showed in (PDF) "Filers with at least $200,000 of income account for 3.9% of all filers and are expected to receive 76% of the tax reduction. The vast majority (98.7 percent) of filers with income less than $60,000 will not benefit from this measure because their federal tax liability is below the deduction limit that exists in current law – they can already deduct all of their federal taxes." and "filers with an income of less than $50,000 would see very little benefit while those with an income between $50,000 and $70,000 would see an average state income tax reduction of one percent. That percentage increases to six percent if income is between $70,000 and $100,000; to 10 percent if income is between $100,000 and $200,000; and is 25 percent for filers whose income is above $200,000."

Measure 59 is not a middle income tax cut.

And your claim that "it forces the legislature to rework the tax system" is naive. Where have you been all these years?

For the past 22 years, I have been studying, and teaching people about, the income tax system, all over the country.

I did not say which of M37 or M49 was flawed and which was flawless.

Did I?

I've been supporting the Citizens for Tax Justice/Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy for a good long time, and in all that time I've not seen anyone successfully rebut their analyses -- they are sharp as tacks and very, very careful to get their facts straight.

The fact that OCPP used ITEP data in their work suggests that they are on solid ground criticizing the measure:

See here:

Under the "ITEP Analysis in Used in State Reports" column you find:

Oregon: No Gain, Just Pain - Most Oregonians Would Not Benefit from Measure 59 8/18/08

The benefits of Measure 59 would start at around $61,000 of income for a married couple and $46,000 for a single person.

But what is the tax benefit for people around that income level? Pretty small, particularly compared to the tax benefit to those in the top 5%. And the tax benefit to a family making $60-70k would quickly be eaten up by the added tuition of sending their kids to OSU or UO and the added health insurance premium when all those uninsured flood local hospitals. If this passes, all state services will suffer.

Only if the legislature does nothing to raise the lost revenue with new taxes on an honest base. Eh? What's that you say? They don't have the guts to do that?

I'm with Allan L. I will trust our host's interpretation of this particular measure, as he is the expert. However, it is generally true that many ballot measures are poorly written. Heck, measures whose general policy I supported have been poorly written. We need a movement demanding better drafting of ballot measures. Some civic-minded citizens need to set up a private organization of legal and policy experts of all political perspectives that would offer to critique initiatives, before signatures were gathered. They could say things like "This provision could be worded better" or "You might consider an exception for this case".

Jack, unless there is a Democratic sunami this fall in races for the Oregon legislature, I wouldn't count on any revision of the tax code coming out of Salem. The Oregon Senate is about evenly split. There will be enough Republican wingnuts left to nuke any attempt at raising the income tax rate. They will ignore the fact that by passing Measure 59, people had their taxes lowered, and scream "Tax Increase!" at the Democrats who are trying to balance the state budget. Hell, they think the sunsetting of a tax break is a tax increase.

I think it takes a 60 percent vote to move a tax measure out of the legislature. Either that, or they refer it to the voters, who will get hit with the same tax increase propaganda.

unless there is a Democratic sunami this fall in races for the Oregon legislature, I wouldn't count on any revision of the tax code coming out of Salem

If M59 passes, they won't have a choice. Which is the whole point.

The motivation behind M 59 has nothing to do with "tax fairness." It has several interrelated purposes: 1. To keep Bill Sizemore's benefactors happy so they keep paying his bills. 2. To make a counter campaign necessary. 3. If successful, to reduce State revenue, handicapping public works as much as possible, which pleases Bill's benefactors (see 1.).

Forcing the Legislature to act because of severe budget cuts has never worked. There are usually a sufficient number of Legislators who believe government and all public works are bad and will block any effort to give it appropriate resources if possible. Also, the "drown government in the bathtub" crowd has poisoned the political waters for creating tax policy that is comprehensively fair.

The argument for this measure is about one component, in isolation, of how taxes are calculated. The argument against it is about the end result of that calculation. Passing this measure would mean that our State income tax, as a package, would become even less progressive, and that State government would have to do less.

The motivation behind M 59

We are not voting on Bill Sizemore's motives. We are voting on the text of his ballot measures. Most of them stink, but this one has merit.

There are usually a sufficient number of Legislators who believe government and all public works are bad and will block any effort to give it appropriate resources if possible.

And so the solution is never to use the initiative process to force needed changes? And so nothing ever changes? I think we can do better, as soon as people's knees stop jerking.

"And so the solution is never to use the initiative process to force needed changes? "

This isn't using the initiative system to force a needed "change." It is lobbing a grenade into the system. The measure carries with it nothing in the way of "fixing" the system.

We've had about enough of the philosophy that we have to destroy government in order to save it. The second part of that is a rationalization. The real point of the measure involves only the first step.

"Some civic-minded citizens need to set up a private organization of legal and policy experts of all political perspectives that would offer to critique initiatives, before signatures were gathered."

There already is one. It's called the Sizemore moneybags juggernaut.

The easiest term for him and 'that type' to comply with is "all," (as in, providing "all political perspectives"), since it is so obvious to the experts that, (pick an expert, any expert), their singular political perspective is comprised of, (and constitutes), all political perspectives.

Those whose genetic makeup ordains them a normal effusion of dopamine, (the neurotransmitter substance), they self-sense an internal confidence that their poli.perspective is 'all' encompassing.

Those whose genetic makeup produces dopamine in suffusion or in surfeit, (non-normative) amounts, they self-sense baseless confidence or no confidence (respectively) in themselves and so, either know no 'other' perspective or don't know their own perspective -- either way is a case of no perspective: cognitive blindness.

The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
, in Scientific American's Mind & Brain, October 9, 2008
-- A neurologist explains why you shouldn't believe in political candidates that sound too sure of themselves.

There are two separate aspects of a thought, namely the actual thought, and an independent involuntary assessment of the accuracy of that thought.

Once we realize that the brain has very powerful inbuilt involuntary mechanisms (the mesolimbic dopamine system primarily located in the upper brain stem) for assessing unconscious cognitive activity, it is easy to see how it can send into consciousness ... the profound "feeling of knowing" that accompanies unconsciously held beliefs — a major component of the unshakeable attachment to fundamentalist beliefs — both religious and otherwise ....

The only treatment is self-management toward a balance, in being aware of the internal sense of confidence from collected knowledge and the internal sense of confidence from the dopamine 'feels good' buzz-center.

Anyone so balanced disqualifies themself from being an expert. And anyone claiming to be expert (to critique proposal drafts) is unbalanced -- either no facts and total surety, or excessive facts and unsure.

So 'an organization of experts' is a contradiction in terms, a pragmatic impossibility.

But then we see facts such as the following and we know to a certainty it is truly worded, accurate and correct.

The God That Failed: The 30-Year Lie of the Market Cult, by Chris Floyd, Global Research, October 20, 2008

So remember well the lessons of this new October crash: The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there [available]. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.

Whatever the Benefit Line is, say $50,000, let voters who 'benefit' making more, vote for M59, and voters with no 'benefit' making less, vote against M59; and let's see which group is greater.

Although, if voting conferred power of legal enactment, it'd be illegal.

It is lobbing a grenade into the system.

A grenade that is badly needed. Oregon's tax system is awful, as the upcoming deep recession is about to prove. It's time to take our medicine and come up with something better.


Bou did that ever come out of the OEA boiler room.
I love it when the enemy helps the voters by describing the motivations.

1) Who cares about Sizemore with such an obviouslly lousy double taxation problem being fixed by this measure?

2. The only thing making a counter campaign necessary is the greedy motives of those who don't care how unfair this tax problem is.

3. If successful, it will be the responsibility of the elected officials you elected that dominate Salem to come up with a fair and honest tax remedy.

They may want to start by reversing the $250 in lottery dollars they steered towards more light rail.

Your lobbying pals at the OEA could use their major force to get the Legislature to act.
They have never done so.
Instead they support every tax increase and oppose every effort to contain government spending on anything.
Who more than they have poisoned the political waters for creating tax policy that is comprehensively fair?

They just demand more for their unsustainable government.

The argument for this measure is indeed about one component.
Taxing people on income they never see.

State government should have to do less.

In fact the Chaulkboard project may have helped in that regard but your OEA lobby also silenced that bipartisan effort.

Heard anything on Chaulkboard lately?
Of course not.
They discovered genuine reform is not allowed.


Yeah, I disagree with you so I must be taking orders from a liberal cabal. Anybody who disagrees with you is obviously so stupid as to need to be directed by her overlords.

That's a chestnut of an argument device, but meaningless.

The pigs who spend their whole life feeding at the public trough always squeal when something threatens to slow down the swill. The fattest ones squeal the loudest.

This is really a simple fix to a problem that evidently our elected officials can't figure out how to fix themselves. There is no excuse for having double taxation. I haven't heard a good justification yet for having double taxation in the tax code, just squeals from stuck pigs. And of course, Chuck has weighed in but Chuck spends his entire life trying to encite class warfare so his opinion is worthless.

The current practice of capping the amount of federal income tax that can be deducted when computing Oregon income tax means more affluent Oregonians are paying a greater share of their incomes to the tax folks in Salem.

If Measure 59 passes, the legislature will add one or more tax brackets to Oregon's income tax rates so the more affluent will continue paying a greater share of the state's tax burden.

Stick with the devil you know or pass M59 and risk the unknown revenue enhancement solution.

Gus, that revenue enhancement solution is coming anyway.

Have you seen the latest revenue projections?

The rainy day fund will bridge them through one biennium (if that). Then they'll have to raise taxes again (the D's in Salem will never make real cuts unless they've been told no by the voters first).

If M59 passes, we can get started right now on tax reform. Maybe it will go up a lot. If so, I'd rather know now (so I can start looking at real estate north of the Columbia).

Pancho, I've been watching the revenue projections and see bigger shortfalls than usual stemming from a deeper than usual national recession.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics