Vote Early, Vote Often & Vote NO!!

There are 2 questions a liberal will never answer:

(1) What amounts to the "fair share" for the rich and businesses

(2) How much funding per student is required to educate these kids

I see the liberals are going to exempt unions cadillac health insurance plans from taxations too. No wonder they are walking around with a cocky strut.

A great beauty of the American federal system is that any of the 50 states can offer its policies as an experiment for others. So the nation owes some gratitude to Oregon for testing whether it is possible for a state to tax its way from deep recession to prosperity.
The battle in Oregon is a case study in the political drama now unfolding in many states. Essentially, it's about whether a state's wealth belongs to its public employee unions or to everyone.
- The Wall Street Journal

And they have nailed it. There is no reason for the existence of public employee unions.

AFSME and SEIU have dumped roughly a million dollars into the Oregon tax issue, with the hope of persuading you to vote in favor of passage.

They're gangsters. Just ask Greg Macpherson.

Very divisive tax measures. Nothing like a failing economy to bring out the worst from all sides.

Oregon now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the US. These two measures, if they pass, will tend to keep the rate high. The measures will tend to keep away people with the kinds of new ideas and money that create jobs.

But, hey, maybe that will not be all bad. There is no better way to preserve open space and clean air than having fewer people and less economic activity.

We already voted, so the spew doesn't land in our mail.

I'm sure you can find some no on 66 and 67 election porn around, Jack, to stoke your outrage in the other direction. I just got another one of those mysterious letters from "Del Webb Drive" in Salem telling me some more lies about some business owner, just like the lies about the Tillamook dairy farmer I got last month.

I've already blogged about the Tillamook dairy farmer letter. That's all I've gotten from the "no" folks this time around. They don't have near as much money to lie with, I guess.

Although I do get a kick out of the horribly acted "no" skit, now playing on TV, about laying off two workers. When the gal behind the counter hisses out "What a crock," I laugh out loud.

Gibby said, "Nothing like a failing economy to bring out the worst from all sides."

Yeah sure pal.
Is that some pretense that the extreme worst of the yes side is no worse than the worst of the no side?

There's no comparison. The worst of the no side compared to the worst of the yes side is petty by comparison.

And without the public employee unions the yes side would have no campaign, no money and no base of support.

This vote is really quite simple.

The public employee yes side is threatening voters to coerce then into passing tax increases in order to force the private sector to insulate public employees from the deep recession.

Just like the public employee unions have gotten their congress to exempt their Cadillac health care plans from the taxation that all others will have to pay.
Now that's pretty darn special.

I'm glad they are doing these things and letting the public see them for what they are.
All of that is not to say there aren't many spledid people who are fine public employees. I know quite a few myself.

Good day.

We are voting like you with yes and no. There would be no yes at all except that they used 66 to right some unfairness in taxation on the little guys. I don't like either and am tired of the calls I get to tell me to vote yes. As soon as I say I am splitting the ticket, they hang up. I don't think the callers know much about the bills they are promoting.

Seems as tho there is 'propaganda' on both sides. The recent ads that say that state employees should have to do belt-tightening, that they've had salary increases are patently false. They're taking numerous furlough days and have had salary freezes. FWIW, am not a state employee.

There is no reason for the existence of public employee unions.

You gave or at least implied the reason in your post, Max. Public employees qua public employees supposedly cannot campaign, endorse, or lobby for a cause, at least in theory they aren't supposed to. But banded together in an "association" they can fully exercise their 1st Amendment rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech, and with their great numbers they can bring much resources to bear to influence elections, governmental decision-making, and public policy in general, especially related to their own economic well-being. That's why public employee unions exist. With civil service protections they never really needed collective bargaining, per se, but through their associations they get much more from lefty politicians by other means.

I would vote yes, just as an F.U. to the Republican party. Let them know I haven't forgotten how much they screwed up this country over the last 8 years.

Um, how about protesting the Democratic party, which, between Clinton, Gore, and Nader, let the country burn in the bushes, literally and figuratively?

Yes, of course, I forgot, Nader wasn't a Democrat, and neither were any of those people who voted for him. Right.

AFSME and SEIU have dumped roughly a million dollars into the Oregon tax issue, with the hope of persuading you to vote in favor of passage.

And opponents of the measures have outspent proponents by nearly 3 to 1, when totaled.

Um, how about protesting the Democratic party, which, between Clinton, Gore, and Nader, let the country burn in the bushes, literally and figuratively?

Yes, of course, I forgot, Nader wasn't a Democrat, and neither were any of those people who voted for him. Right.

I don't think Democrats are perfect by any means. But I do believe they are the lesser of two evils.

Also, Nader was never in power. And the Clinton years were some of the best years ever for this country. I say this as someone who voted for Bush and Dole.

"And the Clinton years were some of the best years ever for this country."

Or so it seemed as Bill was sending all of our manufacturing jobs to China under the pretense of "free trade"....Most Favored Nation status anyone?

Nader was never in power, except for the minor fact that his unwithdrawn candidacy resulted in the country falling into the hands of the religious branch of the Republican party, which

1)increased the world's population (radical Bush cuts to international birth control funding)
2)increased global warming (Bush defiance of the Kyoto protocol)
3)destroyed the respect for our country among nations (waterboarding, etc).

(oh, and killed stem-cell research, aborted any serious talk of energy independence, just a few other things of overarching magnitude like that.)

With results like that, who needs power?

And please reconsider the Clinton aggrandizing. On some level, many of us harbor good feelings toward him, not least because he was such an oratorial (no pun, really) and linguistic (seriously, really, I'm not kidding), genius. And was so fundamentally likeable and had such great instincts and intentions. He was so right-minded he started talking about gays in the military in his first week in office, setting in motion the Republican juggernaut and midterm election landslide that tied his hands for the remainder of the two terms and gave us George Bush junior. (Oh, and lying to the grand jury, understandable as it was, was another brilliant move, leading directly to his impeachment and so many people wanting W to come in and restore the dignity of the office, blah blah.)

Yes, Clinton was a great president, just a total idiot while in the presidency.

AFSME and SEIU have dumped roughly a million dollars into the Oregon tax issue, with the hope of persuading you to vote in favor of passage.

And opponents of the measures have outspent proponents by nearly 3 to 1, when totaled.

Actually, eco - I believe you have it precisely backwards. From what I've heard, it is proponents who have outspent opponents by that ratio.

I don't think Democrats are perfect by any means. But I do believe they are the lesser of two evils.

Really? I dont see how you can look at how this city is run, and honestly come to that conclusion. But I guess thats why the Goldschmidt cabal keeps getting elected over and over again.

Both parties are bad for this city, state, and country. They have had too much power for way to long.

Today, I voted no on both measures. I was originally going to vote yes on 66, and no on 67, but when I read the ballot it said that the current budget already included the money from these passing. That was my "F.U." to the legislature.

"just as an F.U. to the Republican party"

I'm not quite getting your logic, you're going to do this by giving a Dem gov and legislature more money and more time to dig us into a deeper hole rather than force them to fix it?

The public employee unions have pumped millions into the "yes" side of this election. Do you think they did that just to promote the public good? If you do, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about.

Actually, eco - I believe you have it precisely backwards. From what I've heard, it is proponents who have outspent opponents by that ratio.

Don't confuse him with the facts.

We'll all have to pay more for his health care.

I'm quite sure the OEA et al know how to "total" - and brainwash...

...and blackmail...

and whatever else it takes.

After all, it's "for the children".

OEA is now running ads the past few days reminding us all what the Mission is suppose to be for them-EDUCATION. They don't even mention the $3 Million they've plowed into 66 and 67 as a political agent. I think for many of us we've have forgotten what OEA stands for, except it's a political party.

In all fairness, Jack, you should also implicate the $500 opposition ads in the Oregon Voters Guide from folks who have lost their jobs and homes (supposedly). How does one manage to find an extra $500 to place an ad under such financial distress?

You act like the U of O and use Phil Knight's money.