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.

Jack,

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 http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/measure_59_research_report.pdf (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: http://is.gd/4rVu

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 ....

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.

Sue,

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.

Ben:

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.