It doesn't take too much to make the pro-tax people start coming out from under their rock.

Maybe they shoudl realize we don't have too many of the 2% bins of demographics that aren't being taxed a lot already.

Well, the better informed people are, the more support there will be for rolling back a little of the class warfare the rich have waged continuously on us since Saint Ronald of Raygun still had a couple wits about him.

The Clinton administration created this report, the Bush administration restricted public access to it, the Obama administration opened access to it.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument

Well it's not like this thing has all been worked out.

Are those folks jumping to the conclusion that Oregon voters will accept without retribution the actual effects of 66/67?

IMO what was sold to voters were minor no down side taxes on other people and other business who can afford them.

I don't buy the notion that voters voted to tax themsleves.
And when the 66/67 revenue doesn't do what was promised the roosters will come round to roost.

Things will look different then.

Just heard about "The Oregon Trail to Nevada". Seems Nevada is taking advantage of Oregon voters' foolishness. Who is going to be left in Oregon to pay taxes when the "rich" people and businesses are gone (or just leveled to the point where they pose no threat of envy)?

http://nrmarketwatch.com/2010/02/11/nevada-seeking-oregon-businesses-in-wake-of-measures-66-67/

Heck, why wouldn't I believe these guys? Paul Krugman says their statistical work is "impeccable", i.e., they can add and subtract.

The truth of where things are headed is more like Oregon Finds Man Behind Tree!

Bulletin: Other States Have Trees

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

Shocking news!
Oregon needs a bailout from the feds!

Any legislator who didn't know this long ago should resign immediately.

Oh, there goes nearly the entire legislature.
Good riddance.

From Creepy and his SoWa waste to Salem and increasing spending and lunatic green trot the writting is on the wall.

A very good demonstration of Oregon's hopeless lunacy will be the solar highway in West Linn.

And there's this,
Flir Systems bought two buildings in Califronia.

Then again, after reading this morn's snOregonian, top of front page, looks like they are angling for another tax increase.

Am still curious on what the PPS offer with the union is. Funny, it took 1.5 yrs to get this, but only anbout a week after 66/67 pass.

for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity

Oregon cut $2 billion in programs during the last session, used $1 billion from the federal stimulus, and raised taxes by a little less than $1 billion. Measures 66/67 don't tax us into prosperity, they raise a moderate level of new revenue to offset the worst of the worst cuts. It's a prudent approach that will prevent higher costs down the road from a less educated, more uninsured population.

Privately held corporations and everyday people (not employed by government or members in a union i.e. those with mandated benefits) have to rise every morning and create demand for their products/services no matter how long it takes or how hard it is and then have the faith that they might net some income (after expenses) in a competitive marketplace before it can be taxed (at a rate to keep up with aforementioned mandates).

related reading:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61H13X20100218

Heck, why wouldn't I believe these guys? Paul Krugman says their statistical work is "impeccable"

I wonder how many of his former students work there? CBPP tends to share Krugman's liberal/Left/progressive worldview.

Miles,
What is it you think you just informed us of?
Honestly, you plagiarized verbatim the exact rhetoric that ushered along the growing unsustainable government spending that is demonstrated in countless examples from Creepy Portland's schemes to our foolish legislature to California and the abyss.
Stunning is the perpetual lunacy which your comments reflect.
ANY simpleton look at government spending in Oregon reveals far more than the obvious 100s of millions lost to the BETC debacle.
As we blog billions are being spent, diverted or committed at every level towards more of the insanity you are oblivious to.

Mayor Sam Adams and company are the ultimate scoundrels in our biggest city. The way they borrow and spend money is criminal, literally.
Metro is unneeded huge layer of government dominated and run by completely dysfunctional utopia jesters.

At the State level with all of the agenda driven agencies, the dysfunction and waste is like advanced cancer.
Wads of millions can be found everywhere as we watch schemes and addiction to bad habits devour resources once used for core functions and legitimate basic services.

Countless decisions to borrow or divert lesser sums without regard for the greater fiscal stability have stacked up over decades to where the mountain of madness we face is insurmountable.

And here you are describing it as "prudent".

Is there anyone else who would like to slap you out of it?

Ben,
While I agree there is likely waste in government I am waiting for anyone who argues in favor of reducing government spending to point out specific areas of government to cut. Arguing for cuts in governemnt spending is fine. To garner any support specifics are necessary. Do you have anything specific to cut?

There actually aren't that many of the "rich" as people think. We can't cover every gap by taxing them while keeping our taxes constant, and giving ourselves all types of credits for children, and homeownership, and tuition, and apple pie.

Taxing the rich to solve everything is just the classic American game of "I want the benefits with no cost to me." Remember that while taxes on the rich have fallen (they have), taxes on the middle class have as well.

And it isn't really "solving" anything. Just trying to maintain current levels of service. Are we going to raise the top rate by 1% every year to fill the gap? Because the gaps are going to keep on coming.

Dan, I have some specifics that could use some moderate reductions:

- Salaries
- Pension
- Health coverage
- Prison time for non-violent drug offenders

Just modest control over state salaries, benefits and pensions could provide huge savings.

I don't know the real numbers, but one has to imagine that cutting salaries by 3% ot 4% would plug huge holes.

People out here in the private sector are sure as hell taking cuts to pay and benefits, or losing them altogether. Note that in the private sector, when a company doesn't have enough revenue, they make these types of cuts by definition. When the public sector loses revenue, they don't automatically cut salary and benefits.

I'm not being glib about cutting government salaries, or saying that it's easy, or that they "deserve" it. I'm just saying that those are the times we live in. This is a terrible economy. Worst in decades. If government workers can't sacrifice now, when will they sacrifice?

I wonder how many of his former students work there? CBPP tends to share Krugman's liberal/Left/progressive worldview.

CBPP started in 1981, basically as a home for expatriates from the Carter administration. It's true to its roots. Joe Biden says it is "the go-to resource for consistently reliable analysis on matters of budgets and fiscal policy at every level of government." Do you think Joe went to CBPP to get his insights on the impact of the stimulus package?

Dan,
How utterly predictable.
Right on beat.

How is it that bromide can be so reliable for defaulting to?

It's remarkable.
If you are so out of it that you've not stumbled across the regular flow of asinine spending then you are among the hopeless who see all of it as vital basic services.

Or are you in fact Sam Adams?

I especially like your use of

"there is ""likely"" waste"
in government"

And you're waiting for "anyone" to point out specific areas of government to cut?

Wow, you got me there. Can't think of a thang.
And the handing out of teacher raises over the next 3 years couldn't be cut. They would strike and children would suffer.

Really Dan, are you a bureaucrat?

If the choice is between cutting teachers' salaries or raising taxes on people like Ben, I know what my decision would be.

Public school teachers contribute something of vital importance to society. People like Ben, on the other hand, whose understanding of civic responsibility starts and ends with the cry "I don't want to pay taxes!," want to contribute nothing.

Richard.... He said raising teachers salaries.... not cutting them.

Dan, I have some specifics that could use some moderate reductions:
- Salaries
- Pension
- Health coverage
- Prison time for non-violent drug offenders

Salaries: State workers are taking 12 furlough days over two years. That's approximately a 2.3% pay cut each year. That's a real cut. Should they have taken 4-5%? Arguably yes, although that would not have plugged the overall hole that resulted from the income tax freefall. Other programs would still have taken large cuts.

Pension. If you have a LEGAL way to cut existing pensions beyond what the legislature did in 2003, let's hear it. I'm totally sympathetic to the argument that PERS is out of control, but attempts to dramatically rein it in have been ruled illegal.

Health coverage. Yes, public health coverage should be reduced and higher cost-sharing implemented, but I think you'd be surprised at how little a dent that would make in the overall shortfall. But that's no excuse for not doing it.

Prison time for n.v. offenders. Amen.

I remember in 2003 when the state was facing a large shortfall, particularly in DHS, and a Republican legislator suggested that they plug the hole by cutting the administrative costs of DHS workers. Turned out that if you fired EVERY SINGLE DHS worker, it only saved about half of what was needed to plug the gap. End result is that the state kicked 100,000 people off the Oregon Health Plan, which resulted in a direct tax on the rest of us through higher premiums to cover the "uncompensated care" that hospitals had to provide. Given the choice between taxing the rich or taxing all of us through higher premiums, I'll take the former.

The state legislature in Arizona just recently lowered public employee wages 4% and not one demonstration. The public employees know that many of their friends are suffering more than their 4% reduction. The Oregon legislature just doesn't have the fortitude to do the same.

And Miles, even though you say it, most people don't think having 6 furlough days a year as being a "pay cut". Those are days that employees can do whatever they want-work, play, catch up on appointments, other obligations. Keep saying it, but it isn't selling.

Perfect Richard.
That's what we needed, Onother bromide filledlecture on what teachers do to be insulated from the concimic real world.

Let's add in they work 9 1/2 months and during that 9.5 months they get around 45 paid days off.

However, I've known many teachers and for the most part are fabulously gifted with special skills that make it possible for them to come in to their classrooms day in and day out with patience, understanding and comittment.

They were also like that before the union invaded the State in 1974.

Dan - Cut off all "MCO" benefits - Minor Citizen Only policies let the State provide welfare and, I think, food stamps & health care to illegal aliens by virtue of their having had a child in the US who is deemed a citizen. This allows the state to pay the illegals benefits while still claiming that they are only paying "citizens," and Federal policies reward the State for signing up more such "eligible" persons for foodstamps. When I used to work construction, the insulators, who were all illegal (they said so) would tell me how easy it was to get government bennies 'for their kids.' This allows them to send more cash back to the folks in Mexico. I'm not sure how much this amounts to in dollars, but I can tell you it's demoralizing as hell to buy my own groceries when I know that a co-worker who isn't supposed to be here is getting free food from my taxes. And insulating is nasty work, but Oregonisns will do it if the subsidized illegals don't bid wages down to peon levels. And "English Learners" in schools draw an additional $2500 in State funds to the school districts required to teach them, on top of the other $10,000 per head for native kids. Strip the benefits and they will go home. Many, if not most, illegals are very nice people (as are most of the people anywhere), but their downward pressure on wages and use of benefits are screwing up the economy for blue collar workers in particular, and taxpayers in general.

Ben:

I don't know who you think you're looking out for or speaking out for. But if you think public school teachers are overpaid and if you're against unions, then you sure don't care about the poor and the middle class.

You're either selfish and wealthy or you're a typical dupe. Whichever is your particular case, without people like you, there'd be no Republican party. So I suppose you're proud of yourself.

Pension. If you have a LEGAL way to cut existing pensions beyond what the legislature did in 2003, let's hear it. I'm totally sympathetic to the argument that PERS is out of control, but attempts to dramatically rein it in have been ruled illegal.

Here are a couple untried ideas that come to mind on PERS:

1) Bait the members to switch. Offer all tier 3 PERS recipients an opportunity to allow Oregon tax filers to anonymously contribute the value of their political tax credit to a particular pers member's 401k account. Rather than give $50 to the Bus Project, Right to Life, 1000 Friends, etc., you could send it as an anonymous present to your favorite teacher/firefighter/police officer's retirement fund and get the full credit on your state taxes. Cap the amount for an individual recipient to 20% of their annual wages as an "employer contribution". Let anything over 20% flow into all tier three accounts (that way everyone's favorite drama teacher doesn't become a millionaire overnight).

Require tier 1 & 2 to convert all previous benefits to tier 3 to take advantage. It might peel enough of them off of tier 3 to make a difference (especially if they realize that PERS might go banko at some point).

Then measure public service performance for the participating tier 3 public employees....

2. Public takeover. Reclassify every Oregon worker (private and public sector) as eligible to participate as tier 1 in pers. After everyone is vested in the system (and it is another $20billion upside down), all the vested PERS tier 1 members can vote to shut it down and pay out its assets pro-rata.

Long time vested members would get their share of current asset value but no promises moving forward.

3. Quarantine it and let employers opt out. The third option is to remove PERS as a state liability and allow public employers to opt out. Most cities and counties would jump ship if they were permitted by law. The system would go banko in short order. Pay out to members pro-rata.

4. Fight fire with fire. Increase taxes on all retirement benefits. Then create a class of exemptions that benefit all retirees except tier 3 members. Some of them would move out of state to avoid the tax, but at least they wouldn't be around to keep voting to protect it.

Richard,
I'm speaking for myself.

I don't know who you think you're looking out for or speaking out for.

If you think you and unions speak and care for the poor and the middle class you're a dupe or a dupe and a liar.
Unions represent about 14% or the work force and half are public employees.
Oregon teachers are compensated paid well. Near the top in of all states.
What's the rationale for not being say slightly less than at the top?

Like 5% less in total compensation and with a fully funded, reasonable and sustainable retirement system.

Oh I know that means Republicans don't want them to have any retirement at all right? Like all public employees right?
That's usually a pitch to obstruct Republican call for reigning in the out of control public employee madness?

Your kind of pabulum is the stuff that sustains the dysfunction and madness.

I am very familiar with the teacher compensation comparison between states and public and public charter schools.

You obviously are not. Instead you toss out usual rhetoric mean to thwart any efforts to make manageable the mess you and unions
have gotten this any many states in.

Now do you have anything to add to the topic?

Take a look at what your politicians and
and bureaucrats produce.
Have a nice laugh.http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/oregon/newtrail/ieldoc.htm

Ben:

We have a fundamental disagreement.

I think unions do benefit the poor and the middle class. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history should be able to see that. Even those who don't belong to unions tend to benefit from the wage and benefit standards that unions set.

I also think that public school teachers, as a whole, are underpaid considering the difficulty and importance of their job and the amount of education required for it. If Oregon pays its teachers a little better than some states, then that's a good thing--not an infuriating scandal, as you seem to feel.

As I said before, I'd rather the upper classes paid more in taxes than teachers took less in pay. As it turns out, it looks like both those things will happen.

Specifically, Ben, I'd be happy to have you paying more in taxes. It sounds like you need to learn to be a little more generous.

"I think unions do benefit the poor and the middle class."

That is if you are working for the union. If you think the unions care about the public school system you are naive. Fi you think the unions are growing anyplace else besides the public employee sector you are naive squared. They don't care about poor and middle class taxpayers who have to send their kids to public schools.

"I also think that public school teachers, as a whole, are underpaid"

Tell that to the PhD barista. They get paid for nine months work and 3 months off plus great benefits. Much better than 30 years back when almost every teacher had to have a summer job.

I'd love if it we could pay everybody a lot more money, not very realistic. However, I think this new PPS deal will give them the 7% raise they are asking for anyways.

"[If] you think the unions are growing anyplace else besides the public employee sector you are naive squared."

I don't think unions are growing. I think they've been declining over the past 30 years, and that's a major reason that the middle class has been shrinking over the same period of time. Times aren't getting better for the majority of Americans because union membership is declining; things are getting a lot worse.

Unless you're a wealthy person whose income is not dependent on there being a healthy middle class in this country, then you're working against your own self interest and playing into the hands of some of the worst elements of our society when you oppose unions. Don't be envious because a teacher or other public employee makes a half-way decent living; realize that more people deserve a shot at the same.

Ben ... Can you fill me in on the "concimic" real world? I can't seem to find a definition for that word so that I can figure out what in the heck you're talking about.

As for the other garbage you dumped during your rants, you need to do some research into the history of unions, as well as how the PERS system evolved. Part of the problem (which isn't anywhere near as much of a long-term financial problem as you and your anti-public employee buddies think it is) came about because right-wing politicians tried to screw over teachers--and it backfired on them.

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, with inflation out of control and budgets under stress, conservatives "encouraged" (virtually at bargaining gunpoint) public employees to take lower wage increases in exchange for a vague chance that, should the investment markets stage an (at that time) unprecedented run-up, they might benefit decades down the road in the form of higher pension payments. Teachers and other public employees were routinely laughed at during those times for "accepting" a deal that they were, in fact, given no real choice over.

It didn't work out the way the anti-public employee types thought. Too bad. If things had worked out the way they planned, wages would have been lower and pensions meager. You want to bet on the likelihood that, in such a case, those same conservative folks would be advocating for HIGHER PERS payments?

"Times aren't getting better for the majority of Americans because union membership is declining"

Maybe people don't want unions. RIght now the law is stacked in favor of organizers and they still are losing ground outside of the public sector.

Remind me again of how the union helps the schoolchildren.

"Maybe people don't want unions. Right now the law is stacked in favor of organizers and they still are losing ground outside of the public sector."

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Good one!!

Anyone who wants to remain in the reality-based community on the question of union organizing and the law, however, would enjoy the excellent book by Tom Geoghegan (rhymes with Reagan) called "Which Side Are You On?: Trying to be for labor when it's flat on its back."

Note that Obama and the Democratic minority in Congress couldn't even manage to get a card check bill through . . .

Folks are getting tired of the Teachers' Union fiction that they took substandard wages in exchange for fat pensions - Rural Resident says:

"In the late 1970s/early 1980s, with inflation out of control and budgets under stress, conservatives "encouraged" (virtually at bargaining gunpoint) public employees to take lower wage increases in exchange for a vague chance that, should the investment markets stage an (at that time) unprecedented run-up, they might benefit decades down the road in the form of higher pension payments."

Not so - in late 1982, at the end of this period of alleged poor salaries, Oregon teachers actually ranked 12th in the nation, with salaries averaging $1,300 above average (about 7%). Inflation started down around then, but teacher salaries did not, and pensions skyrocketed at the expense of "the children."

Let's open up the teaching of Spanish-speaking children to non-union illegal aliens, so teachers can enjoy the blessings bestowed on construction workers - call it "The Undocumented Workers' Freedom to Teach Act."

"Good one!!"

Yes, the poor unions are so under-represented in Washington and here in Oregon. The card check bill takes away secret elections and you are for this why?

Next time explain instead of throwing up a reading list.

If you want a modern society, it needs to be paid for. Tax's are not evil; we need infrastructure, civil servants to do our work. What is evil is the convoluted tax code set in place by legislators bought off by special interest lobbyists. control campaign finance, control lobbyist "purchasing power". stop the insanity of $700b defense budgets and the tax's on 90% of Americans would plummet.

Michael - 43.4% of Americans paid no Federal Income "tax's" last year, according to a Think Tank affiliated with the Brookings Institution, so there's no way to cut their "tax's." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml

43.4% of Americans paid no Federal Income taxes last year

Which is primarily a sign of how poorly a sizable chunk of America is doing. Most families making under median income don't pay income taxes once they factor in deductions and credits. The fact that percentage has grown may partially be explained by new deductions and credits, but it's primarily explained by lower incomes.

The opposite is true for those at the top. Many conservatives argue that the tax system is unfair because the top 20% pay something like 70% of all income taxes. But that's not driven by higher income taxes on the upper brackets (in fact, those tax rates have been cut), it's driven by the astronomical growth in the income/wealth of those at the top. The only silver lining to the growing income inequality is that the share of taxes paid also shifts somewhat.

Excellent points, Miles.

And with regard to the notion that 43 percent of people don't pay federal income taxes, let's not forget that that's true (assuming it is true) only because social security and medicare taxes aren't being counted as federal income taxes--even though those taxes are collected by the federal government, and even though they are taxes on income. As most of us realize, these payroll taxes aren't paltry; for this middle class worker, those two taxes combined exceed what I pay in "traditional" federal income taxes.

The working poor face a significant federal tax burden because of regressive payroll taxes, even if they don't pay so-called federal income taxes.

No, Miles, it's a sign of how the rates and brackets have been liberalized so that they don't have to pay income taxes. And Richard, I'm very aware of the SS & Medicare taxes - for years I paid about 15.8% as a self-employed person. But the folks who work & don't pay income tax are paying about 8% in payroll taxes as employees, and many get a lot of it back from EITC (and fraud). Not to mention that even if SS bennies are reduced, it will again come at the expense of the higher earners, & the folks at the other end will still get out far more than they put in - they always have so far. Shouldn't everyone pay something to run the government, even if it's a token amount? I know your answer already, and the aim of the reductions has been to make that 43% think income tax doesn't affect them, so they will support raising it on others.

Morbius ... It doesn't matter where Oregon's teachers were in relation to those of other states. (Part of this is driven by the cost of living and other factors.) What DOES matter is that the inflation rate exceeded--and looked like it would continue to exceed--the funds available for cost of living raises. The "PERS pickup" and changes in the system were attempts to get all public employees to trade off full cost-of-living raises in the short term for some possible longer-term gain.

In this case, the public employees came out ahead. That hasn't always been the case. When I was doing tax work back in the mid 1970s, I was appalled by the difference between the federal and state retirement benefits. The federal employees retirement amounts were, to say the least, generous. The State of Oregon benefits were, to be charitable, paltry. If changes in the system made things work better for Oregon's public employees, good for them. I'll guarantee you that the folks who forced these changes on public employees didn't intend for it to work out that way.

Life is too short to try to talk sense to PERS beneficiaries (and their friends, relations, employees & camp followers) on this subject - the enormous sense of entitlement to supposedly serendipitous retirement payouts in excess of 100% of salary clouds the mind, and the fact that the people foresaw this disaster & did something about it in 1994, only to be thwarted by judges on substantially the same gravy train, is dismissed as trivial. I'm getting out of Oregon as soon as I can arrange it - I will then watch with glee as the state goes bankrupt & the PERS folk have to live on what they were actually promised. Too bad about the collateral damage.
Fire away - I'm going to take a walk. For responses to the arguments you are about to make, search up the big exchange on the PERS question a few months back. No reason to repeat ourselves further.

i have a great idea where to cut govt spending dan consultants,salaries,benefits,pers and have all public workers chip in some more for health insurance premiums.how about we cut all illegal aliens and their anchor baby kids off all services too?you asked for ideas on where govt spending could be cut i just gave some areas.