Oregon Magazine
      Cover |


 
 E-RFD:  Finally James Mayer on oped pages 
 by STEVESCARE@aol.com 

Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:35:53 EDT --  Well, looky there folks. Oregonian "journalist" James Mayer (jimmayer@news.oregonian.com) is finally on the op-ed pages where he belongs.  Funny how he lists some previous stories, all of which should have been on the op-ed pages all along.  I especially liked James' reporting on the legislature's tax reform agenda.  I had few things to say about it back then:
 

Jim, I read your piece on tax reform this morning and wanted to chime in on the notion of  "...in hopes of dispelling the perception that lawmakers already have a plan in their back pockets and the hearings are just window dressing."

Is it only a perception?  Hardly.  It is and has been common knowledge for a long time among interested politicos that the drive for tax increases via sales taxes and/or business activity taxes never ceases. The current effort is the poster child for deception and status quo politics in Oregon. It will produce nothing but more of that same perpetual fiscal crisis we have grown accustomed to. The tax reform panel will fail because they DO have a predetermined outcome.  The tired, old, worn out, proven false and ineffective call for more revenue
. 
Here in their friends own words is an example of the business as usual approach these folks cling to.While scouring the COSA web site I stumbled across something buried in an area called the COSA MEMBERSHIP PLAN. Take a look at what I found in their board notes.

"They have met about once a month and include some representatives of several unions (OEA, OPEU, AFL-CIO) and business (OBC, OBA) and OSBA. ....., we have come to a point of preparing some packages. One has a consumption tax at its core, another has a business activity tax at its core and a third takes major swipes at exemptions, credits and deductions in current taxes. The goal is to have something before the voters sometime next year. The route is still to be determined as is the best timing." 

There it is. Provided by all the familiar status quo-ERs.The AFL-CIO, The teachers union-OEA, School Administrators-COSA, School Board Association-OSBA, Oregon Public Employees Union- OPEU, Oregon Business Council-OBC, Oregon Business Association-OBA,

You should know the routine. As usual there's Lynn Lundquist and Duncan Wyse doing all they can to prop up the various government agencies and programs while pretending to be impartially representing the interests of businesses and the public at large.  These are also the same folks that Rep. Lane Shetterly and other committee members work with or collaborate with on a regular basis: occasionally in public at City Club and Summit forums but most often in private doing what they do best.  

The problem with the Tax Reform Panel is not that the public has the wrong impression of their efforts but that too many Oregonians know precisely what their objectives are. Their hope was that through various maneuvers, posturing and campaigning (with help from the establishment media) they could overcome what they pretend are misperceptions by the public. But, with the Internet and other non-newspaper means word travels fast and furious every time a thread of the status quo peeks out. There is no stopping it. 

There is no pretending that it (Ed: the usual approach) works. Should the Panel continue with its planned agenda an absolute charade is what it will be. The hearings, adhering to traditional tactics, will be stacked with testimony from representatives from most or all of these groups. They will eat up much of the time while delivering to he committee what they have already discussed with them in private. The same testimony may be repeated at subsequent hearings. (Once again eating up time and enabling the record to show strong support for their predetermined outcome.) 

Again, just because their plans have not appeared in the newspapers it does not follow that Oregonians don't know what is going on.

If I had my way, and I believe I speak for MANY Oregonians, I would disband the committee entirely, immediately call for a special session, engage in honest prioritizing and get rid of enough nonessential spending to truly balance the budget. Begin anew with a solid attitude that Oregon cannot continue adopting every (ED: "progressive") idea dreamed up. Every time we adopt a new government task, spending on the basics is stretched beyond sustainability.This is the genesis for the perpetual crisis we face. Think about it. In how many areas has Oregon adopted an extra layer or invented our own wheel? Other States have various additions to government but Oregon somehow got the idea we have to have ALL of them.  

We had to have our own health plan. We had to have our own unique K-12 assessment system. We had to have another layer for education with Education Service Districts. We have to have our own liquor distribution system. We had to have our extra (ED: govenment) layer, Metro, and other expensive land use planning bureaucracies. We have to have bike paths on every road, Urban Renewal Districts in every city to spend tomorrow's revenue, Light rail, Economic and community development bureaucracies, planners, planners and more planners, communication directors, spokespersons, PR firms, in agency after agency.  Public ownership of more and more land. More restrictions, more regulations. Money diverted to arts and culture.

Oregon has to have it ALL and all of it is for the greater good?  All of it is essential? Wrong! 

Lets' see some different angles, please.

                        --- Steve Schopp  

(ED: here's where Steve got his alphabet agency stuff)

http://www.cosa.k12.or.us/boardnotes/boardnotessept.htm  
COSA MEMBERSHIP PLAN - JULY 9, 2003 -- Revised September 10, 2003

The board met on Wednesday, September 16th for about four hours.  Frank McNamara and Ozzie have been participating in a "Tax Reform/School Funding" group for the past year and a half. I have joined the group for the past three meetings. They have met about once a month and include some representatives of several unions (OEA, OPEU, AFL-CIO) and business (OBC, OBA) and OSBA.  This group was originally called together by Chris Dudley of the OSBA to explore how, when and what we could jointly agree on for restructuring the Oregon tax system to better support needed school and other state services.

The 2001-2002 COSA Board authorized our participation in the discussions. These have not been easy discussions, with the unions having a natural dislike for any sales tax, and business having an aversion to any business tax. Nonetheless, we have come to a point of preparing some packages. One has a consumption tax at its core, another has a business activity tax at its core and a third takes major swipes at exemptions, credits and deductions in current taxes. The goal is to have something before the voters sometime next year. The route is still to be determined as is the best timing. Some polling will be done on elements in eventual packages as well as arguments that make a difference to passage. It is a work in progress. 

(ED: the following refers to the tax angle, here, and is not text paid for by the Eugene Register Guard. They wouldn't hire anybody who writes what you are about to read.  It is a reader opinon piece they printed, but only a lunatic would suppose that its content is in any way approved of by David Steves, any professor with tenure known to exist at the University of Oregon or any citizen of Lane County west of I-5 until you reach the beach.)

Register Guard, December 14, 2003 
High taxes slow growth in Oregon
By Jay Bozievich 

Oregon's population grew by only 1 percent last year, a statistic that should raise the alarm concerning high taxes. The Register-Guard reported the dismal statistic, produced by the Population Research Center at Portland State University, on Dec. 5. What was not reported was the tie between tax burdens and population growth at the state level.  Dr. Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University, did an exhaustive study of the relationship between the migration between states and the relative tax burden on the populace. Vedder excluded the change in population due to immigration from outside of the United States. What he found is not surprising to anyone with a little background in economics. 

The states that taxed the highest had the slowest population growth rates, and the states with the lowest tax burdens grew the fastest. 

Vedder's findings include: Low-tax states gained more than 2 million people who moved within the United States between 1990 and 1999. High-tax states lost 890,000 people between 1990 and 1999.  One only has to look south to California to see why outmigration is a concern for the budgetary health of school districts and the stability of state revenues. California is now a high-tax state that is experiencing a net loss of U.S.-born population to other states - and look at the mess its public finances are in. Low population growth is not always a good thing. The Eugene School District has experienced annual budget cuts due to a declining student population. Low population growth is a symptom of an economy depressed by a relatively high tax burden when compared to other states. 

Oregon's growth rate has been steadily declining for the past eight years. The state's population grew by 62,750 from 1994 to 1995, but this past year's growth was about half that number, 37,000. At the same time, spending by state and local government has been increasing faster than inflation and population. The relationship between the two trends is extremely telling as we prepare to vote on whether to raise state taxes even higher. 

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, state and local government spending in Oregon increased by 52.7 percent from 1992 to 2000 while inflation registered only 16.4 percent. Only three other states had faster rates of government growth during the period. In the year 2000, state and local spending was $7,040 per capita. Only six other states had higher per-capita rates of government spending. This heavy burden of government on Oregon's economy is a major factor in the slow growth of the economy and is manifested in a slow population growth rate. 

Growing economies attract people; that's the plain and simple truth.  Raising taxes will only accelerate the population trends by putting additional dampers on an already slow economy. 

A study by Stephen Moore for the American Legislative Exchange Council in October 2002 clearly demonstrates the relationship between raising taxes and slower state economies. Moore studied how states dealt with the recession of the early 1990s. Some states raised taxes, while others cut taxes or held the line. 

What Moore found is a history lesson Oregonians should study: The states that avoided tax increases created 653,000 new jobs, vs. 3,000 in the tax-increasing states - even though the tax-increasing states had much larger populations. The unemployment rate rose by 2.2 percentage points in the tax-increasing states, vs. 0.6 percent in the tax-avoiding states. Income for an average family of four dropped by almost $500 in the tax-increasing states, but rose by $300 in the tax-avoiding states. In fact, the impacts of raising taxes lingered through the rest of the decade. The top 10 tax-hiking states showed employment growth of only 6.8 percent from 1990 to 2001. The top 10 tax-cutting states had employment growth of 18.6 percent, almost three times the rate of the tax hikers. Total personal income also grew twice as fast in tax-cutting states as in tax-hiking states from 1990 to 2001. Because Oregon is highly dependent on income taxes, a faster growing total personal income means a faster growing revenue source for the state. 

As Oregonians consider their vote on Measure 30, remember what that slow population growth figure means in terms of Oregon's tax burden and the state economy. 

Jay Bozievich of Eugene is a civil engineer and the state contact for the Republican Liberty Caucus. 

Original text © 2005 Steve Schopp   
Mr. Bozievich's text about the then impending M-30 vote is his property, we assume.
As for the rest, the cosa stuff, who knows?