Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook RSS


About Measure 97

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

…Measure 97 will make large and out-of-state corporations with more than $25 million in Oregon sales pay their fair share…

By making large corporations like Monsanto, and Bank of America pay their fair share…

  • Vote Yes on 97

We Respond & Your Comments

Everybody knows that if the Seahawks sneak a 12th man onto the field it’s not “fair.” That’s because people agreed to make a  rule against it.

But caterwauling about individuals or companies not paying their “fair share” of taxes is meaningless – because if you ask 12 people what a “fair share” is, you’re liable to get 13 opinions.

To Liberals, “fair share” just means a bigger share of somebody else’s money. It’s that simple.

So let’s declare an end to the use of “fair” unless we’ve agreed on rules stating what’s fair and what’s not.


Look Who’s Getting Oregon’s Housing Subsidy Dollars: The Rich

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

By Nigel Jaquiss,

Oregon homeowners get more than $800 million a year in subsidy—and fatcats take the biggest chunk.

The Oregon House Revenue Committee met yesterday, in part to review the state’s role in addressing soaring real-estate costs.

One of the questions lawmakers examined is what programs the state currently has to subsidize affordable housing.

While the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services provides a variety of programs that help fund affordable housing, lawmakers heard yesterday that the tax breaks property owners get—for mortgage interest, property taxes and capital gains—dwarf the relative pittance the state allocates to affordable housing.

Just those three tax breaks alone are worth more than $800 million a year to property owners.

By far the biggest subsidy is the home mortgage interest deduction, which costs the state nearly $500 million a year in foregone taxes…(emphasis ours)

We Respond & Your Comments

We’ll skip over some of the nonsense above, starting with the fact that tax breaks for mortgage interest, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with what the state chooses to spend on affordable housing.

Instead we’ll focus on mortgage deductions “costing” the state around $500 million. How can money it never gets “cost” anything?

If you don’t get a raise next year does it “cost” you money? Of course not. But liberals believe that government has first call on any money we have. They think it really belongs to the state. So whatever the state doesn’t get is a cost. Hey, that’s the thinking that made Cuba an economic powerhouse. Right?


From WHO WILL PAY THE [Measure 97] TAX?

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The vast majority of the more than 400,000 active businesses in Oregon will be unaffected by this measure …

We Respond & Your Comments

“This measure” refers to Measure 97 which, if passed by Oregonians this November, will levy a 2.5% tax on gross revenue over $25 million earned in Oregon by “C ” class Oregon corporations, which are those taxed separately from their owners.

Here’s how, according to a local CEO, her small retail operation will be affected:

  • She buys a shipment of oranges from a grower
  • Next she sends it to a processor
  • Then she has it packaged

If all these vendors are subject to the Measure 97 tax, each will pay a tax of 2.5% on the money our retailer pays them. When they all pass this new cost along to her she’s looking at a 7.5% increase in cost of goods.

She’s also expecting, thanks to Measure 97, similar increases in utility, phone and many other bills.

The “vast majority” of Oregon businesses will be “unaffected” by Measure 97? Not on your life.


From WHO WILL PAY THE [Measure 97] TAX?

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Only the largest corporations doing business in Oregon — C corporations with more than $25 million in Oregon sales — will pay the new minimum tax. In fact, a report by the Legislative Revenue Office shows that 85% of the revenue raised by the measure will be paid by corporations with more than $100 million in Oregon sales. These are some of the largest corporations in the world.

The vast majority of the more than 400,000 active businesses in Oregon will be unaffected by this measure. In fact, less than one quarter of 1% of all businesses operating in the state will see their taxes go up…

We Respond & Your Comments

Gee, that’s not so bad, is it? Only those big, evil, greedy corporations would pay Measure 97 taxes. Right? Anyway, it’s “for the children.” Sounds pretty good – stick it to a corporation and get free stuff for the kiddies! What’s wrong with that?

Plenty’s wrong. According to Fred Thompson, director of the Willamette Center for Governance and Public Policy Research, “The 1,000 corporations directly affected by Measure 97 employ 40 percent of the state’s business labor force, [and] account for…over half of its private-sector wages.”

You mean those dastardly corporations hire people? Who would have thought it? Certainly not the “Yes on 97” gang.

As for the “vast majority” of Oregon businesses being “unaffected” by Measure 97 –  more on that later.


Editorial: Sales tax is a reach too far

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

‘Public employees unions run the statehouse,’ said state Rep. Dennis Richardson, during a 2014 visit to Astoria…

Now the public employees unions are asserting themselves grandly with Initiative Petition 28, the initiative to establish a corporate sales tax on corporations with gross receipts of more than $25 million annually…

The most correct title for the measure is the PERS Bailout Tax. Financial demands of the Public Employees Retirement System will soon increase the load on school districts and municipalities — causing schools to lay off teachers in order to fund retirement pensions.

Legislative remedies to the PERS dilemma …were thrown out by the Oregon Supreme Court. In the face of the court’s judgment, there was a proposal to require new PERS enrollees to contribute to their retirement, in the manner that is common in the private sector. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown would not support that.

Revenue raised by IP 28 is the unions’ answer to the PERS problem…

We Respond & Your Comments

We’re shocked! Shocked! When “Progressives” first tossed IP 28 on the table The Oregonian reported “Unions and other left-of-center groups argue that major tax hikes on major corporations and the wealthy are needed to shore up education and other public services…”

We thought IP 28 was “for the children.” After all, isn’t any tax? We thought it would buy smaller class sizes, music education and other good stuff. And now we learn it’s really for pensions for public employees? How sad.

Actually, we’re not that stupid. We knew all along IP 28 is a way for “Public Servants” to serve themselves the money you earned.


Editorial: The Benefit of More Taxes

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

We read in The Bulletin on Friday morning that two Democratic state senators want to add yet another new tax on Oregon businesses and, inevitably, also on consumers.

It would be a tax on carbon. It might raise another $1.5 billion a year for the state to try to fix this or that. That’s on top of the $3 billion more a year that will be taken from Oregon businesses and passed on to Oregonians if Initiative Petition 28 passes this November.

We have another idea…

We propose the state of Oregon tax Oregon businesses and residents at a rate of 100 percent.

That’s all income. All of it should go to the state. The state can decide for us all how our money should be spent.

Just think of the benefits.

The tax code would be simple. “Whatever you think you got, it’s not yours. Please remit all income to the state. And don’t forget to check under the couch cushions.”…

We Respond & Your Comments

We can add absolutely nothing to this gem except that we encourage you to click the link and read the whole editorial.

But we do have one worry – What if our Legislators read it? They’d slap their foreheads and scream“Why didn’t we think of that?”


New PSU analysis delivers kinder verdict on corporate tax measure

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

 By Saul Hubbard, The Register-Guard

A newly released analysis of Initiative Petition 28, a $3 billion-a-year corporate tax increase that will be on the statewide November ballot, paints a rosier picture of the measure’s impacts than a… report from the nonpartisan ­Legislative Revenue Office.

The new report…by Portland State University’s Northwest Economic Research Center, estimates that IP 28 would cause fewer private-sector job losses and more public-­sector job gains in its first five years than what the ­legislative ­report projected.

PSU’s study…estimates the state would lose 17,000 private-­sector jobs and gain 30,000 government jobs…while the legislative report puts private-sector job losses at 38,000 and public-­sector job gains at 18,000…

Our Oregon, an advocacy group backed by public employee unions that is spearheading IP 28, paid $45,000 to commission the PSU study…

We Report & You Respond

As the kids would say, TOTALLY AWESOME! Let’s pop the corks! If Petition 28 passes we’re only gonna lose 17,000 private sector jobs! What could be better? Wait…we all know what’s better: 30,000 new government employees. And higher consumer prices as businesses pass tax increases along to us! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

And think of the goodies we’ll get from these 30,000 newbees :

  • New regulations
  • New departments that need new managers, assistants & lawyers
  • New buildings to house them
  • New taxes to pay for them

Once again we’re reminded that government can never make do with the money it has – but you always can. In fact, you can do with less.


$100,000 PSU Donation Raises Business Hackles

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

   – Rachel Monahan, Willamette Week

Portland State University’s plan to fund scholarships with a $35 million payroll tax has met with skepticism from business groups, labor unions and Portland Public Schools.

But as PSU moves forward with a November ballot initiative asking voters to approve the tax, it has received $100,000 in backing from its own private fundraising wing…

Now the president of the tax’s fiercest opponent, the Portland Business Alliance, says its members may stop donating to the PSU Foundation.

“We have heard concerns from many of our members who had made donations to the foundation…who are concerned about foundation money being used for the campaign,” says PBA president and CEO Sandra McDonough. “I have had members say they will think twice about contributing to the foundation.”

We Respond & Your Comments

You gotta love this – A PSU fundraiser meets with a Portland business owner and pleads, “Sir, our poor university is so underfunded – we can’t afford safe places for students in pain because they saw a Trump for President sign.

“We can’t even fund a chair for a professor of 16th Century Sustainable Korean Gender Studies. Would you please fork over $25,000? It’s for the children. Oh, by the way, we’ll use part of it to fund a ballot initiative to raise your payroll tax.”

OK, so the fundraiser didn’t mention the tax.

What did these 180 IQ geniuses think would happen when they took business donations and used them to promote a tax on businesses? That donors would just say “Thank you”? If so, they must live in Progressive Nirvana, where taxes are endless and no one ever objects.


Ballot language for liquor vote OK’d

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

   Kristena Hansen, The Associated Press

…The state Supreme Court on Thursday approved the title language of a November ballot proposal that would allow grocery stores to stock their shelves with distilled liquor across Oregon…

Oregonians Against the Takeover — a coalition formed by the Associated Liquor Stores of Oregon [and] Oregon Beer & Wine Distributors…argues liquor costs would soar as they have in Washington state…

It also says the measure would create a gaping hole in revenue for many public services…

“Oregonians will have a clear choice this November: A yes vote will blow a hole in state, local and mental health budgets, while corporate grocers make big profits,” Ryan Frank, a coalition spokesman, said in a statement Thursday. “A no vote will preserve a system that Oregonians believe works and has allowed Oregon’s craft alcohol industry to thrive.”…

Handing things over to the free market means the state either gives up that revenue entirely or it comes up with a way to preserve it through a new tax…

We Respond & Your Comments

Let’s look at these reasons for not privatizing liquor sales:

  • Liquor costs would “soar” – just like in Washington. They “soared” because government just had to replace lost revenue with new taxes. That’s because…
  • Government can never do with less money. Taxpayers always can. Maybe some lost alcohol tax revenue should be replaced. What we object to is the knee jerk reaction that every tax dollar lost must be “paid for” with new taxes.
  • “Corporate grocers [would] make big profits.” Get it? Only Oregon liquor stores and beer and wine distributors are entitled to make big profits off the liquor monopoly.
  • It would jeopardize the Oregon craft alcohol industry. So we’re supposed to pay more for our cocktails to protect some guy cooking up rotgut in his bathtub and calling the swill “craft.”

Government and liquor peddlers resist privatizing Oregon liquor sales because the state and its booze suppliers have a nice little monopoly going – and they’re not about to give it up.


Oregon’s new minimum wage will create ‘tough choices’ for public universities

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

   Andrew Theen, The Oregonian/oregonlive The Oregonian

As Oregon lawmakers celebrated passage of a historic minimum wage hike last week, leaders at each of the seven public universities were pulling out their calculators.

Oregon’s four-year universities collectively pay thousands of mostly student workers the minimum wage…

…Minimum wage [increases] will cost PSU [Portland State University] an estimated $2.5 million more during the biennium…

At the University of Oregon…the new wage will cost an extra $432,779 to implement during the 2017 fiscal year alone…

For the Beavers [Oregon State University], the extra wages due to students in the next biennium would be at least $4.8 million…

By the 2019 fiscal year, [OSU spokesman] Clark said, the school could look at reducing the number of student jobs by 650 to 700 positions to cut costs…

We Respond & Your Comments

As much as we hate to see kids lose jobs, especially when universities are raising tuition, we have to ask the kids, professors and administrators, most of whom were probably for the minimum wage hike, “Just what in the (insert your favorite word here) did you think was going to happen?”

It’s still Iron Rule of Economics #1: When you raise the price of something (in this case labor) you decrease demand for it.

We predicted this. Now we extract from our crystal ball two more predictions: 1) This is just the beginning; 2) By July 4 these universities will be begging the Legislature for a minimum wage exemption because “It’s just not fair to the kids.” Wanna bet against us?