Jan. 28 special election. Temp. Tax

Jerry Dove · 01-09-2003, 07:10 PM

OK folks it is up to us. Do we bite the bullet and vote for the temporary tax or do we lose our fish hatcheries, our game officers and many other services we have come to depend on? As a citizen, as a fishermen, as a hunter, as a person that wants services I have come to the conclusion that to have these things I have to vote yes on the Jan. 28th election. I say this as a citizen of Oregon, and not as a member of any organization. I think the Leg. has heard loud and clear, fix this $$$ problem or else. We need to vote in this Temp. tax as a way to give them some breathing room, and they better do it this time. I do belive in the system. I hope you will join me in this effort. Jerry

ragjr · 01-09-2003, 07:22 PM

I have an idea [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
let the people we elected to office take a pay cut themselfs first insteed of pay raises. then more folks would me more likely to vote for it.

just my $0.02 worth

Alligator · 01-09-2003, 07:28 PM

Oh brother! :whazzup: The state has enough of our money! I will be voting NO. Forgive me for not having alligator tears but I for one am tired of paying taxes every direction I turn. It's time to let the Oregon legislature trim their budget like the rest of us do.

Oregon businesses are being run out of the state and we wonder why oregon has an unemployment problem.

NO MORE TAXES!

Herring Impaired · 01-09-2003, 09:01 PM

I wanna know how it is possible to enact a tax increase for a tax year, 28 days after the year is OVER?

Just don't seem right!

[ 01-09-2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Leroy ]

1pump · 01-09-2003, 11:16 PM

I'm voting for it, but I'm biased. My two kids (who live with their mom) have developmental disabilities and get state assistance which is now on the chopping block. The $150 or so it's gonna cost me every year isn't a big deal. If I quit smoking I'll save that much in a couple of months. And if 28 fails, they'll just have another special election later. And another, and another. Those elections cost a lot of money, so we might as well pass it this time.
And I am sick and tired of the blatant ineptitude in our state legislature. Not to mention PERS, and the good ol' Economic Development folks. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]
Anybody remember Measure 5 about 12 years ago? I'm still ****** about that one.

Alligator has a point; this state is very unfriendly to business (especially the city of PDX) and it's choking the life right out of us.

[ 01-10-2003, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

Cool Texan · 01-10-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1pump:
And if 28 fails, they'll just have another special election later. And another, and another. Those elections cost a lot of money, so we might as well pass it this time.

Very poor logic. Tell ya what, can I have $100? I'm just gonna keep asking you, so you might as well just cut a check right now to me.

Thanks!!! :grin:

bigshark · 01-10-2003, 12:52 PM

Jerry
You are a good man with the best of intentions. But I think you are, as we all are, a victim of poor government about to get worse.
Please read my post on Measure 28 thread.
I hurt all over about this and you know how I feel about hatcheries. But I will not stand for blackmail within our government........no matter what the cost. I prey God will help us, I will not yield to those who would harm us to get their selfish way.

Kruechief · 01-10-2003, 02:03 PM

Dear Friends and Family,

Don't believe the hype! Vote NO on Measure 28! I, as a state employee, am astounded how my OYA managers squander thousands of dollars empting the coffers at the end of each biennium so that they can "protect" and "grow" their budget for the next. It's sickening. At the end of the 2000 budget biennium, I watched Faye Fagel, the local area coordinator, spend thousands of dollars to buy Youth Authority inmates Nike and Adidas sweat suits, shirts, socks and other apparel. As well as, get this, Wilson "NFL" footballs @ $120 per ball and "self-inflating" basketballs @ $100+ per ball!

More recently, The Oak Creek facility spent $14,000. on a wooden skate ramp that has yet to be used and is simply left out in the weather.

Pretty amazing.

Loren

Here is direct guidance on how to balance the budget in Oregon. Do you think any of the thick-headed, money grubbers will listen?

Fifty-Four Ways
>Richard M. Butrick
>richard@aoi.org
>
>
>December 3, 2002
>
>FIFTY-FOUR WAYS OREGON CAN SAVE ITS OWN ECONOMIC BACON
>By Richard M. Butrick, President - Associated Oregon Industries
>
>1. Eliminate all positions in state government that remain unfilled for a
>period of six months with a corresponding reduction in agency budgets by
>the amount of that full time equivalency (FTE). There are approximately
>3,000 positions currently unfilled.
>
>2. The 2003-2005 biennial budget should delineate between capital costs,
>operational costs and personnel costs. Currently, they are all mushed
>together, which creates less accountability and more cost.
>
>3. Eliminate all automatic inflation adjustments in supplies and services
>line items.
>
>4. Governor should secure immediate resignation of all PERS Board of
>Directors as they have been judged to be irresponsible by the court.
>Quickly nominate replacements.
>
>5. Reform PERS by adjusting to appropriate and contemporary actuarial
>tables. Dates of adjustment would be effective January 1, 2003 with yearly
>adjustments thereafter (minimum savings over time of $400 million).
>
>6. Reform PERS by creating a defined contribution retirement plan that
>would be effective July 1, 2003 and that would have a contribution of 6% of
>salary from the employee and 6% of salary from the public employer (savings
>in billions to taxpayers).
>
>7. Insist on increasing the span of control of middle management to 1
>manager per 12 employees.
>
>8. Review and eliminate all new programs that have been created over the
>last two years. Avoid any funding of a new program unless it is funded at
>the beginning of the biennium, thus avoiding extreme "roll up" costs.
>
>9. Budget an ending balance (stabilization fund) of at least 2% of a
>biennium's General Fund budget income total.
>
>10. Constrain Oregon State government�s budgets to no more than 5% growth
>per biennium.
>
>11. Legislatively introduce a zero-based budgeting system, thus allowing
>legislative committees to review and analyze the prior biennium�s budget
>numbers without decision package enhancements and then add or subtract
>monies in the next biennium�s projections, based upon need, accountability
>and availability of state resources (thus eliminating the "continuing
>service budget" approach).
>
>12. Legislate that state regulatory standards will not exceed federal
>standards.
>
>13. Legislate that agency fees and licenses be constrained to actual cost
>of services.
>
>14. Reduce state employee count by 5% per year for the next biennium via
>attrition.
>
>15. Create separate salary and benefit system for managers in public sector
>from rank and file to avoid conflicts of interest in bargaining.
>
>16. Reduce all out-of-state travel by 20%.
>
>17. Competitively bid a variety of services now being performed by
>government employees.
>
>18. Encourage the Oregon State Lottery to compete with games that are
>available at Native American casinos. State revenues would be enhanced by
>$40 to $70 million per year.
>
>19. Eliminate Education Service Districts with the exception of rural
>areas. Pass some of those dollars to school district superintendents of
>public instruction.
>
>20. Contract out the state motor pool, including maintenance and repair,
>which will save 10-15% and secure immediate cash by selling the current
>fleet, which has a value of about $20 million.
>
>21. Contract out management of prisons. Oregon ranks #3 nationwide in cost
>per prisoner at $45,000 per year.
>
>22. Privatize management of the Oregon Youth Authority. Per inmate costs
>per year are now about $100,000.
>
>23. Privatize the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC).
>
>24. Eliminate Bureau of Labor & Industries and place necessary duties in
>Department of Consumer & Business Services.
>
>25. Privatize the Driver and Motor Vehicle Division (Department of
>Transportation).
>
>26. Abolish the Criminal Justice Commission, which saves $19.2 million and
>use some of these savings to avoid cuts in state police personnel.
>
>27. Avoid passing a mental health parity mandate, which would increase
>escalating health care costs.
>
>28. Ensure strict adherence to the Oregon Health Plan�s prioritized list.
>Do not pay for health services or medications for conditions below the
>line.
>
>29. Ensure strict adherence to the Oregon Health Plan�s eligibility
>standards. Individuals who do not meet the eligibility standards would not
>receive reimbursable care. (Estimated impact: $200 million less cost of
>Oregon Health Plan).
>
>30. Reform health care policies to make medical savings accounts easily
>available to all Oregonians.
>
>31. Avoid any attempt to force public contracting law on private
>contractors.
>
>32. Eliminate the so-called �Little Davis Bacon Act,� which imposes
>approximately 20% extra cost on all public projects (five new schools for
>the current price of four).
>
>33. Repeal the political contribution tax credit.
>
>34. Increase use of prisoners for maintenance and repair of state parks and
>other public projects.
>
>35. Expand urban growth boundaries to accommodate increasing housing
>availability and providing industrial land locations.
>
>36. Sell the Elliott State Forest, gaining at least $500 million, which
>could be used for a school stabilization fund.
>
>37. Introduce tolls on bridges that need to be repaired in order to carry
>appropriate commercial weight.
>
>38. Promote Oregon�s image of quality products, emphasizing that purchases
>by Oregon�s public sector will consider criteria such as revenue impact and
>Oregon jobs impact instead of just the lowest bidder.
>
>39. Dedicate up to 1% of PERS investments to a venture capital fund to grow
>or start Oregon businesses.
>
>40. Eliminate mandatory student fees for political groups at colleges and
>universities, thus allowing choice by the student. This will reduce tuition
>costs.
>
>41. Promote rather than discourage destination resorts, i.e. Cascade Locks
>Casino or Pelican Butte Ski Arena.
>
>42. Redirect the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department to
>emphasize economic development versus community development.
>
>43. Surcharge driver�s license renewals for state police.
>
>44. Place significant surcharge on vehicles registered in Oregon whose
>owners have inadequate proof of residency.
>
>45. Eliminate the Winter Recreational Advisory Committee.
>
>46. Eliminate the Advisory Committee on Bicycles.
>
>47. Eliminate the State Board on Speed Control.
>
>48. Eliminate the Commission for Women.
>
>49. Eliminate the Hispanic Legislative Roundtable.
>
>50. Eliminate the Body Piercing Licensing Program.
>
>51. Eliminate the Commission on Black Affairs.
>
>52. Eliminate the Ginseng Advisory Committee.
>
>53. Eliminate the Office of Degree Authorization.
>
>54. Eliminate the Covered Bridge Advisory Committee.
>
>
>
>Sources:
>AOI Research and Legislative Proposals
>Cascade Policy Institute
>Senator Mae Yih
>Senator Beverly Clarno
>Oregon Tax Research

24 on/ 48 off · 01-10-2003, 03:03 PM

Many good things here. Just a few questions:

Quote:

>6. Reform PERS by creating a defined contribution retirement plan that
>would be effective July 1, 2003 and that would have a contribution of 6% of
>salary from the employee and 6% of salary from the public employer (savings
>in billions to taxpayers).

Bill Sizemore tried that a few years back. It was ruled unconstitutional.

Quote:

14. Reduce state employee count by 5% per year for the next biennium via
>attrition.

Lose more troopers? More nurses at OHSU? More DHS social workers which protect children and familes?

Quote:

27. Avoid passing a mental health parity mandate, which would increase
>escalating health care costs.

The mentally handicapped are the least likely to have insurance. Do we just ket them roam the streets, or worse, overcrowd our jails because there is nowhere else to put them?

Quote:

34. Increase use of prisoners for maintenance and repair of state parks and
>other public projects.

With the above mentioned reduction in state employees, who will monitor these prisoners?

Quote:

37. Introduce tolls on bridges that need to be repaired in order to carry
>appropriate commercial weight.

Isn't that a "tax"?

Quote:

>43. Surcharge driver�s license renewals for state police

Another "tax"?

Some of these are good, while others make no sense to me.

--spud-- :smile:

[ 01-10-2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: 24 on/ 48 off ]

rebell · 01-10-2003, 06:56 PM

NOOOOoooooooo way on 28.

Stop the wastefull spending first, then lets talk!!!!!

1pump · 01-10-2003, 09:35 PM

Hey Frigid Texan, :tongue:

Very poor logic, indeed. But it's happened before, especially with school bond levy elections. I'm sure it won't happen with 28, though. They'll probably just double everybody's property taxes if it fails.

No, you can't have $100, but you don't need to ask. I'm sure you'll just find a way to take it from me later (just like the legislature).

PapaHog · 01-11-2003, 07:00 AM

If I was to ask my boss for a raise for ALL OF LAST YEAR she would fall off her chair laughing.

Vote NO on 28.
Hog

lost_sailor · 01-11-2003, 08:41 AM

quote:14. Reduce state employee count by 5% per year for the next biennium via
attrition.
>Lose more troopers? More nurses at OHSU? More DHS social workers which protect children and familes?

How about Dept. of Administrative Services "analysts" whose product is delays and obstacles?

About PERS, please remember that the money paid by the employer was given instead of a salary increase many years back. A stupid decision, perhaps, but it must have seemed right at the time. If you are going to make employees contribute, you will have to provide the $$$$$ to do it with.

Cool Texan · 01-14-2003, 08:21 AM

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

monoman · 01-14-2003, 04:08 PM

I am willing to give them one more chance.
I voted YES! It hurt.
I did not vote for our new Gov, but I am willing to give him a chance.
BUT, if what I see from state employees is the same that I am hearing here from them, about there lack of increases and how the PERS can't be touched, I will fight for every dollar they want.

Kilgore · 01-14-2003, 04:43 PM

Not an expert on budget, but it seems clear to me that we need to be flexible in changing times. It's obvious that there aren't enough funds to provide even the basic programs, so it's time to step up.

But when the economy gets better, we'll need to set up something for rainy days ahead. We've just had it too good in the 90's and got spoiled (spent every last dime we had).

Cool Texan · 01-15-2003, 07:56 AM

For everyone who is voting yes...

The root problems at play here is an unbalanced budget which clearly is lacking in the controls and reviews needed to keep it on track, functional, and effective. To fix these problems, you do not simply say you will add more top line money (ie, tax increase). Instead, you have to make tough decisions regarding where to effectively cut the budgeted expenditures, implement and execute a Zero Based Budgeting system, reduce staff, and reduce peripheral spending.

This is a VERY simple process...but very time consuming and painful. However, with intelligent leadership in the drivers seat, it CAN be done.

Before you vote yes, simply to save some services that are rumored to be cut, do your homework. Here is an example...if the measure doesnt pass, medicaid will be cut and a lot of elderly residents will have nowhere to live. However, if it does pass, Ted K will be cutting that back anyway. Now he has more money from you (that you gave to support these people) AND he has the money a second time by reducing that spending.

This is a budgeting game people. Do NOT play it. You do not solve problems and issues by merely plugging the top line (revenue). You must solve the underlying problems.

I was joking with my wife last night that I will run for governor some day with my big push being fiscal responsibility. My budgets will be balanced, I will never raise income taxes, and I will never make detrimental decisions regarding civil services, education, the environment and the elderly.

Williams for Governor...or Congressman...or Mayor...or something. Who knows....any other positions I should apply for??

Bottom line...NO ON 28. It will NOT fix any problems, it will only make the situations worse by extending the reach of the broken mechanics.

Kruechief · 01-15-2003, 08:23 AM

Sorry C-Texan, no more cowboy boots and blue jeans in the mansion.

Krue

Firedog · 01-15-2003, 09:34 AM

I am leaning pretty hard towards NO. If govt. would pull their heads out, and start cutting at the top insted of the bottom they would find all kinds of money. But it never fails when it comes time for cuts they do it in the most visible spot they can because they get the public out cry. I feel for the teachers and the kids in the schools, not a good learning situation but something has to be done to fix it and continually feeding it more and more money isn't the solution. I know it is expensive to educate and run schools but there is fat at the top of all govt agencies that can be eliminated and then there will be plenty of funds. Trust me I have never voted for anything that Don Mcintire or Bill Sizemore supports but something has to be done.

NewsRadio 750 KXL talkshow host Lars Larson will join tax activist Don McIntire at Century High School in Hillsboro Wednesday night, January 15, for a Senior Class sponsored debate on Ballot Measure 28, the income tax increase measure.
Larson and McIntire, along with ‘No On 28's’ Kevin Schaumeffle, will debate against a teacher’s union member, Ossie Rose from COSA. The debate begins at 7:00pm.

We understand that there is going to be quite a bit of news media coverage, and we want to encourage people who feel strongly to turn out for this event. Ballots are already in the hands of voters and the coverage they see in the next few days could make a big difference in the outcome. KXL Radio

Bigdog · 01-15-2003, 01:18 PM

My wife and I are both voting no.
We both have children too, but until they can show some fiscal responsibility I have to say no to a tax increase.

Straydog · 01-15-2003, 07:06 PM

Wow, a three against one debate, gotta love that.

If Larson can't control the debate by cutting his opponent off the radio, he has to call in back up, huh? [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[ 01-15-2003, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

OldRedSled · 01-16-2003, 05:41 PM

was a member in a small group listening to the chief of staff for KITZ speaking early NOV at Salem.
HE said honestly that 28 will not solve anyproblems only make the gap a little smaller. that is because the 28 hike is looking at the latest shortfall figures (those in NOV02'), which will be updated later after 03' (now i guess). He said those numbers will show that the gap is getting bigger, so well basically stay in place with the shortfall. ALSO he said that even if the orginial shortfall numbers remain, this hike will only solve the problem for this fiscal year because the 5 year growth looks slow to recovery, so we'll be back here in a year

SO straight from his mouth the BEST we can hope for is 11 months of even, and then we are right back in it. THE worst we can get is higher taxes and no improvement at all (and all the whining that comes along). DOnt vote for this..we will have to cut programs sooner or later that is a FACT.

Oh yea this information was devulged during his pitch on why he wanted a Sales Tax..(great

)

ORS

Cool Texan · 01-17-2003, 08:11 AM

Mainly cuz Kitz is an idiot. He is making absolutely no effort (that i have heard of) to fix the problems that are driving this situation.

ROOT CAUSE. 2 words to remember. Not "increase taxes". Figure out the root cause, make a tough stand and change things, and FIX the problems. Its the only way.

Its just a budget.