|
Last Updated:
Nov 5th, 2006 - 18:11:57
Affiliates
Powells.com
Favorite Links
American Friends Service Committee
Friends Committee on National Legislation
National Catholic Reporter
British Broadcasting Company
The Guardian
Christian Science Monitor
LA Times
SF Gate
Oregonian
The Register Guard
Environmental News Network
Sojourners
Orion
Swans Commentary
Federation of American Scientists
Car Free Times
Indy Media
AlterNet.org
Common Dreams
The Nation
Utne Reader
Eugene Weekly
Willamette Week
Portland Tribune
Bitter Lemons.org
The Travels of our First Webmaster
|
|
|
Voices of the Northwest
Sizing up Sizemore: A Look at Oregon Ballot Measures 39, 41 and 48
Last November the people of Colorado elected to suspend the TABOR program for five years. This was the result of an agreement between Governor Bill Owens, the State Legislature and state business leaders that TABOR had been harming Colorado’s state universities.
By Nat Levy
Posted on Nov 5, 2006 |
Email this article
Printer friendly page
|
There are ten ballot measures before Oregon voters. Many sound good and fair until one examines them carefully, reading the fine print and considering the "unintended consequences"as well as the history of particular backers. Personally, we at WxNW.org tend to agree with the Register-Guard's recommendations on the whole. "Vote no on everything except Measure 44 to increase coverage for Prescription Drugs, and yes on the local public safety taxes. - Editor
Measure 39: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, a public body . . . may not condemn real property used as a residence, business establishment, farm, or forest operation if at the time of condemnation the public body intends to convey fee title to all or a portion of the real property, or a lesser interest than fee title, to another private party.” --The Voter's Pamphlet of the Oregon General Election, Novemeber 7, 2006
With a yes vote on Measure 39 public bodies, such as city or state governments, would be prohibited from condemning and subsequently seizing privately owned property with intent to transfer “interests” to another private party. A concrete example of this is given in the Oregon Voters Pamphlet. A small business owner was alerted that the city wanted to condemn his property and that of his neighbor in order to make room for a natural food store. By voting yes on this measure situations such as these would be increasingly difficult and costly for developers.
Voting yes on this measure does not prohibit public bodies from condemning private properties for public use (construction of hospitals, schools, roads, etc.)
By voting yes for this measure there would also be an increase in legal fees paid by public bodies. These fees are one of the components of the measure that could end up increasing state spending by $8-$13 million a year. The money for these legal fees would likely come out of the pocket of taxpayers.
With the higher likelihood that the public bodies would be responsible for legal fees, those without the financial means for challenging condemnation would now be able to make their voices heard.
By voting no on Measure 39 the Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain will stand. In other words, public bodies would be able to condemn any private property regardless of whom or what was going to receive the rights to the property.
Measure 41: “On personal state income tax returns . . . a deduction shall be allowed against income for each dependent, taxpayer, and spouse, lawfully claimed as an exemption on an Oregon taxpayer’s federal income tax return.” --The Voter's Pamphlet of the Oregon General Election, Novemeber 7, 2006
Measure 41, which was written by Bill Sizemore, is in essence, a tax cut. This measure would alter Oregon’s tax system to be more like the federal system. The style of deductions would be similar to that of federal taxes. A yes vote on this measure would change the state “tax credit” to a deduction (non-taxable income).
If this vote passes Oregonians will receive approximately $150 each. Those in opposition such as defendoregon.org are quick to point out that the lower classes and elderly will not benefit from these taxes. They claim that it is only taxpayers at the higher rate that benefit because they pay a larger percentage of taxes. State income taxes decrease in this circumstance because there are greater deductions. Federal taxes for the average Oregonian will increase due to the fact that he or she will not receive as high of a return. This occurs because fewer state deductions can be claimed on the federal tax form.
With a reduction in taxes there is typically a reduction in state revenue that follows. According to the Oregon Voters Guide, “The measure will reduce state income tax collections, which are used to pay for state and local services such as public education, public safety and health care for low income Oregonians.” With a decrease in state taxes comes a reduction in funding these important public programs. The revenue loss increases from $385 million in fiscal year 2007-08 to $430 million in 2009-10.
Those supporting the measure in the voters guide include FreedomWorks (one of the sponsors of the measure), Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Tax Payer Defense Fund. All of these spaces say that they were furnished by R. Russell Walker. There are other supporters as well but these three spaces are the majority of the arguments in favor.
Those in opposition to the measure include the AARP, Oregon Teachers, the Oregon Education Association and the Oregon Nurses Association among others.
Measure 48: “The purpose of this section is to limit the rate of growth of total spending by the government.” --The Voter's Pamphlet of the Oregon General Election, Novemeber 7, 2006
Measure 48, sometimes called the Rainy Day Amendment, proposes to limit biennial spending and create a large fund for emergency purposes. A vote of yes on this measure would authorize the proposed spending limits. State spending would then be limited to reflect percentage changes in population plus inflation.
There is no text in the measure that states when it will be enacted. Based on when the measure is applied there would be different limits in state spending.
A no vote on this measure would retain the current system. Currently there is no cap on spending based on population or inflation. At this point the spending cap is limited to “8 percent of projected personal income in Oregon,” according to the Voters’ Pamphlet.
Measures 48 and 41 have been linked during this voting period. A previous program in Colorado, known as the Tax Payer Bill of Rights or TABOR, contains many of the same features as Measures 41 and 48. Opponents of these measures cite statistics about the low quality of Colorado’s education programs after the similar measures were implemented. Last November the people of Colorado elected to suspend the TABOR program for five years. This was the result of an agreement between Governor Bill Owens, the State Legislature and state business leaders that TABOR had been harming Colorado’s state universities.
Despite several key similarities between these two programs, proponents of Measure 48 are quick to distance themselves from Colorado’s TABOR. The key distinction that they make is, according to David Reinhard of the Oregonian, “TABOR limits growth in Colorado’s state and local governments . . . Measure 48 only limits the growth of state government.” Current limits on local spending would remain the same. Reinhard also goes on to write that TABOR is different because it did not create a “Rainy Day Fund”. TABOR refunded taxpayers instead of setting money aside.
While Reinhard creates a clear distinction between TABOR and Measure 48, he fails to mention that the type of spending, in both programs, that funds public universities (state spending) is the form that forces limitations.
Several Oregon universities have expressed their concern over Measure 48. As reported by Greg Bolt of the Register-Guard, University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer would request that the University of Oregon be treated as a public cooperation if Measure 48 is passed. This translates to the University cutting most of its ties to the state. According to Frohnmayer this measure could cause the University to have to cut future enrollment.
The proponents of the Measure respond with the argument that there will still be an increase in spending, and that it is up to the State Legislature to choose which programs to fund. Matt Evans, a Measure 48 spokesman, wrote to the Register-Guard in an e-mail, “State spending will still rise each biennium if the Measure is approved... the 2007 Legislature would have $2.6 billion more to spend than in 2005.” Despite this increase many still forecast that a $2.6 billion increase is far short of what the state will need in the 2007-2009 budget period.
It is becoming apparent that Measure 48 along with Measure 41 will be two of the more divisive issues of this election campaign. However voters stand on these issues it is imperative that people look at all the consequences of voting yes or no on these Measures.
Copyright 2006 by Nat Levy
Nat Levy flourished in the Oregon public schools of the 4-J District in the Eugene area and is now a journalism major at the University of Oregon.
© Copyright 2000-2004 by West By Northwest.org
Top of Page
untitled
|
|
|
