From West by Northwest.org Voices of the Northwest Sadler's Sense: A Short History of Measure 30 By Russell Sadler Jan 12, 2004 The ballot you will get in the mail in the next couple of weeks is your chance to ratify what every Oregon Legislature has done in every recession since the Great Depression. Lawmakers cut the budget as far as they could and imposed an income tax surcharge to make up the difference. This income tax surcharge will cost the average Oregon taxpayer $46 a year. Without it, the consequences will reach deep into every corner of Oregon from school closures in rural areas to tossing granny out of her nursing home. That is not an extreme statement. It is just a factual one. Like all statewide elections the campaign will be fought in the Portland metropolitan area by direct mail and phone banks, zeroing in on neighborhoods through the use of databases that show how specific neighborhoods voted in the past and are likely to vote as their demographics change. One of the most fatuous campaign arguments you will hear is, “The Legislature must learn to live within its income.” No one will accept responsibility for the fact that voter-approved initiatives have added to the state’s costs without providing additional income to pay for them. Two of the loudest voices against the surcharge will be those of Don McIntire, a former Gresham racquetball club owner, now a lobbyist in Salem, and Kevin Mannix, a former Democratic state legislator turned Republican and now Chair of the Oregon Republican Party. These two men are in denial for their personal responsibility in precipitating the present budget crisis. McIntire is the author of 1990’s Ballot Measure 5. That measure shifted billions of dollars of school expenses from locally-raised property taxes to state-raised income taxes -- without any new state revenue to pay for the shift. Mannix is the author of 1994’s Ballot Measure 11. That measure established mandatory minimum sentences that have quadrupled the state’s prison population since its passage, adding hundred of millions of dollars to state spending each year. Again, no new revenue was provided to pay for it. In the 1993 session, lawmakers rejected Mannix’ plea to approve mandatory minimum sentences because legislators are constitutionally required to balance the state budget and they could not see how they could meet Measure 5’s requirement to absorb local school costs in the state budget and still pay to incarcerate more felons. Mannix threw a tantrum and drafted an initiative pitting prisons against schools, the Oregon Health Plan, the elderly -- you know the litany. But Mannix had a dirty little secret. Although the Legislature had to balance the budget, he knew voters approving initiatives did not. Using the initiative process, Mannix and McIntire forced their personal priorities on the Legislature without regard for the fiscal consequences. The Legislature was able to juggle the conflicting priorities as long as the economy remained stable. With the recession, tax revenues plunged and the additional spending created by McIntire’s and Mannix’ initiatives proved to be budget busters. Both men still refuse to accept their responsibility for their part in creating the present budget crisis. A few courageous Republicans, led by State Rep. Lane Shetterly, R-Dallas, joined the Legislature’s Democrats in doing what lawmakers have done in every recession since the Great Depression. They slashed the budget as far as they could, then imposed an income tax surcharge to balance the budget. This is the voice of representative government. Measure 30’s opponents claim to have a “secret plan” or offer a list of alternatives we are supposed to take seriously. For example, there is a proposal to increase logging on the Elliot and Tillamook state forests to provide alternative revenue. Flooding the market with state-owned logs will simply drive down the price of privately owned timber. Reforestation in the Tillamook State Forest is only 60 years old. Logging for a quick buck now will deprive a future generation of the higher value of older trees. Others want to allow the state lottery to operate slot machines and repeal the state prohibition on casinos to compete with the tribes for that market. The lottery is already shouldering an increasing burden of raising state revenue and the casino market is not infinite. Many towns do not want casinos -- witness the fights in Florence and Cascade Locks. Other “bright ideas” being circulated include repealing tax exemptions on historic buildings and religious property. Neither is large enough to bridge the budget gaps and both are controversial on their merits. Still others want to repeal land-use restrictions that allegedly inhibit the construction of “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart. These absentee retailers contribute little to a community and take out a lot of cash. They are not engines of economic development nor large tax contributors. These “alternatives” were considered by the Legislature in the longest session in the state’s history. They were all found inadequate to the task by the most representative body in the state. Now we get to substitute our judgment for the Legislature’s. Oregonians have no responsible “alternative” to paying the bills they and their elected representatives voted to incur. Copyright © 2004 by Russell Sadler Editor's note: Columnist Russell Sadler is spending the winter in Eugene writing a short history of Oregon for tourists and newcomers. He can be reached at russell@russellsadler.org © Copyright 2000-2004 by West by Northwest.org