M. 96: Helping Oregon Vets get the Services they have Earned

Carla Hanson

Opponents to M. 96 express their disdain for this ballot measure in this context:

"We believe in our veterans, but this is an irresponsible way to fund programs"

Right, and don't use a fire extinguisher on that kitchen fire because the foam makes SUCH a mess.

We live in extraodinary times, and through the passive agggressive implementation of austerity economics from the GOP Congress, Federal funding in thousands of programs that serve Oregonians has dried up or diminished. We are further hampered by the Gordian knot of a restrictive tax base in which there is little wiggle room. Initiative opponents may not appreciate an appeal to taxpayers to create a budget item, but for over a generation Oregon taxpayers have had our hands deep in budget policy precisely because we have the initiative process.

Dedicated funding already exists in the lottery program: 33% to education; 15% to parks and wildlife. In fact, in 2010, Oregon voters voted to continue that 15% dedicated funding to parks and wildlife which was due to expire in 2014.

Asking Oregon voters to dedicate just 1.5% of lottery funds to Veterans services is a small ask for a big return.

Here are some stats to wet your whistle:

• Between 2009 and 2015, 36 states showed decreases in the number of homeless vets. During the same timeframe, the Oregon homeless veteran population rose almost 15%.*

• From 2014 to 2015 alone, Oregon had the third largest percentage increase of all states for veteran homelessness (13.3%)*

• Oregon has approximately 330,000 - 350,000 veterans. Currently only about 100,000 are receiving the services they earned.

• 2 states with similar populations to Oregon (Appx 4 million) have similar veteran populations, but strikingly dissimilar occurance of veterans homelessness: -------Oklahoma 331, -------Louisanna 392, -------Oregon 1464

• Oregon, despite being among the geographically largest states, has only 3 major Veteran medical facilities (Portland, Roseburg, White City (rehab Center near Medford)). While about 2 dozen small clinics are scattered through the state, they offer limited hours and limited services.

Sometimes doing the right thing is imperfect, but there is only one right thing to do regarding M. 96.

Vote for it.

You will be opening a door for a deserving veteran.

By Carla Hanson Oct. 02, 2016

comments

This year's Oregon Ballot Initiatives - Your Thoughts?

Albert Kaufman

From Ballotpedia:

Seven measures are certified to appear on the Oregon ballot on November 8, 2016.

Measure 94 would repeal the mandatory judicial retirement age, which is currently 75 years old.

Measure 95 would allow public state universities to invest in equities.

Measure 96 would devote 1.5 percent of state lottery net proceeds toward veterans' services.

Measure 97 would raise corporate taxes on businesses with annual sales that exceed $25 million.

Measure 98 would require state funding for dropout-prevention and career and college readiness programs in Oregon high schools.

Measure 99 would create an "Outdoor School Education Fund," sourced from state lottery proceeds, to support outdoor school programs.

Measure 100 would prohibit the sale of products from and parts of 12 species of endangered animals.

There's been a lot of commentary on Measure 97, but not so much on the others. Here's an open discussion to see if there are any strong feelings about the 2016 Oregon ballot initiatives. What are your thoughts?

By Albert Kaufman Sept. 26, 2016 Posted in open discussion.

comments

No, Gov. Brownback: You’re definitely not in Kansas anymore

Chuck Sheketoff

Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Someone — it's not clear exactly who — had the idea of bringing Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to Oregon to lecture our state on tax policy, specifically regarding Measure 97.

That’s like bringing the Governor of Michigan to tell us how make our drinking water safe.

Kansas, sadly, has become a poster-child for tax policies that harm the economy and schools. And that is directly due to Brownback, arguably the nation’s least popular governor. It’s gotten so bad that even late-night comedians have taken their shots at Kansas.

You see, Brownback’s tax policies wrecked the Kansas economy and budget. When he took office, he pushed through massive tax cuts mainly benefitting the wealthy. Brownback promised economic prosperity, but the opposite occurred. The economy shrank after the tax cuts took effect. And even after it began growing again, the Kansas economy continued to lag behind the national economy.

The economic hit caused a collapse in revenue collections, which in turn led to deep cuts to education and other vital public services:

Most states are restoring funding for schools after years of significant cuts, but in Kansas the cuts continue. Governor Sam Brownback recently proposed another reduction in per-pupil general school aid for next year, which would leave funding 17 percent below pre-recession levels. Funding for other services — colleges and universities, libraries, and local health departments, among others — also is way down, and declining.

In short, Gov. Brownback’s Kansas experiment is a cautionary tale on what not to do on tax policy. Brownback is the last person someone should take tax policy advice from.

Instead, Brownback should be here to take notes on what works. Since the Brownback tax cuts took effect, jobs in Kansas have increased by a meager 2.1 percent, compared to 6.9 percent for the nation as a whole, and by a whopping 11.4 percent here in Oregon. Over the years, Oregon’s economy has been one of the nation’s top performers. Our state’s economy has performed quite well after raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations in January 2010 — measures that helped avert some budget cuts in the wake of the Great Recession.

That Brownback, whose tax policies have proven disastrous, would criticize Measure 97 is validation for voting “yes” on Measure 97.

Measure 97 will allow Oregon to invest in and greatly improve our schools, senior services and healthcare. That’s something Brownback and Kansans can only dream about.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

By Chuck Sheketoff Sept. 23, 2016

comments

Occupy’s message still relevant at five

Chuck Sheketoff

Five years ago, protestors descended on Zuccotti Park near Wall Street, launching the Occupy movement. The protests that flared across the nation, Oregon included, finally put income inequality on the forefront of the national dialogue, making “the 99 percent” and “the 1 percent” household terms.

But while Occupy changed the terms of the debate and our lexicon, the reality on the ground has yet to catch up. On the fifth anniversary of Occupy, it is really Oregon’s 1 percent who have reason to celebrate.

From 2011 to 2014, the year with most recent data, the top 1 percent saw their share of all Oregon income increase by about 19 percent. The bottom 99 percent of Oregonians saw their share of income decrease by about 3 percent.

Indeed, income inequality in Oregon stands near its all-time high.. The average income of a few – the top one-tenth of the 1 percent – was $3.9 million in Oregon in 2014. Meanwhile, the typical Oregonian made about $33,500 in 2014.

Fortunately, there have been policy changes in Oregon in recent years that should give the 99 percent hope. Raising the minimum wage, enacting paid sick leave, and boosting the Oregon Earned Income Tax Credit are all wins that will help working families get ahead.

But the larger challenge of reducing income inequality remains. The message of Occupy is as relevant as ever, as it is Oregon’s top 1 percent can really celebrate their gains.

Read Outsized Gains at the Top Worsen Oregon Income Inequality to learn more and sign-up to keep informed on the issue.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

By Chuck Sheketoff Sept. 17, 2016

comments

The Oregon Business Association’s tax flip-flop

Chuck Sheketoff

It was 2009. The Great Recession had hammered Oregon’s finances.

The Oregon legislature faced a choice. It could slash the state budget. That meant laying off more teachers, cutting services that protect foster kids, and weakening many other essential public structures that Oregonians depend on. Or the legislature could raise taxes.

When it came to raising taxes, one target stood out: Oregon’s ridiculously low corporate minimum tax. Stuck at a measly $10 since 1931, the corporate minimum tax was too big an embarrassment even for the business community. So instead of trying to defend the indefensible, the Oregon corporate lobby stepped forward with a couple of tax proposals.

One business coalition, led by Associated Oregon Industries (AOI), proposed a flat minimum tax on all corporations — C-corporations and S-corporations alike. AOI’s plan called for a minimum tax of $300 a year, regardless of a company’s profits.

Another group, the Oregon Business Association (OBA), recommended a different minimum tax structure (PDF). OBA proposed charging S-corporations a flat $250, no matter the level of sales or profits. And for C-corporations, OBA proposed using a sliding scale starting at $250 a year and capping at $25,000 based on the corporation’s in-state sales, not profits. In other words, OBA put forward a tax on gross receipts.

The legislature took OBA’s concept and tweaked the details. For S-corporations, the legislature set the minimum tax at $150, less than what AOI and OBA had proposed. And for C-corporations, the legislature established a minimum tax on a sliding scale, starting at $150 and going up to $100,000 for corporations with $100 million or more in Oregon sales.

Opponents to the legislature’s tax plan referred the issue to the ballot, which became Measure 67. AOI came out swinging against Measure 67. But OBA, which put forward the gross-receipts concept that treated S- and C corps differently, stayed on the sidelines.

Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved Measure 67, in spite of a barrage of misinformation put out by the business community.

It’s important, however, to recognize just how modest the corporate minimum tax put in place by Measure 67 is. The tax ranges from 0.15 percent for corporations with $10 million in sales) to less than 0.1 percent (one one-tenth of one percent) for corporations with have sales over $100 million. The more that the sales exceed $100 million the lower the tax rate.

Today, as the chronic underfunding of Oregon schools persists and the state is unable to address the needs of Oregonians, that minimum tax is once again on the table. Measure 97 has the potential of transforming Oregon schools, health and senior services, boosting the business climate and quality of life in our state. Measure 97 would amend the minimum tax, raising taxes only on C-corporations with Oregon sales above $25 million per year, and only on the sales that are above that big business threshold. No small business will pay the updated minimum tax.

This time around, OBA is not staying on the sidelines. OBA is leading the campaign against Measure 97, railing against a tax concept it once proffered.

What explains OBA’s flip-flop, going from proposing a gross receipts tax and treating C-corps differently, to maligning the concept? Maybe it’s that intellectual consistency goes out the window when corporate behemoths face a real tax increase. Right now large corporations like Comcast, Walmart and Bank of America see the current capped minimum tax as nothing more than a pittance. They know that Oregon has the lowest business tax level in the nation, and they want to keep it that way.

Measure 97 is a tax corporations cannot dodge. By voting “yes” on Measure 97, Oregonians will finally make big corporations pay their fair share.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

By Chuck Sheketoff Sept. 15, 2016

comments