Let me be up front. I am not directly impacted by the passage of Measures 66 and 67. These measures will not cost me a dime in any direct tax increases. Does that give me a clear conscious to vote yes to pass them?
So what is it that made Oregon voters pass these massive tax increases on businesses and the so called “wealthy”? Is it jealousy and class warfare? Is it that there are now more people living off of government benefits than not? Do they believe that the government really needs more money? Do they now buy the lies that corporations and success are somehow evil? I suspect the answer is a little bit of all of these reasons but let me tell you what I see.
I voted no because I am consistent in my principles. I do not vote for any tax increases of any kind because the government is completely out of control with spending and waste. There are no longer any “noble” causes big enough to steal more money from those working their tails off to earn it. The government has become too big and too irresponsible and now represents a threat to our economic security. The tax code is now used as a dangerous weapon against the people - carried out by politicians, special interest groups and voters who live off of taxpayer funded services. The public education system uses kids as political pawns in a never-ending battle for more money.
Oregonians like to think of themselves as tax revolutionaries. They voted down 9 attempts at a state sales tax. They voted to overturn the temporary income tax surcharge (recall Measure 30?). Multnomah County residents voted down the extension of the Multnomah County income tax after discovering how much it impacted them directly.
Which brings me to my main point. I am certain many of these very same “tax revolutionaries” voted for Measures 66 and 67. After all, the margin was almost 3 to 1 in favor in Multnomah County. They voted yes because they believe it will NOT IMPACT THEM PERSONALLY. These are the same people who vote for property tax increases simply because they don’t own any and can fund government by passing off the cost to someone else.
If you want bigger government and more services then you should be willing to fund it yourself. If you vote to have others pick up the tab when you are not willing to do so yourself, then you are a hypocrite.
I believe Oregonians have made it crystal clear as to the direction this state has taken. They have elected a one party super majority in this state. They have chosen the public employee unions and big government over the private sector which is responsible for creating jobs and wealth. They continue to promote class warfare. They have accepted the anti-capitalism lies of their one party leaders and really don’t seem to care about the economic consequences of their ideology.
My hope is that the businesses and the “wealthy” that will be directly impacted now do what they must. Employee layoffs, increasing the cost of goods and services, closing or moving out of state will be the consequences. Decreased revenues going into state should be the result. In the end the people who voted yes are impacted in a severe way – the laws of unintended consequences.
It is said that one must hit bottom before one gets the appropriate help. The State of Oregon is drunk on spending fueled by an insatiable appetite from its residents for a welfare state solution and public employee unions that irresponsibly feed off the public trough.
THE BOTTOM WILL FALL OUT. When the residents look to pick the pocket of someone else, hopefully that someone else will no longer be home.
In my next piece I will offer the solutions we need to end this class warfare once and for all and get this state and country back on track to our constitutional roots.
- agrosso's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Opposing view: First, I did not vote for...
First, I did not vote for these measures and I agree with you for the most part.
However, if the haves and have mores were not so greedy then we would not need taxes. This goes for Democrats and Republicans. There must be checks and balances to keep the wealthy from running state and federal governments. We have too many Liebermans working for special interest groups. Insurance, drug and oil co. CEO's own most if not all the elected officials. The main reason the economy is in the current situation is because current laws, checks and balances were not being enforced. Bush proved Free market economics does not work.
Well, thanks for voting the right way. Sort of....
wlsjmb voted against measures 66 & 67, and that's a good thing. But let's take a look at the rest of the comment:
Hmm. Greed? So, those who desire to take legally-accumulated wealth from others are NOT greedy, then?
How about this: "Neither shall you desire ... anything that belongs to your neighbor." Is that too complicated, written thousands of years ago? Is that ancient wisdom somehow not applicable today? Because that desire drives wars between nations, not to mention the war you wage in your heart against those who "have more".
Or this: our nation was not founded to create confiscatory taxes, but to eliminate them, or have you forgotten that?
Greed is defined here as "an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth." OK, you might be able to argue that someone has more than they need, but it is a simple fact that study after study reveal that people define "need" as some arbitrary level more than they possess themselves. How about "deserve", then? Does anyone deserve to receive the wealth that is earned or created by another? Do you, wlsjmb, realize that to 99% of the world, you are the greedy one, for having so much more than they do? All you do, when you pitch a fit over "greed", is point a finger at your own envy concerning the success of others. Well, that, and breaking one of God's commandments to Israel.
Well, now, you still get to vote, don't you? Do you not trust your fellow citizens to be at least as aware of the challenges of self-government as you believe you are? A corrupt politician? Vote them out, impeach them, charge them with crimes committed. No amount of money can still the vote of the free citizen. And if you think people are getting the wrong message, then speak up. Sort of like you did here, you see.
Yeah, that's probably part of it, but perhaps not the way you think. Let's see
Kindly cite the authority from the U.S. Constitution permitting ANY of that behavior.
Oh, now, who ever told you that Bush was an economic conservative, determined to follow free market principles? Or that he did so? He certainly didn't follow those principles with the import tariffs on steel, and some 750,000 people lost jobs. He did, however, manage to get one idea right: lower marginal tax rates. As a result, the deficit -- looming large from the triple hit of the recession that began in 2000, the attack on NYC that crippled much commerce in the U.S., and the ensuing war in the Middle East -- fell to only 1.17% of GDP in 2007 (source), mushrooming up again as the Democrats took control of the budget-writing process.
Throughout his administration, with greater frequency over time, Bush called upon Congress to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress, personified by Barney Frank's steadfast and very vocal claims that the FMs were solid as rocks, refused. Perhaps those were the checks and balances you hoped for? Congress refusing to check on the FMs, while their balance of debt to assets tipped over the edge of a cliff?
Failure of regulation? Right. But it was the failure of the citizenry to regulate Congress, to demand fiscally conservative principles be applied, instead of the wanton disregard for sound banking, forcing loans to be written that should never have been permitted. You certainly can't blame the banks for working overtime trying not to get stuck with all that bad paper, by trying to get other investment channels to buy them up, secured by the FMs.
For 2010, with President "I'll keep unemployment below 8%" Obama at the helm for a year, the deficit now stands at 10.64% of GDP. And the conservatives in Congress have been unable to stop him so far. Now, whose economics were you talking about, again?
No, wlsjmb, the basic misunderstanding you suffer from is this: you don't understand that all taxes tax the poor. I learned that over the last 35 years of studying the U.S. economic engine. It started in 1973, when my uncle proved that this ivy league sophomore was a complete idiot. I was complaining that Johnson's War on Poverty wasn't working because businesses weren't paying their fair share -- where have we heard THAT before... and since? He shook his head, called me an idiot, and explained that his company had NEVER paid any taxes... because his customers paid them: all the checks he wrote for tax were covered by the revenue he received from sales.
My uncle was right: I had been an idiot for believing a lie. Well, I graduated with honors in Mathematics and Physics, and I have meditated on that moment in 1973, and studied the numbers, and the flow of money, ever since that time, never trusting any politician who did not admit that companies pay no taxes (Reagan was the first I heard who said that, some years later).
As I studied, I came to understand that every tax levied causes a change of behavior, and every person who is taxed simply does not invest somewhere or consume something. Both those changes of behavior ripple through to less job opportunity for someone else, and the behavior continues to change. Here's the real problem: the poorest in our society can't simply "adjust" their spending, because they have nothing they can afford to be without. Hence, the burden falls squarely on them, no matter who wrote the check to pay the original tax.
That's why the War on Poverty has never worked: the damage done to the poor, by the confiscatory taxes levied on others to wage it, can never be overcome by the lesser amounts delivered to them in subsidies, because the government itself consumes a large part of the tax revenue.
So consider this: the real greed lies with those who deceive the well-meaning in our society, claiming that such redistributive tax and welfare structure will help the poor, when it's economically impossible for it to work that way, and it's really about accumulating power in government, instead.
Yup. Greed for power. Fight that. And I guess that would mean you should join the Tea Party movement, since the original Tea Party certainly wasn't about tea, now was it?