Website launched to stop the gas tax increase

A citizen referendum petition drive has been started to refer the gas tax to voters. The official website is called StopGasTax.com.

You can even download petitions from the site.

The Democrat Herald had this must-read editorial;“HB 2001 is a huge amalgamation of requests by the Kulongoski administration, the Democratic majority in the legislature and individual legislators who managed to get millions of dollars of construction earmarks into the bill. The summary of the bill gives no clue as to its substance. But if you read it, you learn that it covers everything from cookies at freeway rest areas to a jump in the state fuel tax. It also calls for a very involved new land use process in metropolitan areas in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced when people drive around to work to shop. (Imagine the additional restrictions on where people can move or live if that effort results in new plans with “goals” that have the force of law.)” Full story here.

Act soon because there are only a few weeks left to gather signatures.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 02:43 | Posted in Measure 37 | 31 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • JimRay

    Here’s another case of where we taxpayers have to waste our time and energies to Refer & Reject taxes that we’ve already told the Bums we do not want.

    Thanks again to Larry George & Bruce Starr for helping this TAX Increase pass.

    Printing petitions now!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    You know, at some point it would be nice if, when an initiative referral results in a large enough rejection of the legislative measure, there could be some accountability. Reimbursement for the costs of the signature effort springs to mind. Unfortunately our state government is pressed for funds so where to get the money? Well, as I see it if something gets referred and rejected, sure, the legislature simply was over ridden. However, if the measure is rejected by a large margin, it becomes a case of willful ignorance and not doing their job, it would seem to me docking of salaries is in order. What would be the percentage necessary for such judgment to be made? I would suggest that number should be set at whatever amount would cause the greatest apoplexy within our more “progressive” areas.

    • vp

      If we can also bill the proponents of failed ballot initiatives for the public costs of the elections, then you might have something.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        We already do. Its called taxes, filing fees and Secretary of States office budget

        Keep trying though!

        • vp

          So in effect you are saying its ok for a private party to confiscate my taxes for their failed cause.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >So in effect you are saying its ok for a private party to confiscate my taxes for their failed cause.

            Do you simply have a complete inability to grasp an argument, statement or position if it is more than a sentence or two in length?

            The answer is no, I am not saying that at all. In fact I clearly said almost exactly the opposite of that.

            No reading of what I said, even by a thalidomide afflicted third grader high on marijuana, listening to Pink Floyd for six hours straight and falling off the end of a short bus without his helmet on would render the absurd conclusion you have come up with here.

            Your propensity to invent statements that no one ever made, and no reading could possibly render, is the most ridiculous habit I think I have ever encountered in the course of human discussion. It is as if a parrot, who picking out a few words of the discussion, strings them together in a way that might be amusing, but really bears no relation to any point made at the table.

            If you cannot take the time to read what someone said, why do you respond?

            What the hell is it with you?

            Seriously?

          • vp

            You believe that the cost of an election is covered only by those who file ballot initiatives, and not by the rest of us?

            I think it is you who has been smoking Rupert. And by the way, I agree that the hapless 3rd grader you described would indeed reach a different conclusion than myself from reading your posts. I feel ok about that though.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >You believe that the cost of an election is covered only by those who file ballot initiatives, and not by the rest of us?

            I believe you saying “you believe” means you don’t have a whole lot of evidence to the contrary and just felt a need to pop off with something rather than thinking it through to well.

            That’s what I believe.

            >I think it is you who has been smoking Rupert.

            Based on what? Me pointing out your utter lack of reading comprehension in your response to my post?

            Frankly that is more evidence of your need to blurt out something, anything, because you can’t ever admit you made a mistake rather than any indication of smoking behaviour on my part.

            Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

  • JimRay

    I thought it revealing that former Senator Gary George is one of the chief petitioners for this referral. Obviously his son has not learned what it means to abstain from tax increases, especially during a deep recession and high unemployment.

    Thank you Gary!

  • Terry Parker

    This bill was put together by the so-called progressives that want to control and socially engineer every aspect of people’s lives – where people live and in what type of dwelling, how people move about, and even what people eat. But don’t dare tell those same progressives what they should do. They arrogantly claim they were elected to tell you what to do even if it was with the backing of organizations with money and people of power in the private sector, both with an agenda. Moreover, people elected to office are often well-to-do themselves and thereby feel privileged not having to follow the same guidelines they act to impose on the rest of the populous, or are able to buy their way past those guidelines. Is this what our forefathers fought and died for when fighting in battle for freedom? When is the last time anybody saw Gov K riding a bicycle to actually get someplace instead of just as a photo op for the media cameras? Maybe it was that he was traveling in borrowed private plane instead, or just his driver supplied full-sized town car.

    This bill and the regressive motorist assessed taxes that go with it needs to be repealed – replaced with both a road tax on bicyclists so those freeloading deadbeats start paying their own way for the specialized and niche infrastructure they rant for and use; and a mandate that public transit fares be increased so fare box revenues actually cover a far greater percentage of costs of providing the service than just the current twenty-something percent of the operational costs.

  • John Fairplay

    “If we can also bill the proponents of failed ballot initiatives for the public costs of the elections, then you might have something.”

    This is similar to the “poll tax” that white southerners used to charge black Americans to keep them from participating in the electoral process. It’s not legal to charge people for access to their constitutional rights, and since that’s what you’re advocating, I’m not surprised you posted anonymously.

  • Jerry

    But with all the new, high mileage hybrid cars running around we must have more taxes. They are not paying their fair share because they don’t buy enough gas.

  • Max

    I for one would gladly pay more in highway taxes because of all the potholes.
    The ODOT needs our support at this crucial time in our state’s history.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Max:*

    I for one would gladly pay more in highway taxes because of all the potholes.

    *Bob T:*

    Then you’re a fool. Your (our) pot-hole filling money already exists in
    great quantity but the Feds get that money first and they (thanks to
    the priorities of our misguided elitists here) see to it that the money
    coming back here goes to light rail which is about a quarter of a billion
    dollars per mile! And of course state gas tax dollars are indeed used
    on non-road projects when cleverly renamed “road projects”. Anyway,
    the money for potholes exists and has existed for years, but is
    being misspent.

    If you buy into the myth that the money is not there because we’re
    not “paying enough” in gas taxes, then you give a green light to
    continued misguided spending that is now in the billions when you
    factor in the project costs and the operations to follow.

    Why would you do that?

    Bob Tiernan

  • Pinkie French

    Gas tax increases will hurt rural Oregonians more then urban dwellers. Frankly, it will hurt rural Oregonians more and they get less of the increase. It is time for all Oregonians to tell the legislature that raising taxes in a recession will do more harm then good. It is also time for rural Oregonians to stop being the states red headed step children as well. Frankly, I wish rural Oregon could get the hell out and become the State of Jefferson already.

    • v person

      Potholes probably hurt rural Oregonians more as well.

      And I agree with you about rural Oregon seceding. I’m tired of my tax dollars propping up their schools.

      • rural resident

        Sorry, v person, your taxes aren’t going to prop up RURAL schools. If you check the data from ODE and ODR, you’ll find that the state’s rural counties are more than paying for themselves. The percentage of taxes from rural counties is actually a little less than they get back in state school funding. (People who live on the North Coast should be especially upset about the way this system works, but they seem to be OK with subsidizing everyone else.) I spent over a year looking into this, and I’ll be happy to share the data with you.

        However, if you want to be upset about the subsidy you’re providing, you can look to Marion County. The small excess in taxes paid over funding received goes to subsidize the schools there, especially the Salem-Keizer district, which is the single largest recipient of state school funds in Oregon.

        Like you, I’m all for rural Oregon seceding. It will have to get away from the suffocating land use laws and the shortsightedness of Portland-area politicians if it is going to make an economic comeback.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *v p:*

    The state gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and the value of a dollar has dropped about 2.5% a year since then, so do the math. There is not enough money to do what is needed with our transportation network. We either put more in the pot (amounting to still less than we put in in 1993 in real dollars) or we dodge potholes and stay stuck in traffic. Your choice.

    *Bob T:*

    Again, drivers in Oregon pay a lot of gas taxes that the Feds collect and then pass down (where it should have remained) for projects the state and local elitists want — and in Oregon that is not road maintenance first. Like I said, light rail projects are huge money drains and the local matches are also huge and if not state gas tax dollars then it is money that is drained just the same.

    It’s an insult to drivers to take their gas tax dollars, spend it on light rail projects that are currently a billion dollars per four-mile stretch, and then claim that they are not “paying their fair share”.

    As for “Max”, doesn’t matter if he’s a plant or not for my response is still valid to the points made.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • Max

      I am insulted to be called someone who I am not. However, my statement stands that we need the money and the high milers are not paying their fair share. Why do you think the legislature raised the license plate/registration fee for these hybrid peoples? They pay more than the rest of us to license their vehicles – why shouldn’t they pay more gas taxes, too??

      I must say, all of you who say our taxes are too high are most likely using a lot of state services. You must come to realize that you must pay for what you use. That is what gas taxes are all about – if you ride a bike you don’t pay them. If you use a vehicle with an engine then you do. This seems fair to me.

      All I can say is that I am really tired of all the anti-tax talk here on the Catalyst. Our taxes are nothing compared to Finland, Sweden, or Norway. If they can give so much and not complain then so can we.

      I am proud of Obama for letting the Bush tax cuts expire. We will all pay more in a year or two, no matter what. So whatever you say, you will pay more anyhow. I have won this argument by default.

      If taxes were so bad people would rebel and not pay them. However, they do not. They willingly pay them all the time. Oregon keeps raising taxes and not one person ever complains and the same people who raise them keep getting re-elected, so people must agree with me that high taxes are needed and thus essential to all our well-being.

      And we do have a lot of potholes. If we give them more money they will fix them. Of this I am certain.

      I am also in favor of ObamaCare and I hope it passes WITH the public option. My health is not that great, so if you all will help me out through higher taxes I will be forever in your debt. And believe me, you will be helping me.

      Thanks.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *v p:*

    And I agree with you about rural Oregon seceding. I’m tired of my tax dollars propping up their schools.

    *Bob T:*

    The stupid land use policies you support helped create that problem by limiting the number of people and thus revenue-generating business activity that can plant themselves outside of urban areas.

    This has been resulting in a couple of urban areas dominating the politics of the state, and then they complain about the rural people and see rural Oregon as their playground where they drive through to see cows and stuff.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • Pinkie French

    vp. I find your response to be rude, however, I will respond.

    We never needed YOU in the urban areas to “prop” up our schools WHEN WE COULD LOG TIMBER.

    No, infact, that is when WE PROPED UP YOUR SCHOOLS.

    Too bad liberals supported the distruction of this economy, and are too stupid to understand raising taxes is not going to fix the problem. Again, one trick ponies liberals are.

    The problem with liberals is, non of them have ever made a payroll with their own money.

    • vp

      I apologize for being rude. However, when it comes to timber harvest, the subsidy to rural areas is even more clear. Back in the day, Federal timber sales granted localities 50 cents off the top. What did they do to earn this? Nothing. It was a gift from the US taxpayers to a few localities. Even today on the Tongass National forest tehhfederal government sells old growth spruce and cedar at a huge loss to prop up local mill and logging jobs. And….cattlemen area llowed to range their cows on public land for a pittance that is again subsidized by the taxpayer. I could go on.

      Now you may think this is rude. I think it is simply stating facts, but at times facts do seem rude.

      Rural areas are much more dependent on urban ones than people care to admit. Urban areas provide markets for rural products, higher education, research in crop growing and procesing, ports through which rural products are shipped, and capital to invest in rural infrastructure. Back in the day, urban taxpayers also subsidized rural electrification. The list is long.

      Having said all this, you may be surprised to learn that I live on a farm, albeit one very near an urban area that purchases my products.

      • rural resident

        What rural communities did to “earn” this was have the resource base within their jurisdictions. The price for the federal government’s takeover of the forestlands was the agreements you cite to provide funds to communities in exchange for the loss of the tax base. If the Feds decide that this bargain isn’t worth keeping, they can always put the land back of the private market.

        Portland is often referred to as “Stumptown.” This isn’t because it has a lot of short people. For over a century, Portland and the communities up and down the Willamette Valley depended upon the rural resource base for their economic development. It’s only too bad that back then, our leaders (often rural) didn’t foresee our current situation, where urban Oregon creates rules to impoverish rural Oregon in the name of “environmental protection.” They could have put the state capital in a more rural location and forced Portlanders and Salemites (?) to develop without rural resources. This would have directed the benefits from the timber and fishing industries more to the rural communities that deserved to get them. Unfortunately, they were foolish and trusting. They believed that all Oregonians would always work together and look out for one another. Poor decision on their part.

        • vp

          COMMENT_DELETED

          • rural resident

            Oregon’s rural citizens aren’t being subsidized by those in the state’s urban areas. Read my post above responding to your post of 8/25/09 at 11:51. As I said there, I spent more than a year collecting the data to see if this was true. It’s a convenient myth propagated by Portland-area politicians to justify many policies, including ignoring rural economic development. As far as school support funds goes, it gave urban politicos a non-existent reason to hijack Secure Rural Schools funds that were intended to help maintain acceptable levels of programs in rural districts.

            As for federal ownership, that happened under Teddy Roosevelt at a time when county boundaries had (in most cases, other than Deschutes County) long since been established. The counties had the right to bargain with the Feds, and that was the bargain they struck. Urbanites may not want to admit it, but rural interests have subsidized Portland and the Willamette Valley for far longer than the reverse could ever have been true — even if your perception were correct.

  • Anonymous

    * v p:*

    Even today on the Tongass National forest tehhfederal government sells old growth spruce and cedar at a huge loss to prop up local mill and logging jobs. And….cattlemen area llowed to range their cows on public land for a pittance that is again subsidized by the taxpayer. I could go on.

    *Bob T:*

    And now you know the difference between the preservationist and the conservationist
    movement, which many people think are the same thing. Teddy Roosevelt was
    the latter — someone who wanted to set aside timber and grazing lands for
    the benefit of some lucky users, and his legions of fans today think he was a
    preservationist (“Don’t touch”) whose forestry legacy is somehow being ignored.

    It’s not.

    *v p:*

    Rural areas are much more dependent on urban ones than people care to admit. Urban areas provide markets for rural products….

    *Bob T:*

    Rural people were doing quite well when they consumed what they grew and raised, and grew and raised not much more than that. Later, when their agricultural practices improved and were coupled with a desire to sell more so they could build biggers houses, educate their kids and so on, they found a market in urban areas where the people had decided that they didn’t need open space except for parks, and who thought food grew in stores.

    If city people decided to eat weeds and rats found in cities, the rural folks will still have food to eat, and can homeskool.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • Jerry

    Remember, too, that we have an agrarian school calendar so the kids can help in the fields.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *v p:*

    Teddy said nothing about giving those resources away for free or squandering them. When he and GP advocated “wise use”

    *Bob T:*

    They wanted trees set aside to cut down, and cut down by people like GP when they didn’t have enough money to buy all the timber land they wanted. Most people seem to think Teddy was a
    preservationist and that any cutting was an insult to his wishes.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • J. Kelley

    Gasoline is already too high for most people. We do not need to increase the tax on it. And we do not need to have our car registry doubled. Older persons on limited incomes and people already hurting from the recession can’t afford these kind of raises. I think more than a few politicians should live on just social security and see what it feels like!!

  • J. Kelley

    Gasoline is already too high for most people. We do not need to increase the tax on it. And we do not need to have our car registry doubled. Older persons on limited incomes and people already hurting from the recession can’t afford these kind of raises. I think more than a few politicians should live on just social security and see what it feels like!! And nobody has fixed the deep potholes on our street in the 20 years we’ve been here! That’s, the truth!!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)