Putting Oregon’s Public and Private Sectors in Perspective

For another view of how Oregon’s private sector has fared during this recession compared to the public sector, take a look at this chart:

Source of data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Measures 66 and 67 will make this disparity even worse. See Cascade Policy Institute’s research on the measures and related issues at:

Measures 66 and 67 will cost 70,000 Oregonians their jobs


Steve Buckstein is founder and senior policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 38 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    These numbers really put the lie to the tale that business that complaints about measure 67 is really just whining and should suck it up.

    Looking at the graph it becomes quite clear the only ones not sucking it up are those in state and local government. Yet they are the ones who, through their unions,. play the class warfare card in every ad I see on television.

    Only big corporations will pay? That’s a lie I. Wall Street companies need to pay? What the hell is a Wall Street company that is in Oregon? Oh I get it, “Wall Street” was thrown in just to get peoples lynch mob mentality going. Kind of like an anti business race card I guess.

    I’m in a very recession resistant business. In fact this is the first time a recession has ever affected my business and I was explaining to my kids how a recession works. How so much of it is based on peoples mood, do they think things well get better or worse? Well, a round of taxes on everyone who is doing with less, so state and local government employees can have their raises makes it pretty clear things aren’t getting any better any time soon. Nothing affects peoples mood more than asking those who do the most to do with less, so those who do the least can have the most. Couple that with hiring uncertainty due to the pending monstrosity no one wants, Obama-care, and you have a really bad business environment.

    Government is currently steering us on a headlong course over the abyss. With Democrats poised to drastically pair down their majorities in congress now a certainty, with loss of those majorities a possibility it is clear the people are not pleased at all with the actions of those in charge. In short the mood is not good out there and policy makers are doing everything in their power to drive that mood further south.

    This is just another example of that. I doubt many people in Oregon business have given themselves a pay raise this year. That’s too bad. However to ask them to take a pay cut so fat cat union members in the state employ can have a raise hardly bodes well for an upbeat business mood any time soon. Oregon is at war with business and should not look to pull out of its economic slump any time soon with that attitude.

    • RBF

      Rupert,
      Amen. Oregon is going the same direction as California. Soon this State will have to file bankruptcy when all the businesses close or leave the State. Why do the democrats insist on strangling the producers to feed the non-producers?

      It is insidious for government to impose taxes retroactively. Not one person in the private sector could have planned for these taxes in 2009. 66 and 67 will force companies to layoff hundreds of workers to pay these taxes.

  • Anonymous

    Ok so if 66 and 67 are defeated will the left advocate the firing of those newests jobs first?

    Or will they support carving up schools to punish voters?

  • Bob Clark

    I think about 10 percent of the State government bureaucracy could be shed across the board without a significant drop in delivered state services. As a case in point, the state has a furlough (unpaid days of for state employees) going on presently of about 2 to 3 percent, and very few complaints of non service have been registered. I do think, however, the emphasis should not be on government versus private but more on how best to grow the economy, which is then the engine that allows for expanded public goods and services. It’s pretty obvious from economic history the best way to foster economic growth is to foster a low cost of doing business in the form of stable and flat taxes as well as stable and streamline regulation. It is the latter. both taxes and over-regulation, where Oregon is faltering just as California before it. Oregonians should not fall for the easy knee jerk solution of taxing one class to supposedly hand it over to another more deserved class. Oregonians should understand measures like 66 and 67 have secondary consequences such as loss of economic production and even less government revenue in the medium to long term.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. Oregon is geographically very well situated to serve the growing Asian economies with goods and services. Lowering the per unit cost of doing business for all is the key rather than government trying to pick the winners as it now is philsophically oriented.

  • v person

    Why does the chart show Percent change instead of actual change? If the total number of total government employees is far less than the private sector, then a percent increase or decrease of public and private is not comparable in a chart like the one posted here.

    Beyond that, is there some magic proportion of public and private employees that we are supposed to strive for? Western Europeans have far higher ratios of public to private and their economies are as strong or stronger than ours.

    Is it better to have more private sector workers making and selling beanie babies or more teachers, police, and firefighters working for us?

    “With Democrats poised to drastically pair down their majorities in congress now a certainty…”

    Why is that a certainty Rupert? Has the future already happened in your alternative universe?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Why is that a certainty Rupert?

    If you dont think its a certainty, then you are the one living in dream land baby.

    Get real, I predicted just about every aspect of this administration. You were the one thinking BO wasnt a liberal. You also were the one thinking BO’s election was part of a fourty year liberal ascendancy.

    Guess its about time wave bye bye to that little dream.

    • v person

      I’m “certain” that anything about the future is less than a “certainty.” I think there is a high probability (+75%) that Republicans will pick up some seats in the House and/or Senate in 2010. l think there is a low probability (-10%) they will win back majorities in either chamber. Its going to come down to turnout, and off year elections are really hard to predict because turnout can vary a lot. (I pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way).

      But since you are so certain, you really should lay money on it, all your money. But not with me, because you believe I am a Welsher (apologies from the both of us to any Welsh readers). There are on line, legal betting opportunities available on politics. Given your 100% successful track record, you are crazy if you don’t make use of them. Bet the Springfield manor Rupert. Do it for your kids. Certainties are so few in this life.

      Forty years? I said something about 40 years out? Is this another case of the mysterious Rupert memory triangle?

      Here is my only 40 year political prediction. In 40 years there will be some approximation of me and you arguing about politics, probably through some sort of direct mind meld technology that has made the internet obsolete. And nothing will have been settled between us or our heirs.

      A question for you. What do you think of the fake v person homophobe? Annoying? Amusing? Unhinged? Aren’t you glad there is not a fake Rupert from Springfield?

      • Steve Buckstein

        “What do you think of the fake v person homophobe? Annoying? Amusing? Unhinged?”

        I vote for annoying. Impersonating legitimate commenters here is not acceptable, and such comments are subject to deletion.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        *Dean*

        >Forty years? I said something about 40 years out? Is this another case of the mysterious Rupert memory triangle?

        Oh good lord, now you are going to deny that you didn’t say that Democrats were in the beginning of a forty year reign after the BO election? Get real, you had just read Carville’s book and were all giddy over it. Demographics were all on your side, and people clearly wanted all these socialists policies.

        Oh well, that was then, this is now, and now you deny. Not a lot new with that.

        >A question for you. What do you think of the fake v person homophobe?

        I have criticized the fake Dean on several occasions now. My feelings about him should be pretty well known at this point.

        I do support his homophobic comments however.

        I think such comments are so childish and so inane that they pretty clearly make it obvious that such nonsense makes one look rather feebly minded. To that end I can say his comments suit my agenda, even if their direction at you does not.

        Id like to think people would refrain from such comments not because it was impolite, but because they truly realized that the thinking behind them was really idiotic. The inanities of fake v. person, if nothing else, serve that purpose.

        >Aren’t you glad there is not a fake Rupert from Springfield?

        Are you kidding me?

        I never had a fake Rupert but I did have the anonymous stalker on here about a month ago. The guy was so obsessed with me he was tracking down nude pictures of me at 8.30pm one night and then up at 5.30AM the next morning to call me names.

        What kind of nut goes looking at adult web sites for nude pictures of someone he has stated he hates, and then gets all disturbed when he sees them? That was really amusing, but totally psycho.

        I think the fake v. person is just kind of a bore. The anonymous stalking guy I had was clearly certifiable, however he was vastly more entertaining.

        *Steve*

        >I vote for annoying. Impersonating legitimate commenter’s here is not acceptable, and such comments are subject to deletion.

        True, but lets also remember the subject of the comments, Dean, was supposed to have been banned from this blog as well.

        Hmm,, now that I think about it, I never really knew for what reason Dean was supposed to have been banned.

        • Steve Buckstein

          I have it on good authority that Dean was never banned here. For some technical reason that name was blocked from posting comments, but he and everyone else are welcome to post comments as long as they don’t violate the Posting Rules contained in the About OregonCatalyst.com section at the top of the site.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Oh ok, that clears it up then.

            The only reason I thought Dean had been banned officially was because for a while he accused me of some conspiracy. Somehow my using his name in posts made me guilty of having “Dean” banned. I only thought there was some sort of official action because he was so persistent in his accusations of me as instigator of those actions. I never really understood the whole thing to tell you the truth.

        • Anonymous

          Still here, Rupert, and still despise you.

          “I never had a fake Rupert but I did have the anonymous stalker on here about a month ago. The guy was so obsessed with me he was tracking down nude pictures of me at 8.30pm one night and then up at 5.30AM the next morning to call me names.”

          One more time for the slower among us, I googled your email address and your swinger site is what came up. If it makes you feel better about yourself to think I was looking for nude pictures of you then so be it. Doesn’t make it true. And yes, I recall the comments in question. I was on the web before bed and had to be up at 4.30am the next day to collect my vehicle (which had been totaled in a hit-and-run the previous weekend, was that you?) from the salvage lot before work. Checking my email and blogs such as this one are part of my routine in the morning. Crazy, I know.

          “What kind of nut goes looking at adult web sites for nude pictures of someone he has stated he hates, and then gets all disturbed when he sees them? That was really amusing, but totally psycho.”

          More of that selective memory that you’re apparently famous for. Not disturbed by your nudity (grossed out by your ugliness, yes), I was disturbed because your lifestyle indicates extreme inconsistency in your political ideology. You were championing Sarah Palin at the time, if I remember correctly.

          “I think the fake v. person is just kind of a bore. The anonymous stalking guy I had was clearly certifiable, however he was vastly more entertaining.”

          And you are both a bore and certifiable. By the way, you should think about seeking help with your narcissistic personality disorder.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Still here, Rupert, and still despise you.

            Again, I have no idea why, but your despising of me is weirdly exciting to me. Glad to know you are back on board.

            >If it makes you feel better about yourself to think I was looking for nude pictures of you then so be it.

            Awwww wittle old innocent you,

            Went to a web site called “Amateur Action” to find some old pictures of me so innocently.

            Wait, let me guess, you thought “Amateur Action” meant it was a non professional sports site?

            >Checking my email and blogs such as this one are part of my routine in the morning. Crazy, I know.

            Nope, what is crazy is being so obsessed with someone that you are googling their email address at 8.30 at night and then going on a rant of profanity at 5.30 the next morning. That’s crazy, like Mel Gibson crazy.

            >More of that selective memory that you’re apparently famous for. Not disturbed by your nudity

            Your exact words were that you found the pictures disturbing. I will never understand prudes who go to adult web sites and then get all disturbed.

            Get it through your head, if you dont want to see pictures of someone nude, then dont go to web sites with names like “Amateur Action” lookling for pictures of them.

            Got it now?

            Good!

            > I was disturbed because your lifestyle indicates extreme inconsistency in your political ideology.

            More like you are such a political bigot you think there is something inconsistent about being a conservative and having a sex life.

            Sure, some conservatives are very uptight about nudity on the internet. So are many liberals ( we all remember Janet Reno ).

            Your problem is you are such a bigot you cannot conceive of conservatives who do not conform to your preconceived notions. When that bigotry collided with your obvious prudish nature, you wound up making yourself look like a fool here by trying to embaress me over something I am pretty public about.

            >You were championing Sarah Palin at the time, if I remember correct

            Well, you remember wrong then.

            I didn’t bring Sarah Palin up, you did.

            You went off that somehow nude pictures of me on the internet constituted doing something Palin wouldn’t approve of therefore I had done something inconsistent as a conservative.

            My only addressing of Palin was in response. I pointed out I don’t run my life according to what some politician would think of it. Since you made the argument, clearly you do.

            Not all of us run our lives that way.

            > By the way, you should think about seeking help with your narcissistic personality disorder.

            Sorry, you googling my email address and posting links to nude pictures of me constitutes obsession with me on your part, not narcissism on my part.

          • Anonymous

            Rupert, you poor small man, my intense dislike/aversion to you is “weirdly exciting” because you are a narcissist. It’s that simple. While it is probably too late at this point in your life, there may still be a chance that you could learn some humility and perhaps even turn your life around.

            It is apparent that you fancy yourself a practitioner of the Socratic method; unfortunately, the reality is that you’re nothing more than a sophist. You confuse your own projections as the product of reason. Case in point, your insistence that I am many things which I am not (liberal, prude, obsessed, etc). A discerning mind would notice that I have avoided engaging you (bright as I think you are, you are simply too unpleasant and not worth the time) since our last discussion. Perhaps we have different understandings of the concept of obsession?

            Rather than discussing this with you any further (and being that your memory is less than what you seem to think it is) I will simply provide the link to the previous thread, as I have nothing more to say to you than what I’ve already said:

            http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2880-2012-Presidential-Poll.html#comments

            You’ll find that my exact words were “a disturbing discovery to say the least”, after which I communicated my amusement.

  • retired UO science prof

    Interesting graph.

    I also find it interesting that Oregon University System enrollment increased 11.3% in the most comparable period (Fall 2007 vs Fall 2009). So I wouldn’t be surprised if the OUS payroll is up substantially.

    Why shouldn’t it be? Would it have been better to cap or even cut enrollments to match the private economy?

    Another thing: a not-so-secret fact is that incomes are still rising for people with jobs, in occupations where business is good.

    I haven’t noticed the prices of goods and services going down. To the contrary, they’re increasing. Just ask my dentist, or the athletic club I go to, or my friend who sells beer.

    “Business” is good in higher education, too. Yeah, UO hired new faculty for this year, I know a bit about that. And you know what? They get paid! The market rate (sort of, because Oregon faculty salaries of course are notoriously low, beyond the entry level.)

    I suppose you could say the janitors and secretaries get paid more than market value. Maybe, maybe not. Take it up with the unions next time you guys are in charge of a negotiation. Meanwhile, there’s work that needs to be done.

  • Davis

    Did not either the prof or VP not notice that the graph is showing what has happened to INCOME during this recession and not EMPLOYMENT?

    D’oh!!

    • current UO student

      The graph does not refer to individual personal income, Davis, it refers to aggregate income. Translated that means there has been job growth in the public sector and job loss in the private sector. If this graph has any value at all it is as a representation of recent employment trends in Oregon. Displaying this information as a percentage change is not only essentially meaningless, it is also somewhat misleading (which is why I frequent this blog, it’s good practice sifting through the bs).

      • Davis

        >>Translated that means there has been job growth in the public sector and job loss in the private sector.

        Not quite true. The graph says nothing about growth in payrolls, which would be the case under your translation. This graph points out that while, on the whole, the incomes of business owners and private sector employees have been declining (not growing more slowly, mind you, but actually going south), the incomes of public sector employees have not only been stable, they have actually increased (perhaps more slowly than before, what with mandatory days off without pay [furloughs] and freezes on step increases, but still headed north). These data are readily available by way of annual surveys — as well as tax returns — that just about anyone in the real world gets to fill out.

        • current UO student

          “The graph says nothing about growth in payrolls”

          The graph says nothing. Period. That’s why it is a lousy graph. We are forced to interpret and extrapolate. Based on the fact (as explained by Rep. Dennis Richardson in his post this morning) that Oregon has recently “added 1,540 additional employees” to its payroll, as well as the fact that the private sector has lost over 100,000 jobs in 2009, I think it is a safe to conclude that this graph is more representative of employment trends than it is of private vs public average incomes. Particularly when put into perspective (i.e. the public sector makes up, what, 2% of Oregon’s workforce? 3%?). Furthermore, to suggest that public employee salaries have increased by 11% over the last two years is ridiculous. They have not.

    • retired UO science prof

      Yes, of course I noticed it. I went with what was posted. It’s aggregate income, as the student pointed out. I hope you don’t think individual salaries went up that much in Oregon higher education.

      But if you don’t, then I’m not sure what your point is. I haven’t the slightest idea, in fact.

      My point was that “business” is up 11.3%, so it’s no surprise if “payroll” is up comparably. Take that to mean some combination of average income and employment numbers. To give aggregate payroll. In fact, most UO faculty salaries have been frozen since Fall 2008, into the indefinite future, if that makes you feel better.

      Again, what would you have prefered? Enrollment caps or cuts? And should we have turned down out of state and out of country students, who subsidize the program? Maybe turned down the gifts to UO, which help augment the budget? A lot of construction projects in Eugene during the recession due to those gifts. (And elsewhere in the state at other campuses.)

  • Steve Plunk

    The question is not how many police, firemen, etc. we should have but how many can we afford during a recession? With declining revenues it makes no sense to hire more public employees unless we want to have a budget problem like the one we face. Rather than hunker down and prepare for the recession the Dem leadership in Salem acted foolishly and expanded the government employment rolls.

    • v person

      “Did not either the prof or VP not notice that the graph is showing what has happened to INCOME during this recession and not EMPLOYMENT?”

      Good catch davis. But my question still applies. If say 25% of the work force is public, and they experienced an aggregate income increase of 10%, and 75% of the work force is private, and they experience a 3-4% drop, what can we conclude? Not much except that it may be better to be working in a public sector job during an economic downturn, all else equal. Public sector jobs are always more insulated from downturns because public employees are more unionized, demand for government services increases during downturns, and, governments (federal anyway) can deficit spend. During upturns by the way, private sector employees get raises and bonuses that public sector employees to not. Its apples and oranges. If private sector workers want similar job protection (and benefits for that matter,) they need to unionize.

      Rupert writes: “Oh good lord, now you are going to deny that you didn’t say that Democrats were in the beginning of a forty year reign after the BO election? Get real, you had just read Carville’s book and were all giddy over it. Demographics were all on your side, and people clearly wanted all these socialists policies.”

      Yep….as I suspected. The Rupert memory triangle. For the record Rupert, I never read the Ragin Cajun’s book, nor did I ever in my life lay claim to having read it, nor will I likely ever read it. The guy is a pompous freak who got I think one thing right in his life. Clinton’s initial campaign. I think the SNL parody of him is a bit too close for comfort by the way.

      As is often the case, you seem to confuse me with some other generic liberal. Please…get a grip on this ok? I’m kind of tired of having to deny things you mis-remember about me. Maybe you should ask first, like “Didn’t you once say….fill in the blank.” But that would imply you are uncertain about something. And if you are certain about the future, then certainty about the past must be mere child’s play.

      “Hmm,, now that I think about it, I never really knew for what reason Dean was supposed to have been banned. ”

      Because is is annoying to conservatives. What other reason could there be?

      Steve P writes: “The question is not how many police, firemen, etc. we should have but how many can we afford during a recession?”

      Would you rather lay off police, fire fighters, and teachers in a recession or raise taxes on those who can afford it to maintain those services during a recession? That is the question measures 66 & 67 asks. We will have the answer shortly.

      • cc

        *Would you rather lay off police, fire fighters, and teachers in a recession or raise taxes on those who can afford it to maintain those services during a recession? That is the question measures 66 & 67 asks. We will have the answer shortly.*

        Ah, deaner…

        So nice of you to distill the question to its crux. Here and all this time I had thought that there were OTHER state employees – not just police, fire fighters, and teachers.

        Quelle surprise!

        Now that I’ve been enlightened, I’ll vote YES on 66 & 67 – early and often.

        Such a relief!

      • Steve Plunk

        I would rather lay of ODOT, HHS, and various other state employees rather than have a tax increase. Perhaps we could use some ending fund balances to help along with delaying some new construction. You offer only one solution and that is what the Dems have done as well, offer the worst deal for the citizens of Oregon. If the legislature would have held the budget to a reasonable level we perhaps could have avoided this. They acted without regard to the realities we knew were coming and they knew it would help justify a tax increase.

        Measures 66 & 67 don’t give us a choice of who to lay off so it doesn’t really ask that question you pose. The measures ask about raising taxes while the Dems try to put it terms of keeping “essential services”. The fact is we could refuse the tax increases and keep those services if the Dems would prioritize properly.

        • v person

          Mea culpa. For dramatic effect, and in an attempt to be brief, I only listed teachers, cops and fire fighters. Actually come to think of it most cops and fire fighters are not impacted by state funding at all, so I probably shouldn’t have used them as examples.

          When you look at the state budget, you have to conclude the impacts of not passing will be heaviest on schools, meaning teachers. Colleges will just raise tuition again, meaning the impact will be on students and their families more so than on state employees. Some prisoners will be given early release and some guards laid off. We will not hire new state troopers. Old folks will get fewer home health care services. Case loads for social workers will increase, meaning a few more abused kids will go unnoticed. Tough luck for them.

          Thanks for the polling update Eagle. Looking good for passage of both, but turnout will be the key. My yes votes are in the mail.

          As I’ve written before, the world will not end one way or the other. Businesses are not going to pack up and leave, nor are wealthy people if these pass. There will not be mass starvation or chaos in the streets if they fail. we will muddle through. Vote your conscience.

          • eagle eye

            I haven’t voted yet and don’t know how I will vote. It could be yes, could be no. I’m not recommending one course of action or the other (yes or no vote), I’m just interested in the arguments pro and con, and what the outcomes will be of either pass or fail.

            You are right about where the cuts will be — widely spread, no doubt, and of course, higher education is a particularly juicy target because the Legislature knows they will can raise tuition. In other words, the students will pony up for the state if the taxpayers don’t.

            But you’re right, the world won’t end, either way it goes.

            Either way I vote, I will be holding my nose. This is one badly functioning state.

        • anonymous

          What does ODOT get from the general fund? i thought it was funded by gas taxes. Are you saying gas taxes should be used to pay teachers instead of road workers?

          • Steve Plunk

            You’re right about ODOT being funded from gas taxes and those monies not available for use elsewhere. I used ODOT as an example of bloated government. Too many employees for the work product. There are many places in state government where we over employ and over pay.

  • eagle eye

    For better or worse, the measures seem to be pulling ahead, if polls are to be believed. I came across this this morning:

    http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/

    • v person

      I meant to ask this earlier. Before you hold your nose and fill in whichever oval, what is the deciding factor for you? Is it which side to believe, or your own assessment of which is the greater good or harm?

      For me its pretty easy to reflexively vote yes because I think as a general matter we are under taxed and under served (state wise and nationally). For most here on catalyst, it is reflexively the other way, as in taxes are bad and we have too much government already. You are one of the few here who does not seem to be reflexive one way or the other, so I’m curious as to how you are evaluating this issue.

      • Steve Plunk

        I’m not sure who you are asking but please allow me to offer my reasons.

        1. It makes no sense to raise taxes during a recession. Even our president has conceded that.

        2. The rapid growth of state spending over the last 20 years is evidence of a fiscally irresponsible legislature. Discipline is needed and only the taxpayers can provide it.

        3. Threats of cutting schools first enrage me. Seriously, must they always cut where the citizens feel it the most first?

        4. Recent revelations of salaries, benefits, and the coming PERS bills has made it clear something of a taxpayer revolt is due. This vote is a step in the right direction without becoming unreasonable. Perhaps state government will see the message implicit in a rejection of these taxes.

        Just as you may start predisposed to vote yes I am predisposed to skepticism regarding what the state claims are it’s needs. I am also predisposed to believe money is better spent in the private sector rather than the public sector. The multipliers are greater in the private sector (the AP recently concluded the stimulus money used for highway construction created few jobs) and the market does a better job of allocating.

        I also use history as a guide. Low tax economies have historically done better and withstood economic downturns better. Planned economies, high tax economies, and highly regulated economies have built in hurdles that inhibit growth.

        • v person

          The question was for old Eagle Eye, but thanks for sharing your perspective.

          I’ll go out on a thin limb and predict that whichever way Eagle Eye votes will determine this election. He is generally conservative and independent minded, but not reflexively anti-government. If he and people like him vote yes, I think these measures can’t lose. If he votes no, then I think they could still win because Democrats way outnumber Republicans in Oregon, but they probably will lose since many dems don’t turn out in off elections.

          • eagle eye

            I’ll let you know what I eventually decide — I’m going to do it and be done with it soon, I think — but perhaps not tell until after the election is over.

            Yeah, I may be kind of a bellwether on this, though I didn’t set out to be. I find as I get somewhat older that it’s a lot easier to be ambivalent about these things. There are a lot of good arguments on both sides. (And even more bad ones.)

            I also find that most of these things aren’t as earth-shaking as they used to look.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >If he votes no, then I think they could still win because Democrats way outnumber Republicans in Oregon, but they probably will lose since many dems don’t turn out in off elections.

            Well, lets also not forget that the Pro 66 and 67 side also has more money to get their message out, and more organization through the state employee unions.

            Eagle Eye will vote in favor of the taxes, that is as certain as will the reason given for that decision ( disgust at the anti government fanatics hatred of giving government employees their just due ).

            Lots of people like to pretend they are up in the air on an issue to affect intellectual rigor. However ee’s support for the tax increases has been ongoing and vehement on this blog so to pretend consideration of both sides at this stage of the game is not very credible.

            I will be fairly surprised if both these measures do not pass. I just don’t see anywhere near the advertising and organization on the no side as I do on the yes.

          • v person

            “Well, lets also not forget that the Pro 66 and 67 side also has more money to get their message out, ”

            Just barely. The no side has raised just under $4 million total. Courtesy of Loren (creepy) Parks, at $75,000, $100K from the Oregon Bankers Association (and here I thought it was the Democrats in bed with the bankers,) Phil Knight ($50K,) and all the big timber companies: Weyerhauser, Roseburg, Stimson, Plum Creek, etc. You also have what is left of the auto dealers, general contractors, and other business groups.

            The Yes side has raised $4.2 million, the most by far from public employee unions. THe largest individual donation is only $3000. I’d say its a pretty even match.

            It is clearly the “elite,” arugula eating, wine sipping overpaid leftist wage workers against the poor, bud swilling, hamburger stuffing regular-guy capitalists like Phil Knight, Loren Parks, and the Bankers Association. Power to the people right on.

            Rupert, I should not have asked Eagle how he will vote. How silly of me. I should have just asked you how Eagle will vote. I forgot how much you know about everything, past, present, future, and now the minds and motivations of all other people. Its an awesome gift you have there. Don’t abuse it.

          • r UO sp

            Is that exchange up there for real? Is that you two? Who is fake vp?

            If ee is predestined, he’s doing a good job of faking it.

          • v person

            He is actually the fake one, this is getting outrageous!

      • eagle eye

        It’s whatever is better for the state, basically. I think it’s lose-lose. Oregon is generally poorly run. There is no good-government faction here, only corrupt people on one side and fanatics on the other (with some of the other on each side, I must say).

        A very badly divided state, it’s no wonder it is so dysfunctional here. I had an employee once, from a corrupt midwestern urban state, one thing he couldn’t believe was how badly divided Oregon is, there is no pulling together.

        Essential state services will be hurt if they don’t pass, but on the other hand, I believe business, which is already very shaky in Oregon, will be damaged if they do pass.

        I will decide based on what I think is best, not which side turns me off the most.

        It’s fascinating to hear the arguments on both sides, especially the emotional attitude behind them. Each side makes me want to vote for the other, frankly.

        It looks, though, like the taxes may be pulling ahead. In which case, the people here will as usual blame it on the unions. When the blame (from their point of view) will probably belong closer to home.

        It also looks like the pro-tax people calibrated the bills pretty well. i.e. soak the well-to-do. These taxes wouldn’t have a chance if they were across the board.

        We’ll see.

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)