Who will vote today?

According to the Secretary of State, 936,467 of Oregon’s 2,074,772 registered voters had cast ballots on tax Measures 66 and 67 as of two days ago.

If predictions of a 62% total turnout in this special election are accurate, that means another 349,892 ballots will be received yesterday and today. If half of those ballots arrived yesterday, that means:

174,946 ballots will be received today

Some of these ballots will arrive by mail, but many will be dropped in official ballot boxes and hand-delivered to county election offices by the 8pm deadline tonight.

That means that you can still influence the outcome of this election.

Do you know someone who is still deciding how to vote? Do you know someone who has filled in their ballot but hasn’t turned it in yet?

Are you one of these people?

Cascade Policy Institute’s role in this election has been to provide economic analysis of the measures. If you or someone you know hasn’t seen it, you can find it here:

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 06:30 | Posted in Measure 37 | 29 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Diamond Jim

    I will tell you who will vote. Some dead people, some people who have moved will vote twice, some college kids will vote twice, some felons will vote, some illegals will vote, and on and on it goes.
    All it takes in this state is a stamp.
    Vote often folks. It is the Oregon way.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget Sizemore! He’s probably voted at least six or seven times by now.

      • Opine says me

        “A”, e.g., twitterpated mental case.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe some sleazy businesspeople will vote quite a few times?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Despite being heavily outspent by the pro tax side, the election is still very close. It would be nice to see Oregonians vote these taxes down and start to take our spending problem a little seriously.

    If they pass, expect to see a wave of attempts to increase taxes across the country. Somehow Salem’s idea of “crafting” the measures carefully, using the usual class bigotry techniques, is being looked at as political genius. Sad times for sure.

    • Ron

      Right on, Rupert. Passage tells our state leaders that they can spend as much as they want and we taxpayers will foot the bill. Today’s yes voters should be asking themselves who will the state come begging to the next time this happens (the 2011-2013 biennium) ? The evil corporations and rich again ? Maybe the hole will be so big they’ll have to lower the bar a little and come to the middle class. Maybe it will be all of us regardless of income level. Oh I forgot……Public Employees will be exempt.

      Ah well, cest la vie in Oregon.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Im not sure they will have to come for anyone.

        With passage of 67 we will have in effect a sales tax, or actually a VAT since it will be on every level of production rather than just retail.

        What they will be able to do is increase the percentage tax on type C corps, and switch the tax on S corps from flat rate to a percentage like C corps.

        All they will have to do then is keep bumping up the percentages.

        Anyone ever heard of a sales tax that didn’t get bumped up over the years?

        Yep, didn’t think so.

    • v person

      “Despite being heavily outspent by the pro tax side..”

      Rupert…have you come over to the campaign finance reform side of the aisle? What about free speech equaling the ability to raise and spend money?

      • Steve Buckstein

        I don’t think recognizing the fact that public employee unions have outspent private contributors in this election argues for some kind of campaign finance reform that deprives anyone from spending their own money to advoate their political position.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >What about free speech equaling the ability to raise and spend money?

        What about logic entering your mind, if just for a fleeting second.

        Once again, please think a little bit before you come up with your usual pearls of vapidity.

        My pointing out that the pro tax side had to spend more money to get a tie ball game speaks to the popularity of their position, not my feelings on recent Supreme court decisions or the totalitarian position you advocate for free speech.

        To clear up other jumps of logic you might waste our time with let me state now and for the record – My noting the spending of the pro tax side does not particularly indicate that I like relish or mustard on a hot dog, whether I am good or not at cribbage, nor does it indicate what sort of cheese is good with onion soup.

        • Anonymous

          “speaks to the popularity of the pro-tax position”?

          If the anti-tax position is so popular, why couldn’t they raise more money to promote their point of view?

          It seems to me the election is a pretty good indication of the popularity of the outcome.

          • Tami

            “If the anti-tax position is so popular, why couldn’t they raise more money to promote their point of view?”

            Because they don’t have the State helping them extort money from their officers, employees and shareholders like the PE unions do with their members.

          • Anonymous

            Sounds like a bunch of crybaby excuse-making to me. Phil Knight all by himself could have easily outspent the pro-tax people with a fraction of a percent of his wealth. There are plenty of others who could have done the trick.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Sounds more to me like yet another anonymous guy who thinks calling other people cry baby is an argument.

            Hate to point it out to you but under you also just invalidated your original argument.

            >If the anti-tax position is so popular, why couldn’t they raise more money to promote their point of view?

            Hmm, well, if that is true then this:

            >Phil Knight all by himself could have easily outspent the pro-tax people with a fraction of a percent of his wealth.

            Would totally contradict it. The instant Knight contributed to the anti tax side, they would have had more money than the other side with zero increase in popularity as Knight already supported the anti tax position.

            Wooops! So much for your original musings about the popularity of a side being indicated by the amount of money they raised.

            Maybe you would be more successful if in the future you concentrated more on your argument and less on calling others cry baby.

            Just a suggestion.

            Thanks

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, buddy, when I hear someone cry “extortion” when it looks like their side might lose, it sounds like big ol’ crybaby time to me. Hells bells, if a couple million more will win the election, go out and raise it!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >It seems to me the election is a pretty good indication of the popularity of the outcome.

            Good, I wasn’t speaking to that at all, but glad you have your opinion.

            My point was about the popularity of the issue, not the outcome.

            If you have to spend way more than the other side just to tie up the ball game, your issue isn’t exactly popular. When you have to spend as the pro tax side has had to, just to convince a bunch of poor shlubs in Portland to tax “the rich” and corporations, that speaks volumes.

          • v person

            “If you have to spend way more than the other side just to tie up the ball game, your issue isn’t exactly popular.”

            Does that hold for previous tax measures? I’m thinking about the cigarette tax that went down 2 years ago. I think the anti tax side, funded by you know who (cough cough,) outspent the pro tax side 10 to 1.

            Beyond that, we don’t know yet if the ballgame is tied or not. It could break either way, and it could easily end in 1 passing and 1 going down. Whatever will we make of that?

            It appears both sides had enough money to get their message out ad nauseum. On the anti-side a few deep pocketed, civic minded folks: Knight, Loren (Creepy) Parks, the Oregon Bankers Association (using TARP money I imagine,) Car dealers (using Cash for Clunkers money perhaps?,) and Boyle from Columbia pretty much bankrolled the campaign. On the pro side was union money, which amounts to small dues from lots of people.

            Remember this Rupert. Its all tainted money, there just taint nuff of it.

          • Benito

            “On the pro side was union money, which amounts to small dues from lots of people.”

            You forgot the “taken” part – as in “…small (how do you know?) dues *taken* from lots of people.” You did, however, remember to dutifully take cheap shots at some EMPLOYERS who CREATE JOBS which GENERATE TAX DOLLARS for your pension, deanish. You may now check that off your list before you submit it to your masters.

            People on both sides just want to keep their money/job/bennies, etc. – that’s what this is about. It’s not about “fairness” or “the children” or any “greed” particular to car dealers, banks, rich people or “corporations” – that’s just a canard to demonize one group who wants “theirs” over another who wants the same. Knight, Parks and Boyle are probably the most honest about their motivations. In fact, they’re probably the least driven by personal greed.

            In fact, I doubt Knight, Parks, Boyle et al are really personally affected much, if at all, by 66 & 67 – it’s more of a “principle” thing with them. Even you don’t honestly (hah!) think that they give large sums of money to causes which net benefit them financially, do you?

            Union bosses are much more likely to suffer negative financial effects if they don’t deliver for their members. Were their union bosses to ask teachers, or any PE, to take a pay cut “for the children” or ANY other reason how long do you think they would last. Oh, and put your earplugs in first. Private sector employees may whine, but the howling from PE’s would be heard to the heavens. Union leader would resort to threats and intimidation before they put the economic health of the State ahead of their own. Altruism and union are mutually exclusive.

            Just like you, just like me, they’re all human – not subhuman, not super-altruistic-human – just human. It just seems that the union/PE worldview is much more short-sighted than that of the evil corporations and other non-PE employers.

            I’m kidding about the “you” part in the context of “subhuman”, of course.

            Have a nice day!

          • v person

            “…for your pension, deanish”

            Which pension is that? Is there a check in the mail I don’t know about?

            “It’s not about “fairness” or “the children” or any “greed” particular to car dealers, banks, rich people or “corporations””

            Did I say anything about greed? I merely pointed out that 2 of the largest contributors to NO have benefited from substantial government handouts this past year. Maybe they are biting the hand that is feeding them. But that is not necessarily greedy.

            “In fact, I doubt Knight, Parks, Boyle et al are really personally affected much, if at all, by 66 & 67”

            Depends on the meaning of the word “affected.” Knight and Boyle will probably have much higher tax bills. But one can argue their lifestyles will not be impacted. Parks lives out of state, so I doubt there is any impact on him at all. He is just a civic minded pervert. No harm in that.

            “Even you don’t honestly (hah!) think that they give large sums of money to causes which net benefit them financially, do you?”

            Your question is a puzzle to me. I can’t tell what you are even asking. If you are asking do I think people donate to causes out of principle, not personal gain, the answer is yes. I do so myself so I expect others do. If you are asking do people also donate to causes that may benefit them, the answer there is also yes, I do so myself so I expect others do.

            “Union bosses are much more likely to suffer negative financial effects if they don’t deliver for their members.”

            Union “bosses” are elected by their members. If the members want different “bosses,” they know where to find them. Do you think that the unions send large checks for campaigns against the will of their members? If yes they won’t last long.

            Yep…we are all human. Even those of us you may disagree with whom you classify as “subhuman. Some are perhaps more “humanistic” than others. Your larger question, to the extent I can even make it out, is whether public employee unions back these measures out of personal greed or out of concern for cutting services. I suspect the answer is yes.

  • Jan

    I always turn in my ballot on election day. I don’t like the idea of my ballot falling behind the copy machine.

  • richard

    hat off to the democrats for finally find the way to get the population of Oregon to hang themselves with their own rope with the illusion of only the rich will pay. If there is no consequences for the yes vote then the Left and the Unions won indeed.

    ex. Phil Knight should announce that Nike will close and relocate. The rich need to leave Oregon intimately as if it was the last hours of the Batista administration

    • Anonymous

      Methinks Nike shareholders would be none to pleased.

    • eagle eye

      You really hope Nike pulls out, don’t you?

      • Anonymous

        Of course he does, Eagle. He loves Oregon so much that he wants to see us go bankrupt. THE UNIONS MUST BE PUNISHED AT ANY AND ALL COSTS!! Let the record show: Richard would cut off his nose to spite his face.

        I voted against M67 and am disappointed to see it pass, but come on… Dick’s comment really puts the whole “class warfare” thing in perspective, doesn’t it? To paraphrase, “The rich should make everyone suffer.” Nice sentiment.

        • eagle eye

          Yes, they really are full of poison, that’s how they always turn a good hand into a loser. The strange thing is, the more they lose, the worse they get. Or maybe it’s not so strange. They seem to enjoy their spite more than they would winning.

  • eagle eye

    Now that the election is officially over, I will say that I voted against both tax measures — sorry about that, (real) v. person. I didn’t feel good about the way I voted and wouldn’t have felt good if I had voted the other way. What a sad state Oregon is in. I wish everyone the best of luck.

    • v person

      You sure blew my measured analysis. I guess that is why I am here and not on cable.

      I agree it was not a great set of choices. I don’t think the impacts will be dire, or even noticeable with respect to Oregon’s “business climate.” But anything we do right now seems inadequate. Bush cut taxes and the economy stank. Raise them and it will probably still stink. We seem to be stuck in an economic eddy, and I’m not just talking about the last few years but all the way back to the early 1970s. We took a turn, or the world took a turn that has made us run harder and harder just to stay in place. This election was only a symptom of a way bigger, maybe not solvable problem.

      I think a lot of the resentment against public unions is rooted in the sad fact they they have managed to retain benefits that were once pretty widespread. They won’t be able to hold on much longer if things keep sinking, that is certain.

      • Anonymous

        We have so many businesses that have been on life support for the last year I don’t see how this will help them stay afloat.

        I know one business that has not paid rent in 6 months and the evil landlord is carrying them, hoping they get back on there feet. It may never happen!

      • eagle eye

        As I said elsewhere, the outcome wouldn’t be the end of the world either way.

        I think we were on a roll economically from 1980 – 2000 (Reaganism) and it ended with the internet bust followed by 9/11 and the financial insanity. The biggest problem with the prosperity has been that it is mostly going to those who are already doing very well. Call it “envy” if you like, or call it justified resentment. Whatever. I don’t know how to do much about it.

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)