“No One Left to Tax”

In this short clip from Wednesday’s House Committee on Business and Labor hearing, Rep. Michael Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, made an emotional off-the-cuff statement about how jobs are being killed in this state and how we have “no one left to tax.” He was the only Democrat to vote against the tax bills that were later referred to voters as Measures 66 and 67.

Later that afternoon, Schaufler apologized to the House for making this speech while in committee, calling it out of order. On the contrary, perhaps some of his colleagues owe the people of Oregon an apology for not admitting that what he said is all too true.


Credit to Oregon Politico statehouse reporter Sarah Ross for capturing the video. Oregon Politico is the news arm of Cascade Policy Institute.


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

tt twitter big4 No One Left to Tax tt facebook big4 No One Left to Tax tt linkedin big4 No One Left to Tax tt reddit big4 No One Left to Tax

Posted by at 02:45 | Posted in Measure 37 | 29 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Malcolm McIver

    That is one of the most encouraging things I have seen out of Salem in a long, long time. A Democrat who understands the necessity of private job creation and the idiocy of Oregon’s jobs-destroying policy mix. Hopefully this bodes well for November.

  • Matt Evans

    Rep. Schaufler needs to expand his thinking. The Governor has already pointed to one group that can be taxed more – every individual family, regardless of income level, that would otherwise receive a “kicker” refund. Oh, and Multnomah County has identified another group that can be taxed more – tobacco products users, also regardless of income level. Think 66 & 67 were the end? Now that Oregonians acted like 12-year old schoolyard bullies and stuck it to “the rich” and “evil corporations,” the Legislature and local governments are going to make sure every taxpayer pays their “fair share.”

  • rural resident

    I can’t understand why in the world he’s apologizing. The statement is perfectly on topic, given the legislation they were considering and the general economic situation in Oregon. It’s time the legislature stopped putting process and politics before the creation of a more dynamic economy. There are legitimate disagreements about the extent to which some possible courses of action will work, at least in the short run. But, clearly stating one’s political positions helps move the discourse forward.

    Oregon has been too picky for too long about what types of jobs are “OK” and which are not. The result is that, even in good times, Oregon’s unemployment (and underemployment) rate(s) are among the highest in the country. It’s time for us to recognize that even a job that doesn’t pay $50K a year with full benefits is still worth something to people in our state who are struggling.

    People would have a lot more respect for our political leaders if they would speak their mind more often the way Rep. Schaufler did. And, whatever you do, for heaven’s sake, stop backtracking. This is the problem with the Dems at the national level–they look like wimps.

  • valley p

    This is about the dumbest clip i have seen in some time. Everyone who opposes LNG therefore opposes family wage jobs? Anyone who opposes logging where it should not take place opposes family wage jobs? (Never mind the current demand for lumber is about zero). Anyone who doesn’t want to trade fishing for farming opposes family wage jobs? And “there is no one left to tax?” What the hell does that even mean? 90% of us are working. Some of us are making a lot of money. What a bunch of retrograde nonsense.

    He should apologize for being an idiot who sees the world in black & white, and is proud of that.

    • Pinkie French

      How daft.

    • Mary’s Opinion

      Wow! You really don’t get it. You are undoubtedly among the 90% who have a job as well as among the some who are “making a lot of money” so you don’t really care about what has happened to this state and a significant number of its residents.
      I don’t think Rep. Schaufler owes anyone an apology.

      • Pinkie French

        I was not refering to legislator as daft rather, the poster.

  • Pinkie French

    valley, as in how daft can you be? Where do you think the money comes from to run all of those programs you find necessary. YOU are daft. Grow up already, everyone can not get in the bucket and all the while the bucket is somehow suposed to get off of the ground.

    • valley p

      Programs that I find necessary? I gues that would be “I” plus a substantial majority of oregonians. But my observation of Schaufler is more about the rank silliness of his emotional rant. He offers nothing of substance. Are we to cut more trees when there is no market? What jobs could that possibly create? Are we to tell property owners in the path of the LNG line that they have no right to object? How American is that? Are we to tell fishermen to forget about salmon because wheat is more important? Are there really more jobs in wheat than in salmon? Schauffler doesn’t say. He just makes assumptions based on his emotions.

      • dian

        I neither use nor ask for their programs. My best help is on the end of my arm

      • Pinkie French

        There is a timber market, and we have dying trees. The govenor even cheered on when burned out timber was allowed to lay on the ground rather then being recovered and sold for…hell…MONEY…to suppor the schools. I am sick to death of you progressives that would rather rape the industries that provide for your rather then do something that makes common sense. HARVEST A BURNED DOWN FOREST to support the schools.

  • Harry Truman

    Schauler’s enthusiaism for LNG is an enthusiasm for trampling people’s property rights.

  • Jerry

    Nothing to apologize for – except being a dem.

  • John in Oregon

    Kudos to Sarah, Steve and Oregon Politico. For some time I have been critical of the Legacy Media, both broadcast and print. In spite of the communications advances, it seems to me that we had better news coverage of state capitals 50 years ago. Today we have legislation with major impact appear from no where or fly under the radar until just moments prior to passage. Oregon Politico has the potential to reverse that trend.

    This clip is remarkable in many ways. It would not see the light of day in any “normal” news. The level of frustration that Rep. Schaufler is feeling is evident. The revealing comments, which he later termed out of order, are remarkable. I personally do not feel Schaufler has any need to make an apology.

    Like the coin this issue has two faces. Rep. Schaufler is talking about the tax side of the coin, the consumption of the public wealth by Government. He properly notes the totality of the Oregon repressive business environment. Stop LNG, no logging, no drilling, water for fish not farming, close fishing, take out the power dams, pay more even if the business lost money. Squeeze the golden goose for more eggs.

    The other side of the coin is spending. Public opposition has been much in the news lately. Two polls shed light on spending.

    Rasmussen Reports found “[E]conomist John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree.” Rasmussen “finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit… In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.”

    Gallup asked Americans whether their reactions to various philosophies were positive or negative. While 61% of progressive Democrats held socialism in a positive light, 58% of Americans have a negative image of socialism. A majority of Americans both Republican and Democrat have a positive image of Small Business, Free enterprise, Entrepreneurs, and Capitalism.

    The Tea Party and 9-12 movements have been saying stop spending the money that the people do not have. Meanwhile, CNN POLITICS provides a primer on the Tea Partiers, and twice describes them as “far right.”

    Let me get this straight. CNN tell us socialism is mainstream, but fiscal sanity and constitutionalism are “far right.”

    The clip from Rep. Schaufler demonstrates something I have felt for some time. That a D by the name does not automatically designate membership in the far left progressive wing of the party.

    That may well be the greatest significance of this clip. It opens a view into politics that has not existed for some time.

    • valley p

      “He properly notes the totality of the Oregon repressive business environment. Stop LNG, no logging, no drilling, water for fish not farming, close fishing, take out the power dams,”

      1: LNG has not been “stopped,” and probably can’t be by the state. Energy pipelines are permitted by the Federal government whether states like it or not. A conservative might argue for state’s rights here, but I doubt I will hear that.
      2: NO logging? on what planet? Permitted logging on state forests has gone up. It is also increasing on federal forests in Oregon thanks to Wyden. To the extent there is no logging it is because at present there is no market. That is capitalism.
      3: No drilling for what? Schaufler said nothing about drilling, and Oregon has nothing to drill for except geothermal energy.
      4: You think fish are favored over “water?” There are 19 large dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The only free flowing stretches of the Columbia are below Bonneville and a few miles near Hanford. That’s it. We have unduly favored fish? Hardly.
      5: Take out dams? See above. at most 4 out of 19 could be removed, and these produce little electricity. They do allow Lewiston Idaho to be a “port”. How silly is that?

      Not to mention all these dams, or most of them, were paid for with borrowed money by the feds to create an economic stimulus that mostly serves Republican farmers. Do conservatives complain? I can’t hear you.

      “Rasmussen Reports found “[E]conomist John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree.”

      I guess that settles it then. American adults at large know more than Keynes. The next poll question should be about the theory of relativity.

      “The clip from Rep. Schaufler demonstrates something I have felt for some time. That a D by the name does not automatically designate membership in the far left progressive wing of the party.”

      Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman were not enough to convince you of that? It took an emotional outburst by a representative from Happy Valley, foreclosure central?

    • Sarah from OP

      Thank you John for your very kind words. Oregon Politico is aiming to cover those events that are not otherwise covered by mainstream media. Thank you again. http://www.theoregonpolitico.com

  • Pingback: www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com

  • Jack

    Socialist Economist John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree.” Yea and I have a Feeling Democrat Rep.
    Schaufler might want to become a Republican before his roasted at the Stake by his Progresive Socialist Liberal Democrat friends. History shows FDR’S Spending did not work in the 1930’s and Nobama’s Spending won’t work now.

    CUT TAX’S, CUT REGULATION ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR. = = = = = THE WEALTHY = = = =

    GOOD PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS

    • anonymous

      “Socialist Economist John Maynard Keynes..”

      Keynes a socialist? That would be news to him. He probably saved capitalism from itself.

      “History shows FDR’S Spending did not work in the 1930’s ”

      Then why did the GDP grow at an annual rate of nearly 10% averaged across 1932-1940? The only interruption to growth was when FDR prematurely balanced the budget in 1937 and the economy tanked. That is the exact same prescription Republicans are calling for today. Its beyond dumb.

      Obama’s spending is already working. GDP is growing and unemployment is now headed down. But why let facts get in the way?

    • John in Oregon

      Hi Jack

      I agree with many of your comments and some background may be helpful.

      Even in the early stages of the depression Keynes’ himself often cautioned that his deficit spending theory related to a transition from a war economy to peace time economy. He specifically talked about a war footing in which the people were heavily taxed to finance war production that the wages and monetary value would be out of balance. To alleviate further post war monetary collapse caused by the ending of war production Keynes proposed SHORT TERM deficit spending.

      Friedrich von Hayek was a contemporary of Keynes. There is an amazing piece of audio of Hayek appearing on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line. In that interview “Hayek says that Keynes’ theory was, at best, appropriate for the specific deflationary environment… After the war had passed, the great danger was inflation.” In 1945 “according to Hayek–Keynes himself agreed with this, and even promised to rein in his foolish disciples if they ever got the crazy notion to advocate pump-priming in an inflationary environment. But alas, Keynes died of heart failure six months after pledging this to Hayek.”

  • John in Oregon

    VP. Its not as simple as saying that 90% of us are working. Even in Portland the “official unemployment number” is pushing past 11%. Including the under-employed and those that have given up pushes the number to near 20%. In some Oregon counties it’s in the 30s.

    The real numbers to watch are M-6 and the number of real jobs. A group called TrimTabs bases its data on daily income tax deposits at the US Treasury. Yesterday TrimTabs said its independent calculations showed that the economy lost 104,000 jobs in January. Another job tabulator that tracks real payrolls, Automatic Data Processing (ADP), calculates the January job loss as 22,000.

    I have long been a supporter of individual property rights. The right to use ones property as one might wish. The creation of roads, corridors for transportation of goods, services and people has long standing historic precedence predating the discovery of America. The US Constitution makes provisions for the creation of postal roads. I support property rights as established in the Constitution.

    I have difficulty with the sunshine or summer supporter of property rights. Those for who property rights are conditional upon the particular project. Taking property without compensation is OK for a bike path, hiking trail, or nature corridor. A LNG corridor is not. A light rail line is OK. A power line is not. Planners telling a farmer to grow grapes is OK. Building a road is not.

    When property rights become optional, without constitutional foundation, and dependent upon the popularity of the project, then rights no longer exist and become simply a whim of government.

    I have to defend Rep. Michael Schaufler. Its clear he recognizes the Oregon environment that punishes and harasses business. It’s equally clear that he is frustrated with that situation. On that committee Schaufler is dealing with members who simply choose not to notice the danger. Quite frankly the problem must be recognized to allow any discussion of alternatives.

    I am tired of the photogenic face and eloquent prose, which sweeps aside alternative suggestions as offering nothing. Equating failure to accept the progressive position as offering nothing of substance is a false choice.

    Just as offering a choice between farming, where fields become fallow and fishing which allows no fisherman is no choice at all.

    • valley p

      “Taking property without compensation is OK for a bike path, hiking trail, or nature corridor.”

      Nope. Its not ok and its not constitutional. Fair market value has to be paid. The difference between “taking” (forcing the sale of) a corridor for a road, trail, or bike path and a corridor for a gas line is that the former is a public use and the latter is a private use. I recall conservatives freaking out over the Keilo decision of the Supremes, because land was condemned and then turned over to a private party. They don’t seem to have the same concern when it comes to natural gas companies. Why is that?

      And where do you get the farmers being told to grow grapes? Told by whom?

      “I have to defend Rep. Michael Schaufler. Its clear he recognizes the Oregon environment that punishes and harasses business. ”

      The Tax Foundation rankes Oregon as the 14th best state for business for 2010 with respect to taxes. Whatever you and Schaufler recognize, people who look at the data don’t seem to agree.

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >The Tax Foundation rankes Oregon as the 14th best state for business for 2010 with respect to taxes. Whatever you and Schaufler recognize, people who look at the data don’t seem to agree.

        You didn’t look at the report very carefully it would seem. Yes, it does rank Oregon as number 14 for 2010. However for 2009 it ranks Oregon as number 8.

        Methodologies can vary so one report can say things are good, one report can say things are bad. Therefore the trend is probably more important as, if one assumes if the report is honest, the methodology will be the same year to year.

        Oregon is on a downwards slide. Even your own citation shows that.

  • Jan

    Rep. Schaufler reminds me of the Democrats of my youth, who worked for the people and worked to make certain jobs in the private sector were the kind of jobs that could support a family. I attened many a Labor Day picnic growing up in a union town.

    I do not recognize the party today and I am pretty sure my Dad would be outraged at the sell out of jobs by the D’s of today in favor of government unions and special interest. In his day it was the R’s who were special interest party against the good jobs and good wages for the people.

    The R’s seem to represent the workers today against the ever increasing taxes the D’s want from the working class and the business class that creates the jobs for the people.

    I beleive Rep. Schaufler have reached a level of frustration with his party and he is doing his best to represent the working people in his mostly blue collar district. No apologies needed when being passionate about the needs for jobs for the people you represent.

  • John in Oregon

    anonymous supports Keynes with the following conjecture. > *Then why did the GDP grow at an annual rate of nearly 10% averaged across 1932-1940? The only interruption to growth was when FDR prematurely balanced the budget in 1937 and the economy tanked. That is the exact same prescription Republicans are calling for today. Its beyond dumb.*

    That conjecture might hold water if the budget were all that occurred. In fact a closer inspection of the events of the time show any move to balance spending as quite the lesser of government activity. Lawrence Reed provides a detailed look at the period.

    ‘On the heels of the Wagner Act came a thunderous barrage of insults against business. Businessmen, Roosevelt fumed, were obstacles on the road to recovery. He blasted them as “economic royalists” and said that businessmen as a class were “stupid.” He followed up the insults with a rash of new punitive measures. New strictures on the stock market were imposed. A tax on corporate retained earnings, called the “undistributed profits tax,” was levied. “These soak-the- rich efforts,” writes economist Robert Higgs, “left little doubt that the president and his administration intended to push through Congress everything they could to extract wealth from the high-income earners responsible for making the bulk of the nation’s decisions about private investment.” ‘

    ‘During a period of barely two months during late 1937, the market for steel — a key economic barometer — plummeted from 83 percent of capacity to 35 percent. When that news emblazoned headlines, Roosevelt took an illtimed nine-day fishing trip. The New York Herald-Tribune implored him to get back to work to stem the tide of the renewed Depression. What was needed, said the newspaper’s editors, was a reversal of the Roosevelt policy “of bitterness and hate, of setting class against class and punishing all who disagreed with him.” ‘

    [Progressive] ‘Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote in March 1938 that “with almost no important exception every measure he [Roosevelt] has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth.” ‘

    DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

    • valley p

      Rupert writes: “You didn’t look at the report very carefully it would seem. Yes, it does rank Oregon as number 14 for 2010. However for 2009 it ranks Oregon as number 8.”

      Yes, I caught that. BFD. We went from #8 to #14. Your favorite, South Carolina, also “slid” from 25th to 26th. Does one year make a trend Rupert? No. Its a blip. A trend takes a few years to establish. Oregon was #10 in 2006, improved to #8 by 2009, and is now #14. So what is the trend? And during those years where “the trend” improved, how come our state economy went down instead of up?

      But more importantly, who cares about these rankings? If you compare the states with the “best” rankings to those with the “worst,” and you compare that with wealth by state, what conclusions can you draw?

      South Dakota has the top ranked business climate and the 26th highest per capita GDP. New Jersey has the worst business ranking and the 3rd highest per capita GDP. Oregon, with our #8 or # 14 ranking in “business friendliness,” ranks 31 in per capita GDP. California, that basket case to the south, ranks #48 in being business friendly and 11th in per capita income. Connecticut is the 38th worst for business and #1 in income.

      In other words…who give a rip about where we rank on being business friendly? It does not seem to matter at all with respect to how wealthy we are. There is zero correlation, and thus zero causation. The entire argument of anti 67 was complete and utter bullshit. I’m amazed the pro side never caught onto this. The wealth of a state has nothing to do with its relative tax ranking.

      You can speculate all you want, but its hard to ignore these facts. Well, maybe not hard for YOU to ignore them. But it is hard for me. And I’ll tell you what, if comparing these data sets showed ANY correlation between “buisness friendliness” and state wealth, I would take notice of it.

      John writes: “DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? ”

      Yes John. It is the all too familiar attempt to re-write history to prove what you believe. Roosevelt deficit spent and the economy grew. He stopped deficit spending and the economy tanked. He then went back to deficit spending and the economy grew. And when he really broke the bank to win WW2, te economy boomed. Mainstream economists attribute the clear correlation to what Keynes pointed out, that when the private sector economy is operating well below its capacity, government deficit spending can and should be used to fill some or all of that capacity to both relieve suffering and to help get the private sector back on its feet. We are in the same place today. The hole is not as deep as it was then, but the formula has not changed.

    • John in Oregon

      > *The Tax Foundation rankes Oregon as the 14th best state for business for 2010 with respect to taxes. Whatever you and Schaufler recognize, people who look at the data don’t seem to agree.*

      I think your CD player is stuck and playing the same track over, click, same track over, click, and over.

      As you well know the tax foundation looks at tax rates and does not add fees and other government imposed costs. Oregon’s new tax rate is number one of all states. Even in New York which just raised its tax rate. Only New York City is higher than Oregon because of the added City income tax.

      Then you say this to Rupert. > *In other words…who give a rip about where we rank on being business friendly? It does not seem to matter at all with respect to how wealthy we are… The wealth of a state has nothing to do with its relative tax ranking.*

      How strange. You tell me how good the Oregon business environment is based on the Tax Foundation ranking of Oregon. Then tell Rupert that wealth of a state has nothing to do with its relative tax ranking.

      Tell me. Did you notice the wailing and Gnashing of teeth by tax collectors as the millionaires are leaving after the latest New York tax hike?

      Of course you never saw this did you?

      “BusinessWire – Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy today released a study showing that from 2004 through 2008, $70 billion dollars in wealth left New Jersey… The study was commissioned by the Community Foundation of New Jersey and the Enterprise Trust at the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce and looked at New Jersey’s household wealth migration over the past decade, from 1999 through 2008. The study focused on wealth as opposed to income…”

      “From 1999 through 2003, New Jersey saw an in-migration of wealth of $98 billion.”

      “Wealth began to leave New Jersey around the time [2003] when a series of changes to the state’s tax structure made it less competitive… New Jersey’s state income taxes [had] risen to levels above New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut…”

      “From 2004 through 2009, the complete reversal of that trend occurred… ‘This study is important because it is the first time we have captured the movement of household wealth from one part of the country to another,’ said John Havens, Senior Research Associate at the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. ‘The migration of wealth out of New Jersey is substantial and significant.’ ‘What we are seeing here is that wealth — and those who hold it — are not only leaving New Jersey, but they are also not being replaced at the same rate,’ said Hans Dekker, President of the Community Foundation of New Jersey. ‘This has major consequences for communities across the state, especially on the nonprofit community which relies on these families to fund their critical programming.’ ”

      Gee it looks like the actual data got in the way of your claim that > *New Jersey has the worst business ranking and the 3rd highest per capita GDP.*

      But of course this time the tax is different here in Oregon. Or not.

      > *Yes John. It is the all too familiar attempt to re-write history to prove what you believe.*

      Ohhhh Really?

      Stating that the Supreme Court relieved America of the burden of some of the New Deal’s worst excesses when they outlawed the NRA in 1935 and the AAA in 1936, that’s not a fact?

      Mentioning that unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936 after the courts ruling, that’s rewriting history?

      The thunderous barrage of insults against business and businessmen from Roosevelt never happened? He never said that businessmen as a class were “stupid?

      The rash of new punitive measures following the insults, new strictures on the stock market and the tax on corporate retained earnings, called the “undistributed profits tax,” was just an illusion?

      The New York Herald-Tribune didn’t implore him to get back to work to stem the tide of the renewed Depression. What was needed, said the newspaper’s editors, was a reversal of the Roosevelt policy “of bitterness and hate, of setting class against class and punishing all who disagreed with him.” That news paper was never published?

      Columnist Walter Lippmann didn’t write in March 1938 that “with almost no important exception every measure he [Roosevelt] has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth”?

      Observing that FDR implemented a 100 percent income tax by executive order or that congress canceled that tax is rewriting history?

      VP said > *Mainstream economists attribute the clear correlation to what Keynes pointed out, that when the private sector economy is operating well below its capacity, government deficit spending can and should be used to fill some or all of that capacity to both..*

      Keynes of course was hardly a mainstream economist, but ignore that, he was just an old guy. Lets go on to filling unused capacity.

      This was done by jailing a tailor for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than FDR’s NRA “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents.

      By prohibiting farmers from planting to keep the price of wheat high.

      By Enforcement Police. They roamed like storm troopers at night, battering down doors with axes looking for men who were committing the crime of sewing together a pair of pants at night.

      Now about mainstream economists. They do find clear correlations. The correlation of FDRs policy and extending the depression. Mainstream economists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman who found govermnent actions caused and extended the great depression. Friedman after extensive study of actual depression records. But they were just old men.

      So lets consider the 2004 study by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record they conclude that New Deal policies thwarted economic recovery.

      “Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a *relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”*

      “President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics

      • valley p

        “How strange. You tell me how good the Oregon business environment is based on the Tax Foundation ranking of Oregon. Then tell Rupert that wealth of a state has nothing to do with its relative tax ranking.”

        According to the data, that is exactly correct. There is zero correlation between a state’s wealth and it’s pro or anti business tax ranking. Zero.

        “Gee it looks like the actual data got in the way of your claim that > New Jersey has the worst business ranking and the 3rd highest per capita GDP.”

        Nope. The actual data is exactly that. New Jersey has the worst business ranking and the 3rd highest GDP. The data is getting in your way apparently, not mine.

        “Keynes of course was hardly a mainstream economist..”

        Correct. At the time his ideas were radical. They became proven during the war and then became mainstream up until the age of Reagan when monetarism took over. Now monetarism is all but dead, since even with zero interest rates the economy is on the mat. What comes next is anyone’s guess.

  • Pingback: Oregon Dem admits: “There’s no one left to tax!” « 54°40′ Or Fight!

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)