Oregonian Editorial Board: Vote NO on Measure 66-67

The Oregonian Editorial Board gave a bold No to ballot Measure 66 and Measure 67 the Oregon income and business tax increase, with heated criticism of the Democrat leadership that put Measure 66 & Measure 67 on the ballot.
Wrong time, wrong tax hikes: Vote no on Measures 66, 67
Oregonian Editorial, 1/2/10,

Of all times, of all things, the Democrats in the Oregon Legislature chose now, in the throes of one of the worst recessions in history, to make business an enemy. They chose this moment to pit business against schools, the private sector against public unions, employers against the jobless. The two referrals on the Jan. 26 special election ballot — Measure 66 and Measure 67 — insist that Oregonians pick a side, to accept one lousy, harmful choice or the other. No, we won’t do it. You shouldn’t, either.

It didn’t have to come to this. The Democrats who control the Legislature could have approved a modest and mostly temporary package of business tax increases with the full support of the Oregon Business Association, which represents many of the state’s largest and most public-minded corporations.Instead, Democrats bent to the demands of the most liberal members of their House caucus and approved an unwise and ill-timed package of corporate and personal tax increases that has infuriated virtually every business group and commercial sector in Oregon.

The Democrats who hold a supermajority of seats in the Legislature could have sent to voters a proposal to reform the tax kicker and allow the state to build a strong and durable rainy day fund to avert future revenue crises and address the most glaring problem with Oregon’s system of public finance, its volatility.

Instead, the Democrats buried kicker reform and chose to fill a large hole in the budget by tacking more onto Oregon’s already high personal income taxes — exacerbating the top-heavy volatility of the state’s tax system. The self-described progressives in the House caucus further insisted that income tax increases on wealthier Oregonians — mostly business owners and professionals, otherwise known as employers — be permanent, not levied just long enough to get the state through its budget crisis.

The supporters of the tax measures bristle now at any suggestion of class warfare, but they are spending millions of dollars on advertisements claiming that the measures are not about you, but about them — those lucky few rich Oregonians not paying their “fair share.” They don’t bother to explain how paying one of the nation’s highest income taxes amounts to skating on one’s responsibilities.

This is ugly stuff, at an especially ugly time in Oregon. People are suffering, business is hurting, plunging tax revenues have ripped a $727 million hole in the state budget. There were, of course, no easy, pain-free and non-controversial ways for the Legislature to fill that hole and protect schools, public safety and other essential services.

But there were, and still are, better ways than Measures 66 and 67. Oregon doesn’t have to tack a permanent increase onto the income tax that lands on the very people Oregon most needs to invest more in their businesses and their employees. It doesn’t have to replace the absurdly low $10 minimum corporate tax with a new scheme that would force businesses with high sales volumes but no profits to pay up to $100,000 a year in minimum taxes even as they fight to cut their losses and hold on to as many jobs as they can.

Oregon doesn’t have to further polarize its politics at the very moment the state ought to be pulling together to solve its very serious problems. Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Dave Hunt keep telling us that they did everything possible last session to accommodate the interests and needs of Oregon business. Why, then, is there more anger and hostility in Oregon between business and labor, and between business and state government, today than at any time in recent memory?

The public debate over the tax measures has been framed by both sides as though there is no middle ground. You’re either for business, or against it. For schools, or against them. The Democrats shouldered aside the Oregon Business Association, the Portland Business Alliance and other business leaders who have stood up, time and again, for schools, higher education and other essential government services. Now moderate, pro-education business leaders have been pushed into the same camp with the anti-tax, anti-government conservatives whose only interest is to slash the size of state government and spend ever less on schools and universities.

Oregon business leaders don’t belong there. The ones we’ve spoken to in recent weeks have no stomach for the $727 million in cuts that Democratic leaders are promising if voters reject Measures 66 and 67. They have pledged to go to Salem during the upcoming February session to push for a smaller, mostly temporary package of tax increases that would help the state limp through its current crisis.

No one should be naive about the prospects for another significant tax package in the February session. Legislators would return to Salem just days after the election in no mood to consider more tax hikes. Yet Oregon’s corporate taxes would remain low compared to those in most states and could and should be carefully and strategically increased, just as business leaders offered last year and say they would be willing to do again.

Yes, this is the start of an election year. Yes, Republican legislators would be reluctant to offer any votes in support of another tax plan. Yes, Democrats would not be inclined to run up the hill alone, yet again, waving the banner of higher taxes. And yes, any substantial tax increase would likely prompt anti-tax groups to pursue another referral to voters.

But the anticipated budget cuts would be deep and harmful. It’s one thing to insist now that failure of Measures 66 and 67 must be met by cuts, and only cuts, and another to actually find the votes in the Legislature to slice into the bone of Oregon’s public services. The Legislature could tap a few hundred million dollars still held in reserve, but it’s likely that lawmakers still would be confronted with a deficit of $500 million or more. Schools, community colleges and universities make up more than half of the state budget; they could not and would not be fully shielded from the cuts.

Yes, that’s a disturbing prospect. But such awful choices were not the only ones available to the Legislature last session, and they will not be the only choices in the February session. There will be other revenue options, albeit much smaller than this tax package. There will be myriad ways to reduce state spending, and some are less destructive to essential services than others.

The bottom line, though, is that the Legislature can do better than Measures 66 and 67, whether in the February session or in 2011 and beyond. Lawmakers can work closely with business to craft a careful, responsible increase in corporate taxes. They can refer kicker reform to Oregon voters and explain, this time with the help of business leaders, why it’s vital that this state never again be caught with such a volatile tax system and so little in reserve.

Those are the measures that Oregonians should be preparing to vote on in the coming days. Instead, the Legislature has presented voters with accept-them-or-else tax increases that strike at the very businesses and employers that Oregon is depending on to lead an economic recovery, start hiring again and pay the wages that support state services.

That’s not what Oregon needs. Vote no on 66 and 67.
———————————-

Catalyst Note: For more information on Measure 66 (income tax) and Measure 67 (business tax) go to Stop Job Killing Taxes

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

Posted by at 07:28 | Posted in Measure 37 | 52 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    State and local government need to suck it up just like most families, and this is one of several reasons folks should vote No on both tax increase measures. Another reason: The federal government is in the process of increasing marginal income tax rates for some small business proprietors to over 40% (throw in medicare taxes it is about 42% or so). These tax measures would move the marginal tax rate (state and federal combined) to over 50% from only about 40% currently. So, what we are looking at with these tax measures is a move to penalize the productive citizens and reward a portion of folks who would rather live off government, or namely, productive people. As we’ve seen in California, this is a receipt for state government fiscal meltdown. Oregon is already among the top 10 states at risk of fiscal bankruptcy (Pew Research).

    It doesn’t have to be this way. Oregon could lower its cost of doing business by cutting back on mandates (renewable mandates which are driving the cost of energy, e.g) and allowing Washington and Clackamas counties to use their large underutilized areas for industrial expansion. Oregon has great location to export to the fast growing Asian economies, and promoting a buiness friendly environment would bring about economic prosperity. A growing economy is the only real way to grow public services and community well being.

    Maybe Washington state will “get this logic” sooner than Oregon state. There’s no state income tax in Washington. Productive people are waking up to the different reward systems separated by only a few miles.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    This was in the Oregonian?

    Wow, colour me impressed.

  • Steve Plunk

    When the liberal press can see the harm high taxes then obviously the push back has begun. The game of raising taxes, increasing spending, and threatening cuts may finally be at an end. The libs should have fulfilled their responsibility as good stewards of the taxpayers money and not got us into this mess.

    I’d like to thank my Southern Oregon crew of Sen. Bates and Rep. Buckley for being so short sighted and ignorant. Heck of a job fellas. Next time pay attention to what small business has to say before attempting to bankrupt the state.

    • eagle eye

      Steve, don’t worry, if the tax increases fail, as they well might, you’ll be paying more tuition to SOU.

      • Steve Plunk

        Sometimes being a good citizen outweighs private interests. If the state continues to raise taxes my son will have nothing to look forward to post college. Being short sighted on this issue is exactly what our politicians and bureaucrats have done.

  • Jack

    I don’t believe it, The Propagonian and I agree on voting No. But I’m Voting HELL NO.
    It doesn’t phase me that the Democrat Socialist Party hates the Private Sector and will do everything they can to TAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX the hell out of it leaving the Government Sector un-phased. Nobama’s stimulas went to the Government sector only. This ************** 66-67 and all elected Democrats should go down in FLAMES as soon as possible.

  • Proud Boringonian

    Its not that surprising. The O editorialized against the tax measures back when they were passed.

    But given how the right as successfully trashed the “mainstream media,” and given the drop in O circulation, who cares about the O’s opinion anyway? Who will change their vote based on it?

    This is an off-season turnout election, pure and simple. The side that gets their troops out will squeak out a win.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >The side that gets their troops out will squeak out a win.

      True. This is a pure class warfare issue. Trying to pit people against each other always rests on who can stir the pot more. I think that’s a big part of why the Oregonian called this move ugly. It certainly is why I would call it ugly.

      • Proud Boringonian

        Class warfare? Nope. Ideological or identity warfare maybe, but “classes” have nothing to do with it. I’d venture that many if not most wealthy people who are most affected by 66 will vote aye, and a whole lot of folks with less money and no business will vote nay, while a lot of business owners vote aye. For it to be class warfare there have to be actual classes on each side.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Sorry Dean, fact is these taxes are being sold as “the rich” and big corporations paying their fare share. That is class warfare in its most crystalline form. You might not like that but that is the reality.

          Just because some of the rich like prostrating themselves in support of higher taxes, and some of the middle class doesn’t fall for it doesn’t mean that isn’t what is being done.

          To have class warfare really what you have to engage in is trying to actively pit one group of people against another. That’s how these taxes are being sold and any viewing of the PR in favor of them would confirm that.

          • Proud Boringonian

            Dean who? Anyway, selling 66 as a tax on “the rich” is factual, not rhetoric, since only “the rich” will be impacted. Pointing out that large corporations paying $10 in taxes is out of date at best is also fact, not rhetorical exuberance. If the proponents were saying rich people are no goodniks or were leaching off the rest of us, that would be class warfare. Calling this campaign class warfare is pure nonsense. I just read all the arguments in favor in the Voters Pamphlet and did not find a single one that trashed rich people for being rich.

            The fact that more than half of “the rich” will probably vote yes is a clear demonstration even they don’t see this as class warfare. It has nothing to do with prostrating. It has to do with them recognizing that supporting public services is their obligation, and they are in a fortunate position to be able to pony up a bit more.

          • Anonymous

            so, $250K is “the rich”? well, that is also many small business owners. it is also the very professionals (doctors) whose services people NEED that will go up in costs.

            and it is not “large” corporations. it is ALL corporations. actually, large corps with high profits are already paying much more than the $10 minimum. you know IS paying the minimum right now? small corps, and corps that aren’t making profits.

          • Proud Boringonian

            No, I don’t think a $250K household income qualifies as “rich.” Its upper middle class. That is why I put “rich” in Beck quotes. I think rich people for the most part do not need a paycheck. They live off what they or their daddies own. See Paris Hilton.

            As for doctors, some of whom make enough to be hit by the tax raise, the point is that if some choose to leave others will take their place. And the tax hit is small enough that I doubt any will choose to leave.

            Small corporations that will have to pay $150 instead of $10 are going to close shop as a result? Please. Don’t insult my intelligence.

          • Anonymous

            don’t insult OUR intelligence. it isn’t simply tacking an extra $140 on to each corporate minimum. if it was, then it would just be a fee, not a tax. and it also wouldn’t raise much revenue, either. this is supposed to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. are you suggesting that there are enough big fat cat corporations out there that charging each of them $140 would achieve that? do you think there are a million corporations like that in a state of only 3.3 million people?

          • Proud Boringonian

            Large corporations are not going to move away based on this measure, and small corporations are not going to move away either. Its chicken little to declare otherwise. There is too much money to be made here to close shop based on such a small increase in tax. Most business is retail and services, and since those are to customers, and the customers are still here, then the business will still be here. Somewhere on the outer edge there may be a business that decides to go away, but their niche would be filled by someone willing to pay the tax. Do the math.

  • eagle eye

    The Oregonian piece, which is great, is not against temporary tax increases, but against the unnecessary and damaging package we are being asked to vote on this month. Don’t think this is an endorsement of the anti-government fanatics. Instead:

    “Now moderate, pro-education business leaders have been pushed into the same camp with the anti-tax, anti-government conservatives whose only interest is to slash the size of state government and spend ever less on schools and universities.

    Oregon business leaders don’t belong there. The ones we’ve spoken to in recent weeks have no stomach for the $727 million in cuts that Democratic leaders are promising if voters reject Measures 66 and 67. They have pledged to go to Salem during the upcoming February session to push for a smaller, mostly temporary package of tax increases that would help the state limp through its current crisis.”

    • Steve Plunk

      Eagle, really? Those opposed to this tax are “fanatics” while those in favor are “moderate, pro education”? I oppose this tax yet support education. What about the “fanatic” pro education camp? Are certain derogatory words reserved for conservatives?

      The state has ruined it’s credibility over spending issues time and time again. What is unreasonable about controlling it’s growth? Is that a way to “slash” and “spend ever less on schools and universities”? Asking for responsible budgeting is more than reasonable on our part.

  • matthew vantress

    the people at blueoregon.com are in a real tizzy about the oregonians no on 66 and 67 view.theY HAD A POLL WHICH CLAIMED 66 AND 67 WERE PASSING BY 17% Steve novick is not very happy with the papers no endorsement.now blueoregon claims that the oregonian is in the back pockets of corporate lobbyists now.blueoregon is so biased and one sided and blocks anyone who has a different common sense view and demands the govt be cut and illegal aliens and their kids be cut off all state services.the state just wasted 80 million dollars in consulting fees for the i-5 bridge project and sorry they dont need any more money.cut the govt which has grown 20% since 2007 to the bone.why dont we cut all the illegals and their kids off food stamps,subsidized housing and etc and cut all consultants and right there you would have the 727 million in cuts money.cut the govt instead of asking taxpayers for more.

  • eagle eye

    ‘ Those opposed to this tax are “fanatics” while those in favor are “moderate, pro education”? ‘

    You obviously completely failed to understand the clear meaning of the editorial, and even my own post.

    And — fanatic reserved for conservatives? Not at all, there have been plenty of such harsh words, and much more harsh, for those who don’t buy the — yes — fanatic anti-government attitude.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I’m not sure I have once heard a single person here ever argue for abolition of government.

      You probably need to read a little more carefully yourself since clearly that is your impression. The only thing I ever see here even close to that is people who have had it with bloated and expensive government that is inefficient in the extreme.

      Believe it or not, people can actually be against the fat cat union salaries of you and your buds without being anarchists. Being for limited government hardly makes one an anti government fanatic. If you think it does, then you probavbly need to brush up a little more on some basic history.

      • eagle eye

        My fat cat union salary? You think you’re clairvoyant? But I’m not in a union. You don’t even know if I’m a public employee!

      • Anonymous

        Rupert, usually I agree with you. I am a conservative Republican who believes in libertarian free markets and fiscal restraint.

        But I am also a public employee in the union. My “fat cat” salary is about $50,000 year, which is above the average, true – but I am also 40 years old with a doctorate, a veteran, and have close to 20 years of work experience (including many in tne private sector). It is an absolute myth that all us gummint workers are fat cats with big union paychecks.

        The reality is that there are some government workers who get paid too much, and do diddly squat to earn it, and are protected by unions, contracts, and state employment laws. They make the rest of us look bad. We don’t need across the board pay cuts. We need to end protectionism and get rid of the dead weight – while allowing the productive employees to advance, earn bonuses, and stay in government working FOR the people.

  • Jerry

    I must say I am proud of the old lady for taking this stand.
    Anyone who thinks the state really needs more of our money is out to lunch.

  • eagle eye

    The real Oregonian position: temporary tax increases, selective corporate increases, reconfiguring the kicker to build a reserve fund.

    “The bottom line, though, is that the Legislature can do better than Measures 66 and 67, whether in the February session or in 2011 and beyond. Lawmakers can work closely with business to craft a careful, responsible increase in corporate taxes. They can refer kicker reform to Oregon voters and explain, this time with the help of business leaders, why it’s vital that this state never again be caught with such a volatile tax system and so little in reserve.

    Those are the measures that Oregonians should be preparing to vote on in the coming days. Instead, the Legislature has presented voters with accept-them-or-else tax increases that strike at the very businesses and employers that Oregon is depending on to lead an economic recovery, start hiring again and pay the wages that support state services.”

    • Contrarian

      The Oregonian’s rhetoric (class warfare?) is as over the top as the other opponents of these modest tax increases. You would think Oregon is starting from a place of having high business taxes relative to other states, only we don’t. And you would think a $10 minimum tax that has not gone up since the 1930s makes sense, only it doesn’t.

      And you might think that the 3% or so of wealthiest Oregonians, who have benefited a lot from federal tax cuts under Bush could afford a small increase in their state taxes, and you would be right about that one. It has nothing to do with “class.” It has to do with who can afford to pay a bit more.

      The sad thing is “the world is going to end” rhetoric from both sides. If the measures pass, businesses and rich people will not migrate out of Oregon. And if they fail, government will manage to limp along. The sun will come up and go down on schedule, the rains arrive each November, and the whales will swim past the coast each January. Relax people.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >You would think Oregon is starting from a place of having high business taxes relative to other states, only we don’t.

        That would assume most people are familiar with how business is taxed. They are not.

        Since most business in Oregon is either a proprietorship or a type S corporation then whether or not Oregon has high business taxes would be determined on the personal side of the equation. Since most people are not accountants or familiar with how business is taxed, this laughable concept that business only pays $10 has hung around.

        >And you would think a $10 minimum tax that has not gone up since the 1930s makes sense, only it doesn’t.

        Well, to argue it doesnt make sense not to increase the fee, one would have to show how the expense of maintaining a business listed at the SOS office has increased from $10.

        The $10 is a fee, it isn’t even a tax.

        Seems it makes way more sense to argue the fee was excessive back in the 30’s

        $10 to keep a business name written on some list for a year? Sounds a bit high to me already.

        • contrarian

          So if S corporations have to pay $150 instead of $10, that is going to drive them out of the state? Proprietorships are not corporations, so I don’t know why you even bring that up. If a sole proprietor has over $150K in income after all business expenses (and no dependents) then yes, they might have to pay more on the income over $150K, but this is their personal income, not their business income.

          “this laughable concept that business only pays $10 has hung around.”

          It “hangs around” because it happens to be true. Approximately 67% of all the corporations in Oregon pay the $10 minimum. Truth has a way of hanging around.

          • Anonymous

            that’s because 67% aren’t making big profits.

          • abass

            Its all about chasing shadows.
            By that I mean latching on to this or that latest,
            most innovative idea that some self styled money making
            guru has put out in the hope it’ll go viral and make them
            a lot of money off the backs of all the headless chickens
            who will follow them blindly down a blind alley. Its a shame
            but a truism nonetheless that people will follow where someone
            they see as an expert leads. Even if they lead them to certain
            disaster, which is what most of the gurus tend to do to their flocks.
            The trick is to recognize a shadow when you see it!
            http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

          • Davis

            >> Approximately 67% of all the corporations in Oregon pay the $10 minimum. Truth has a way of hanging around.

            Nearly 100% of those corporations are S-Corps whose profits pass through to the PERSONAL income tax of the owners. The current 9% rate that anyone with a full-time minimum wage job pays is already one of the highest rates in the country. To force profitable S-Corp owners to now pay a rate 20% higher than that is far from a minor uptick in tax liability. Measures 66 and 67 must be viewed as a package rather than separately.

            Even the idiot Dems who created this mess are not foolish enough to debate these Measures. That says a lot to the total lack of justification for these taxes.

            Two orders of business for this election year: Vote NO on M66 and M67 so that both go down in flames; fire every Dem who voted for these tax measures in the last session, beginning with Speaker Dave Hunt.

      • Not Your Pal

        Contrarian: Think higher income people are NOT going to move out of Oregon? Guess again pal. My wife and I might not be in the top 3% of Oregon income earners, but I know we’re in the top 10%. And by moving out of oregon this past November we’ve saved ourselves at least $15,000.00 in State Taxes.

        • Anonymous

          I’m guessing you’re an exception to the rule. I like living in Oregon and have no interest in leaving (not even if you paid me $15,000). Out of curiosity, has your income been affected by your move?

          • Anonymous

            Moved across the river with no change in income – just reducing in taxes. WA makes a lot more money on cars, but my car is a beater that is cheap to register – a pittance compared to my tax break.

        • contrarian

          There is a practical limit as to how many upper income business people and professionals will choose to move to Vancouver, especially if the bridge does not get upgraded, which by the way will cost $4 billion in tax dollars. If one makes a few thousand over the point where the new tax kicks in, it would cost far more in commuting, not to mention time stuck in traffic, to do that move. I make the assumption that those with that much income are not dumb and have calculators.

          Most businesses these days are service sector, meaning they can’t just up and leave, because they make their money providing services to Oregonians. i.e. Freddies is not going to close down stores, nor is Les Schwab, and nor are attorneys, doctors, and engineers going to move elsewhere where they have to form entirely new relationships. And if they do, other professionals and retailers will line up to take their place. The cost of doing business in Oregon will still compare favorably to most other states, particularly those nearest us.

          And lets face it, many if not most higher income folks will be voting for this measure, so what does that tell you about how many will move away? Its more likely that lousy schools and universities will drive them away.

          • Anonymous

            “it would cost far more in commuting, not to mention time stuck in traffic, to do that move.”

            you are making the assumption that no one with a business in portland is already making a long commute from some place like Gresham or Hillsboro. Making that trip into downtown PDX is longer and costlier than coming in across the bridge

          • contrarian

            Here is what I am assuming. I assume business people are for the most part pretty rational people who own calculators with charged batteries. I assume they can do the math if these measures pass, and if it makes economic sense for them to pack up themselves and/or their business and move somewhere else, and family ties or other personal reasons don’t hold them here, then away they may go. And the number of people in business who will come to that conclusion is going to be very very small. And for every one who leaves, another will expand into the market they left behind to take it over.

            Places with very high taxes also have lots of thriving businesses. And Oregon’s taxes, even after 66 and 67, will still be among the lowest in aggregate.

            On the other hand, recent data clearly shows that communities with higher percents of college educated people are doing much better in the recession than are communities with lower percents. If we want to thrive we will focus on good education, K-BA or BS degrees. And that costs money.

        • rural resident

          Not your pal …. If you’re saving $15,000 in state taxes in 1-2 months (leaving in November) at an Oregon marginal tax rate of 9%, you must have an income of somewhere between $1 million and $2 million annually. That doesn’t put you in the top 10%, it puts you in the upper 1/2 of 1% of taxpayers. Congratulations on doing so well. However, with that level of income, I don’t think I would be that concerned about the effect of a small increase in state taxes on my total tax bill. Two words: tax planning!

  • I5 tattler and ale bandit

    Amusing. Seems the same people are arguing for and against “eagle eye” at the same time! Cataracts? Maybe “eagle” sees clearly after all.

  • Diamond Jim

    Methinks I see it most clearly. The Oregonian is dead, so who cares what they write?
    How about that?

  • Terry Parker

    This time the Oregonian has it right! The cuts Oregon’s one-sided legislature is threatening are cuts to a nine percent increase in spending. Some of that excessive spending includes healthy raises to well paid state managers and huge, even gigantic subsidies to targeted businesses through BETC that an incompetent Governor promoted using corrupt accounting .Meanwhile, many average Oregonians are just treading water to stay afloat. Huge tax increases, especially to high volume low profit businesses like grocery stores will be passed through to consumers, possibly causing more families to go under. It is good to see a far left wing publication like the Oregonian finally seeing the light of day and at least inching more towards the center. Bravo!

  • UsargoDrongap

    Great article! Well stated!!

  • Steve Plunk

    Time for some filters.

  • pharmacy technician

    Keep posting stuff like this i really like it

  • Bozniquich

    5]Intromit Cialis Meaningfulness Reductions To Be Well-founded In Sex.

    cheapest cialis edrugstore
    https://menpharma.com/images/log_cial4.jpg

    6]only Tadalafil free consult

    Lowest Prices. Okay and Unswerving Online Ordering.Guaranteed Worldwide Transportation (including USA).
    Weird Payment Methods.Fast, Trashy and Watchful Delivery.
    Lineage Portray deceitfully, No Pescription! Down in the dumps Prices! FDA Approved.More donnybrook here:
    buy Cialis in Saskatchewan
    file viewtopic t 21513 cialis
    Cialis apotheke order cheap

  • intitagep

    Hi All!

    I am brand new to this forum and just had the urge to introduce myself and say “wuzup”.

    Laters Ya’ll…

    Smalz

  • medegrove

    distributors of marlboro cigarette in dallas,tx buy us marlboro cigarettes buy marlboro cheap marlboro cigarettes online
    , marlboro filter plus one info marlboro filter ones marlboro filter plus one cigarettes usa
    , marlboro light cig marlboro lights cigarettes buy online us cheap cigarettes online + marlboro lights
    , cheap marlboro medium cigarettes with free shipping marlboro medium cigarrettes marlboro medium
    , marlboro filter cheap marlboro reds marlboro met kort filter

  • Moplesopger

    Do you wish to reach your travel destination without the hassle of worrying too much about any possible budget shortages?

    Traveling is one of the best perks in life. Nothing beats a vacation which involves international travel. But of course, we all know how international flights can be too expensive and painful on the pocket. Even if they say that nowadays everything comes with a price, we still find it difficult to shell out something just so we could travel across countries.

    Still, there is no need for you to worry. There are cheap international airline tickets which you can avail of and they do fit any type of budget real well. So even if you are on a tight budget, cheap international airline tickets can still make your much awaited vacation come to pass. Here are some tips you can use to help you find these great deals.

    The first important thing you should be well aware of is the fact that prices of airline tickets change constantly from time to time. There really are no fixed price on tickets, so the best way to go about it is to keep a tab on price changes. Once it hits the numbers wherein it fits your budget already, then go ahead and make that immediate purchase.

    In addition, be aware of tourist peak seasons. Some travel destinations become so popular on an annual basis. For instance, Paris can become a tourist love spot during the month of February. So if you plan to go there during February, don’t expect you’ll get cheap airline tickets during that month.

    Usually, the best period to buy cheap international airline tickets is four months to a couple of weeks before your actual flight. If you cannot afford it yet, you can still choose to make reservations first then pay the amount in full as soon as you have the money.

    To find the lowest airfares please visit Airline Tickets website.

  • medegrove

    marlboro 27 carton buy marlboro ciggerets marlboro blue tar european marlboro cigarettes sales without fsc
    , marlboro cigarettes filter plus dealers of marlboro filter plus cigarettes in india marlboro filter plus cigarettes
    , gold marlboro cheap marlboro lights cigs cigarettes marlboro gold ukraine
    , cheap marlboro ultra lights cigarettes us cheap cigarettes online marlboro ultra lights cheap marlboro ultra lights free shipping
    , marlboro red cigarettes buy marlboro reds marlboro kids filter

  • unamhonsJesse

    Free Auto & Auto Parts classifieds ads at http://www.AutoWhat.com
    1000’s of potential buyers visit the site daily all looking for their next vehicle purchase so why not put your vehicle or auto parts in front of them to see!

    https://www.Autowhat.com

    Only takes 3 easy steps and your classifieds ad is online

    https://www.AutoWhat.com

    Free Automotive Online Classifieds
    Free to post seller ads with pictures
    Free to browse and reply to all ads

    Acura
    Alfa Romeo
    AM General
    Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.
    Audi
    BMW
    Bugatti
    Buick
    Cadillac
    Chevrolet
    Citroen
    DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    Daewoo Motor Co.
    Delorean Motor Company
    Dodge
    Ferrari
    Fiat
    Ford Motor Company
    General Motors
    GMC
    Holden
    Honda
    Hummer
    Hyundai
    Infiniti
    Isuzu
    Jaguar Cars
    Jeep
    Jensen Motors
    Kia
    Laforza
    Lamborghini
    Lancia
    Land Rover
    Lincoln
    Lotus Cars
    Lexus
    Maserati
    Mazda
    Mercedes-Benz
    Mercury
    MG
    Minelli
    The Mini Cooper
    Mistubishi
    Morgan Motor Co.
    Mosler Automotive
    Nissan
    NUMMI
    Oldsmobile
    Opel
    Packard
    Panoz
    Peugeot
    Pontiac
    Porsche
    Proton
    PSA Peugeot Citroen
    Renault
    Rolls-Royce
    Rover Cars
    Saab
    Saturn
    Shelby American
    Skoda
    Spectre Cars
    Studebaker Motor Company
    Subaru
    Suzuk
    Toyota
    TVR
    Vauxhall
    Volkswagen
    Volvo
    Zimmer Motor Cars

    AutoWhat.com AutoWhat.com AutoWhat.com

  • henrylow

    There’s a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  • poops on your face

    i dont care!!!!

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)