On Sunday morning, I poured myself a big cup of coffee, got comfortable on the couch and voted yes on both measures 66 and 67. Never before have I been so indecisive on which way to vote, and never before – I think not coincidentally – have I invested quite as much time and energy into finding out exactly what I’m voting for, or against. After clawing beyond the messaging and sloganing from both sides, I have only two conclusions. The first is that our legislative system in Oregon is badly broken and in need of repair; the fact that the guide printed by the secretary of state with the express purpose of informing voters can be used legally to intentionally confuse them is an insult to anything we’ve ever imagined democracy could be. My second conclusion is that I think about 95 percent of our elected officials – from the city council to the governor – have got to go. They seem to thrive on underhanded power plays and deception. I think they’re unprincipled, most of them, and I look forward to doing my part to vote them out of office.
One of the reasons I voted in favor of the measures is that funding issues don’t affect the people running the show, who are experts at looking after their own interests, but the people who rely on public services. The children, for example, who walk by my house on their way to and from school each day will at some point be running the state of Oregon, if not the world, and I’d like for them to be educationally equipped to do something more meaningful than what’s offered by a career in the fast food industry or at Wal Mart. The fact that they’re spending their formative years in a state crawling with short-sighted “leaders” is not their fault, and yet, when it comes to accountability – don’t you love that word? – they’re the ones on the hook. The strategists will continue to mine the system for their own gain, while the children will continue to graduate from schools in Oregon without knowing much about science or math or English composition. On a purely selfish note, when I’m in the rest home, I’d like very much for them to know the difference between a plus sign and a minus sign and the implications of each.
For me, the least compelling of my reasons for voting yes is the issue of business taxes. I think the in-favor campaign has used some cheap tactics about the corporate tax, implying, with lots of intentional holes and blanks, that you can do business in the state for $10 a year, which is like saying it only costs $10 to go to the doctor’s, when in fact what costs $10 is to park in the garage, making it technically true that that’s what the visit costs, but only technically. At best, tripping people over technicalities is an unethical campaign strategy, something I previously would have only expected from the anti-tax crowd. But personally, I was more offended by many Oregon businesses and their associations, which threatened the state with additional job cuts and higher costs for their goods and services. After hearing their message a few times, it occurred to me that they’ve already done just that. Have you noticed that the price of a yellow jacket with a certain logo and the name of one of the rivers in town on it hasn’t exactly come down over the past few years? Have you noticed that a manufacturer in North Portland last year moved a lot of jobs to a state with “a better labor climate”? Over the past decade have you heard that whispery whooosshh – usually late at night – as companies throughout the state send jobs to other countries for no other reason, they say, than to better serve their customers? Like the test scores of students who graduate from public schools here, even with increased fees the tax burden for businesses in Oregon will remain among the lowest in the country. Hell, even with a new tax or two, some businesses may still have a few million sponsorship dollars left over to throw after professional athletes who don’t even live here. The ads complaining about the state budget increasing every year were tiresome also. There are other things that have increased every year in Oregon as well: the number of people living here, the cost of almost all goods and services, including private groceries and private health insurance, and the amount of money earned by CEOs. I’ve heard enough threats from whiney corporate people to last me the rest of the year.
On that note, I don’t think affluent individuals or couples are to blame for the economic shambles that is Oregon. At the same time, the people I know who make more than $125,000 or are part of a male-female couple earning more than $250,000 can spare a few bucks to keep the state in business. I have to admit that a big part of what I think about that is that the people I know who earn those kinds of salaries aren’t any smarter or hard working than those I know who manage within a more realistic income bracket. They’re just better liars.
Finally, the main reason I voted in favor of the measures is that funding public services is in my DNA. My parents, who were from a very different era (obviously) believed that this country needed a strong progressive base in order to save itself from existing only in service of the interests of the very wealthy, who generally hold the power. Going after things like public education and other services designed to alleviate poverty, according to my father, was generally the first line of attack taken by the rich and those who represent them. My parents both believed that there were quantifiable differences between liberals and conservatives, and, to that end, that the Democratic party – it was a group of liberals at one time, I’ve heard – could be counted on to speak up for those who most needed speaking up for. While those notions are as dead as my mother and father, filling out my ballot on Sunday morning felt, in a small, brief way, like honoring what they taught their children.
One of the reasons I voted in favor of the measures is that funding issues don’t affect the people running the show, who are experts at looking after their own interests, but the people who rely on public services. The children, for example, who walk by my house on their way to and from school each day will at some point be running the state of Oregon, if not the world, and I’d like for them to be educationally equipped to do something more meaningful than what’s offered by a career in the fast food industry or at Wal Mart. The fact that they’re spending their formative years in a state crawling with short-sighted “leaders” is not their fault, and yet, when it comes to accountability – don’t you love that word? – they’re the ones on the hook. The strategists will continue to mine the system for their own gain, while the children will continue to graduate from schools in Oregon without knowing much about science or math or English composition. On a purely selfish note, when I’m in the rest home, I’d like very much for them to know the difference between a plus sign and a minus sign and the implications of each.
For me, the least compelling of my reasons for voting yes is the issue of business taxes. I think the in-favor campaign has used some cheap tactics about the corporate tax, implying, with lots of intentional holes and blanks, that you can do business in the state for $10 a year, which is like saying it only costs $10 to go to the doctor’s, when in fact what costs $10 is to park in the garage, making it technically true that that’s what the visit costs, but only technically. At best, tripping people over technicalities is an unethical campaign strategy, something I previously would have only expected from the anti-tax crowd. But personally, I was more offended by many Oregon businesses and their associations, which threatened the state with additional job cuts and higher costs for their goods and services. After hearing their message a few times, it occurred to me that they’ve already done just that. Have you noticed that the price of a yellow jacket with a certain logo and the name of one of the rivers in town on it hasn’t exactly come down over the past few years? Have you noticed that a manufacturer in North Portland last year moved a lot of jobs to a state with “a better labor climate”? Over the past decade have you heard that whispery whooosshh – usually late at night – as companies throughout the state send jobs to other countries for no other reason, they say, than to better serve their customers? Like the test scores of students who graduate from public schools here, even with increased fees the tax burden for businesses in Oregon will remain among the lowest in the country. Hell, even with a new tax or two, some businesses may still have a few million sponsorship dollars left over to throw after professional athletes who don’t even live here. The ads complaining about the state budget increasing every year were tiresome also. There are other things that have increased every year in Oregon as well: the number of people living here, the cost of almost all goods and services, including private groceries and private health insurance, and the amount of money earned by CEOs. I’ve heard enough threats from whiney corporate people to last me the rest of the year.
On that note, I don’t think affluent individuals or couples are to blame for the economic shambles that is Oregon. At the same time, the people I know who make more than $125,000 or are part of a male-female couple earning more than $250,000 can spare a few bucks to keep the state in business. I have to admit that a big part of what I think about that is that the people I know who earn those kinds of salaries aren’t any smarter or hard working than those I know who manage within a more realistic income bracket. They’re just better liars.
Finally, the main reason I voted in favor of the measures is that funding public services is in my DNA. My parents, who were from a very different era (obviously) believed that this country needed a strong progressive base in order to save itself from existing only in service of the interests of the very wealthy, who generally hold the power. Going after things like public education and other services designed to alleviate poverty, according to my father, was generally the first line of attack taken by the rich and those who represent them. My parents both believed that there were quantifiable differences between liberals and conservatives, and, to that end, that the Democratic party – it was a group of liberals at one time, I’ve heard – could be counted on to speak up for those who most needed speaking up for. While those notions are as dead as my mother and father, filling out my ballot on Sunday morning felt, in a small, brief way, like honoring what they taught their children.
