When someone suggests the government should get to keep more money earned by individuals or businesses, our first question is always: “What’s the government going to do with it?”
Proponents of Measure 85 on the Nov. 6 ballot, which would end Oregon’s corporate tax “kicker” system, answer our query with the predictable: “It’s for the kids.”
Except it might not be for the kids.
The money could, in fact, be used for pretty much whatever the Legislature decides.
That uncertainty is why we urge a “no” vote on Measure 85.
To be clear, the measure has nothing to do with the other leg of Oregon’s unusual income tax kicker system. The personal kicker, which gives rebates to people and families when income tax revenue exceeds the state’s projects by more than 2 percent, wouldn’t be affected by Measure 85.
The measure instead targets the corporate kicker, which works the same way but is by far the smaller, in dollars, of the two legs. Since the kicker system started in the late 1970s, the state has “kicked back” $2.6 billion in personal taxes, and $527 million to corporations.
Measure 85 would divert any future corporate kickers — there have been just three in the past 20 years — to the state’s general fund.
The measure’s backers say that money is destined to prop up Oregon’s financially ailing public schools.
But there’s a lot more to the general fund than schools. And Measure 85 doesn’t require the Legislature to spend corporate kicker dollars on schools.
Ultimately the measure isn’t necessary anyway.
The Legislature already can vote to keep the corporate kicker — and it has, most recently in 2007.
On that occasion lawmakers put the money into a rainy day fund that can’t be tapped except with the support of two-thirds of the Legislature.
That at least put a level of restraint on how the money is spent.
Measure 85, by contrast, would simply dump the dollars into the maw of the general fund. If we’re going to stamp out the corporate kicker we need more assurance that the money will be spent wisely.
Baker City voters have a long list of qualified candidates to choose from as they sit down with their ballots and pick four people to represent them on the seven-member City Council.
Each of the nine candidates has qualities that would be valuable at City Hall.
We believe the quartet of Mike Downing, Barbara Johnson, Kim Mosier and Milo Pope combines the best mixture of experience and perspective.
Pope, a retired judge who presided over the Baker County Circuit Court, is the only incumbent on the ballot.
We have at times disagreed with Pope.
In particular we chastised him for intentionally missing a City Council meeting in August 2010 and attending a private gathering instead.
That said, Pope has been an effective councilor who frequently asks good questions about the city’s budget. He has also been a consistent advocate for finding a new source of revenue to maintain our streets, which have been degrading for more than a decade.
As an incumbent, Pope won’t need to familiarize himself with major city issues.
The continuity he would bring is especially important in 2013 as the Council deals with the effects of a rising PERS bill, and negotiations with all three of the city’s labor unions, whose contracts expire at the end of June.
Downing is a Baker City native who has already shown his commitment to public service. He served as a pro tem Justice of the Peace and was a candidate for that position earlier this year, and he has worked as a reserve dispatcher at the Baker County Consolidated Dispatch Center for the past five years.
Like Downing, Mosier has young children, and one of her goals it to work to make sure Baker City continues to be an excellent place to raise a family.
As a former deputy district attorney in Baker County and former assistant attorney general in the Oregon Attorney General’s office, Mosier has considerable experience in analyzing complex issues and making decisions based on a thorough consideration.
Johnson brings a different, but equally vital, perspective.
Like Pope she is a senior citizen who understands the unique concerns that older residents have. This is no minor matter in Baker City, where 20.5 percent of the population is 65 or older — well above the Oregon (13.9 percent) and national (13.3 percent) averages.
We were also impressed with Johnson’s enthusiasm for working on behalf of Baker City, a community where, in her own words, she moved “in 2004, not knowing a soul.”
Three other candidates — Jack Turner, R. Mack Augenfeld and Terry Schumacher — are also seniors.
Turner has been a major player in economic development, and we like his ideas about demanding results from the city’s investment in trying to attract new businesses. Turner lacks experience as an elected official, however.
That’s not the case with Schumacher and Richard Langrell. Both are former councilors with considerable experience in city government.
But unlike Pope, neither Schumacher nor Langrell has worked with the current city manager, Mike Kee.
Kyle Knight has shown a propensity for scrutinizing the spending of tax dollars as a member of the Baker School Board, a desirable trait in any elected official.
But the school board position is a major commitment. Moreover, Knight recently filed a civil lawsuit against the school district. The current controversy in which the school board is embroiled seems to us too great a distraction, even for an energetic candidate such as Knight.
‘Tis the season for slimy political tricks, but the example that a local resident brought to the Herald office on Thursday is particularly disturbing.
The package, which was sent by regular mail, attempts, in a pathetic and clumsy way, to besmirch the reputation of Steve Bogart, one of two candidates for Baker Justice of the Peace.
It’s based on a 1995 incident in which current Baker County District Attorney Matt Shirtcliff, at that time a deputy D.A., was arrested for drunken driving in Union County.
Bogart was at that time Baker County Judge — not an actual legal judge, but the position we now call chairman of the Baker County Board of Commissioners. Bogart did not fire Shirtcliff, who completed an alcohol treatment program and probation, and who has gone on to a successful career as district attorney.
The person who sent the mailer lacked the fortitude to attach a name to the missive.
But under the cloak of anonymity the person levels a blizzard of nasty-sounding charges against Bogart, suggesting that he is unqualified because he lacks a “true moral anchor,” “possesses a foul sense of justice” and, egads, he used to work in a lumber mill.
We hope few people received this insulting compilation in their maibox.
Moreover, we hope no voter is influenced by this affront to reasonable political debate.
We believe both Bogart and his challenger, Don Williams — who we’re confident had nothing to do with the mailer — are eminently capable of serving as Justice of the Peace.
In fact we’re so confident in both candidates’ abilities, and in the similarity of their qualifications, that we’ve chosen not to endorse either in the election.
We feel this is a reasonable position, given that Williams and Bogart themselves, when we asked each if his opponent was qualified to serve as Justice of the Peace, both showed great honesty and civility by saying yes, the opposing candidate was qualified to do the job.
Re-electing the incumbent in a congressional district which one party has dominated for decades can become something like a habit.
Oregon’s Second District, which includes all of the state east of the Cascades, hasn’t sent a Democrat to Washington, D.C., since Baker’s Al Ullman, who served a dozen terms, the last ending in 1981. Fortunately, our current representative, Greg Walden, has been such an effective and diligent voice for our region that endorsing him for an eighth term is hardly a rubberstamp.
Walden, whose opponent, as in 2010, is Democrat Joyce Segers of Ashland, has since his first term been a tireless advocate for vital local issues such as managing public lands for multiple uses, including responsible logging, and making sure farming and ranching, the linchpin of Baker County’s economy, remain viable businesses.
The biggest change during Walden’s tenure is his increasing power in the Capitol. Although the only Republican in Oregon’s delegation, Walden is also the only member in a leadership position in Congress.
Voters should make sure our region retains that position by giving Greg Walden two more years as our representative.
Were the backers of Measure 80 — the marijuana legalization measure on the Nov. 6 ballot — interested solely in allowing people 21 and older to grow and to smoke the stuff in the privacy of their homes, they’d have a better chance of persuading voters to approve the initiative.
But there’s a lot more to Measure 80 than letting adults get a legal high.
The initiative reads like propaganda designed to convince voters that marijuana is not only just another intoxicant, like alcohol, but a wondrous substance that can help to cure the state’s physical as well as fiscal ills.
Measure 80, with its emphasis on establishing state-licensed pot shops, seems to us more beneficial to people who want to sell marijuana than to people who just want to smoke it.
A keystone of the measure is creating an Oregon Cannabis Commission. This commission would, among its many other duties, issue licenses to qualified marijuana growers, license stores that could sell marijuana, set prices, and even establish standards for the “quality and potency” of pot sold at sanctioned stores.
So much for the rustic “grow your own” ethic of past decades.
Besides which, five of the seven members of the commission would be elected at large by marijuana growers and processors.
Last we checked, Jack Daniels and Jim Beam aren’t members of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
Although Measure 80 supporters insist that legalizing marijuana will make it harder for kids to get pot, that claim, based on the language of the measure itself, seems laughable.
For instance, although the measure regulates marijuana that’s ready to smoke, it specifically exempts hemp from any regulation. Yet the measure defines hemp as including marijuana seeds and starter plants.
Notwithstanding proponents’ touting of hemp for its various industrial uses, including biofuel, it’s obvious that the vast majority of the marijuana grown now ends up in people’s lungs, not their fuel tanks.
Pretending that marijuana seeds and starter plants won’t eventually be put to that use, and thus don’t need to be regulated, is ridiculous.
It used to be that supporters of legalizing marijuana tended to frame the issue as one of personal freedom, the right for adults to decide for themselves what they eat or smoke or drink, without interference from the government.
Measure 80, though, seems designed to get the state government intimately involved in the marijuana business.
That’s not a proper role for the state, and voters should reject Measure 80.
When the economy is humming along, government coffers tend to be full.
The relationship could fairly be described as symbiotic.
Businesses pay employees to produce goods and services that customers buy. The government takes a piece of the action, in the form of income and other taxes, and uses the money to maintain roads and emergency services and schools that make efficient and profitable commerce possible.
Trouble can arise, though, when the economy stagnates.
When tax revenues decline, government agencies sometimes look for new sources.
The danger comes when the government, by imposing a new fee or tax, discourages economic activity and thus prolongs the financial doldrums, ultimately hurting both the private and public sectors.
A real estate transfer tax is an example.
And although there is only one such tax in effect in Oregon now — in Washington County — the Legislature and the governor could create a statewide tax and change the law to allow local governments to do the same. A statewide tax has been proposed several times, in fact.
Voters, though, can take away that authority by voting “yes” on Measure 79. We think they should.
There’s no legitimate reason for government at any level to tax the transfer of real estate. Imposing such a tax now, with the housing market barely beginning to recover from the recession, would be particularly ill-timed.
Fortunately, voters can get rid of a similarly onerous and unnecessary tax by voting “yes” on Measure 84. It would initially reduce, then eliminate altogether, the state’s inheritance tax. Currently, estates worth up to $1 million are exempt, but amounts above that are subject to taxes.
Although the tax system includes credits for farms and ranches that can exempt from taxes operations worth as much as $7.5 million, there are plenty of farms and ranches in Oregon, including in Baker County, that exceed that value. Inheritance tax revenues are barely a blip in the state budget — 1.5 percent of the general fund — but the tax can be an insurmountable burden for people who want only to keep a business in the family.
The Oregon Legislature referred two matters to voters in the Nov. 6 election, and we recommend “yes” votes on both Measure 77 and 78. Both amount to little more than housekeeping.
Measure 77 would amend the state constitution to allow the governor to declare a catastrophic disaster — in the case of a massive earthquake, for instance. Currently, the governor has only statutory authority in such cases, which could make it difficult to direct state dollars to emergency services and other critical needs.
Measure 78 makes minor wording changes to the constitution, clarifying the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. It replaces masculine pronouns in referring to the Secretary of State with gender-neutral ones. The current office holder, by the way, is Kate Brown.
Whether you like or you abhor gambling, Oregon’s public services are hooked on it.
The state lottery, which voters approved in 1984, is Oregon’s second-largest source of revenue (behind only income taxes).
Oregon also has nine tribal casinos. Although exempt from certain taxes, some of their profits also benefit Oregonians, both tribal members and, through philanthropic programs, people who don’t live on reservations.
But this current system, which supplies a relatively reliable source of money for public schools, state parks and other functions, could be changed substantially if the backers of The Grange, a casino that would be built in Wood Village, an east Portland suburb, get their way in the Nov. 6 election.
They are promoting two measures, 82 and 83, that would make The Grange possible.
The potential harm this non-tribal casino could cause to state services, and to the tribes, is too severe to justify our supporting either measure.
Measure 82 would change the state constitution to allow non-tribal casinos.
Measure 83 would specifically authorize only one such casino — The Grange.
Supporters argue that the new casino would help rather than hurt state government. The Grange would be legally required to give the Lottery Commission 25 percent of the adjusted gross revenue from gambling (The Grange’s other operations, such as a restaurant and hotel, would not have to pay the 25 percent).
The 25-percent share, backers insist, would help to offset the revenue that The Grange would siphon from tribal casinos and the Lottery.
But some experts, including University of Oregon economics professor Tim Duy, disagree.
The Grange would of course create construction jobs. But those would be temporary.
The hit to the Lottery, which would have a direct effect on public schools, likely would be more lasting.
With schools already scrimping, that’s a risk we’re not willing to take. We recommend “no” votes on Measure 82 and 83.
By Baker City Herald Editorial Board
We don’t think college football fans’ zeal for supporting their team should ever supersede good taste, but Oregon State University’s definition of the latter left a sour taste in our mouths when the university canceled a promotion urging fans to “wear black” at a couple of home football games this fall.
University President Ed Ray apparently had the same reaction and had the good sense to reinstate the “Wear Black” campaign on Thursday.
The original decision was made for fear that students would respond as they did in 2007 when some of them came to the game wearing black face paint and, allegedly, Afro wigs.
But here’s the thing: Black is one of OSU’s school colors (orange is the other). The players wear black helmets and black jerseys and pants. The logo painted on the field at Reser Stadium has a lot of black in it.
Ray was right to reverse the decision. He encouraged fans to wear black to an upcoming game against Utah to show the progress OSU has made since 2007.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals handed down an intriguing ruling recently in a case that involves closing roads to motor vehicles on the Eldorado National Forest in California.
This, obviously, is of more than passing interest to many local residents, as the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s controversial Travel Management Plan (TMP) is pending.
The Eldorado National Forest case involves a lawsuit brought against the Forest Service by Public Lands For the People, a nonprofit organization in California, and by several miners.
The plaintiffs contend that the Eldorado National Forest lacked the authority to require miners to file a Notice of Intent or Plan of Operations if they want to continue to drive motor vehicles on roads otherwise closed to such vehicles by that forest’s TMP.
The Appeals Court disagreed.
In her written opinion, Judge M. Margaret McKeown cited a previous federal case which concluded that “there can be no doubt that the Department of Agriculture (of which the Forest Service is part) possesses statutory authority to regulate activities related to mining — even in non-wilderness areas — in order to preserve the national forests.”
McKeown also wrote that the Eldorado forest’s TMP “is not an indirect prohibition on mining operations masquerading as an access regulation, and its access restrictions aren’t unreasonable.”
The judge noted that the TMP doesn’t prohibit miners from accessing their claims — it requires that they get written permission first.
This seems to us an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, but the judge’s conclusion is logical.
The more troubling aspect of her ruling, though, is her endorsement of the Forest Service’s claim that roads closed to motor vehicles by the TMP “are no longer public roads.”
So what are they?
Not private roads, certainly, because they still run across public land.
We understand that the Forest Service, if it can legally decide that a road is no longer public, can also reverse that designation.
Yet we’re disturbed that the second highest court in the land would conclude that, in effect, deleting “public” from any piece of public land is acceptable. A road that’s not public could, in theory, be closed to more than just motor vehicles. The public, for instance.