A minor oversight could turn out to be a major problem for the forces trying to repeal the tax increases passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature last session.
The legislature’s tax measures include an increase in the corporate minimum tax (currently a ridiculous $10, unchanged since 1931) and in the top income tax rates for affluent Oregonians (individuals making over $125,000 a year or households making over $250,000).
But the Democrats also slipped in a feature that gives a tax break to unemployed Oregonians. It exempts the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits from taxes, which will give a tax cut averaging $120 to the approximately 270,000 Oregonians who are expected to include unemployment benefits in their income tax returns for 2009.
When Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes drafted their repeal initiative they could have excluded the tax break for the unemployed – but they didn’t. Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the anti-tax crusaders, told The Oregonian’s Jeff Mapes that nobody thought of doing it. “We were really focused on how to collect the signatures to qualify the measures for the ballot,” he said.
Oopsie.
A tax break of $120 might not look like much, but to somebody trying to get by on unemployment it could be significant. And since the number who stand to benefit (270,000) is a hell of a lot bigger than the number who’ll be affected by the personal income tax increase (only about 2.5% of Oregonians) the oversight by McCormick’s group could prove costly when the ballots go out in January.
Naturally, Democrats are pounding on the faux pas, claiming it shows the anti-tax campaigners are only looking out for big corporations and affluent individuals and don’t give a damn about ordinary working Oregonians.
“The campaign against Measure 66 and 67 … calls itself ‘Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes,’” writes Steve Novick on Blue Oregon. “The name would lead you to believe the corporate lobbyists who are running the campaign are deeply concerned about the plight of the unemployed. Think again.”
The anti-tax campaigners “could easily have designed their referendum in a way that maintains the tax break for 270,000 unemployed Oregonians, but it was so unimportant to them that they didn’t even consider it,” Novick says.
This article appears in Oct 22-28, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
This is what happens when you have multiple issue bills rather then single issue bills, and a Governor that postponed the signing into law of those bills in an attempt to deprive those opposed to the bill much needed time to gather signatures.
BTW, what is the population of Oregon, and how many does 2.5% represent?
LOL! Kenny, somehow I just KNEW you’d saw it was all the Democrats’ fault.
Oregon population (2008 estimate) is about 3,760,000. 2.5% of that is approximately 94,750.
Miller, did I say it was the Democrats fault, or did i say it was because of multiple issue bills rather then single issue bills?
Unlike you, I believe that a bill should contain just one issue, not a bunch of them crammed together. And it doesn’t matter to me which party does so.
Then too, leave it up to you to ignore the obvious in an attempt to avoid a discussion.
Shouldn’t the governor’s “delay” have given the anti-taxers MORE time to actually read the bill and form their referendum to protect the unemployed? It’s like he was doing them a favor by giving them time to get their act together, only they didn’t take it. It’s not like the bills were kept hidden…
And it’s 2.5% of TAXPAYERS, so it’s actually much smaller. Less than 40,000, according to reports I’ve seen.
Tally Ho,
Signature gathering cannot begin till the governor actually signs the bill into law, and then there is a set date as to when signatures must be collected by.
Now, I am not saying that the opposition did not screw up. My thought is the confusion caused by multiple issue bills. We see this all the time on the federal level where an amendment will be placed in a larger bill in order to assure passage. Just recently Obama signed the defense appropriation bill which included a “hate crimes” bill which obviously has nothing to do with defense.
That is the point I am trying to make. IMO each issue should have its own bill, and be voted on separately.
Just as an after thought, isn’t it kind of sad that out of a population of over 3 million only 40,000 earn $125,000, or more?
“isn’t it kind of sad that out of a population of over 3 million only 40,000 earn $125,000, or more?”
It is, but this has never been a high-income state. States whose economies are based on resource extraction (timber and fish in our case) never are.
Also, the 3 million includes the young and the retired.
I am not sure about that. The ones I used to know that worked in the lumber industry, and fishing, did quite well till the envirowhackos got involved.
Then too, so did the farmers in the Klamath Basin.