Democrats are crowing and Republicans are harrumphing over the new Forbes magazine list of the best states for business, which ranks Oregon at Number 6.
An even nastier pill for Republicans and others who predicted grass would grow in the streets after passage of Measures 66 and 67 was that Oregon actually jumped four spots in the ratings, from 10th place last year.
Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt boasted in a press release that the new Forbes ranking and “the recent wave of relocations and expansions into Oregon [are] proof that Oregon is business friendly.”
Hunt attached a list of 10 corporations that have plans to expand or start operations in Oregon, including the giant chip-maker Intel, which is expected to announce next week that it will build a new multibillion-dollar plant in Hillsboro, creating several hundred skilled manufacturing and research jobs.
“All across Oregon we’re seeing very positive signs of economic recovery,” Hunt said in his release. “The pace of job creation is still slow, but with over a dozen recent announcements of major companies expanding or relocating to Oregon, it is clear that Oregon remains one of the best places in the country to do business.”
Other Oregon Democrats could hardly restrain their glee – hell, they didn’t even try. “Hear that? That’s the sound of all the Measure 66 & 67 opponents’ heads exploding,” Carla Axtman wrote on the Blue Oregon blog.
Republicans, naturally, pooh-poohed the Forbes rankings. “The only true measure of whether Oregon has a good business climate is job growth,” Nick Smith, spokesman for the Oregon House Republican Caucus, grumbled to Oregonian political analyst Jeff Mapes.
Maybe so – but to have job growth we need businesses that create jobs, and businesses hardly seem to be fleeing the state in droves the way tax opponents predicted they would if 66 and 67 passed.
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
You’re such a hypocrite, HBM. Bend gets rated number 7 in the nation as one of the best small cities in which to do business and you blathered on and on as what a crappy choice that was. You could have taken a positive approach even touting the same argument you made above, that Measure 66/67 didn’t seem to impact Bend’s rating. But no, that didn’t fit the template back then. You are down on Bend and nothing was going to change that attitude.
Now the state ranks well and all of the sudden you’re a giddy cheerleader. In your earlier blog about Bend, you called out the Forbes magazine writers sarcastically calling them “geniuses” for their stupid selection of Bend. And yet it is the same Forbes magazine (and probably same writers)that came out with state ratings favoring Oregon that are now giving you tingles up your leg.
A little intellectual honesty and consistency would help your credibility.
And BTW, remember how you pooh-poohed the new Facebook facility awhile back because it only meant a couple of hundred “temporary” construction jobs for a year or so and only 35 permanent jobs; that Facebook was just another corporate schlubb robbing Central Oregon of its taxes; that tax breaks to evil corporations aren’t worth it.
Seems that Facebook is now going to build two more large facilities at that same site, keeping the couple hundred “temporary” contruction workers fully employed for another 3 years or so and growing total permanent employment to over 150.
That development decision had to help Oregon with its national rating. It’s amazing that when you lower tax rates, more tax revenues are generated. JFK proved it, Reagan proved it. Crook County is proving it now. The only unbelievers are the flat earther liberals of the democratic party.
I was thinking the exact same thing, Miller. You poo-poo every list that comes along that doesn’t quite fit your agenda, then jump all over the ones that do. Your transparency is farcical.
I believe Forbes used different criteria for the state and small cities rankings.
“It’s amazing that when you lower tax rates, more tax revenues are generated. JFK proved it, Reagan proved it.”
George W. Bush sure as hell didn’t prove it, though, did he?
PS: Reagan also RAISED taxes. Also, America enjoyed great and widespread prosperity in the 1950s and ’60s when the income tax was much more progressive than it is now and the top marginal rates were much higher. And after Clinton raised taxes (to the horrified screams of conservatives everywhere) we had the biggest and longest economic expansion since WWII. The simplistic “lower taxes = prosperity” formula simply isn’t true, as shown by history. You can’t prove it by cherry-picking one or two cases when it seemed to work.
Missing the point here. The Repubs claimed that the measures would drive businesses out of the state. The usual based on bald-faced lies and scare tactics we’ve seen over and over again.
“Gentlemen, harumph, harumph. I don’t like this proposed legislation. No sir, not one bit. I suggest we get the word out that it will . . . um . . . kill jobs. I see yard signs saying `Keep Jobs In Oregon. Vote NO on Measure 98.’ Yes, that always works with the simpleminded fools. Harumph, harumph.”
Good imitation of Sen. Foghorn Leghorn there, Jack.
HBM, you’re precious. Let’s rewrite history.
Reagan: marginal income tax rate when he took office – 70%; when he left – 28%. Did he raise taxes? Yeah, you probably paid more for a pack of cigarettes. Record tax revenues though. Too bad ole Tip O’Neil spent all of it and then some.
You go off on a tangent when talking about “lower taxes = prosperity.” The point I made that you were not able to refute was that lowering taxes significantly INCREASED tax revenues to the government. It is indisputable. It is not a zero sum proposition. Please don’t embarrass yourself any further.
As for prosperity and higher taxes, during the 50s and 60s, we were rebuilding the world after WWII and had no competition whatsoever. Zero, zip, nada. In the 90’s, Clinton was smart enough to not raise taxes to a level that would screw up the largest peace time expansion started in the mid-80’s by REAGAN which contiued until Clinton’s tech bubble recession and 9/11.
You’re right that lower taxes doesn’t necessarily equal prosperity. That’s because during peacetime, prosperity depends upon a few other things as well, like sane leadership and rational rules/regulations. In a very competitve peace time global economy, show me a country with all three of those and chances are you’ll find a prosperous nation.
Unfortunately, the US has only one of these attributes – relatively low individual taxes. This November will mark the beginning for advances in the other two areas.
“The point I made that you were not able to refute was that lowering taxes significantly INCREASED tax revenues to the government. It is indisputable.”
For about the 10,569th time, “critic,” your saying something is “indisputable” doesn’t make it a fact.
First, while it is true that revenue sometimes has increased after tax cuts, it doesn’t follow that lowering taxes ALWAYS increases revenue (cf George Bush’s tax cuts). OTOH, sometimes raising taxes has been followed by increased prosperity and increased revenue; that’s why Clinton was able to leave his successor with a handsome budget surplus (which he quickly squandered).
Second, the overall net effect of Reagan’s tax policies was, in fact, a small DECREASE in federal revenues measured as a percentage of GDP. (See the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagonomics#cite_note-taxtable-29)
Third, correlation does not equal causation. As you correctly note, there were other reasons for America’s prosperity during the ’50s and ’60s than the tax structure, and there were other reasons for the post-1982 economic recovery under Reagan. (Incidentally, unemployment was higher — 10.8% — after two years of Reagan than it is now, even though the economic problems Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter were puny compared to the disaster Obama inherited from Bush.)
“Clinton was smart enough to not raise taxes to a level that would screw up the largest peace time expansion started in the mid-80’s by REAGAN”
Why lie, dude? The “expansion” was interrupted by a major recession that took place under George H. W. Bush and was the major reason why he failed to win a second term. Clinton’s tax increase was denounced as “the biggest tax increase in history” by all the right-wingers (I remember watching Rush Limbaugh wailing about it) who predicted it would bring on a second Great Depression, at least. It didn’t.
For Great Depression II we had to wait for the presidency of Bush II, another good tax-cutting, deregulating right-winger.
HBM: “Second, the overall net effect of Reagan’s tax policies was, in fact, a small DECREASE in federal revenues measured as a percentage of GDP.”
Well Duh. Did you ever think to consider that this percentage decrease had more to do with the denominator (GDP; our economy) rising faster than the tax dollars (the numerator)even though the numnerator could be also increasing. So quit obfuscating. Anyway, you just refuted your own agrument meaning that the decrease in tax rates caused an even bigger increase in GDP which is a proxy for prosperity.
And please read my posts more carefully. I didn’t say all tax decreases worked this way. SIGNIFICANT tax rate decreases do. When you get the chance, study the Laffer Curve. It shows that the sweet spot for a tax rate and tax revenues is about 20%.
No, you need to look it up yourself. Other sources (although several exist):
http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/1674096,CST-NWS-savage...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical...
It’s indisputable.
“When you get the chance, study the Laffer Curve. It shows that the sweet spot for a tax rate and tax revenues is about 20%.”
That’s not merely not indisputable, it’s bullshit. The Laffer Curve is a THEORY, not an empirically proven fact. As a theory it makes sense; you reach a point of diminishing returns when you increase tax rates. But nobody knows where the “sweet spot” is — there’s the rub.
If the top marginal rate were reduced to 20%, you and the gang at Heritage and the other right-wing “think tanks” would be saying the “sweet spot” was 10%.
That’s disputable, but I’d bet money on it.
“And after Clinton raised taxes (to the horrified screams of conservatives everywhere) we had the biggest and longest economic expansion since WWII.”
… not to mention a balanced budget.
It’s only fair, though, to credit H.W.’s tax increase with (1) putting Clinton into office (broken “read my lips” promise, even though the increase was the right thing to do, created huge backlash) and (2) taking the edge off the perceived pain of Clinton’s tax increases.