The Wall Street Journal published an editorial against Measures 66 and 67 that’s been widely circulated via e-mail and quoted approvingly on conservative websites such as The Oregon Catalyst. But Oregonian blogger Jeff Mapes caught the Journal with its factual pants down.
The editorial claims that “the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit.” In reality state workers agreed to a pay freeze, 10 to 14 days of unpaid furlough and a deferral of step increases. All in all, “It amounts to a slight pay cut over the 2009-‘11 budget cycle,” Mapes writes.
The editorial also says, “In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs.” Both numbers are wrong: There are about 51,000 state workers now, compared with 48,000 three years ago – an increase of 3,000, which is a far cry from 25,000.
In fact, Mapes points out, total employment for ALL levels of government in Oregon rose by only about 10,000 in that three-year period.
The Journal also got the number of private-sector jobs lost wrong – it’s 116,000, not 40,000.
This article appears in Jan 14-20, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
They Can’t Win on Merit
Great example of the House Republic Fascist (Racist) Party plan for the 2010 elections in action:
[…] House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of 10 leaders who attended a strategy session in Annapolis, Md., this week, said the party will attack Democrats relentlessly for the stimulus, health care and cap-and-trade bills. Internally, Republicans call it the “80-20 strategy,” which, loosely interpreted, means spending 80 percent of the time whacking Democrats and the remainder talking up their own ideas. […]
80+% of their time bashing Dem policies and the rest talking up their own.
As if, like Ms Telfer’s Magical “there’s gotta’ be a pony in a stable full of horse-hockey!” Pot of Gold, they had something to offer of such magnitude…
They can’t win on merit.
Lets see now, who is more credible. The WSJ or some blogger.
HBM, have you bothered to check out Mapes’ facts. If you did you should have cited your independent sources in your blog. Since none are listed you must not have done any independent work yourself. Or did you just accept this blogger’s drivel at face value because it fits your political template.
You would be much more persuasive in your own blog if you added your own independent workproduct and fact checking. But then again you probably wouldn’t be blogging but instead still be reporting for the Bulletin.
And just be to fair to real journalists, blogs are not editorials.
The Party of No hasn’t had a new idea in 50 years and hasn’t had a good idea in 143 years (the Emancipation Proclamation).
Both parties have kept this country on the path to financial ruin for the past 50 years, from bloated defense budgets with troops in a 130 countries to massive and unsustainable entitlement programs fraught with waste and corruption! The Dems are just continuing to add gas to the bonfire! Tax, spend, borrow, tax, spend, borrow ad infinitum! We should throw all the partisan bums out of office and replace them with a common sense third party! There might then be a slim chance of putting our financial house in order. Otherwise we will get to see what a collapsed dollar and a depression really look like!
In this case liars figure rather than figures lie. You can start with the $259 million dollar increase. Many state employees continue to receive step increases and they all received more expensive health benefits unlike the general public. Why does the source support larger more expensive government – oh their just like the other liberal democrats.
“But then again you probably wouldn’t be blogging but instead still be reporting for the Bulletin.”
I never was a reporter for The Bulletin. I was managing editor of The Bulletin. I left before the present regime took over. And no, I wasn’t fired. Ask any member of the Chandler family if you don’t believe me.
Mapes got his facts from the state Employment Department and Department of Administrative Services. They are also on the Web. They are solid. The Journal editorial page was wrong. But you want to accept the drivel it prints at face value because it fits YOUR political template. Like a typical right-winger, you believe what you want to believe and reject anything that contradicts it.
What’s up with that lower case ‘managing editor’ thing B?
Of the time, nothing to be ashamed of.
Today, like the WSJ, not so much.
Actually, I have to give The Bullshiten some cred. Like the Wall Street Journal, if you can stay away from the op-ed page, it’s not a bad rag. I have of late been impressed in particular with its science coverage… the various mechanics of both local and global climate phenomenon, the interactions of man and forest, and a pretty straight forward – if between the lines – assessment of what need be done to clean up the mess I, and my grandfathers, made.
If you can just stay away from the op-ed page…
Our problem is not low taxes but excessive spending. The two measures are designed to tax private sector workers, for the benefit of public sector unions. Public sector workers get a much larger share of their income as non-taxable health care and non-taxable retirement, and nearly zero public sector workers actually have taxable incomes in excess of $250,000. This bill was specifically written by Public Unions so as to tax only private sector works, and ZERO Public Sector Unions Members.
See what has happened with “Liberal/Labor” leadership in England.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/6991069/No-minister-this-disaster-began-years-before-the-credit-crunch.html
Contrary to Mr Purnell’s assertion, Labour’s debt pile-up preceded the credit crunch. As a state, we had become addicted to the never-never. In 2003, the Budget deficit was £28 billion, then £33 billion in 2004, £32 billion in 2005, £36 billion in 2006, £34 billion in 2007 and £43 billion in 2008.
From 2003-2008 inclusive, the Chancellor’s overspend as a percentage of the Government’s annual outlay ranged between
5.8 per cent and 7 per cent, with the average being 6.4 per cent. In his 2008 Budget, Alistair Darling predicted GDP growth of 1.75-2.25 per cent, yet still planned to borrow £43 billion.
and in California completely in the control of “Liberals and Labor”. We are moving closer and closer to the California model every year.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/10/golden_no_longer_99845.html
It took years for liberalism’s redistributive itch to create an income tax so steeply progressive that it prompts the flight from the state of wealth-creators: “Between 1990 and 2007,” Voegeli writes, “some 3.4 million more Americans moved from California to one of the other 49 states than moved to California from another state.”
And the state’s income tax — liberalism codified — intensifies the effects of business cycles on the state’s revenue stream: During booms, the stream surges and stimulates government spending; during contractions, revenues dwindle but the new government spending continues. Voegeli says that if California’s spending had grown no faster than population growth and inflation from 1992 to 2006, it would have been $65 billion less in 2006,
Oh and by the way Bruce, I just love how you can so easily generalize about “typical right-winger, you believe what you want to believe and reject anything that contradicts it.”, while you use but one source for every thing you post, one Jeff Mapes. What Bruce, you don’t reject everything that contradicts what you already believe?
And just what part, z, of … “Mapes got his facts from the state Employment Department and Department of Administrative Services. They are also on the Web. They are solid.” … didn’t you understand?
“What’s up with that lower case ‘managing editor’ thing B?”
It’s newspaper style to upper-case titles only when they appear before a person’s name, not when they stand alone.
“while you use but one source for every thing you post”
That is a lie.
Any way you look at Measure 66 & 67 IT IS A TAX on ALL of us…not just higher wage earners. Just what do you think those high wage earning business owners are going to do…absorb it? Heck no, they’ll pass it down to all of us in the form of price increases on products and services. It’s just another form of REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH…and it’s socialism/communism running amock. (p.s. I am NOT a Republican).
To me it’s simple… the idea of companies like Intel and Nike paying $10/year in income tax is ridiculous. Frankly, I’m ignoring commercials from both sides and voting yes because of this one simple fact.
What I really want to know is why all of you “typical right-wingers” are reading the Source? I certainly don’t waste my time with the Bulletin…
NH that is kind of dumb, vote yes when 10 bucks is ridiculous, that males no sense??????
thats right they are already getting taxed more so why raise there taxes.
NH,
Do you actually believe that Intel and Nike only pay $10 a year in income tax? If you do then you should lose your right to vote as a result of sheer stupidity.
Do you also recognize that the vast majority (I have heard as many as 90%) of all corporations that pay only the minimum $10, are actually pass-throughs like Sub Chapter S, which means the profits are not taxed at the corporate level but at the personal level and that the personal income tax rate is actually higher than the corporate tax rate. In other words the vast, vast, vast majority of all corporations paying the $10 minimum are actually paying income tax at a higher rate than those who are paying more than the $10 minimum.
“Do you actually believe that Intel and Nike only pay $10 a year in income tax?”
“As noted in The Oregonian, Phil Knight is taking advantage of the uptick in the market and near high price for Nike and selling $93 million worth of stock. The Portland Business Journal reports the total is $150 million. I don’t know the actual total or his ‘basis,’ but he’s clearing some pretty good change.
“He’s selling the stock this year, even though Oregon’s new top rate that voters must approve in January is slated to tax the proceeds an additional two cents on the dollar (raising our top rate from 9 percent to 11 percent for 2009-11).
“It goes to show that people, no matter what their income is, don’t decide whether they will try to make more money based on tax rates. Oh, there’s some nice anecdotal stories about people moving to Vancouver, WA, to take advantage of the absence of an income tax (Phil hasn’t moved), and there are interesting theoretical papers about people moving around the country for tax avoidance (and interesting papers debunking the urban myth that New Jersey and Maryland rich people fled when those states' increased their taxes on the very wealthy). Accountants and lawyers in Oregon probably have an ethical duty to raise the “move to Washington” issue with clients coming into lots of money, and some might even follow that advice. But at the end of the day wealthy people stay here and wealthy people move here. And raising our tax rates on the wealthy doesn't impede Phil Knight from cashing in.
“And as State Representative (and economist!) Jules Bailey wondered aloud a while back during the session, if someone earning lots of money from stock and other investments didn't leave with a 9 percent top rate, why would they leave because of an additional two cents on the dollar?
“Phil Knight presumably could have waited until the results of the January election are known, betting on it failing (my polling says it would have been a bad bet).
“But he didn’t. He saw a good price for his stock and he sold it, even though his profits likely will be taxed an additional two cents on the dollar under Measure 66.”
Source: http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/10/phil-knight-is-an-ordinary-guy-he-just-does-it.html
I am having a hard time working up much sympathy for Phil Knight and other billionaires who might have to pay a few more thousand dollars, whether it’s in income taxes or corporate taxes. And if they care so little about Oregon that having to pay a few more thousand dollars makes them want to move to Washington or wherever, I say, “Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.”
And Nike doesn’t do any manufacturing in Oregon, preferring to employ sweatshop labor in China and other Third World countries, so if Knight relocates its HQ in a fit of pique that won’t be a big loss to this state either.
Well Bruce, I have to take a step back. I used your favorite “Broad Generalizations” to make a point about your sourcing. You only use Mapes and Blue Oregon as your preferred source, to challenge that with which you disagree, about 75% of the time. I then read you next post, and what do you know, but you source Blue Oregon again. Broaden your horizons, there is an entire world of information available to you Bruce.
“”It goes to show that people, no matter what their income is, don’t decide whether they will try to make more money based on tax rates. Oh, there’s some nice anecdotal stories about people moving to Vancouver, WA, to take advantage of the absence of an income tax, and there are interesting theoretical papers about people moving around the country for tax avoidance.””
The notion that people do not make financial decisions based upon tax rates is beyond absurd. There are papers and studies that could fill a small town library that show otherwise. People make decisions based upon tax rates all the time, and every day. These are not anecdotal examples either.
“The notion that people do not make financial decisions based upon tax rates is beyond absurd.”
Reading comprehension problem, eh? That wasn’t what the man said. What the man said was that “people, no matter what their income is, don’t decide whether they will try to make more money based on tax rates.” And that’s true. I never heard of anybody saying, “Well, I’ll stop trying to make money now because taxes are too high.”
As for taxes influencing decisions on where to locate a business: Yes, they are a factor, but only one factor among many. It’s very unlikely that the small marginal tax rate increase under M 67 will be enough to persuade many, if any, Oregon businesses to pull up stakes.
No reading comprehension problems for me my friend. Are you familiar with the term “marginal tax rates”? If not then look it up. If you are, then you clearly do not understand the decisions people make as a direct result of marginal tax rates. We learned that lesson very well in the 1970’s under one of your favorites, James Earl Carter.
Phil Knights decision to take a cap gains now is predicated upon the probability of future marginal tax rate changes. He knows full well that the tax he will pay in 2011, once the existing federal rates reset will be far more than the additional taxes he will pay to the Feds and Oregon now. Wait until 2011, and he may have to pay higher taxes in Oregon as well as higher federal cap gains taxes. I am surprised you didn’t see that. No wait no I am not, neither Blue Oregon nor Jeff Mapes said it, so how, pray tell, would you ever know.
Another state that has been totally corrupted by public employee unions.
Illinois Careens Towards Bankruptcy; Governmental Collapse Coming
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/illinois-careens-towards-bankruptcy.html (no this link does not take you to Blue Oregon)
Note this is Illinois, where President Obama learned his political chops. Note as well how Obama sold out the entire country to the union bosses on taxing “Cadillac” health plans negotiated collectively by unions. You have a “Cadillac” plan negotiated for by a union, “NO TAX FOR YOU”, but if you have one NOT negotiated for by a union, well the “BIG TAX ON YOU!”
Oregon residents, we will be Illinois, Or California, or New York, or Michigan far sooner than you think!!
Here is another example of the liberal lies regarding taxes and tax policy. To quote our humble blogger quoting Benjamin Disraeli
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” — Benjamin Disraeli
Krugman is both a liar and a D*** liar.
http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2010/01/paul-krugman-lies-about-reagan-taxes.html
Again, I have to wonder why conservatives such as xyz are even here reading and commenting on the Source… shouldn’t you be busy enjoying the drivel spooned out by the Faux News Channel? Just let us enjoy our local, independent paper and go read something that doesn’t challenge your world view.
“Illinois Careens Towards Bankruptcy; Governmental Collapse Coming”
Think that mighta had something to do with the Great Bush Recession? Nah, no way.