In the midst of a lengthy back-and-forth with followers of onetime Libertarian (and current Republican, last I heard) Tom Cox on Facebook yesterday about Measures 66 and 67, I said something which seems fairly straightforward if you parse it in a straighforward manner:
It's impossible for a democratically elected government to 'steal' from you.
This made Cox (and others) giggle and snort until their astigmatic brains threatened to explode. Apparently theft is all governments DO, in their eyes. But merely ridiculing it for his Facebook friends was not smack-downy enough, I guess:
Just had an amazing conversation (well, a series of Facebook comments) with an apparent union troll who insists that Measures 66 and 67 are fabulous and wonderful.
Here's the absolute gem of a quote:
"It's impossible for a democratically elected government to 'steal' from you." - Mark Bunster, government employee, 28-Dec-2009
Wow. It's not theft if the government does it. NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. Bills of Attainder? Okay with Mark, apparently.
Wow.
It's not clear whether Tom knows who "Mark Bunster" is, although he's certainly conversed with Torridjoe on a number of occasions. (There's also an entirely separate FB post Cox made, to declare--while in the midst of general anti-government/union whining--that asking someone who they work for and whether they're on the clock, while neatly avoiding response to substantive challenges to his position, is NOT an ad hominem attack...but that's just run of the mill intimidation tactics LO readers have seen all too many times before.) But the choice of "bills of attainder" as a rebuttal example is curious, since we just went through an example of one regarding ACORN--and which was promptly attacked as such, citing the LAWS AGAINST BILLS OF ATTAINDER.
Quite obviously, governments--even democratically elected ones--can do dirty, sneaky, disallowed things. And they can certainly ATTEMPT to do things that are later judged illegal, such as an eminent domain taking. But here again, Kelo v London is an argument in my favor, not against me--government's actions in that case were amply reviewed for evidence of unjust takings, and the evidence was found essentially wanting at the federal level.
Individuals within government, acting on their own behalf for their own ends, certainly can steal from the public trust, materially or otherwise. But while I often say "government is us," you'd be hard pressed to find employees who steal for the direct benefit of the government itself--and even if they do, that doesn't make it legal.
But a government cannot "steal," because if it is legal under the law for the government to do it, then it's not stealing--and if it's not legal, then they cannot do it. Note that I did not say governments never do things that are revealed to have been illegal, or theft in some way. I simply said that in a society based on the rule of law, it cannot be done.
There is a line of argument in rebuttal that might echo the danger of the Nixonian/Bushian phrase, "If the President does it, it's not illegal." However, those claims were made based on amorphous interpretations of Presidential privilege--and in any case, the assertion of such was naturally and properly ridiculed both times. Prohibitions against theft are usually quite clear, however.
Let's take another example, from the current health care debacle: a point of contention for some Republicans is that the insurance mandate requirement is unconstitutional; that is, it's not legal for the government to force you to give them money (ie, steal) to give to private health insurers. My reading of the arguments suggests that it probably is constitutional under the Tax and Commerce clause, but that's not really the point here: the point is that either the Republicans are right, or they're wrong. If they're right, then they will surely find relief in the courts...and the government will have to CHANGE THEIR POLICY. If they are wrong, then no "theft" is actually occurring.
All of which is to highlight the utter nonsensicality of so many hyperbolic arguments against things like 66/67. To say you're tired of having the government steal from you, is to conflate policies you think are wrong, with policies that are illegal. And to flip it into terms conservatives might understand: no matter how silly or politically motivated the result, and no matter how much you disagree, Al Gore and the Florida Supremes illegally set about conducting a recount in Florida during the 2000 elections. How do we know this? Because 5 severely addled Supreme Court Justices said so. And so it's not accurate to say that George Bush "stole" the election based on that ruling; he was awarded the election under dubious circumstances to be sure--but he was legally elected President. (And to flip it back: no matter how bogus you think his birth certificate might be, Barrack Obama's Presidency is also not illegal, because the people who have the authority to determine that, have declared it to be legal in fact).
But I suppose when the dominant argument appears to be that $2.69 in additional taxes per week for most Oregon businesses will cause many of them to cut payroll or fold in the face of such "theft," a simple lesson in semantics is of no use.
It's not been a good week for those who are trying to build opposition to the tax fairness bills passed in the Leg last year and now referred to January's ballot. In two separate rulings at both the lowest and highest levels of Oregon's court system, teabagging plaintiffs who had sued for a change in the ballot titles were dealt strong rebukes--all but ensuring that the original (or even improved) titles will remain intact.
Our friends at Yes For Oregon have the details on both. First, their statement on last week's OR Supremes ruling {google doc}, which not only rejected plaintiffs' arguments about the titles, but to my mind actually improved them in a way that is not only more accurate but a boon for M66/67 proponents:
In short, the Court ruled today that the opponents challenge was without merit. The core of the argument made by the opponents -- -- Oregonians against job killing taxes -- -- was that voters should be made aware that the revenue from measures 66 and 67 will be spent to protect education, healthcare, and public safety.
The Court rejected that argument for both measures, changing only the phrase "maintains funds currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services" to "provides funds currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services."
The court also ordered a modification in the "Result of a No" statement on both measures. "Reduces funding currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services by estimated $472 million" is now "leaves amount currently budgeted for education healthcare, public safety, other services underfunded by estimated $472 million."
The Vote Yes for Oregon coalition agrees that this language is a more clear and accurate way of describing to voters what's at stake in January. [emph orig]
As it appears the coalition believes, the change from "reduces funding" to "leaves underfunded" is not only closer to the real truth of the matter, it better highlights the consequence--UNDERFUNDING. Reducing funding is one thing, and can sound like a prudent savings, but nobody should think leaving something "underfunded" is a good thing. To put it another way, would you like your caloric intake reduced, or would you prefer to take in fewer calories than you need?
And yesterday, a circuit court judge in Marion County refused to place an injunction on the ballot title process, essentially clearing the decks for moving forward on the matter. In the aftermath the coalition's Scott Moore had some snark to throw down:
"The corporate lobbyists had spent weeks misrepresenting the ballot titles in the process, and the courts have now thrown out all of their arguments" says Scott Moore, spokesperson for the Vote Yes for Oregon Coalition. "It's too bad there isn't a process that also allows the Supreme Court to throw out their committee name -- -- Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes -- -- for misrepresenting the impact of the measures."
Moore has a valid point of course, but it's hard to avoid the sense that they're gloating a little bit over the epic fail of the plaintiffs. That's usually how these kinds of things go when one side really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, but throws whatever it can at the wall anyway. So I don't blame 'em for letting a little giddiness slip.
Feeling legalo-wonky? The two OSC decisions are readable in their entirety here {pdf}, and also here {pdf}(there were two rulings, one for each Measure.) The Marion County decision can be found in this Google Doc.
A quickie: right now (4pm) the new head of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, Jon Isaacs--late of the victorious Merkley for Senate campaign--is conducting a live blog on Measures 66 and 67. Why would an environmental advocacy concern take the time to talk about tax fairness? Isaacs has already responded:
These measures will preserve our environment for future generations by preserving funding for vital environmental programs -
-clean air monitoring, clean water protection, investments in renewable energy, reducing pollution.
all of these things require revenue and if measures 66 & 67 fail, they will face devastating cuts.
Its really that simple.
They've got a fair number of questions apparently set up for Isaacs to go through, and you can email toby-at-olcv-dot-org to submit your own question. Head on over! And if you still need more convincing that the Leg did the right thing, OCPP's Chuck Sheketoff uses the state's December Revenue report to explain why.
Today's Election Day across the country, such as it is in Oregon with only local races on the ballots in-state. But there's another one coming up in January that you may not be thinking about, and it's an important one--the key question will be an attempt at repeal of the tax fairness measures established by the Legislature last session. The astroturf Freedomworks affiliate in Oregon, strongly assisted by the Oregon Republican Party, secured more than enough signatures to place the question on the ballot, and so here we go playing Russian roulette with basic services again.
Most ballot questions are at least a little convoluted in their makeup, written as they are in legislative legalese and designed to explain something typically very complex in a few vague, catch-all phrases. Make it a ballot item about taxes, however, and the confusion doubles. Who pays what, and how much? Of course, it doesn't help when proponents of repeal have no compunction about misleading and flatly lying on the specifics.
Which businesses are going to be paying more taxes under Measure 67, and which won’t? Which Oregonians will pay more and which Oregonians will get a tax cut on their personal income taxes under Measure 66?
Oregonians now have an easy way to answer those questions with today’s release of two flowcharts by the Oregon Center for Public Policy.
“The flowcharts are designed to bring clarity to the debate over Measures 66 and 67,” said OCPP executive director Chuck Sheketoff. “We want to help the public and the media understand how the two measures work.”
Sheketoff said the impetus for the charts was “widespread confusion about who will be paying more taxes, and how much they will pay.” He attributed the confusion to an opposition campaign that is “banking on fear and misinformed voters to beat the odds.”
Those odds, according to Sheketoff, are based on the fact that “people, not corporations, vote.” About 3 out of 100 taxpayers will see their taxes increase while about 270,000 of Oregon’s 1.5 million taxpayers will have a tax cut under Measure 66, according to an analysis by economists in the legislature’s revenue office.
“Our flowcharts will break through the campaign noise and dispel the fear created by the opposition,” said Sheketoff.
The press release links to the two pdfs showing the flowchart for each measure, but I've got a call in to OCPP in order to get the image versions that I can embed right into the page here. I'll add those when I get them. Edit--how about here and now?
No excuses now, it's easy! Unemployed? You'll likely GET money. One of the vast majority of Oregonians who make less than $125K by themselves, or $250 in their household? Congratulations, you pay nothing extra and get a host of urgently needed basic services in return. Make more than that? Your taxes will indeed go up, but by 2% on just the marginal amount--that is, just the part OVER 125/250K. Are you a corporation? The numbers are different, but the same principle applies--those who can most afford it are the ones taking on the burden (and it finally puts an end to the ridiculous $10 tax bill for corporations privileged to operate in Oregon).
There are just over two months to make sure folks are aware of the election, the ballot measures at hand, and what they mean. But you can distill it into one simple phrase, which I carved into a pumpkin this weekend:
(C'mon, you knew Portlandia probably got it right when she wrote up her conversation with Merkley, but at least now we can dispense with the whole game of "does he or doesn't he," and move on to the importance of that position in the overall race (or for some, to suddenly discover a way to justify wage ineqaulity as a good thing). But we can now say:
Novick = Yes on tax equality; Yes on raising the Social Security cap
Merkley = No on tax equality; No on raising the cap - promoted by torridjoe)
Novick, who appears to face the toughest path to the nomination, was more willing to toss out ideas that could be a more difficult sell in a general election, such as getting rid of the lower tax rate for capital gains and raising the cap on wages subject to Social Security. Merkley said after their appearance before the Willamette Women Democrats that he thinks there should be a "modest" differential for capital gains rate and that he sees raising the Social Security cap as one option that he isn't ready to endorse.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
