🚀 go-pugleaf

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

> 
> <Dan S. Milagros> wrote in message
> news:aeque2le0fqnp0t51phse852taidk4sada@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:11:24 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any
>> >state over the next five years? What if, over the next two years,
>> >Oregon could build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help
>> >cushion inevitable economic downturns?
>> >
>> >The first scenario above is what actually happened in Colorado from
>> >1995 through 2000, the first five years of its citizen-imposed
>> >spending limitation, known there as TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of
>> >Rights. The second scenario is what forecasters predict will happen
>> >here over the next two years if Oregonians pass a spending
>> >limitation on the November ballot known as the Rainy Day Amendment.
>> >
>> >Tax and expenditure limitations are on the books in some 30 states,
>> >keeping the size of government in check through limiting either
>> >state revenue or spending. They generally do so by tying government
>> >growth to either the growth of personal income or to a combination
>> >of inflation plus population growth. Inflation plus population
>> >growth has historically been more consistent and less volatile than
>> >the growth of personal income, which can fluctuate widely.
>> >
>> >Colorado's TABOR amendment is actually quite different from the
>> >proposed Oregon Rainy Day Amendment. TABOR limits growth in both
>> >state and local government revenue. It requires that revenue above
>> >the limitation be returned to taxpayers, which worked well during
>> >the economic boom of the late 1990s, but which put downward pressure
>> >on government budgets during the bust that occurred in the early
>> >part of this decade. This so-called ratchet down effect caused
>> >Colorado voters to suspend TABOR for five years beginning last
>> >November. 
>> >
>> >Oregon's Rainy Day proposal limits not revenue, but expenditures. It
>> >applies only to the state, not to local governments. Revenue
>> >collected above the limitation can either be kept in a rainy day
>> >fund or returned to taxpayers at the legislature's discretion.
>> >Oregon's proposal has no ratchet down mechanism.
>> >
>> >In fact, unlike in Colorado, if state revenues decline here the
>> >government can call on the rainy day funds accumulated during the
>> >good times to maintain state spending. Also, as in Colorado, the
>> >legislature and citizens can vote to override the limits in the
>> >future. 
>> >
>> >The projected $2.2 billion that Oregon�?Ts Rainy Day ballot
>> >measure might keep from being spent over the next two years is being
>> >portrayed as a "loss"? by opponents of the measure. They want voters
>> >to believe that such a large amount of money will starve essential
>> >state services. What they fail to acknowledge is that this money
>> >still will be collected, just not spent right away. Also, the $2.2
>> >billion should be compared to the state's All Funds budget
>> >(currently over $42 billion) rather than to the General Fund
>> >(currently almost $12 billion). 
>> >
>> >The legislature will have wide discretion in how it applies the
>> >amendment's limit on total spending, and it will have no explicit
>> >limits on the General Fund. Legislators thus could make spending
>> >adjustments that would largely hold harmless budget items such as
>> >education, human services, and public safety which make up over 90
>> >percent of the General Fund.
>> >
>> >Both Oregon's Rainy Day Amendment and TABOR base their limits on
>> >growth of state population and inflation. But beyond that, Oregon's
>> >proposal gives the state more latitude to preserve excess revenues
>> >in a rainy day fund, rather than return them to taxpayers. Opponents
>> >of the measure today likely will be the first to argue for keeping
>> >those excess revenues if it passes in November.
>> >
>> >Sustainability is such a big concept in Oregon that it should be
>> >applied to government growth as well as to the environment. Oregon's
>> >All Funds budget grew twice as fast as the combined increase in
>> >population and inflation over the past ten years, clearly not a
>> >sustainable path. Opponents of the Rainy Day Amendment have the
>> >burden to explain why state government should be allowed to grow
>> >faster than the private sector. Oregon's tax revenues are highly
>> >variable from year to year because of our reliance on income and
>> >capital gains taxes. Programs begun at the height of a boom cannot
>> >be continued during a recession except through tax hikes or
>> >borrowing. Opponents of the Rainy Day Amendment have the burden to
>> >explain how better to cushion future economic downturns if state
>> >government continues to immediately spend every dime that comes in
>> >the door. 
>> >
>> >The Rainy Day Amendment offers the best features of the Colorado
>> >limitation, which led to strong economic growth during the boom,
>> >while avoiding the worst features that kept Colorado from easily
>> >adjusting to the bust. Oregonians who want their government to be
>> >fiscally responsible should seriously consider the opportunity it
>> >presents. 
>> Oh my gosh...a ballot initiative signed by thousands of Oregon
>> citizens seeking to reign in government spending...and all the far
>> left extremist and unions are upset.
>> Well....not all unions...just those unions who get there money from
>> government workers.
>>
>> lordy lordy  poor old government with it's million dollar light rails
>> and jails that are built and not used...and government with screwed
>> up tram deals.
>>
>> are the voters gonna be frightened away by the doom and gloom from
>> these fake unions?
>>
>> you think supporters of this ballot measure will be bombed...recall
>> that Bill Sizemore's political office was bombed. Will the lefties
>> get who next?
> 
> Didn't the sheriff's office say they thought he'd bombed his own
> office to destroy records so he wouldn't have to produce them as a
> defendant later?

You think the sheriff's office would risk the suit?
 
> 
> There was something like that going on. I don't recall exactly.
> 
> Curt
> 
> 
>