The opponents tell many versions of this same phony claim.Version 1:
“Legislators increased spending by $4.7 billion last year.”
The Truth:
The truth is that, because of the recession, there is record demand for unemployment benefits, food stamps, and health care. Families who were comfortably middle-class are now finding themselves facing hunger and homelessness.
But while costs for these emergency services have risen dramatically through the recession, the state has fewer revenues to pay for them. Lawmakers slashed the general fund budget by $2 billion, but passed Measures 66 and 67 to protect critical services Oregon’s most vulnerable families are depending on just to get by.
Version 2:
“Legislators can just take money from agencies’ ending balances.”
The Truth:
The so-called “ending fund balances” that are on agencies’ books is money that’s a.) already spent or b.) dedicated by law to be spent on a specific purpose. One example of the funds that opponents think the state can raid: A fund of private donations given to help students with special needs. Another: Hunting and fishing license fees that are dedicated to protecting wildlife habitats.
In June, the head of the state’s Legislative Fiscal Office wrote a report explaining why these funds either don’t exist or can’t be used. Read it here: www.oregonbudget.cov.
Version 3:
“Legislators can just borrow their way out of this crisis.”
The Truth:
The State of Oregon is constitutionally required to have a balanced budget. Unlike the Federal government, we can’t engage in deficit spending.
During the 2003 recession, Republican lawmakers got around this by borrowing more than $400 million against tobacco settlement money to fund basic services. The result: They still had to cut schools and thousands of people from the Oregon Health Plan, and we’re paying off the debt until 2013. The loan actually cost the state $750 million more in interest payments.
This time around, lawmakers couldn’t do that even if they wanted: The state has already maxed out its credit card and couldn’t borrow any more than $20 million.
If voters reject tax measures...what then?
(Bend Bulletin article, PDF format)
Case Study: Did corporations want to raise taxes just for fun?
If the state has plenty of money, as the opponents claim, then why did they propose their own tax increases last year?
From the opponents’ website: “In an unprecedented effort, a coalition of the state’s largest business groups proposed a ‘Shared Responsibility’ plan to increase the outdated corporate minimum tax, without creating an unfair new tax on a company’s Oregon sales. The business community also supported temporary, broad-based tax increases to protect funding for education and other essential services.”
If there’s plenty of money lying around, as they claim, then why did they try to raise $888 million in taxes? (That’s $150 million more than Measures 66 and 67 raise.) In their own words, “to protect funding for education and other essential services.” That’s sure a funny thing to say and do if you believe there’s lots of extra money in Salem.
So why didn’t legislators adopt the business association’s proposal? Because the business community wanted to raise taxes on everyone—including small businesses and families who are living on minimum wage. Legislators wisely decided to instead only raise taxes on the people who could afford it: Households with more than $250,000 in income and large corporations.
