2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

By the same logic behind the kicker, if the state underestimates the budget buy 2% or more, they should be able to raise taxes (for that cycle) to cover the gap. Would people who are pro-kicker be happy with that. It would be fair and after all, the bill incured by the sate goverment are really our bills and the money is spent for our benefit (roads, schools, police, fire, water, etc...). The real problem here is a lack of trust and a belief that the goverment does not have our interests (on the whole) in mind.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context