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

The Oregonian has a handy ... no wait, make that two handy editorials that came out squarely against Measures 66 and 67.

Both editorials were mentioned in the "spadea" that wrapped last Sunday's Oregonian (boy howdy, did that ever get some knickers in a twist).

You may have also noticed Nike's Chairman, Phil Knight's op-ed column ran this weekend. Phil tells it like it is with two notable quotes: "Measures 66 and 67 should be labeled Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law II." and "There are words to describe what we are doing with 66 and 67: It is called a death spiral."

Throw in a dozen respected economists who say both measures will stall Oregon's economic recovery and thwart job creation... a host of other anecdotal evidence that jibes with those point-of-view... and I don't think it's even close. Vote No on both Measures 66 and 67.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I happen to catch Bob Tiernan on the radio today while driving across town. He touched on the extravagant, gold-plated state healthcare benefits that the public employees unions are spending millions to defend. He opined that if State of Oregon workers would agree to accept benefits on the level of State of Washington employees, we'd see hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in the state's budget. All good thoughtful points. Couldn't agree more.

But then the conversation turned to a specific example of how M66/67 would impact small employers and their businesses. Apparently a small town doctor had called into the program yesterday, talking about how he has been forced to shut down his clinic because skyrocketing expenses had made it unprofitable.

The clinic grossed about $1M in revenue. After all the expenses are paid for (payroll, malpractice insur, taxes, ect) the doc took home about $1,700 for the entire year... no hidden perks, nada. He was subsidizing the practice out of his own pocket. Not only is he forced to close his doors, but he gets to pay retroactive taxes on the gross receipts. Enough to vote no on this point alone, right?

While in this instance, shuttering the doctor's practice was not directly caused by M66,67, the example is indicative of the challenges small businesses across the state are going through. Simply put, a small business owner can show millions in revenue and be flat-out broke. This fact, in and of itself, is reason enough to vote down the measures.

But this still doesn't capture broader, more harmful impact that a change in business behavior has on a community. Individuals, subcontractors and small companies depend on medium and large company spending as their lifeblood.

What's the evidence? You know the stats all too well: 1-in-5 can't find full-time work... 650,000 Oregonians on food stamps... and the list goes on. Behind those stats are small business folks who USED do work for larger businesses; who USED to pay their mortgages; who USED to be able to afford health insurance, who USED to contribute to the food banks instead of depending on them, who USED to employ other Oregonians.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Pete, I'd submit that there's another important consideration in all of this: the revenue hit that small businesses will take because their customers will trim back their expenditures. Follow the sub-stories in the highlighted links:

Revisiting Small Business Realities with an Oregon Senator

Lastly, MP97303 wrote me sometime ago about his pending decision on whether or not to locate his manufacturing plant in Oregon. He's since decided not to. Last night, Th!nk Electric Cars opted not to located their manufacturing plant to Oregon, partly because of tax policies. That cost Oregon 415 new jobs, more than $40 in new capital investments and countless secondary jobs:

Oregon Loses Out to Indiana For Electric Car Plant

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Oregon Loses Out To Indiana For Electric Car Plant

Don't think tax policies play a role in attracting new employers to Oregon? Think again, literally. According to Gas 2.0 blog, the Elkhart city council voted to give Th!nk a phased in tax credit that should provide about $3 million dollars in savings to the company.

The Portland Business Journal reported that the news ends nearly nine-months of speculation as to whether Think would build its all-electric Think City vehicles in Oregon, which was one of three finalists for the plant.

Oslo-based Think said it will invest $43.5 million in building improvements and equipment in Elkhart County, where it could begin assembling vehicles in early 2011. The investments will support a manufacturing capacity of more than 20,000 vehicles per year.

That loss just cost Oregon 415 new, full-time jobs and countless secondary jobs

Read the rest here

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context