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

I have only one question: Gail Meyer "says this bill leaves innocent people vulnerable to prosecution and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

"She says that under this bill, two people could get drunk at night, wake up in the morning and only one could be charged with rape."

This might have been answered on the program, which I have not heard, but not here on the web. So, on what basis does Ms. Meyer make this statement? I just went through the whole of ORS 163 and nowhere does it make a distinction between males and females in terms of rape. 

Nor do I see any reason in the statute or the proposed amendment that would impose the burden of proof on the perpetrator.

Unless it can be demonstrated that there is some reason for her concern, this bill seems not only sensible, but needed.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

1) A flat tax has the same problem as a sales tax: it's regressive.

For those who don't understand that, here's an example:

Given: a sales or flat-rate income tax of 5%.

A makes $100. B makes $1000. C makes $10,000. Take away 5% from each:

A has $95. B has $950. C has $9500.

Each is paying the same percentage, but what's left over is what's important. The impact of A's 5% is huge. C still has plenty left though C pays 100 times as much as A.

The above is what underlies a progressive taxation system. The idea is that most people contribute, but they don't give more than they can afford.

HB 3272 is a progressive tax bill. Here's what it does:

If taxable income is not over $3,050, you pay 5% of taxable
income.

If it's over $3,050 but not over $7,600, you pay $153 plus 7% of what's over $3,050.

If it's over $7,600 but not over $250,000, you pay $471 plus 9% of what's over $7,600.

If it's over $250,000, you pay $22,287 plus 11% of what's over $250,000.

I think you can do the math, but the idea is, of course, that the folks who can afford to pay more, do pay more. And, if your taxable income is $250,001, you're left with $227,714. You're probably not hurting.

The estimate is that only about 8,500 of Oregon’s 1.8 million taxpayers will pay this amount, and that it will generate $220 million in revenue over the next two years.

It's only two pages. Look into it further at http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3272.intro.pdf.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

While working Americans have seen their wages stagnate for thirty years, the Republicans, with the support of the national Chamber of Commerce, are working to prevent the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow unions to be formed without having a full-blown election in the work place.

This means that workers will be able to choose whether they want a union without employers having the chance to intimidate or fire them, as is common under current law.

What is particularly grotesque is to hear the Chamber of Commerce  claim that they are fighting this bill to make sure that workers have a "secret ballot."

 I am stunned at their sudden concern for the rights of workers when they have spent years attacking unionizing drives and the workers who attempt to get the benefits of unions in their work place.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context