Thursday, August 03, 2006

spending limits

Think for a second what the people in opposition to a state spending limit are saying.

"We have to spend every dime we get."

"We like living paycheck to paycheck."

"We oppose responsibility."

"How much is enough? That depends on how much you are willing to give us."


TABOR for Conservative Dummies said...

Think for a minute what proponents of Oregon TABOR (IP 6) aren't saying:

"Oregon TABOR “Rainy Day Amendment” is Misnamed and Would Make Recessions Worse."

"Initiative Petition 6, a “taxpayer bill of rights” or TABOR measure, would make recessions worse in Oregon. Initiative Petition 6 fails to create a rainy day fund and would undermine any rainy day fund that the Legislature might later create by including unemployment insurance under the spending scheme."

“IP 6 no more creates a rainy day fund than did the ballot measure that required seatbelt use or the measure that allowed denturists to install dentures.”

“Calling IP 6 the ‘rainy day amendment’ is like trying to sell a lightning rod by calling it an ‘umbrella’.”

“The IP 6 proponents are similarly trying to soak voters with a dangerous measure by calling it something else.”

"IP 6 is modeled on Colorado’s “taxpayer bill of rights,” commonly referred to as “TABOR” and considered the nation’s harshest spending limit."

"IP 6 goes a step further than Colorado’s TABOR by counting unemployment insurance payments against the TABOR limit."

“Including unemployment insurance payments makes Oregon’s measure more restrictive, and more damaging in a recession, than Colorado’s,”

"If IP 6 been in effect in Oregon during the last recession, four out of every five dollars of the increase permitted under the limit would have been spent on unemployment insurance payments."

"All state services outside of unemployment payments would have been denied most of the population and inflation growth the TABOR proponents claim to allow."

"Services that experience increased demands during recessions, such as the Oregon Health Plan, would have been incapable of keeping up with rising needs."

"IP 6 does not create a rainy day fund, and even if the Legislature creates one in the future, it would be rendered impotent because rising unemployment insurance payments would consume most of the allowable growth during a downturn."

"Colorado voters suspended use of TABOR for five years after Republican Governor Bill Owens, business leaders, and the state legislature agreed that TABOR was damaging Colorado’s universities, health care system, road maintenance, and other crucial public services."

"Like Colorado’s TABOR, IP 6 restricts spending growth to population growth plus inflation, a level that forces deep and unpopular cuts to schools, public safety, and other public services."

"If IP 6 TABOR had passed in 1990, state services in Oregon would have had $7.3 billion less in the current 2005-07 budget cycle. That amounts to a 24 percent cut in current state spending and service levels."

"TABOR is the same as eliminating all state funding for K-12 education, all state funding for Oregon Health Plan payments, all state funding for the Department of Corrections including all state funding for prisons, and all state funding for services provided by the Department of Agriculture, the State Police, and the Department of Environmental Quality, combined,”

"Schools, public safety, health care and other public services would be strangled by TABOR over time."

"If IP 6 had been in effect in Oregon during the last recession, it would have forced state expenditures outside of unemployment insurance to grow by no more than 1.9 percent compared to the previous biennium, even though population growth plus inflation grew 8.7 percent."

“Oregon TABOR breaks its own promise of letting schools and programs for seniors grow by the arbitrary population and inflation scheme. When a recession hits and unemployment costs rise, everyone else is denied even the inadequate growth level of population plus inflation.

"TABOR “rainy day amendment” was misnamed, as it would actually cause more pain for Oregonians during recessions."

“Calling a proposal that is designed to decrease funding for essential public services through limits on spending a rainy day fund is a complete mischaracterization of its intent and impact.”

"IP 6 was more accurately called the “Spending Trap.”

“The profoundly flawed Spending Trap would pit workers and their employers against school kids and seniors in times of recession,”

"Oregon's TABOR measure creates more problems than it solves."

Anonymous said...

Ron Saxton won't even endorse TABOR so why should the rest of us Republicans.

Jim in KFalls said...

Yup - Ron Saxton won't take a position on the 14th Amendment/Anchor Baby issue either...

But we should vote for him because he is better than Ted...

Anonymous said...

What bugs me about Saxton not taking a stand is his "if elected, I will be the spending cap, because I will not spend the money" line.

Sounds good. But what if you lose, Ron?

And what happens when your term is up?

Ron, you lack long term vision. This isn't about your election. This is about the future of the state, and protecting us all against governors who aren't you.

MAX Redline said...

Sure, Ron says that "he'll be the spending cap".

What else has he had to say during the course of this campaign?

And how much of it has he stayed true to?

Remember when he was going to "fire all public employees and renogtiate their contracts"?

What ever happened to that? What happened is that he knows that's an empty boast, so he doesn't bring it up any more.

Haven't heard him saying anything lately about dumping the children of illegal aliens out of our schools, either. Same story: another empty boast.

He says that he'll do this, or he'll do that - and in every case, he backpeddles and weaves and dodges.

He's made it clear that I can't believe anything he says.

Lou said...

I just pulled my support from Ron after listening to Lars Larson. I was going to vote for him, but now I am with Starrett. She may not win, but I would rather support someone who has some of my values than one that doesn't have any.

I am Coyote said...


The reason the Rainy Day Amendment folks (IP6) are not saying those things is because those things are not true.

I am sorry you wasted so much time typing that.


Rob said...

Yippy Yidiot,

They are all true. You can't make a case otherwise which is why you just sigh. Sorry your Oregon TABOR sham is such a joke

Rob said...

As for Saxton, why the Repugnant Party of Oregon supported him is beyond reason. Even centrist Democrats kicked him to the curb because he was nothing but a liberal attorney from Portland. Republicans thought he was their man. Jokes on all of you. Maybe if you aren't taking your marching orders from fatty Larson you could try Mary Starrett. At least she has some of your principles, even if it is just one.

Anonymous said...

Why not limit government? Government only spends money that is confiscated from someone who is productive. Sorry, government employees, you are by definition “non-productive”. Your salaries are paid by taxes which is simply wealth redistribution.

Government should operate like any other business. When economic conditions reduce profits for a business the business must take action to reduce operating costs to survive. Often this means reducing employees and services. Government should do the same.

I had a great economics professor in college that said “Government cannot do much to help the economy, but can do a lot to damage it”. The incentive for Government (especially in Oregon) should be to stay out of the way of economic growth. This means reducing taxes and regulations. By doing this the bureaucrats that feed at the public trough would continue to receive taxes at a rate that would grow. The big problem with making government in Oregon (or any government) immune to changing economic conditions is that bureaucrats believe they can continue to spend at ever increasing amounts regardless of the amount of taxes received.

I could go on about the failure of government in Oregon to prioritize spending but that is a different topic for a different day.

I lived in Colorado and still have relatives there. The spending limits were a good idea and a boom to economic growth.