One way to skin a cat.
| Author | Topic: One way to skin a cat. |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 22:27
Profile
Ballot Measure 48 This measure would amend the constitution. It would limit state spending to biennial increases that could no more than match population growth plus inflation. It uses CPI for inflation. Oregon statute currently limits spending to 8% of projected personal income. This amendment can be overruled by 2-3rds majority of each house plus a majority of general election voters. Aside - Most commonly compared to the Colorado TABOR bill, which was instituted in the 90's and recently suspended by popular vote. Differs in that TABOR limits government income through taxation, and uses the same measuring stick. Don McIntire is the author of this bill, as he was the author of Measure 5. Measure 5 was a bill which capped property tax increases to 3% per year. The end result was that schools failed, and the counties had to relinquish control to the state. Now all schools are funded by state government, whereas before they were locally funded. It has been posited that McIntire is seeking to abolish public education completely, as Measure 48 will sharply limit investment in the school system. At a recent debate, when asked, he said that he thought privatizing all education "wasn't such a bad idea." Arguments in Favor numbered 11 Arguments in Opposition numbered 46 This ballot measure is also known as "The Rainy Day Amendment" despite the lack of any provision for putting aside money for that rainy day. The full text can be found here. The supporters and detractors both have websites outlining their respective arguments. Civil discussion is encouraged and expected. As I've noted elsewhere, even though this is an Oregon question, a similar measure will be showing up on your ballot someday. There are no more local agendas. :) Poll Information This poll contains 1 question(s). 7 user(s) have voted. You may not view the results of this poll without voting. function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=rdQhCfCDbpgJ"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=rdQhCfCDbpgJ"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window   -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 04:10
Profile
Homepage
Y'know, for a fiscal conservative, you're not very fiscally conservative. Not that I'm complainin'. [ Wednesday, November 01, 2006 04:10: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 08:08
Profile
I discussed a similar measure previously: the initiative, called TASC, shipped in petitioners from out of state and paid them by the signature. It was struck down by the Nevada Supreme Court before it got a chance to go to a vote, owing to its flagrant unconstitutionality (they also attempted to lump in a horrific measure that would have made non-participation a 'nay' vote). This is basically one of the most evil measures ever proposed. [ Wednesday, November 01, 2006 08:10: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 08:21
Profile
quote:I'm all in favor of out of state interests paying local residents to gather signatures. It's good for the economy and removes some money from the mentally feeble. But to bring them in from out of state? That just frosts my shorts. I'm not saying I'd hurt 'em, but I'd definitely make 'em feel some pain. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 6581
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 09:27
Profile
Homepage
Tabor? Like in Mt Tabor? Dude I love skateboarding that place. Hmm. I cannot decide. -------------------- Download Geneforge 4: Rebellion You have 6 posts. Nobody cares what you think. - Thuryl Wikipedia may be your friend, but UBB is not. - Dikiyoba Posts: 1310 | Registered: Tuesday, December 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 09:41
Profile
Homepage
The decision is quite simple: do you think the government should be providing you with free education, roads, social safety net (unemployment, healthcare, retirement), prisons and police force, etc. If the answer is "yes", you have to pay for it in the form of higher taxes. [ Wednesday, November 01, 2006 09:42: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 09:52
Profile
quote:Without having much time, now, to get into it, this measure would restrict government spending. Typical spending increases up to 8% annually, but budgets are set biennially. This measure doesn't limit revenue streams at all. It only creates a budgetary limit at the given level. Apparently the state issues bonds from time to time. This measure would include bond revenues in calculations, so using a bond would limit other fund usage. This measure would also include paying back bonds as spending, reducing funds available for actual work. Revenue in excess of that spent would stay in the state bank account unless the legislature and citizens approve the spending bill. IF the exception is allowed, that level of spending would become the new baseline for further biennial increases. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 11:10
Profile
Homepage
To clarify, when I said "yes", I meant the answer to my question about government providing servicies. This would correspond to "no" vote for this measure. I understand that the measure offers to directly limit spending, rather than limiting taxes, but it's the same effect. (You can look at California for what happens if you limit taxes without limiting spending. We haven't had a balanced budget in years and have to pass bonds for everything, including bonds to cover general budget shortfall a few years ago.) -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 14:44
Profile
Homepage
I find myself voting no, even though I'm not completely certain what all the measure entails. But basically... *sigh*... I'm not really all that fiscally conservative. At least not when the intention of said spending is completely undefined. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 22:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:Not understanding what a measure entails seems like a fairly good reason not to vote for it, really. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 23:29
Profile
Homepage
Yes, but is it also a good reason to vote against it? I'm not clear on it either. What would limiting state spending do? Where would the spending be cut down? Where would the money go instead? If the answers, respectively, are "privatize public institutions", "education" and "more tax cuts for everyone" (where, in a way scarily reminiscent of Imban, Everyone is Halliburton), then you know how I'd vote. Because I'm a damncommie, see. [ Wednesday, November 01, 2006 23:30: Message edited by: Robert Daniel Oliver ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 23:38
Profile
quote:For some reason I just can't delete your post, so I need to answer it instead. Limiting state spending would ... set a spending cap. This would force all state run functions to receive less funding. All county and city functions would not be affected, except where they get state funding. Schools would get funding cuts. Health care, police, marine board, forestry, wildlife, parks, state universities, all of it. Snipped. Revenue would remain the same, so the state would be getting more money than it could legally spend. Well, it could override the measure by passing it through the houses of the legislature (2/3rds) and then through a general election (17th month of the 24 month biennium). Excess funds would either remain with the state (if ever revenue is less than spending cap, like during a recession) or be returned to the taxpayer in the form of a bribe. And by bribe I mean bribe. And yes, you're adamncommie. And you love it. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |