s
MONDAY: Opinion
TUESDAY: Politics
WEDNESDAY: Opinion
THURSDAY: Politics
FRIDAY: Opinion
a voter’s guide to the 1996 election and life on the campaign trail
BY MAIL: P.O. Box 3159,
Eugene, OR 97403
BY PHONE: (541)346-5511
BY E-MAIL: ode@oregon.
uoregon. edu
IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU
ISSUE: GAY DISCRIMINATION
-
I
|J U
U Jj
r1 d
i!jJ
Question: Would you endorse federal legis
lation making it illegal to fire or avoid hir
ing people because they are homosexual?
"I do not believe that it
is right for employers to
discriminate based on
sexual orientation. Men
and women in 41 states
may now be fired from
their jobs solely based
on their sexual orienta
tion, even though it has
no bearing on their job
performance. i nose mo race mis Kino or job
discrimination have no legal recourse.... The
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for
which I announced my support last fall, is
designed to protect the rights of all Ameri
cans to participate in the job market without
fear of unfair discrimination, while providing
exceptions for religious organizations."
—President Bill Clinton,
Democratic candidate
"I oppose discrimina
tion in any form, i do
not, however, favor cre
ating special rights for
any one group. I believe
that people should be
hired based on their tal
ents, knowledge and
experience — not
based on their race, reli
yivu, muoiyic ui uioaumiy.
—Bob Dole, Republican candidate
'Every time we pass a
law we give up a portion
of our freedom. The
American people must
learn to work together
and respect one anoth
er. No law will make us
do this."
—Ross Perot, Reform Party candidate
-Associated Press
P.O.BOX 3159. EUGENE. OREGON 97403
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the
summer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon A member of the Associated
Press, the Emerald operates independently of the University with of
fices at Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private
property. The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by
law.
Editor-In-Chief: Steven Asbury
Managing Editor: Jennifer Carter Night Editor: Ryan Frank
Community: Jennifer Schmitt, editor. Jean Bond, Christian Hill
Entertainment: Nicole Kreuger, editor. Jesse Stephenson
Higher Education: Tamyra Howser, in-depth. Laura Cadiz,
Benjamin Kwasney
Opinion: Ashley Bach, editor Chris Hutchinson, illustrator.
Politics: Shana Cohn, editor. Doug Irving
Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor. Angie Suchy, Tom Potter
Sports: Mark McTyre. editor. Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor.
Chris Hansen. Ryan Frank, Ryan Halvorsen
Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn, copy chief. Trevor Kearney,
Sarah Kickler, Mike Schmierbach, Kendra Smith
Presentation: Dennis Bolt, editor. Matt Garton
Photography: Mathew Stiffler, editor. Andrew Brackensick,
Joe Bunik, Amanda Erickson. Shannon Kilduff, Chad Patteson
Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor. On-Line: Nicholas Stiffler
General Manager: Judy Riedl
Advertising Becky Merchant, director Anne Amador, Lee Yen
Beh, Marco Ching. Yujin Chi, Matt Johnson, Anne Miller, Trina
Shanaman. Rose Soli, Matt Solomon, Greg Walsh
Classified: Tara Sloan, manager. Natasha Lumpkin. Debbie Levy,
Heather Moye
Production: Michele Ross, manager. Ingrid White, coordinator.
Shawna Abele, Laura Daniel, Tara Knight, Melissa Lebahn,
Molly McCanta, Allison Stormo. Mike Young
Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly
Distribution: John Long. Jeff Johnson, Ferenc Rakoczi
.(541)346*5811
Display Advertising.(841)346-3712
Business Office.(841)346-8512
Opponent attacks Measure 47
By Shana Cohn
Politics Editor
Lora Cuykendall, an opponent of Mea
sure 47, recently discussed the state’s fu
ture pertaining to education if the mea
sure passed. She also answered questions
about Measure 5, the property tax limita
tion that has decreased state spending per
student since its passage in 1990. Cuyk
endall is part of Oregonians For Local Con
trol, the campaign committee for No on 47.
Thursday, the Emerald will feature an
interview with Bill Sizemore whose group,
Oregon Taxpayers United, sponsored Mea
sure 47.
ISSUE:Schools
QHow would Measure 47 affect K-12 and
■ community colleges?
A Measure 47 would be very damaging to lo
■ cal schools. Not only does it cut money
available to local schools, but it continues the
loss of local control. Measure 5 and Measure 47
take away the right of local communities to de
cide how much they want to spend on schools.
ISSUE: Money Replacement
Q Could the money lost from Measure 47 be
■ replaced from other sources?
A The measure allows money to be replaced
■ only from state income tax. The Legislative
Revenue Office estimates there will be $1 billion
lost to cities, counties and school districts in the
[1997-99] biennium. Even with the anticipated
growth in income tax revenues, that growth
wouldn’t equal $1 billion. The state also need to
maintain other programs such as the Oregon
Health Plan and prison expansions.
ISSUE: Before Measure 5
QWhat was school funding like previous to
■ Measure 5?
A Measure 5 switched the control of school
■funding from the local community to the
state. Before the measure, there was some state
LORA CUYKENDALL
UUMlilJJ flM
funding of schools, but it was less than half. Lo
cal communities could pass tax bases or levy
taxes to fund school districts. Measure 5 took
away the option of increased financial support
from local communities. It put a rate limit on how
much local tax rate could go to schools and re
quired the state to make up the difference.
[Bill] Sizemore will tell you that schools have
dealt with Measure 5 just fine. The total amount
of money spent on schools since 1990 is higher
now, but the number of students has also grown.
The state didn’t deal with it just fine. Per student
spending went down.
ISSUE: Funding Higher Education
The state's colleges and universities do not get
money from property taxes, but do get it from
the general fund.
QWhy is higher education worried about
• losses?
A There will be tremendous pressure on state
■ general fund money to make up losses in
local schools and city and county programs such
as public safety. For the state to make up the
losses, it will leave less money available for other
state funding. If most of the [state’s] money goes
to public safety, other services will be cut, like li
brary and senior programs.
ISSUE: Tuition
QHow would the measure affect tuition at
■ state colleges, universities and communi
ty colleges?
Alt would continue to go up. It would be diffi
cult for the state to deal with this measure
without raising tuition again. The measure would
take away community colleges’ traditional source
of funding and cut down on the options of re
placing the money. Let’s say Lane Community
College has a budget cut [under Measure 47],
and they want to make up the budget with higher
tuition. They would be required to go to a vote to
pass an increase. [Measure 47 prohibits using
increased fees or other charges to pay for gov
ernment services and products previously fund
ed by property tax revenues, unless a new or in
creased fee has been approved by voters].
ISSUE: Measure 5 vs. Measure 47
QWili Measure 47 affect schools differently
■than Measure 5?
A Measure 5 was a rate limitation. It limited
■ the tax rate to $5 per $1000 of assessed
property. So if the value of people's homes or
businesses increased, it brought in some addi
tional money. Measure 47 is a tax limit. It limits
how much property taxes could go up, even if a
house is assessed at more. Each individual prop
erty bill can’t increase more than 3 percent each
year. With Measure 47, you end up losing some
money that local communities could have col
lected for schools under Measure 5. And unlike
Measure 5, it doesn’t require the state to make
up the lost property tax money.
ISSUE: Taxes
Oregon Taxpayers' United say Measure 47
could be enacted without any cuts to schools and
other essential services such as police and fire
protection. It says the reduced property tax rev
enues could be replaced from the state's abun
dance of state income and lottery dollars.
Is this possible?
Alt’s true that state income and taxes collect
■ ed have gone up. The economy is good.
Lottery money has increased [the first half of the
1990s] because of a huge expansion in video
poker. It’s unlikely the lottery will expand like that
again and could even go down because of com
petition from Indian gaming casinos. It would
take an increase in the state income tax rate to
raise enough money to make up for a billion dol
lars
47
A look at some of the 23 ballot
measures in the November 5 election
WHAT IT WOULD DO
Amends the state constitution to limit the
amount of property taxes that can be collect
ed. Otherwise known as “cut and cap,” Mea
sure 47 proposes to roll back property taxes
to their 1994-95 level, or alternately, cut
them to 10 percent less than the 1995-1996
tax, whichever is smaller. Once set at this
base level, future growth in taxes, for tax
years following 1997-98, is limited to no
more than a 3 percent increase per year,
with exceptions. Would limit revenue avail
able for schools and other local services
funded by property taxes. Local govern
ments’ lost revenue may be replaced only
with state income tax, unless voters approve
replacement fees or charges. Revenue re
ductions from the tax limitation must be allo
cated in a way that public safety and public
education are priority. Requires tax mea
sures to be approved at general elections or
elections with 50 percent turnout. Requires
that property be assessed at real market val
ue, a requirement already in place since
1968. Would restrict general obligation
bonds. Tax levy approvals in certain elec
tions would require 50 percent voter partici
pation.
ARGUMENTS FOR
Without Measure 47, property
taxes will skyrocket next year
and every year thereafter, which
will hurt taxpayers and retired
people on fixed incomes. The
measure will cut property taxes
by 10 percent and limit future
growth. If the state continues to
make up reduced property tax
revenue with income tax and
lottery money, Measure 47 can
be implemented without any
cuts to schools or local govern
ments. If the measure doesn’t
pass, the state’s excess of rev
enue will be spent to expand
bureaucracy. The measure
would stop the shift of the
property tax burden from resi
dential to commercial property.
Since the legislature hasn’t
passed any bills to limit the
growth of the property tax, it
was necessary to put the mea
sure on the ballot by initiative to
protect taxpayers.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
The Legislative Revenue Office
estimates that if Measure 47
passes, local governments and
schools together will lose an
estimated $467 million in rev
enue statewide in 1997-98,
and $533 million in 1998-99,
and increasing amounts the
following years. The measure
doesn’t provide any means of
replacing those losses. It fur
ther erodes local control, espe
cially for schools, over even
minor decisions. The measure
eliminates the ability of com
munities to choose what level
of services they want and turns
these decisions over to the leg
islature. If the state were to re
place the revenue lost to local
governments by the measure,
it would mean severe cuts in
other state programs. It re
moves the historical connec
tion between the property tax
paid and the assessed value of
the property.
Sources: League of Women Voters, Oregon Taxpayers United and Oregon State System of Higher Education