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: WELFARE
h
1
u tj
UU
il)
Question: Under the new welfare law,
should all welfare recipients willing to
work be guaranteed a job, training or other
assistance from government if they cannot
find employment covering basic living
costs?
"We have a moral
obligation to make sure
the people who are be
ing required to work
have the opportunity to
work. We must make
sure the jobs are there.
There should be one
million new jobs for
welfare recipients by the year 2000. States
under this law can now take the money that
was spent on the welfare check and use it to
help businesses to provide paychecks. I
challenge every state to do it soon."
—President Bill Clinton,
Democratic candidate
"This legislation pro
vides states with
strong financial'incen
tives to help welfare re
cipients get jobs or get
the training they need
fora well-paying job.
This legislation also
helps eliminate one of
the biggest barriers for women who want to
go to work—lack of child care — by pro
viding almost $14 billion for child care pro
grams. Additionally [It] contains a safety net
that allows states to exempt 20 percent of
their caseload—the hardship cases — from
the time limits."
—Bob Dole, Republican candidate
"Our government
must help welfare re
cipients receive the
tools they need to be
come productive tax
payers. "
—Ross Perot, Re
form Party candidate
—The Associated Press
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 Jennifer Schmitt
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 Brian
Diamond, Larry Haftl. Sonja Sherwood
Politics: Shana Cohn, editor. Doug Irving
Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor Angie Suchy, Tom Potter
Sports: Mark McTyre. editor Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor
Chns Hansen. Ryan Frank. Ryan Hah/orsen
Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn. copy chief
Sarah Kickler, Mike Schmierbach. Kendra Smith
Presentation: Dennis Bolt, editor Matt Garton
Photography: Mathew Stiffier editor Andrew Brackensick.
Joe Bumk. Amanda Erickson. Shannon Kilduff. Chad Patteson
Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor On-Line: Nicholas Stiffier
General Manager. Judy Riedl
Advertising Becky Merchant, director. Anne Amador. Lee Yen
Beh, Marco Chmg, Yujin Chi. Matt Johnson. Anne Miller. Trma Sha
naman. Rose Soil, 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. Trevor Kearney,Tara Knight. Melissa
LeBahn. Molly McCanta, Allison Stormo, Mike Young
Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly
Distribution: John Long Jeff Johnson. Ferenc Rakoczi
Newsroom.(541)346-5511
Display Advertising.(541)346-3712
Business Office.(541)346-5512
Sponsor defends Measure 47
By Shana Cohn
Politics Editor
Bill Sizemore, the author of Measure 47, says
schools wouldn’t suffer if the measure passed. The
leader of Oregon Taxpayers United was recently in
terviewed about how schools and other services
could be funded with a significant loss of property
tax revenues. The Legislative Revenue Office says
under Measure 47, schools would lose an estimat
ed $181 million in 1997-98, depending on the re
sponse of lawmakers.
ISSUE: School Fundim
School funding has grown faster than the rate of infla
tion during the Measure 5 years, according to the OTU.
Measure 5, which limited property taxes, passed in 1990.
QOTU says Measure 47 could also be enacted with
■ out any cuts to schools and other essential ser
vices. How would this work?
A The legislature has to do one more time what they
a have done five years in a row with Measure 5. Take
100 percent of property tax reductions out of schools and
backfill them with state income and lottery dollars. And
take no cuts in local government, so local governments will
have no reduction in property tax revenues. After one more
year of Measure 5 is phased in, Measure 47 can be imple
mented with no loss to schools or local government.
ISSUE: Prisons
QWhat about the increased money that will need to
■ come from the state general fund for the construc
tion of prisons?
A Fortunately the general fund is growing 20 percent or
■ more per biennium. We have a window of opportuni
ty to implement Measure 47 without cuts. We couldn't do
that without a robust economy.
ISSUE: Taxes
Q Why does Measure 47 target property taxes?
A Property taxes are the most unfair tax in our overall
■ system. They tax people without regard to ability to
pay. This year, property taxes are going up four to six times
the rate of inflation. That’s a system that demands fixing.
BILL SIZEMORE
jJJMM
ijj
O)
Jjj
ISSUE: Benefits
Q Who will benefit from Measure 47?
A Homeowners. Commercial properties will only in
■ crease in value 2 to 3 percent a year, and will see little
benefit from the measure. Residential property values are
increasing 10 to 20 percent per year, and [owners] will
greatly benefit from the 3 percent cap. [For the years fol
lowing 1997-98, property taxes are limited to no more than
3 percent per year under the measure]. There’s no way that
the measure can benefit commercial property owners at
the expense of homeowners.
Q Who benefited from Measure 5?
A Every property owner in Oregon. A lot of homeown
■ ers ignore what their property taxes would be today if
Measure 5 was not in place. But most reductions went to
commercial owners, which happened as a function of the
real estate market.
ISSUE: Local Control
QWhat is the biggest misconception about Measure
.47?
A That it will hurt local control. The local control argu
■ ment is a base less scare tactic to divert voters atten
tion away from property taxes. Measure 47, if anything,
protects local control. It says that if any cuts are necessary,
the losses have to be minimized. The measure mandates
prioritizing public safety and education [when replacing
lost revenue from property taxes].
ISSUE: Econom
QHow would the measure affect the Oregon econo
»my?
A I believe a lot of the credit for Oregon's vibrant econo
■ my can be traced to Measure 5. It has left more than
$3 billion in the hands of taxpayers, with which they have
purchased goods and services from Oregon businesses.
Our philosophy is that reducing taxes stimulates econom
ic expansion. It increases both the standard of living of citi
zens and revenues for government.
MEASURE 47
■ WHAT IT DOES:
Limits the amount of
property taxes that can
be collected. Would roll
back taxes to their 1994
95 level or cut them to
10 percent less than the j
1995-96 level, whichever i
is smaller. Future tax rate j
growth would be limited
to 3 percent per year,
with exceptions. Would
limit revenue available to
schools and other local
services funded by prop
erty taxes. That revenue
could only be replaced
by state income taxes,
unless voters approve
replacement fees or
charges. Revenue reduc
tions would be allocated
in a way that makes pub
lic safety and education a i
priority. Property must
be assessed at real mar
ket value.
■ ARGUMENTS FOR:
Prevents property taxes
from skyrocketing in the
future. Lost revenue to
schools and services
could be made up with
lottery funds or income
taxes. Without this mea
sure, the state’s excess
property taxes could go
to increased state bu
reaucracy.
■ ARGUMENTS
AGAINST: Local govern
ments and schools could
lose up to $467 million
together in 1997-98, and
more than that in future
years. The measure pro
vides no means for re
placing lost revenue.
Hurts local control and
eliminates the ability of
communities to decide
what level of services
they want.
A look at some of the 23 ballot
measures in the November 5 election
THE MEASURE
WHAT IT WOULD DO
Amends the Oregon Constitution to repeal cer
tain residency requirements for state veteran
loans. The Constitution currently requires that
people seeking home or farm loans were Oregon
residents when they entered military service or
have resided here for five years since their dis
charge. The measure would leave other eligibility
requirements intact.
ARGUMENTS FOR
Would allow the Oregon Veteran
Home Loan Program to follow a
Supreme Court ruling that found
such residency requirements un
fairly discriminates against service
people who similarly served.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
Forces the state to provide
home and farm loans to veter
ans who were not residents of
the state.
THE MEASURE
WHAT IT WOULD DO
Amends the state constitution. Under the cur
rent system, a law requires a majority vote of
those voting to be passed. Under the measure, a
law would require a majority of registered voters
to be passed. A registered voter who does not
vote is therefore counted as a "no” vote. The
measure would also apply to taxing issues and
issuance of bonds.
ARGUMENTS FOR
Would prevent a minority of Ore
gonians from passing laws and
raising taxes that the majority
would then have to abide by. Will
effectively safeguard against small
groups of voters levying taxes on
the entire state.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
Would make it almost im
possible to raise revenue for
schools and other state and lo
cal government needs. Some
one who does not vote would
unfairly cancel out someone
who took the time to cast a
“yes” vote.
SOURCES: The National Coalition tor PoOtic Lands and Natural Resources. Oregon State Public Interest Research Group. Americans for the Environment. Cascade Business News