Measures 8 and 91 could affect school fundine
■The measures would lower
taxes and state spending and
might reduce funding
for public services
By Darren Freeman
Oregon Daily Emerald
Two tax reform measures on the
Nov. 7 ballot that would cut bil
lions from the state budget have
supporters clamoring for smaller
government and opponents warn
ing about suffocated programs.
Ballot Measures 91 and 8 would
overhaul Oregon’s tax system and
reduce funding for the state’s uni
versities, K-12 schools, emergency
services and health programs.
“The effects would be immedi
ate and drastic,” said John Coney,
a spokesman for Gov. John
Kitzhaber, who has spoken against
the measures.
If passed, Measure 91 would al
low individual and corporate tax
payers to deduct all federal tax
payments from their state income
tax returns. Currently, federal tax
deductions are limited to $3,000,
and corporations receive no de
duction at all. Measure 91, spon
sored by Oregon Taxpayers Unit
ed, would eliminate the deduction
limit and offer the tax break to cor
porations.
The projected impact would be
a $1 billion cut in the state’s annu
al income, with the biggest tax
breaks going to Oregon’s wealthiest
individual and corporate taxpay
ers.
Measure 8 would prohibit state
spending from outpacing increases
in Oregonians’ incomes. If the
measure passes, the state would be
forced to spend no more than 15
percent of the state’s personal in
come. With the state currently
spending about 18 percent of per
sonal income, measure would trim
the projected 2001-2003 state
budget by $5.7 billion.
“We’re concerned about all of
the measures,” said Oregon Uni
versity System spokesman Bob
Bruce, “but Measures 91 and 8
would have a significant fiscal im
pact, not only on the university
system but also on the entire
state.”
Bruce said the impact on the
university system would be the
equivalent of losing funding for
the state’s four regional universi
ties and one of its three major :
ones.
“That major of a change would I
make Oregon public universities
Authorization required
■The Measure 92 debate
centers on the effect
of payroll deductions
on political free speech
By Anna Seeley
For the Emerald
Measure 92 would prohibit pub
lic and private employee payroll
deductions to be used for political
purposes, unless annual written
authorization is obtained from the
employee. This would apply to all
union employees and would have
no financial effect on state or local
government revenues.
Aside from the various labor
unions on campus, this measure is
not expected to affect higher edu
cation, said Melissa Unger, legisla
tive organizer for the ASUO. How
ever, it has sparked a lot of debate
in the community.
State Sen. Tony Corcoran, D-Cot
tage Grove, who is also a member
of the Oregon Public Employees
Union, is strongly opposed to the
measure. He said the measure
would restrict the political voice of
union employees, who have no
other means with which to get
their opinions and views across.
Corcoran also stated that the
measure was so poorly written, it
would affect other payroll deduc
tions such as those for charities
and student groups. He said it is
just another attack by Oregon Tax
payers United, the anti-tax organi
zation that put the measure on the
ballot, to try and quiet the voice of
its opposition.
“[OTU Director Bill] Sizemore
likes to try to [reduce funds for] the
government, especially with at
tacks on public education,” Corco
ran said. “He is trying to quiet the
voice of public employees, which
is essentially what this measure
would do.”
Becky Miller, executive assistant
for Oregon Taxpayers United, ar
gues that a lot of union members
don’t approve of having money de
ducted from their paychecks for
political purposes, but have no
choice but to give it up. She stated
this measure would stop unions
from taking an employee’s money
without his or her explicit consent.
“Currently, unions can take
money and use it however they
want, and the process employees
have to go through to get their
money back is very difficult,”
Miller said. “We believe in politi
cal free speech, and money equals
free speech in this case.”
less affordable, less accessible and
:ertainly less cost-effective,” Bruce
said. “It’s unthinkable.”
But supporters of the measures,
such as Measure 8 author Don
Vlclntire, argue that the tax re
forms wouldn’t constitute a cut in
funding, but rather an overdue ces
I don't believe in
progressive taxation.
Progressive taxation ends
up rewarding people for
not achieving because
they can kick back and get
an easy ride.
Becky Miller
Oregon Taxpayers United
_ yy
sation of increased spending.
“Governments want to grow as
[ast as they can — they want to
spend every dime they get their
lands on,” Mclntire said. “When
government increases spending
aster than the economy rises,
that’s a recipe for disaster.”
Mclntire, who also wrote the
1992 Ballot Measure 5, which
sliced property taxes, said that
giving the state a spending lim
it is the best way to instill fiscal
discipline in government without
forcing the legislature to cut pro
grams.
“Measure 8 would establish the
state budget on citizens’ ability to
pay rather than on a state’s ability
to spend,” he said. “We will cut
out no services. What we will do is
finally force our legislature to do
the right thing. To cut costs and
give taxpayers more bang for the
buck.”
Measure 91, on the other hand,
seeks to scale back government by
reforming the state’s income rather
than expenditure.
The Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet
states that it is unclear when Mea
sure 91 would go into effect. If the
measure applies to the 2000 tax
year, state income would be re
duced by $870 million this year.
After the 2001-2002 tax year, state
revenue would be cut by about a
$1 billion each year.
But taxpayers must make
$81,000 a year to benefit from the
tax break, and those making less
would actually lose money in the
first few years after the measure’s
passage, according to a Legislative
Revenue Office report.
Every biennium, the legislature
returns the state’s surplus, called a
“kicker,” to taxpayers if tax collec
tions exceeded projections by at
least 2 percent. The tax cut Mea
sure 91 proposes would wipe out
that surplus, which constitutes
$282 million for personal taxpay
ers and $34 million for corpora
tions, according to the report.
Those making more than
$81,000 a year, however, would re
ceive a large enough tax cut to off
set the lost kicker revenue.
For this reason, opponents of the
measure have called it a regressive
tax cut.
“It takes the notion of progres
sive taxation and turns it over onto
its head,’’ Coney said.
Becky Miller, of Oregon Taxpay
ers United, doesn’t consider that
claim a criticism, however.
“I don’t believe in progressive
taxation,” she said. “Progressive
taxation ends up rewarding people
for not achieving because they can
kick back and get an easy ride.”
A more regressive tax system
would reward the industrious and
create opportunities for the unem
ployed, Miller said.
“When people get a tax cut, they
invest it, they buy more and they
make more jobs for the middle
class,” she said. “It’s pretty obvi
ous when people have more mon
ey in their pockets, they spend
more money and give it back to the
economy.”
A poll conducted by The Ore
gonian and KATU-TV in Portland
found that 54 percent of Oregon
voters support Measure 91 and 41
percent oppose it. About 40 per
cent of Oregonians supported Mea
sure 8 and 46 percent opposed it.
Measure 93: ‘Super-majority’ rules
■ It Measure 93 passes, all future state income increases
must pass by the same percentage as the measure
By Michael Lundeen
For the Emerald
Measure 93, brought to the bal
lot by Bill Sizemore and his or
ganization, Oregon Taxpayers
United, would amend the state
constitution to create a “super
majority” standard for all increas
es in state and local fees, charges
and taxes.
The percentage at which the
measure passes would dictate the
vote required to increase state in
come. For example, if the meas
ure passes by 60 percent, all fu
ture increases in fees, charges,
and taxes have to pass by at least
60 percent.
The measure would also re
quire all non-exempt levies, fee
and tax increases passed since
December 6th of 1998 and greater
than 3 percent to be returned to
voters for re-approval. The in
creases would have to be re-ap
proved by the “super-majority”
standard set by Measure 93.
The controversial point is that
even if a local levy to fund
schools passed by 55 percent the
first time around, it could have to
be re-approved by a new, greater
percentage.
This re-approval situation is
one area criticized by the Com
mittee for Our Oregon, an organi
zation in opposition to the meas
ure.
Spokesperson Lynn McNamara
said that these “unfair retroactive
aspects” of the measure are the
organization’s greatest concern.
Referring to local levies passed
to fund things like schools and li
braries, McNamara said, “The
voters played by the rules, city of
ficials played by the rules, and
this thing reaches back two years
and could change all that.”
On the other side, Becky Miller,
an executive assistant for Oregon
Taxpayers United, countered, “It
doesn’t automatically threaten
levies for things like schools. It
requires them to go back and ask
the voters, OK, do you want to re
fund this money, or do you want
to go ahead with this voter-ap
proved levy?”
As the measure is written, it is
difficult to determine the impact
these approval and re-approval
requirements will have on the
Oregon University System.
However, upon reviewing doc
uments during a phone interview,
Miller said that she believed “col
leges and university tuition and
fees are exempt.”
But Bob Bruce, spokesperson
for the OUS, said that “several
measures that could affect [OUS]
are unclear legally, and the attor
ney general won’t offer any guid
ance until after the elections.”
Mandatory minimums could be released from Oregon law
■ Measure 94 would repeal
1994’s Measu re 11, wh ich
established mandatory
minimum sentences
By MandyToomey
For the Emerald
Aiming to ensure fair sentences
for first-time offenders and youths,
Ballot Measure 94 would repeal
minimum sentencing for violent
crimes and sexual offenses, such
as murder, rape, kidnapping and
robbery.
If passed, Measure 94 would re
peal 1994’s Ballot Measure 11,
which enacted mandatory mini
mum sentences. Measure 94
would require that all adults is
sued mandatory minimum sen
tences be re-sentenced using a grid
system consisting of the type of
crime and prior convictions.
Supporters of Measure 94 say it
would give power back to judges
and reduce Oregon’s prison popu
lation, thereby cutting the state’s
prison costs. They also say that
giving judges more power would
n’t necessarily lead to more lenient
sentencing for all violent crimi
nals. Judges could still issue maxi
mum sentences.
But many opponents say
mandatory sentences keep judges
from being too lenient and keep vi
olent criminals out of society and
in prison, where they could be re
formed.
“[With this measure] judges can
make the sentence fit the crime. It’s
not our intention for people to just
be set free,” said Cathi Lawler, a
member of Parents Against Cruel
and Unusual Punishment.
Lawler’s son was one of the first
people convicted under Measure
11 and has been in prison for five
years.
Howard Rodstein of Crime Vic
tims United argues that “minimum
[With this measure]
judges can make the sen
tence fit the crime. It's not
our intention for people
to just be set free.
Cathi Lawler
member of Parents Against
Cruel and Unusual
Punishment j j
sentences are important because
sometimes the judge has no choice
but to give out the minimum sen
tence.”
“No one is happy about the at
tempt to turn back to olden days,”
said Ray Montee, a member of Na
tional Association for Crime Vic
tim Rights, referring to the repeal
of Measure 11.
If the measure is passed, approx
imately 3,200 criminals will be re
sentenced; 11 percent of these are
juveniles ages 15 to 17. These juve
niles, who were tried in adult
court under Measure 11, would be
sent to juvenile court for a waiver
hearing to determine whether the
case will stay in juvenile court or
be transferred to adult court. In
adult court, the youth would get a
re-sentencing hearing; if sent to ju
venile court, the youth would get a
new trial.
Along with human rights de
bates, both sides are also debating
the financial impact of the meas
ure. If passed, Measure 94 would
reduce the state adult prison costs,
and juvenile close custody will de
crease by $10.8 million in 2000
2001. Also, state community cor
rections payments to counties
would increase by $900,000 in
2000-2001.
“This money,” argues Lawler,
“should be put on the front end [of
the problem] for prevention and
treatment programs.”
On the other hand, state costs to
re-sentence criminals would be
$6.9 million between now and
2002 and county costs for re-sen
tencing are estimated to be $2.1
million.
“There was an estimated $193
million budgeted annually for Mea
sure 11, and 66 percent of the citi
zens voted in favor of that. The ac
tual costs for Measure 11 were $48
million annually, almost one-fourth
the estimated cost,” said Rodstein.