ENDORSEMENTS
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2016
3C
| MEASURE 97
Say ‘No’ to fatally lawed Measure 97
M
easure 97 is on the ballot because
Oregon governors and legislators
past and present failed to do their
jobs, and now voters must decide whether to
approve the largest and most controversial
tax increase in state history.
If approved, the enticing but misleading
measure would create a 2.5 percent tax
on the gross sales of “C” corporations
exceeding $25 million. It would generate
an estimated $3 billion per year. According
to the ballot measure, the money would be
intended for schools, health care and senior
citizens. Nobody disagrees that we need
to revamp our lagging education system,
improve health care, help our senior citizens
and to solve the serious crisis in funding
public employee retirements.
But Measure 97 isn’t the way to accom-
plish those goals. The measure is severely
lawed and could create just as many prob-
lems as it solves. Voters should see through
the misleading claims of its union-backed
supporters and soundly defeat this proposal.
The gross receipts tax is a tax on sales,
not proits, and in reality is a regressive
sales tax that will impact Oregon consumers
— and, most of all — low-income residents
who can least afford it. Because it taxes only
sales, it could wipe out the proit of busi-
nesses that generate high sales but low mar-
gins. Grocery stores, for example, typically
have margins of only 2 percent or less.
The measure’s backers assert the tax will
only affect about 1,000 large out-of-state
corporations like Comcast and Walmart that
don’t pay their fair share in Oregon. What’s
not in their message, though, is that those
1,000 corporations account for 88 percent of
all retail sales in Oregon.
And all businesses in Oregon, not just
those that fall under the tax, will feel the sting
of this badly conceived measure. Businesses
will see costs rise because their supplies and
services, including electricity and other utili-
ties, will go up in price. That may also happen
at each step of the supply chain as goods go
from manufacturer to retailer to consumer and
the effect could far exceed the 2.5 percent the
tax would generate.
Measure 97 supporters also say the com-
panies will absorb the higher taxes and won’t
pass it on by increasing prices or cutting jobs
to lower costs. At best that’s terribly naive
and more likely just disingenuous.
Company shareholders expect returns to
grow, and it will result in increased prices
all along the line. That makes the measure
a hidden sales tax. It will have an impact
on goods and services Oregonians purchase
every day, including groceries and medicines
that most sales taxes exempt. The Legislative
Revenue Ofice, a nonpartisan state agency,
estimated the increase would be about $600
more a year in taxes per Oregonian.
The revenue ofice’s study also projects
the measure would cost 38,000 private-sector
jobs during a 10-year period, while a study
commissioned by supporters says it will only
cost 13,000 jobs. That same study says pub-
lic-sector jobs would grow by 33,000 during
the same period. In either event, growing
public-sector jobs at the expense of the
private sector is not good economic develop-
ment policy. Additionally, the revenue ofice
study points out that the ballot-measure
language does not ensure the revenue would
be used for its intended purposes. By law,
the money would go into the state’s general
fund, and the Legislature can use the revenue
directly or indirectly for other uses such as
funding the Public Employees Retirement
System.
We know our local schools are not
adequately funded, and our students deserve
better. We also know health care costs will
rise, and we know the state signed a contract
— an unaffordable one, perhaps, but still a
contract — with state employees.
The state needs to ind ways to increase
and stabilize revenue streams, but a big
no-strings-attached money grab bag is
not the answer. Voters should defeat this
measure, then hold legislators and the
governor accountable for getting business
and labor together. Once at the same table,
they shouldn’t leave until we have a plan for
stable funding for Oregon schools and health
care programs.
Measure 97 isn’t the answer.
| MEASURE 96
Veterans deserve support
that Measure 96 provides
I
t’s not often that the Oregon Legislature agrees on
anything unanimously, but they did when they referred
Measure 96 to the November ballot.
The measure would allocate 1.5 percent of the state’s
lottery money to fund veterans services, which are sorely
lacking in Oregon as they are throughout the country.
Voters should support our veterans with a resounding “Yes”
to Measure 96.
The money from the lottery amounts to about $9.3
million annually and would likely come from funds
that the state earmarks for economic development. Few
people, including us, want to see those funds reduced;
economic development efforts are key to the state’s future,
especially in the rural areas like Clatsop County. We have
also argued in another endorsement on this page that the
lottery pie shouldn’t be sliced and used for outdoor schools
at the expense of economic development. Additionally, in
principle we are against tying the Legislature’s hands with
constitutional amendments that can only be changed at the
hands of voters in times of tight revenues where legislators
need to move quickly to provide more balanced funding for
other needed services. It would be easy to say “No” to this
measure, but we can’t in good faith.
Veterans aren’t a special interest group seeking money
from the state jackpot for a nonessential cause. They are
Oregon men and women who served — and were willing
to give up their lives — for our freedoms. They’ve held
to the solemn promise that we as a people would care for
them when they got home. But many have been ignored
and have health, employment, educational and housing
issues. Their reported suicide rates are twice that of nonvet-
erans. It’s clear the promise to them has been broken.
Many would argue it’s the federal government’s respon-
sibility, and it is. But we owe it to those who have served to
step up when that federal help isn’t there.
By using lottery money and helping more of our Oregon
veterans get recognized who aren’t identiied within the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs system, it could
bring additional federal funding to Oregon to bolster those
inadequate VA services. That would be a form of economic
development. Potentially, it could add far more money to
the state’s economy than it takes from the lottery proceeds.
By approving this measure, voters will be letting legisla-
tors know they place a great value on helping our veterans.
Voters’ approval of the measure says veterans are a priority
and should have been all along.
Vote “Yes” on Measure 96 and send that message loud
and clear.
| MEASURE 98
Measure 98 ills educational need
I
n contrast to other controversial questions on the
November ballot, Measure 98 will take money already
collected into the general fund and earmark that it be
spent on education.
It is an attempt to solve a glaring problem in Oregon
— the state’s dismal 74 percent graduation rate — and it
comes with a reasonable price tag. The measure doesn’t
have any organized opposition and Oregon voters should
support it by saying “Yes.”
Measure 98 would require state legislators to fund
dropout-prevention programs to improve the country’s 47th
worst high school dropout rate. It would also support career
and college readiness programs — speciically vocational
and career technical education — which are proven pro-
grams to keep students in school, improve their test scores
and get them started on fulilling careers. And it would give
educators better tools to identify students earlier as being at
risk of dropping out.
Passage of the measure would be extremely helpful
to students on the North Coast with new opportunities
for vocational training, potentially in conjunction with
programs at Clatsop Community College, to better prepare
them for the future.
While legislators have mostly paid lip service to the
dropout problem and technical education programs in the
past, Measure 98 helps solve that problem. Doing nothing
shouldn’t be an option. A study by EcoNorthwest, a con-
sulting irm, predicts continuing on the current path would
mean that at least 1 in 5 children who started kindergarten
in Oregon this year will not receive a high school diploma
in 2029. That should be unacceptable to Oregon residents.
To correct that, the measure would increase money
spent on each Oregon high school student by $800 a year,
pushing the annual total to roughly $11,800. Those dollars
will come from additional revenue into the state general
fund. The EcoNorthwest study predicts the measure would
improve graduation rates by 6 percentage points over a
ive-year period, which would move Oregon’s graduation
rate into the middle of the pack among all states rather than
keep us at the bottom.
Additionally, Measure 98 doesn’t require districts to
offer career technical education programs, but helps pay for
those who do — which means it isn’t a mandate but instead
a carrot to help Oregon districts appeal to a wider variety
of students, including those who are in danger of dropping
out.
In principle, we’re against handcufing the Legislature
with speciic funding requirements like this. They don’t
allow legislators lexibility in the case of emergency.
However, the need to provide inancial support of neces-
sary educational upgrades through the ballot box illustrates
the failure of legislators to do just that. We elect our repre-
sentatives to spend tax dollars as a majority of voters see
it, on programs that have been proven effective and efi-
cient. Career technical education programs hit those marks,
but legislators haven’t been able to ind the money.
This time, voters should take the decision into their own
hands and approve Measure 98.
| MEASURE 100
An easy ‘Yes’ on Measure 100
T
here are plenty of controversial decisions to be made
in November, but Measure 100 is not one of them.
The Wildlife Traficking Prevention Act would
prohibit the sale of products and parts from 12 endangered
animals in Oregon. Those animals are rhinos, cheetahs,
tigers, sea turtles, lions, elephants, whales, sharks, pango-
lins, jaguars, rays and leopards.
A similar effort passed overwhelmingly in Washington
in 2015, and California has a similar law on the books. That
means Oregon could join its neighbors and present a united
ditor front against importers, making it more dificult for them to
ind buyers throughout the United States.
ager And, yes, it’s true that in most cases there are already
federal bans on many of these items. But it’s also true that
in Oregon it’s much more likely for law enforcement to
encounter endangered animal parts on sale within state
lines, instead of on the docks. Under current law, once
those products are through the port of entry, the state has no
ability to ban their sale.
That will no longer be the case if Measure 100 is passed.
Additionally, the law was written rationally so grand-
ma’s ivory-keyed piano is not made illegal, nor her antique
ivory-handled gun or jewelry box.
It may be illegal to sell those items from here on out,
but they can legally be possessed and passed to a family
member.
African elephants and rhinos may seem far away, but
Measure 100 is a small way to protect them. International
animal welfare groups have bigger ights under way in
Thailand and China, for example, but Oregon can be part of
the solution in November.
Measure 100 is a clear yes.
| MEASURE 99
Voters should reject
outdoor school measure
O
utdoor school for
Oregon’s ifth- and
sixth-graders is a
great weeklong program,
one that later in life they
often recall with fond mem-
ories. It’s also a program that
provides hands-on learning
and helps close the urban-ru-
ral cultural divide among the
youngsters who participate.
The problem for outdoor
school though is the lack
of funding, but approval of
Measure 99 isn’t the way to
do it. Voters should say “No”
on Measure 99.
Last year, the Legislature
gave the Oregon State
University Extension Service
the authority to help school
districts provide outdoor
school programs if money
became available. But
legislators didn’t allocate any
money toward the cause.
While Measure 99 would
not raise taxes, it would
provide a funding mecha-
nism with the creation of the
Outdoor School Education
Fund that would use up to
$22 million each year in
lottery money,
Oregon Lottery money is
primarily used for two pur-
poses, for public education
and economic development.
Public education already
gets the lion’s share of those
dollars, and with public
education already needing
more money than legislators
can allocate, it’s more likely
that economic development
funding from the lottery
money would be reduced
and shifted to pay for out-
door school.
State Sen. Betsy Johnson,
D-Scappoose, predicted in
The Oregonian that Measure
99 money for outdoor school
would take nearly 66 percent
of the $66 million in lottery
money that now is used for
economic development per
biennium.
That’s simply too much
of a hit to the state’s eco-
nomic development interests
and engine, and it comes at a
time when the state’s schools
have larger priorities.
Another problem with
the measure is that it would
deposit some of those lottery
dollars in wealthier school
districts that can already
afford outdoor school.
Additionally, it would
earmark that money spe-
ciically for outdoor school
rather than allow it to be
used on other programs that
individual school districts
may feel are more valuable
for their students.
There is no doubt that
for the students of outdoor
school it is a rewarding and
great educational experience.
The youngsters learn
about themselves, their
classmates and the outdoors.
And at one point about 80
percent of Oregon’s ifth-
and sixth-graders partici-
pated in the outdoor school
program. Now that igure
hovers around 50 percent.
But in many school dis-
tricts, individuals, nonproits
and businesses are already
working together to provide
money for the program with
a variety of fundraising
efforts. Supporters of out-
door school should focus on
helping those public-private
sector efforts continue and
expand, while voters should
say “No” on this ballot
measure.
| MEASURE 94
Forced judicial retirements
should be eliminated
M
easure 94 would
eliminate a provi-
sion in Oregon’s
Constitution that sets a
mandatory retirement age
of 75 for state judges, and
voters should mark “Yes”
on their ballots.
The mandatory retire-
ment clause is a vestige
from the past, and there are
no logical reasons for it to
remain.
The measure has no
organized opposition and
was spurred in part by a
St. Helens attorney who
was told, after a decades
long career in criminal and
civil law, that she could not
seek a judge’s seat in 2014
because of her age, which
was 77 at the time.
Voters always have
options at the ballot box
during judicial elections,
and the state’s Commission
on Judicial Fitness already
has a mechanism for remov-
ing judges who are unit to
serve, no matter their age.
With those two factors
in place, there’s no logical
need for the Constitution’s
mandatory retirement pro-
vision, especially in a land
where age discrimination
in any form is prohibited in
nearly all other areas.
Long-serving judges
accumulate decades of
experience and wisdom
during their careers and
Oregonians should not be
deprived of their service
during their day in court by
an unneeded and arbitrary
law.
Those jurists who want
to continue their service on
the bench should have that
opportunity.
Vote “Yes” on eliminat-
ing that provision.