Why isn't the 'liberal' media calling what is going on in Oregon a "revolution"?

[ck4829]

If any Americans are willing to fork over more to state governments in 2010, it might just be those of Oregon, where voters are deciding the fate of two proposed tax increases that target the wealthy and corporations.

Oregon voters the past two weeks have been marking referendum ballots on two tax issues, one raising rates on people who make more than $125,000 a year in taxable income - $250,000 for joint filers - and on businesses, many of whom pay a minimum tax of $10 a year.

The mailed-in and dropped-off votes will be counted Tuesday. The results are likely to be part of the national spin cycle the next morning and could give legislators in other states a hint about whether they can ask taxpayers for help in repairing ravaged budgets.

The only independent polls made public so far show the tax increases ahead but with shrinking margins. If they pass, that would be a break with history.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012301237.html

Oh, what's that? It's only a "revolution" when it involves sticking it to Democrats and not when making the wealthy and corporations more accountable? OK, sorry about that.

[lazarus]

1. K&R

[Quantess]

2. I didn't know we were having a revolution.

I think the tax measures are inspired by a real need for the state. Our schools are terribly underfunded and there is a real threat that schools will finally go down the toilet, after circling the bowl for several years. This isn't about sticking it to the man or anything, not in my opinion, anyway.

[ck4829]

3. Every special election since 2008 has been called a revolution

I'm just curious what makes this particular one so non-revolutionary is all.

[Quantess]

6. I'm just saying that the state needs more money or else

vital services will be cut. Those services have already been pruned back, and I think it will be a disaster in many ways to have any more social services and education cut or eliminated.

The corporate tax in Oregon is one of the lowest in the nation. Yet our unemployment rate is still very high (like 11%), so clearly, the low tax rate doesn't equal more jobs.

Call it revolutionary if you want. I think it's just a necessity.

[ck4829]

7. I agree with you, it's not really a revolution, it's something that needs to be done

I'm criticizing the hyperbole of the media.

[Quantess]

8. The local newspaper has been biased toward NO on 66 & 67

And the Oregonian even featured a front page ad saying vote NO on 66 & 67! So many people rightfully complained, that on today's paper they apologized.

Oregon's public schools are one of the most underfunded in the nation already. If 66 & 67 don't pass, the school year will proably begin in October and end in May, with even bigger classes.

[oregonjen]

13. It was not only front page, but a spadea ad

From Wiki: A spadea is a separately printed, unbound broadsheet that is folded around a newspaper or other periodical, or around one of its sections, appearing as a partial page or flap over the front and back.

Because it gives the appearance of the front page, it was not proper for the newspaper to be doing that.

[Quantess]

33. Did you see the new publisher's comment in the Opinion section today?

He says he thinks The Oregonian leans liberal, and he can't understand why readers complain when their liberal viewpoints aren't reflected. What an ass! He thinks that's going to mollify his readers?

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Thanks for the imagery. It's dinner time on the east coast.

Maybe we'll wait a while tonite.

[beardown]

9. It's restarted Oregon's economy

The anti-66-67 ads must be single handedly jump starting the state's economy. Really vague fact-less ads showing a couple of folks who say they lost their jobs because of the marginal tax increases from the two measures. How damn many public jobs do they think are going to be lost if the measures don't pass?

My 19 year old daughter is getting her real estate license and she asked me about the measures. I said that a multi-billion dollar corporation could pay only $10.00 in state incomes taxes a year while she'll have to pay $200.00 every two years for her real estate license. She's already a progressive. Now she's a pissed off progressive.

If it wasn't for the fact that it may not be long enough since my latest letter to the editor was published I'd send one in stating that every time Oregon proposes a tax measure it's always met with millions of dollars in ads against it. So the folks saying they can't handle going from $10 to $150 a year in taxes seem to have no problems finding millions to fight the tax measures and maybe if they'd save their anti-tax money they'd have more money left over at the end of the year even if they paid higher taxes.

My staunch anti-tax neighbor down the hill is voting for it because his wife will lose her job if the measures don't pass. He's somewhere on the political scale between libertarian and mountain compound tenant. Maybe we just need to get more wingnuts working for the govt or for jobs dependent on taxes.

[Quantess]

10. LOL, I have thought the same thing. Oh, the irony.

These people who are willing to spend so much money to fund a campaign against spending more in taxes.

The "vote no" side has spent a lot more money than "vote yes". I'll be surprised if 66 & 67 pass.

[LWolf]

21. Did you see the ad using a clip of Obama opposing tax increases

when times are tough?

I thought that one was a low blow. :(

[Political Heretic]

15. Agreed. It's sort of about desperation.

[depakid]

4. Because he corporate media is fighting it tooth and nail

N. Christian Anderson III, the new publisher of The Oregonian, reportedly earns more than a quarter-million dollars a year and therefore will pay slightly more in personal income taxes if Oregon's Measures 66 and 67 are approved by voters. That explains why Anderson is using his prerogative and The Oregonian's considerable resources -- EVEN delivering FREE editions of the paper, wrapped in anti-measure advertisements to non-subscribers! -- to convince Oregon voters to vote against the measures, but I've found a question that I cannot answer: Why isn't N. Christian Anderson III a registered Oregon voter himself?

For those who don't about the situation in Oregon: Two ballot measures now under consideration by Oregon voters are designed to raise sufficient revenue to keep Oregon solvent, after lawmakers last year cut the budget by $2 billion and used up all of the federal stimulus money. Several newspapers and dozens of advocacy groups have voiced their support for the measures, but the state's largest newspaper, The Oregonian, has weighed in loudly and often against them. I've written already about why I think the newspaper took this position: It boils down to a recent, radical change in the newspaper's leadership.

In October, the newspaper announced the appointment of N. Christian Anderson III, most recently the publisher of the Orange County Register, who has worked for the past two years as a consultant to media executives and private equity investors. But Orange County isn't Oregon; its notoriously right-wing attitudes and core values aren't Oregon's attitudes and core values, and the decisions that Anderson has made in the last couple of weeks alone reflect that Oregonian readers may not yet realize what's about to happen to Portland and, since the O has the largest readership in the state, to the rest of Oregon. In fact, I was so surprised by the rapid change that I renamed it The Orangeonian, reflecting its new Orange County influence.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/22/828973/-Why-isnt-The-Oregonians-publisher-an-Oregon-voter

--------

The Yes on 66 and 67 ad noted that prior to Anderson’s hiring on Oct. 26, 2009, the paper’s editorial board had expressed sentiments about the tax increases — that if not supportive — were certainly not negative.

“Before it changed publishers, the Oregonian seemed to have it right,” said the ad copy Looper submitted on Jan. 21.

The ad also presented three claims the “No” side makes that Oregonian news reporters have debunked.

“Why is the Oregonian ignoring its own reporting?” the draft ad asked. “It seems there is a new boss in town. And it doesn’t seem like our Oregonian any more.”

More: http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/01/22/spadea-work-oregonian-refuses-then-accepts-pro-tax-ad/

[Quantess]

34. Excellent DailyKos article.

I finally read it.

[amborin]

11. K&R hope they pass!

[kelly1mm]

12. Because there is nothing revolutionary about voting for tax increases on others. nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kelly1mm]

18. No, not a freeper, just honest. Think about it, why is/was the

President's plan to only raise taxes on those making over 250k so popular? Could a big part of it be that most voters do not make over 250k? Not that I am against any of these tax increase proposals but to call a proposal to tax others as revolutionary is not intellectually honest.

But thanks for the ad hominem attack anyway!

[beardown]

23. It's revolutionary since Reagan

Taxes bad. Freedom good. Government bad. Corporations good. Complex real world solutions bad. Simple slogan based sacrifice avoidance good. Commons bad. Greed good and so on and so forth.

Bush the Stupid and Murdoch came along and tilted the playing field so sharply to the right that they could simultaneously push the ideas that dying for your nation was an honor while paying taxes to pay for the war was an unbearable burden.

If a billion dollar corporation in Oregon is only paying $10.00 a year ( a fairly common tax burden for many Oregon corporations) then it has not only called for a proposal to tax others, but already instituted the tax structure. It's not the taxing others that is revolutionary. It's that the average citizen is doing the proposing for the rich to pay taxes is the revolutionary part, at least in this day and age.

On edit, intentional or not, the way you stated your position sure looked like you had a lot more invested in your statement than just the use of the term 'revolutionary'.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

14. I live in Oregon. Calling it a "revolution" is an insult.

These are minor, fractional tax increases.

Will they revolutionize the plight of our homeless - #1 homeless population in the country? No.

Will the revolutionize the plight of our working poor - 3rd highest unemployment in the country, wages declining? No.

Will it revolutionize the incestuous relationship between government and big business in the state? No.

Will it shrink the exponentially increasing income inequality gap? No.

Does it matter? YES.

It matters because Measure 67 will raise the corporate minimum tax from 10$ to 150$ and, while that is still kind of a sick joke, that will translate into millions of dollars of revenue designated for public education in the state and other social investment programs.

It matters because Measure 66 will use a fractional tax increase to help make up the budget shortfall for education in the state and other social investment programs.

Those changes will help real people and make real differences. But a revolution? I think when we call something so basic a "revolution" we give people an excuse to become more complacent.

The scale and magnitude of the changes we need in our country and in our states is so great that nothing short of a mass movement like we say in the civil rights movement will have any hope of accomplishing what we need.

Passing 66 and 67 will be a big deal because it is so rare that taxes are ever raised (and they need to be) on the right people, or that measures that directly conflict with the corporate will after pass. It would be a big victory, in that sense, were these measures to win.

But they are infinitesimally small compared to the full scope of the change we need. There's so much more work to do.

PS - I VOTED!

[LWolf]

20. Those changes will help me, and many like me, keep our jobs.

More unemployment doesn't help the economy.

I voted over a week ago, and am keeping my fingers crossed.

[Political Heretic]

26. Yes, that's why I said that in my post. Since I'm classified technically as homeless

and with bottom-poverty income at the moment, any changes that put more money back into state services and programs is good for me and good for my friends and neighbors.

It is not, however, a "revolution."

[LWolf]

28. It's no revolution to try to prevent more loss, more hardship,

further erosion of our quality of life.

A revolution would be to enact change that would provide the support needed for every one of us to have high quality health care, education through trade school or college, safe, clean, affordable shelter, safe, fresh, healthy food, and safe, clean, vibrant neighborhoods, and jobs.

A revolution would be to enact change that would focus on positive, creative potentials rather than power-mongering and destruction.

That would focus on equality, rather than competition.

[Grand Taurean]

17. Personally I would not raise taxes until

the $500,000 mark.
I do not want to put too much tax onto small businesses.

[Quantess]

25. The burden on small businesses is a concern.

Traditionally, the bigger and more lucrative the business, the less taxes they seem to pay.

[Lorien]

30. That's individual income. As a sole proprietor myself, once business tax deductions

are taken my personal taxable income ain't much.

[LWolf]

19. I got 2 robo calls today

"simplifying" the issue for me: they raise taxes. Baaaaaad.

My local paper has been relentlessly crusading against these 2 measures; several editorials a week, sometimes with teacher-union bashing pieces accompanying the main editorial (strongly supported by teachers, whose jobs are on the line,) and even including a front-page hit piece focusing on an "economist" talking about how terrible it is to raise taxes.

Of course, I mailed my ballot out over a week ago, so I can't be "moved." Not that I could, anyway. My little district laid off 40 something people last year and moved to a 4-day school week to deal with LAST year's budget cuts. This year? We need to cut twice as much if these measures don't pass.

I need my job. When my mom called to ask me whether or not to vote for them, being overwhelmed by the 90-something page voter information booklet on ONLY these 2 measures, I put it this way:

"It's simple. Want me to show up at your place this summer with horses, dog, and cat, jobless and homeless, or would you rather I keep my job?"

I fucking hope they pass.

Edited to add:

One of the anti-measure tv ads shown ad nauseum includes a clip of Obama talking about how it's not good to raise taxes when times are tough.

[donheld]

22. No the revolution will not be televised

[rockymountaindem]

24. Apparently it's in the mail n/t

[davidpdx]

27. Holding my breath both pass

I got my ballot in almost a month ago from overseas.

[cascadiance]

31. And as a reminder to Oregonians, they LOWER taxes of the unemployed...

So anyone out there next to a neighbor who's unemployed that says he doesn't want to vote on anything that raises taxes, remind him that he'll get his taxes LOWERED retroactively to last year on not paying state taxes on a good chunk of his unemployment benefits.

[SOS]

32. Only Republican victories are "revolutions"

1980: The Reagan Revolution
1994: The Republican Revolution
2010: The Massachusetts Revolution

But when Obama kicks McCain's ass?

Not a revolution.

It's corporate media manipulation of the language.