04 21 2015
  1:30 am  
40 Years of Service

Oregonians' priorities. That ought to be the legislature's guide when it comes into session in January and confronts a revenue shortfall by deciding where to spend Oregon's precious tax dollars.

In today's harsh economic landscape, what more important priority can there be than helping low-income, working families with children make ends meet?

The revenue shortfall has some lawmakers promising no new spending on tax subsidies and loopholes, but that's unlikely to occur. Every session, even when faced with a revenue shortfall, the legislature has created a new, or extended or expanded an existing spending obligation through the tax code. It's hard to believe that history won't repeat itself.

Thus, the only question is whether the new, extended or expanded tax code spending will match up with Oregonians' priorities.

That's why the Oregon Center for Public Policy has pulled together a coalition of about 100 organizations -- social service providers, small businesses, local governments and unions -- calling on the legislature to improve the Oregon Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This coalition thinks that if anyone ought to get new tax subsidy spending, it ought to be those working families who struggle to get by despite their work effort.

Look at four examples of the alternatives the legislature will face.

First, film production. The tax credit subsidy doesn't directly help woo Hollywood moguls. Rather, the subsidies for Hollywood come from a special pot of money funded with contributions, mostly from wealthy Oregonians. They receive a tax credit at least 5 percent greater than their contribution. In other words, the tax credit subsidy scheme costs the rest of taxpayers more than it would cost to fund the Hollywood moguls directly as a budget item.

Should helping wealthy Oregonians get a guaranteed 5 percent return on their "investment" trump helping a family earning near minimum wage make ends meet? Most Oregonians surely would prioritize funding an improvement of the EITC.

Second, research and development. We spend money through the tax code subsidizing corporations' research and development. We spend the tax dollars even if the R&D is central to a corporation's existence, has little social value or is going to a profitable company. And given that we subsidize just 5 cents on every qualified dollar, it's hard to argue that it provides a real incentive to Oregon businesses to conduct R&D that they otherwise wouldn't conduct.

Should giving money for R&D to corporations, even ones sitting on billions of cash, trump helping low-income working families with children make ends meet? Most Oregonians surely would prioritize an improvement of the EITC.

Third, solar energy, electric cars and energy conservation. Today, our residential energy tax subsidy is not means tested, so a disproportionate share of the money subsidizes purchases by Oregon's wealthiest taxpayers.

Oregonians might well prioritize spending tax dollars in these areas, but should helping a millionaire put up solar panels or buy an electric car trump helping low-income working family with children make ends meet? Most Oregonians surely would prioritize an improvement of the EITC.

Last, new markets tax credit. A proposed state new markets tax credit (NMTC) would match a federal subsidy for real estate development by the same name and make the federal and state subsidy total 78 percent of investors' costs. The NMTC essentially would be a giveaway to wealthy venture capitalists who fund real estate developments (think "The Nines" hotel in Portland).

Should Oregon prioritize a subsidy for wealthy commercial real estate developers ahead of help for low-income working family with children?

Most Oregonians surely would prioritize an improvement to the EITC.

It is a safe bet that the 2011 legislature will spend some money through the tax code, regardless of Oregon's overall revenue shortfall and other budget decisions. And when they do, let's hope they spend it on helping low-income working families with children by improving the state EITC. It's the right priority.


Chuck Sheketoff is executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy.

Pacific NW Carpenters Union

Commenting Guidelines

  • Keep it clean: Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language
  • No personal attacks: We reserve the right to remove offensive comments
  • Be truthful: Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything
  • Be nice: No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person
  • Help us: If you see an abusive post, let us know at info@theskanner.com
  • Keep to topic: We will remove irrelevant posts and spam
  • Share with us: We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts; the history behind an article

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
  • Some two thousand people pack halls to hear Trayvon Martin's mom speak   
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals



About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Hood to Coast
The Skanner Photo Archives