Oregon Tax News

by Margaret Goodwin

Lately, a number of people have been arguing that the prospect of increased timber harvesting on the O&C lands is an attempt to return to an unstable timber economy, and that we should be focusing instead on developing other more stable industries to sustain our local economy. This isn’t an either/or situation. Timber production wouldn’t replace other industries. It would, in fact, provide more economic diversity than we have today, as well as more opportunities for employment. More significantly, 50% of all timber revenues from the O&C lands go directly into the general funds of the O&C conties. The only revenue that goes into the county coffers from any other industry is a portion of whatever property taxes they pay.
There’s a lot of fear surrounding the WOPR, and what will happen to our beautiful forests if timber harvesting is restored. Many people don’t realize that the WOPR applies only to the O&C lands, nor do they realize what a small percentage of our federal forests the O&C lands make up. The O&C lands are specific tracts of land that were Congressionally mandated in 1937 to be used for permanent sustained-yield timber production for the benefit of certain counties in which, due to historical circumstances, the majority of the land is owned by the federal government. Since then, about 30% of the O&C lands have been set aside by Congress for riparian, wilderness, and wild river reserves, or administratively withdrawn. The remaining O&C lands make up only about 6% of the total federal forest lands in this area. And even the most aggressive of the WOPR alternatives (Alternative 2) proposes to use less than half of the O&C lands for timber production. Given the nature of permanent sustained-yield timber management, as mandated by the O&C Lands Act, only a small percentage of even the lands dedicated to timber production could be harvested at any given time.
Given the very small percentage of federal forest lands affected, the fear that a return to timber management on the O&C lands will “decimate our remaining legacy forests” is completely unfounded. The fears that some have expressed regarding all of our surrounding forests being clear-cut and destroying the natural beauty of our valley are equally unfounded. Under all of the WOPR alternatives (except the No Action alternative), there would be more than 100% increase in the number of acres of O&C land dedicated to Class I Visual Resource Management throughout Western Oregon. The objective of Class I Visual Resource Management is to preserve the existing characteristics of wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other natural landscapes, and to maintain scenic values.
Alternative 1 would maintain 8% more Wilderness Characteristics than Alternative 2 and 7% more than Alternative 3. (The WOPR defines Wilderness Characteristics as at least 5,000 contiguous acres without roads, preserved in their natural condition.) However, Alternative 2 would protect 4.5% more “relevant and important values” in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern than Alternative 1 and 16% more than Alternative 3. (Relevant and important values are the “qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change.”) Alternative 2 would also provide 4,000 more jobs in Western Oregon than Alternative 1 and 4700 more than Alternative 3, and is projected to bring in 58% more revenue to the counties over the next 10 years than Alternative 1 and over twice as much revenue as Alternative 3.
Every decision involves trade-offs. Alternative 3 is clearly the worst of the three WOPR Alternatives. Between the other two, the question is whether an 8% gain in Wilderness Characteristics is worth a 4.5% reduction of important and relevant values in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 4,000 jobs, and a 58% reduction in revenue for our county public services.
The Association of O&C counties has proposed a number of modifications to Alternative 2 that would allocate more land for timber management while reducing the amount of clear-cutting, as well as significantly improving fire management, to ensure the long term health and productivity of our forests. The Association of O&C Counties’ recommendation presents a unilateral improvement over all of the WOPR Alternatives. It’s important to let the BLM and our elected officials know that it’s the will of the citizens to maximize responsible timber production on the O&C lands. You can support the Association of O&C Counties’ recommendation by submitting your comments to the BLM on line at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr before January 9, 2008.

by Wayne Brady
The Marion County Commissioners have been committed to dealing with an increasingly difficult situation with criminal aliens. Criminal aliens have been a significant direct cost to the County as well as incurring costs to the victims of their illegal behavior. One policy change the Commissioners wanted to implement immediately was to have the Sheriff’s Department work more closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to maximize the number of criminal aliens that will be taken by ICE.
Starting at the beginning of September, the Sheriff’s Department started providing ICE with all detainees that are foreign born. The information allows ICE to do background checks on the detainees and decide which ones they want to be placed on hold so they can pick them up.
During the month of September, there were 118 ICE notifications. ICE placed holds on 31 detainees. This compares with 10 holds the previous September. So far, there has not resulted in overcrowding in the jail.
On September 11, the Commissioners met with representatives of law enforcement, the District Attorney, and others to review the jail procedures. It was decided at that time that a meeting with ICE would be necessary.
On October 16, the same group met with a representative of ICE and there was a detailed discussion of the relationship between ICE and Marion County and what improvements might be possible. It appears there is more that can be done and all parties appear to be on board.

By Larry Huss

There are few opportunities in Oregon for a plebiscite by only those directly impacted by the decision.  But this December Oregon taxpayers are going to have just such an opportunity.

In December the state is required to refund to Oregon taxpayers approximately $1.1 billion dollars in excess taxes collected in 2006.  Already, Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) has bemoaned this refund, calling it “really dumb tax policy” and has declared that the state should retain “the kicker.”  Sen. Burdick, of course, is one of those unrepentant liberals who know that they are better able to spend your money than you are.

Sen. Burdick isn’t alone.  In Sunday’s Oregonian there is a letter to the editor from Ms. Laura Smoyer who states:

“I challenge my fellow citizens to resist the urge to deposit your kicker check in your personal checking account.  Send it back out to your favorite local charity with a letter to your state legislator explaining that you could not keep it, or simply send it back to the state.”

Ms. Smoyer’s suggestion is laudable if you are so inclined.  However, her reasoning leaves much to be desired.

“The money is not ours.  We must show our legislators that we are willing to do the right thing.  .  .”

Stunning!  “The money is not ours.”  If the money does not belong to those who earn it, to whom does Ms. Smoyer suggest it belongs?

But help is on the way Ms. Smoyer and Sen. Burdick. Oregon law permits those who don’t think they pay enough in taxes (as opposed to those who think someone else doesn’t pay enough in taxes).  Those generous folks can simply mail any additional amount they wish to the Oregon State Department of Revenue.

Herein lies the opportunity for the plebiscite.  Those who return their refund versus those who keep it.

But, first, the Democrat controlled legislature increased spending by over $2.6 Billion dollars in recurring spending for the biennium from just the general fund and the lottery fund.  That represents a 21% increase over the previous biennium.  Second, in order to do that, they raised taxes and fees by over $850 million (and another nearly $200 million in tobacco taxes) despite the fact that there was almost $2 billion dollars more in revenue from existing taxes.  Third, during that rush to spend, the Democrats steadfastly refused to adopt any provisions requiring efficiency or accountability for the moneys they spent or the programs they funded.

For those who pay taxes and think that the legislature did not raise taxes enough or did not spend enough, they have the opportunity to correct that situation by sending back their kicker refund.

Be that as it may, I would like to make a prediction here and now.  LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF ALL TAXPAYERS ENTITLED TO A REFUND WILL RETURN THE MONEY TO THE STATE COFFERS AND OF THE $1.1 BILLION DOLLARS TO BE REFUNDED, LESS THAN $100,000 WILL BE RETURNED BY TAXPAYERS TO THE STATE COFFERS.  (For those of you educated by the Portland Public Schools, that represents less than 0.01 percent of the total amount paid in refunds.)

I make that prediction now, almost three months in advance of the refunds, to give Sen. Burdick, Ms. Smoyer and other likeminded people the opportunity to mount a public campaign urging the voluntary return of the kicker.  I am sure that the public employee unions would be happy to finance that campaign given that they are the primary beneficiaries of increased government spending.  I am sure that most, if not all, the Democrat members of the legislature would publicly support and endorse such a campaign.

But just to be sure, here is an additional challenge.  Let’s ask every candidate for statewide office to disclose whether they returned their refund kicker - including the amount they received and a copy of the check returning it.  In fact, better yet, let’s ask every legislative candidate to disclose the same.  Herein lies the opportunity to disclose political hypocrisy.  I would not expect many Republicans candidates to return the refund because most already think Oregonians are overtaxed.  On the other hand, I don’t expect that many Democrat candidates will return the refund either - which speaks volumes of their real belief that increased taxes are all right as long as someone else is paying them.

I also predict that somewhere between now and the delivery of the kicker refunds, some happily mindless twit will also complain that the refunds are “not fair” because some people will be getting back more than others.  That person will go on to suggest that everybody should get the same amount - including those who have paid nothing.  At times, stupid has no bounds.

But there is hope.  In the same Oregonian that carried Ms. Smoyer’s lament, Louis Sargent struck the nail precisely on the head by commenting on Sen. Burdick’s statement:

“Thus, the wide chasm between those who spend their own money and those who get to spend other people’s money.”