Measure 28: Band-aid or boondoggle?

Byline: PETER SORENSON For The Register-Guard

FUNDING PUBLIC SERVICES is more than a compassionate choice; it's the key to a sustainable society.

Measure 28 gives us an opportunity to protect children in public schools, abused and neglected children, people with developmental disabilities, victims of crime, the homeless, and seniors who rely on in-home or nursing home services. Measure 28 will also help fund crucial public services that most Oregonians depend on - including public education, monitoring of drinking water, restaurant inspection and screening of newborns for disabling or fatal health risks.

Some opponents fear that a "temporary" tax would become permanent or lead to more taxes. Let's not forget that in 1982, in the grips of a recession even worse than we face today, Oregon lawmakers under Republican Gov. Vic Atiyeh boldly enacted a temporary income tax surcharge similar to the one proposed by Measure 28. We chose to protect our quality of life, keep training programs and lay the foundation for business investment. Communities reaped the benefits in jobs and increased income. Then, the temporary tax expired.

During the 1990s, Oregon enjoyed prosperity. Many lawmakers - and most Oregonians - believed that boom times would continue. Instead of creating a rainy day fund to be drawn upon in hard times, as most states have done, the state Legislature returned a "kicker" or income tax refund not just to individuals, but also to corporations.

What if instead of a refund, we'd created a statewide savings account? We might have avoided or at least eased the current crisis. Had the state kept the corporate kicker, the hole we're in now would be only half as deep.

I do understand voter frustration when governments give away revenues and then complain that there's no money for basic services. I've opposed tax breaks for large corporations, and when local governments gave substantial tax breaks to Hynix and Symantec, I voted against them.

Is the shortfall the fault of elected officials? Yes and no.

Yes, in that the Legislature could have passed this measure itself, or it could have designed a tax package based on fossil fuel consumption and not given away large amounts of money by returning the corporate kicker.

No, in that the budget shortfall is due to a loss of income tax revenues, upon which Oregon's tax system heavily depends. As the economy has worsened, the amount of money coming into the state treasury has dropped substantially. During the past decade, while our individual income tax rate climbed, the corporate tax rate declined. Now we propose to balance the budget at the expense of the poor and the struggling middle class.

Also, voters have played a part in creating the current predicament. As the 2001-02 Oregon Blue Book explains, "ballot measure initiatives passed by voters have changed Oregon's tax system. State and local taxes actually declined in the 1990s. Ballot Measure 5, phased in between 1991 and 1996, was the primary reason for the decline." Measure 50, passed in 1997, limits future property tax increases. Ballot Measure 11, passed in 1994, increased spending on prisons.

The combination of tax cuts with increased spending on prisons had limited impact in the 1980s and '90s while income tax funds grew during an economic boom. Since the recession hit, these revenues have declined, leading to the crisis we face now.

In their guest column in the Dec. 27 Register-Guard, Shannon Thienes and David Piercy explained the importance of maintaining the infrastructure to keep basic services available. Their point that "dismantling the infrastructure now will slow down the recovery of our economy" deserves to be repeated and remembered. Passing Measure 28 now will be less costly than trying to repair the damage years later. Instead of dealing with crisis after crisis, we can develop ways to improve Oregon's funding systems. These might include instituting a rainy day fund and repealing some of the ballot measures that helped steer us into these fiscal straits.

Locally, Lane County cut services last summer. Even if Measure 28 passes, there will be cuts in services. But we would face even deeper cuts if Measure 28 doesn't pass: another $80,000 from children's and family services; $62,500 from public health; $1,160,000 from mental health; $148,000 from juvenile crime prevention; $640,000 from community corrections; $1,370,000 from programs for the developmentally disabled.

Without Measure 28, things will get much worse before there is any hope of them getting better. Will we choose to reduce the size of government, causing huge hardship to our most vulnerable residents, or will we help stabilize public services by agreeing to a temporary increase in our income tax? That means under $70 a year from a taxpayer with an income of $30,000 to $40,000, but most people will pay less, and those earning under $12,000 won't pay at all.

The holiday season is over, but the time for giving and receiving is year round. Let's pass Measure 28, and give Oregonians a future in a secure and hopeful state.

Peter Sorenson represents the South Eugene district on the Lane County Board of Commissioners.