Legalize the ganj! Yes on 80

Among the decisions that Oregonians will make in this election is whether or not to legalize the cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana.  Measure 80, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, would legalize and regulate adult use of cannabis throughout the state.  I advocate a "Yes" vote.

The arguments in favor are myriad.

• Oregon spends somewhere around $2 million per year to process incarceration and probation for marijuana offenders.  When you consider how financially strapped our state is regarding education and library funding and infrastructure maintenance, this seems to be a colossal waste of money.
• According to NORML, a long-time advocacy organization, marijuana is Oregon's fourth largest cash crop in terms of revenue.  Marijuana cultivation yields about $240 million production dollars each year.  An industry with that kind of lucre is a potential revenue source for the state.  As it stands now, all that money evaporates into the black market.  
  
• Marijuana has well-established medicinal value.  It is used to treat depression and glaucoma and to treat the effects of chemotherapy among many other uses.
• Hemp (marijuana low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) consists of fibers that make it useful as a textile and durable paper.
• Unlike many perscription drugs and alcohol there is not a single documented case of a fatal overdose from marijuana.

Old myths die hard, but the idea that marijuana is a "gateway drug" leading to harder, more dangerous drugs is completely without merit.  We all know people who smoke dope and we all know people who drink heavily.  In our individual experiences, how many lives have we seen ruined by (illegal) marijuana?  How about by (legal) alcohol?  Be honest.

As I've stated before, I use marijuana regularly.  Although I don't have a legal prescription (I'm not paying for a damned card, for heaven's sake) I consider my usage medicinal.  (At least partly.)  Marijuana is a natural medicine that makes me more tolerant and patient and, frankly, more pleasant to be around.  I fail to see how it is any more dangerous than prescribed anti-depressants or anxiety medicines or any of the other crap that gets peddled on the squawk-box nowadays.  

The one legitimate concern about legalizing ganja is that, by doing so, the state of Oregon would put itself in direct conflict with federal law.  But federal law needs to change.  Period.  And when you consider that other states defy federal law in much more egregious ways (suppressing minority votes, illegal uses of federal lands) Oregon's potential transgression seems trivial.

Opponents of marijuana legalization sometimes worry that it would encourage youngsters to experiment.  Take, for example, the woman selling ceramics and pottery whom I ran into at the Oregon State Fair a few years back.

I saw her booth near the beer garden.  She was a middle-aged woman, with wire frame glasses, dishwater hair, and a hard set to her mouth.  Inside a glass case were ceramic dragons, vases, mugs, dishware.  "Do you have any bongs?" I asked her.

"This is a family place!" she said, outraged.

Behind us, in the beer garden, a band was playing loudly.  Someone in the drunken crowd let out a whoop and shouted some incoherency.  "Family place, huh?" I asked. "Right next to the beer garden?"

"Most people quit pot when they grow up," she sneered.

I grinned.  "You got me there."

She didn't respond.

Vote Yes on 80.

Let's get our schools fixed

It's going to be a big financial hit at an economically uncertain time.  That puts a lump in my throat.  Top-of-my-head estimate is that it'll cost me between $50 and $100 each month for the next six years!  Most folks I know have to swallow pretty hard before making that kind of commitment.  I do, anyway.

Nonetheless, I'm voting "Yes" on Measures 26-121 and 26-122, the bond and levy measures aimed at raising much needed funds for upkeep of our public schools and preserving teaching jobs.

Speaking as a homeowner, I've learned from experience that ignoring structural and efficiency problems only makes them more expensive to fix in the long run.  Our schools are in a sorry state.  The buildings are old and falling apart.  It seems to me we ought to just bite the bullet and fix them now.  Besides, better schools means higher home values. 

Cleveland High School, in my part of town, was built in 1929.  The bond measure will pay for a complete renovation of Cleveland, along with 85 other schools.  (You can read more about the measure here.)

And let's not forget that raising tax money and spending it right here at home will benefit everyone in the community.  These measures will pay to keep our hard-working teachers on the job and to keep class sizes from getting out of hand.  It'll keep local construction workers and peripheral businesses in work.

Of course, most importantly, the kids --and therefore all of us --will benefit.

The condition of our schools is a measure of our commitment to the future.  We've got a great thing going here in Portland.  I'm willing to chip in to keep it that way.

Yes on 26-121 and 26-122!

Oregon passes 66 and 67

One small victory in the battle against the plutocracy!

Measures 66 and 67 were approved by voters yesterday by comfortable margins.  Currently the tally has them each passing by approximately 5-7%.  This is good news and seems to buck the supposed national trend that Republicans have been trumpeting as "a rejection of big government" ever since voters rejected the Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts senate race.

(Personally, I think Republicans are overplaying their victory in Massachusetts.  They always do.  But let them imagine that the national electorate is longing for a return to the dark days of the Bush administration.  They'll fall flat on their faces, which is something else they always manage to do.)

So, fresh on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling that seemed to affirm corporate oligarchy, Oregonians send out a dissenting opinion with this election.  Corporations may control Washington, DC, and their power may be growing, but here in Oregon we're not quite ready to lay down for them.

As a result of these two measures passing, corporations and high-income individuals will now be compelled to contribute more to state coffers to help fund many services, chief among them being public education.

This victory, while significant and important for the state, is only a small skirmish in the larger battle to restore our republic.  Wouldn't it be nice if this was the opening salvo in a resurgence of populism?  A reassertion of the rights of people, actual human beings, over neo-feudal corporations?  Referendums like this one are one of the few methods that we, the people, have for fighting back.  It is foolhardy to imagine that Democrats or Republicans or even the now-tarnished President Obama will do anything for us.  All of them bow down before their corporate masters, as we have seen with the Wall Street bailouts (which seem to be the only congressional actions capable of mustering bipartisan support).

Chris Hedges, the author of American Fascism, wrote an article the other day, entitled Democracy in America is a Useful Fiction, that bemoans the death of our republic. It's a tough read:  not for the faint at heart.  He makes a compelling case that national elections are meaningless charades; that they are diversions, like voting for your favorite contestant on American Idol. 

The two parties stir up animosity between the various demographics of this country, knowing that if we are divided about so-called "social issues" like abortion, immigration, and gay rights, we are unlikely to unify in opposition to the plundering of our national treasury by corporations and obscenely-wealthy financiers.

I guess we Oregonians are slow to get the message.  Or maybe just slow to give up hope.  Or maybe we're ready to lead the charge away from plutocracy.  Frame it however you like.  It may be a fool's errand to even imagine that we can reverse the corporate takeover of our democracy.  But, in that case, I accept the label of "fool" willingly.

Measures 66 and 67 passed!  Savor this small victory and move on to the next battle.  We've got a long way to go.

Yes on 66 and 67: Pony up, Fat Man!

Oregon is enmeshed in a special election right now to reform tax policy.  Many voters have already received ballots (although I haven't yet received mine).

This election will determine state income tax policy for both individuals and corporations.  There are two measures on the ballot.

Measure 66

This measure is a referral of State House Bill 2649, which would increase personal income taxes by adding a temporary tax bracket for individuals earning between $125,000 and $250,000 with a rate of 10.8% and a temporary tax bracket for individuals earning over $250,000 with a rate of 11%. These taxes expire January 1, 2012. HB 2649 also adds a new permanent tax bracket for individuals earning over $125,00 per year with a rate of 9.9% per year.^*

According to Eugene School District 4J, Measure 66 would:

• Increase tax rates on the amount of taxable income over $250,000 for households ($125,000 for single filers) by 1.8 to 2 percentage points.
  
• Eliminate income taxes on the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits received in 2009.
  
• Provide approximately $472 million in funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety and other services.

Measure 67

Measure 67 is a referral of HB 3405, which would increase taxes on corporations. HB 3405 increases the corporate minimum tax from $10 to $150. It establishes a corporate minimum tax of 1/10 of 1% of sales, with a cap of $100,000. It adds a new tax bracket for corporations with taxable income over $250,000 with a rate of 7.9%. The rate for this tax bracket falls to 7.6% after January 1, 2011. After January 1, 2013 the bracket only applies to taxable income over $10 million dollars. HB 3405 also increases most business filing fees, and specifies that the proceeds will go to the general fund. The fee increases range from 50-100%.^*

Again, referring to information provided by Eugene School District 4J, Measure 67 would:

• Raise the $10 corporate minimum tax:
  • Most businesses would pay a minimum tax of $150.
  • Corporations with over $500,000 in Oregon revenues would pay minimum tax of about 0.1% of Oregon revenues.
  • Sole proprietors would not be impacted.
• Raise the tax rate for C corporations by 1.3% on profits over $250,000.
• Increase certain business filing fees.
• Provide approximately $255 million in funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety and other services.

Why vote "yes?"

These measures are opposed by well-funded interests, including the Associated General Contractors of America, Oregon Restaurant Association, and Oregon Chamber of Commerce.  In other words, fat cats. That list of opponents is, in itself, powerful incentive to vote for the two measures. (Apparently, some local Portland rag wrote an op-ed in opposition, too.  But who the hell reads newspapers nowadays? Particularly, corrupt, has-been newspapers that knuckle under to every blowhard that casts a stern glance in their direction.)

Please consider:  When times were less difficult, when everyone was working and making money, it was often easier and less expensive to let piratical corporate entities have their way than to try to coerce them into doing the right thing and contributing to the communities off which they leech.  But times have changed, haven't they?

Intel or Nike may not have been among the benefactors of the obscene (in retrospect) tax-payer funded bail-outs that were required to salvage our financial system.  But they are members of the Oregon community.  They profit from the publicly-funded infrastructure.  They reap the benefits of having an educated population. And they have grown fat off Oregon labor.

I'm not inclined to feel an ounce of charity to these faceless corporate entities.  Pony up, punks!

As far as the new tax brackets created for upper income individuals --we're in the stew, folks.  Unemployment is high, the number of persons living in poverty is on the rise, and our schools which provide the best hope we have for a better future, are in dire need of funding.  Folks, can't you see that we're all going to have to chip in if we're going to come out of this mess with a society that is worth saving?

Please join me in voting "yes" on Measures 66 and 67.

^*Information courtesy of Salem-News.com Business/Economy Reporter Ersun Warncke.

Cheap cigarettes and a Win for Tom McCall

Well, progressives, we went 1 for 2.

Measure 50

First, the bad news: Measure 50, which would have imposed an 85 cent tax on a pack of cigarettes to finance a health insurance program for Oregon's children, was defeated. The measure was drowned in a sea of big tobacco money ($12 million).

Light up, kids! Big Tobacco is keepin' 'em cheap.

The lesson here is this: the "no new taxes" mantra of groups like FreedomWorks that front for corporate and billionaire interests has yet to be exposed as the ruse it is. Although the tax that would have been imposed by Measure 50 was certainly regressive, it set a dangerous precedent (from a billionaire's perspective): if people start to imagine that tax dollars can provide good things for the citizenry, things like children's health care, who knows where that line of thinking might end? An estate tax? A capital gains tax?

I view the defeat of Measure 50 as residual malaise from the regressive policies that "movement conservatives" have successfully masked over that past 20 years. As progressives, we won't just wake up one morning and find that all the evil schemes of the greedy corporate interests have been exposed.

We'll just have to keep working. The public appetite for national health care is growing. And, at the very least, we can make it expensive for corporations to peddle their lies.

Measure 49

Now, the good news. Measure 49 passed with 61% of the vote. Measure 49 reverses most of the worst effects of the shameful Measure 37, from 2004. Measure 37, the "property rights" measure, was a sham perpetuated by developers and timber interests. These monied interests claimed that Oregon's land use policies harmed land owners by constraining their ability to develop property.

Fortunately, the truth will out, and these same interests could not restrain their greed after Measure 37 passed.

Shortly after the disastrous (on so many different levels) election of 2004, landowners filed some 7500 development claims for strip malls, hotels, and gated subdivisions on Oregon's farmlands and forests.

As voters became aware of the unbridled avarice that was actually behind the Measure 37 scam, they rejected it.

The passage of Measure 49 means that, while rural property owners will have the ability to build individual homes, corporate interests and greedy land developers will be unable to construct their monstrous subdivisions.

It's as if Oregonians took to heart the lament of Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi":

They paved paradise, put up a parking lot,
With a big hotel, a boutique, and a swingin' hot spot;
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?

Be still, my heart!

Be sure that the greedy developers will be back with some new scheme to get their hands on our beautiful homeland. But I'm hopeful that people are starting to wake up and see that corporations and the ultra-rich really do not share their interests.

For now, and for some time to come, land use planning is safe. Somewhere, Oregon's revered governor, Tom McCall, who once said he loved Oregon more than his own life, must be smiling.

This one's for you, Governor.