Month: June 2017

Posted on

Scheming for Revenue

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, June 28, 2017 by devadmin

State law proved to be no match for Senate Democrats’ desire to illegally pass a $22.8 million-dollar tax hike in the House last week. Senate Bill 28 was passed in the House and will spike taxes at least $22.8 million in the two upcoming budget cycles. Our Republican legislators universally voted against the tax increase and made the claim that SB 28 should have originated in the House because it is a revenue raising bill.

Additionally, the bill allows taxes to be raised with a simple majority vote versus the three-fifths or 60/40 margin required by the Oregon constitution.

In 1996, Oregonians approved Ballot Measure 95, now Article IV, Section 25, of Oregon’s Constitution, which mandates that tax increases receive a three-fifths vote of all members in the Legislature. Article IV, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution requires tax hike bills to start in the House of Representatives. Therefore, SB 28 is illegal on two fronts, 1) it passed without the legally required three-fifths vote, and 2) it inappropriately originated in the Senate.

Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli stated, “Disregard for the Constitution prevails yet again, with the House passing an illegal tax hike. This outrage will be countered with litigation. Democrats want to ignite fury within the hearts of Oregonians by trampling on the Constitution.”

Oregonians are being exploited by House and Senate Democrats who are violating Oregon’s Constitution to dramatically spike taxes.

This tax hike is a demonstration of their willingness to approve “lawlessness.” Small Oregon businesses will see a dramatic hike as the legislature schemes for revenue. For some businesses, it will be a brand-new tax. Senate Republicans decried the passage of SB 28 saying it thwarts the will of voters. Republicans also point out that it should have first been introduced in the House of Representatives. Senate Bill 28 modifies how Oregon corporate income taxes are apportioned for intangible property and services. It changes the apportionment method from a cost-of-performance method to a market-based method.

The cost-of-performance method attributes all corporate income tax revenues to the state where the greatest proportion of the activity is performed. For example, if most of the effort for manufacturing and creating your product is done out of state then your product would be taxed based on the appropriate proportion of in-state verses out-of-state work.

The market-based method attributes corporate income tax revenue to the state where the customer is located. In other words, even if all your work, offices and effort are in another state, Oregon will tax your business based on total sales if any of those sales occur in Oregon.

However, the Democrat raiding party is not finished picking your pocket. House Bill 2060A is another direct tax increase on small businesses. It too, passed out of the House by a simple majority.

HB 2060A imposes a tax increase, up to 40%, for small businesses with fewer than ten employees while preserving lower rates for larger S-corps, LLCs and LLPs.  It is a $196 million-dollar tax increase on Oregon’s smallest businesses.

The 2013 Grand Bargain between Democrats and Republicans provided tax relief to small Oregon businesses. House Bill 2060A would remove the protection provided to small businesses by Republican legislators in 2013.

Also, the tax-grabbers decided to go after the smallest-of-small businesses. They changed the language to expand the size of companies that could quality. Formerly, the Grand Bargain allowed an individual business owner to qualify for a lower tax rates. This House Bill increases the size of the company receiving the benefit by ten-fold. This means a small individually-owned business, or the Mom and Pop operation, are eliminated from the possibility of a reduced tax liability. These small businesses will be forced into paying more of their hard-earned income into this Democrat sponsored revenue collection scheme.

Not only are more employees required to qualify, but the Democrats jimmied the numbers by adding even more requirements for qualifying businesses. These added conditions reduce the overall number of businesses that will be able to qualify for the lower tax rates.

See… Money is easier to find than gumballs in the sofa cushions

This financial tyranny runs contrary to our state and nation’s most sacred principles. George Washington said, “I think the Government hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money…”

Washington’s thoughts flow directly from our Declaration of Independence, immediately following Life, Liberty and your happiness through just pursuits. It states, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

However, today the folks in Salem are following the rule that Ronald Reagan criticized so poignantly. He claimed that big government policy wonks believe in the motto – “if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will.

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Fatal Conceit

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, June 26, 2019 by devadmin

Oregonians are keenly aware that there has been trouble brewing in Salem’s marbled halls. Metro-centric Democrats have achieved super-majority standing in both Legislative Chambers. While in the minority, Republicans, like myself, have sound fiscal and legitimate policy perspectives, and like all minorities, we deserve to be heard. But that has not been the case this legislative session when my colleagues and I have been run over and bullied time and time again! Our ideas are ignored, and our voices remain muted.

    The game has been rigged, especially for important bills like HB 2020, the carbon tax bill. The Democrats claim this is an emergency, and everyone needs to pitch their money into the pot. Yet, the committee hearings were slanted towards the proponent’s perspective. “Invited testimony only”–sessions were scheduled and packed with “expert panels” whose goals were to enlighten the masses and give credence to only one-side of the discussion.

    Even the typical “public-hearing” got the squeeze and this happens across all committees. For example, during testimony for a bill dealing with water rights (SB 977-1), farmers and ranchers, some of whom traveled 5 hours to testify, were given 60 seconds to explain their position. The pretense is that the only solution that can save us, our resources and our planet is the government’s solution. Of course, this necessarily means giving the government control over us, our resources and our planet.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us.” Therefore, the perfect response, is to deny the Democrat super-majority a quorum for advancing their one-sided efforts. As the Republican Whip for the minority party, I think denying quorum is an effective tactic and a perfectly appropriate decision for Republicans.

    Our action has elicited claims that, “Republicans aren’t doing their jobs and should return to work.” Think about it, would the presence of a couple of Republican “NO” votes make HB2020 less onerous or costly? Would those Republican “NO” votes cause the well-connected cronies to lose their exemptions or their windfall profits?

    No, the game has been rigged and the turmoil and angst that the Democrats are displaying is due to Republican Senators successfully derailing their runaway government-growth train. Continued support for ramming HB 2020 down the line comes from those scurrying for the largess they’ve been promised. After all, $550 million during the first year can buy a freight load of support, flattery and sycophancy.

    On a more fundamental note, what makes any person believe that the law would become more legitimate if an extra 11 Senators were forced to sit in the Chamber wearing their prison garb?

    The Democrat super-majority is advocating for the round-up and capture of elected representatives by the Oregon State Police. Additionally, they are proposing to fine each of us $500 per day. Then, to drive the knife deeper into the wound, the Senate President scheduled floor sessions for Friday, Saturday and Sunday, which allowed the super-majority to levy an extra three days of fines. The sheer level of avarice is stupefying.

NEW TAXES, FEES AND BURDENS

To illustrate, let’s roll through the new taxes, fees and burdens placed on businesses and people. The Democrat super-majority initiated state-wide rent control, which dampens the supply of affordable housing and chases away real estate investors. This is quite ironic because their goal is to increase affordable housing within Oregon.

    Then, they banned plastic straws, followed by a state-wide ban on single-use plastic bags like those used at the grocery store. Remember, there was a time when paper bags were outlawed. Back then, the chant was, “Save the Planet, ban paper bags.” Today, we hear the same chant, “Save the Planet, ban plastic bags.” Which will it be, paper or plastic? Why is it so distasteful, to the super-majority, to allow the consumer to choose?

    Additionally, the progressives passed a gigantic tax and spend initiative, which instituted a Gross Sales Tax without a single Republican vote. House Bill 3427 was disguised as an education funding bill, but without a constitutional amendment, the funds can be spent anywhere. Officially called a Corporate Activities Tax, the effect of this Gross Sales gimmick will be felt across all business and trickle down to the paying customer.

    Not content with just tearing up real estate opportunities and “funding” education, the progressive Democrats pretend they can curb rising health care costs by raising $380 million in taxes from hospitals and health insurers. The idea that inflicting $380 million in additional taxes will lower the cost of healthcare is patently absurd.

    The cache of taxes raised by the Democrat super-majority in this legislative session will extract $750 per man, woman and child, or $3000 for a family of four, per year.

    When will it end? Now!

SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS

    First, it is time the Democrat super-majority returned freedom back to the people of Oregon. Second, the authoritarians ought to take a page from the Original Star Wars trilogy and realize that the more they tighten their grip, the more people will slip through their fingers.

    As F. A. Hayek argued, socialism has always failed due to internal errors in its assessment of factual evidence, logical assumptions and historical understanding. We have observed its gross failures many times during this past century. These failures have occurred across many nations, cultures and ethnicities and all point to the errors in the starting assumptions. Hayek notes this is the “fatal conceit” of the political class – the idea that rule-makers are able to shape the world around themselves, according to their legislative wishes and desires.

    The legislative mandates inside of HB 2020, the gas and emissions tax, are nothing but a blunt force, trauma inducing tool to force tax-payers into compliance while extracting their hard-won earnings into the pockets of the well-connected. This legislation is not about “climate change.” It is about money. Oregon has one of the lowest carbon emissions rates in America. This is just another way to grab billions of dollars out of the pockets of Oregonians.

   At America’s founding, John Dickinson writes about Spain, where money, for a single emergency, was needed. “The request was violently opposed by the best and wisest men in the assembly.” But they caved and, “this single concession was a PRECEDENT for other concessions of the like kind… until the people ceased to be free.” (emphasis in the original)

    Unlike those in Dickinson’s account, I will never cave.

    Thank you, for supporting the “Oregon 11,” as we stand for Liberty, freedom, sound policy, and fiscal responsibility!

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense – No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Tomfoolery

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, June 12, 2019 by devadmin

The National Popular Vote (NPV) is another leg of the progressive movement that is rolling across the US. Simply put, it is part of the scheme to undermine our fair and balanced election process. Although the popular vote initiative sounds reasonable on its surface, the devil is in the details. The NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators) website states:

“The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement emerged in late 2006 and has slowly gain some steam since then.

“NPV seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state.”

In a perfectly wild example, imagine if every single voter in Oregon cast a Republican vote for the President. Under NPV, after the polls close and the chads are counted and recounted, if a democrat candidate had a slim majority of votes nationwide, the state’s electors would be required to cast their vote for the democrat, even though not a single soul within the state affirmed that choice.

This is a clear violation of the principle of local control and the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, this twisted logic has Oregon’s democrats feverishly working to be the 16th “blue” state to pass an NPV bill (SB 870). It has already passed through the Senate and House, largely along party-lines and is now on its way to the Governor’s office.

The founders created a uniquely American scheme for electing office-holders at the national level. It was designed to disrupt the natural tendencies of mankind which have been witnessed in every age. To wit, regardless of national origin, religion, creed, sex or gender people exposed to power will be tempted by lust and selfish greed to amass more power.

Our nation’s founders wanted to preserve the principles of representation while building in constitutional safeguards for diluting unnecessary concentrations of power.  For example, they split the legislative body into two chambers, the House and Senate. Senators, representing the States, were elected to office by their respective State Legislatures. Unfortunately, this protection was undone in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, the Constitution specified that senators were elected by state legislatures. This construction gave state governments an equal say in the national body with regard to legislation, rules and regulations that would affect all states. Each state would have equal representation in the Senate with two Senators from each state.

The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. The 17th Amendment changed this process to a direct election by the people of their state, essentially making it identical to the process for the U.S. House of Representatives. The fervor for NPV at the presidential level is an exact replica of the turmoil that hammered the nation during the debates around the 17th Amendment.

The House of Representatives was designed as the only chamber which had members directly elected by a vote of the people. Like our state’s House, this body was responsible for protecting the interests of the people and was the body that had budgetary power, being responsible for taxes and revenue.

The constitutional design had the president, or chief executive, elected by both houses of the legislature via their specific electors – the Electoral College. This arrangement created yet another filter on the proxies coming from the House and Senate and created a formidable obstacle to slow the quickened motives of ingenious men.

Additionally, the terms of office for these elected positions was purposely staggered across two-, four- and six-year spans with one-third of the Senate being elected every two years. In turn, the states generally dispersed their powers by having them exercised by municipalities, counties, and other local governments – local governance being the preferred choice.

The current NPV tomfoolery would ordain what the progressives falsely call “popular” rule but it is more akin to mob rule where everything is centrally orchestrated.

In the most recent 2016 election, the Electoral College proved to be a legitimate safety net for preserving the will of the people:

  1. There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.
  2. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
  3. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
  4. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
  5. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
  6. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely-populated, group-think cities (NYC, Chicago, Seattle, LA, etc.) shouldn’t be allowed to usurp the opinions of the rest of the country. The progressive movement toward NPV is a dangerous idea and runs contrary to our founders’ remarkable blueprint for preserving the Liberty for the people while tempering the ever-present lust for capricious power.

Thos. Jefferson spoke directly to this in 1798, writing, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Finding freedom in the chains of our Constitution is what made America great in the first place … and …  it will Make America Great Again.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common-sense, No one will.

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Science, Common-sense and Reasonableness.

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Monday, June 11, 2018 by devadmin

In 1862 the Homestead Act was passed by Congress. This was the first time the United States government made free land available to western settlers. In that same year a Bureau of Agriculture was created.

There is a lesson here – if you are ever tempted to accept a gift from the government, know that what the government gives one day, can be taken the next.

Throughout history whenever the power and economic resources of the government are pitched against the people – the people lose. Not least because governments use revenue collected from taxes to fund the very policies that are becoming more and more burdensome. This is especially true in fields of agriculture, food production, natural resource extraction, high-end precision technologies and material manufacturing.

Government authority becomes concentrated in structures of command and control because government is duty-bound to regulate existing environments and processes. Government organizations receive their regulatory mandates through a single method – political power. Therefore, political factions, with their rival interpretations of law and jurisprudence, are engaged in constant struggle and turmoil. This is the nature of government.

Legislators, like kids with a shoebox full of Lego’s, get to guide and organize the tools of government to create and implement policies that will achieve their goals.

James Madison, wrote in Federalist No. 51 (1788), “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

Government organizations, even those filled with good people and great administrators, are subject to Madison’s observation. No angels create, manage or administer government programs.

The tools of administration, on the surface appear simple, convenient and straight-forward. Yet, they form a complicated, multi-faceted, unavoidable and intricately woven snare. There is only one way to successfully navigate through the modern labyrinth. The path is actually the same for rule administrators (enforcers) or rule followers. For all participants, successfully navigating the maze only requires rejecting one’s common-sense and reasonableness. Then, with those two items out of the way, the rest is easy.

The organizations wielding this power can’t even be charged with illegal activity, because their activities are sanctified in law. Aside from civil lawsuits which help to corral regulators back into their legally defined roles or correct administrative blunders, how does one “oblige government to control itself?” Or, how do you stop a freight-train?

A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article noted, “Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of 565 new rules each year during the Obama Presidency, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any agency.” This vast expansion of the sphere of government is clearly beyond the traditional areas of responsibility laid out by our nation’s founders.

Obama’s EPA illustrates that regulatory power is really political power. The regulations were engineered for political usefulness even though they were scientifically imprecise, economically facetious and morally vacuous.

Under the surface, this is really a contest of ideas. The conflict is between support for bigger, larger, more controlling government, or the establishment and preservation of a society of free individuals complete with their unalienable rights.

Newsweek Cover

However, as the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, back in 2009, “We are all socialists now.” The government we experience today is a reflection of the progressive left’s ideological predisposition which has become the dominant force of government. This vision of a centrally-managed utopia, imposed by regulatory mandate, regardless of science, common-sense or reasonableness is pervasive in Oregon policy.

For example, last month, Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) shut-down ag-wells that are within 1 mile of the Sprague River. Their stated intention is to increase flow in the Sprague river due to a surface water call by the Klamath Tribes. This Departmental policy initiative will force 140 businesses, families and employees off their land because their groundwater wells were drilled nearly 50 years ago and happen to be within 1 mile of the river.

There is little evidence to justify the Department’s model assertion that groundwater wells negatively impact in-stream surface water. Given the low aquifer transmissivity, varying thicknesses in real-world geologic layers, and varying horizontal hydraulic conductivities this would obviously result in a futile call for water. Following OWRD’s own rules they should be regularly assessing conditions to determine if the call is futile and allow junior water right holders access to their groundwater allotments. Oregon law requires OWRD to demonstrate the use of a well is causing substantial and timely interference with one or more priority water rights before the department can regulate-off any particular well.

Yet, they don’t appear to be following these guidelines – water remains shut-off because of the model’s basic assertions. Aside from irrigation and stock-watering wells, three municipalities in Klamath County are also threatened with regulatory enforcement due to the artificial one-mile proximity range, but not due to substantial and timely interference.

All Oregon water users may expect the Department to employ similar computer modelling technology to force water shut-offs in other areas of the state. Given the complex technical nature of much scientific data, computer models, applications, assumptions and extrapolations, OWRD must address departmental weaknesses in identifying, disclosing, and resolving issues with conflict-of-interest and scientific-integrity, while ensuring the quality of the evidentiary findings used during enforcement actions.

To eliminate these unnecessary and politically contrived water shortages, we need to provide realistic problem-solving leadership and embrace strategies designed to increase water supplies. We should be recharging aquifers and building new water reservoirs and dams. This is especially true if weather patterns lower the water volume stored in our winter snowpack.

The legislature must select projects that yield the best return on investment while taking a hard look at costs, science and improved technology. Oregon’s ample runoff water-flows provide a unique source for water-storage efforts and are the proper way to eliminate water scarcity.

We should promote, not restrict, the ingenious free-market problem solver, the all-around engineer, and the entrepreneurs in our communities. Builders, bakers, family farmers and ranchers all provide the daily necessities of life and these are the hardworking Oregonians that should be our heroes.

Without these realistic, common-sense changes the state’s dysfunctional political culture will savage agriculture, just as it did Oregon’s timber industry, and along with it, Oregon’s overall economy.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common-sense – No one will.

Senator Dennis Linthicum signature

Dennis Linthicum

Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Explosive Entitlement

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Friday, June 9, 2017 by devadmin

Oregon’s Secretary of State, Dennis Richardson, reported last week that Oregon Health Authority may have failed to validate as many as 115,000 Medicaid recipient

Richardson estimated that potentially 86,000 of these individuals are ineligible for Medicaid coverage. On average, if every individual on Medicaid costs the state and federal government $430 a month, then the total fraud and waste is a whopping $37 million a month.

These are staggering numbers. You might wonder how Oregon gets away with such waste, and the sad answer is that we’ve come to believe an economic fallacy.

This fallacy, or false belief, is the idea of free money. Free money is the sought-after prize in politics, allowing the entrenched powers to create and continue state programs with little or no critical oversight.

Oregon’s legislature will often present the public with a grand solution for problems like the cost of college or healthcare. Unfortunately, their engineered solution always entails free money, which means that someone else will pay the bill.

Free money comes with strings attached. Salesmen offer these gimmicks all the time. It is an effective sales tool because of the personal discipline and hard work required to save, budget and plan. We should all know this instinctively, but the quick gratification that comes from signing onto that “no money down” new car can’t be beat. We can each imagine cruising down the Oregon coast in our shiny new SUV. Many lawmakers use this same technique to hide the real cost from the taxpayer while pitching a story that sounds too good to be true.

In Oregon’s case, along with free money comes bundles of regulations, mandates, taxes and penalties on Oregonians, all because lawmakers couldn’t be bothered to work for sustainable solutions.

Think about this concept with affordable or free health care.

When we need health advice, care or a prescription, we visit a healthcare provider. That becomes an external cost because we are buying a product or service, just as if we were paying for an oil change for our car or a cup of coffee from a barista.

We all realize that skilled people designed, engineered, tested, manufactured and distributed the thousands of medical machines we take for granted in our hospitals and doctors’ offices. We agree that it’s unfair to ask a doctor to go to school for years and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education and then be expected to work for free. We certainly would not expect a scientist in a lab, designing new medical devices, the pharmacist at your local drugstore, or the receptionist at your doctor’s front desk to work for free either. These are skilled Americans doing needed jobs.

So, it appears that despite rhetoric about “free health care” as a right, it is the same as our no-money-down car analogy – it’ll definitely cost us, just maybe not today.

In fact, our health care system is the most fiscally explosive entitlement ever conceived.

Its growth is a ticking time-bomb for two reasons. First, the person receiving the health care benefit is completely disconnected from the cost. You and I have no idea what our doctor’s visit costs. We don’t know what our pharmaceuticals cost or should cost because we either get them for free or make a small co-pay contribution.

Second, healthcare costs are hidden and shifted across the population. For example, all US men carry coverage for maternity, prenatal and postnatal care. This is the ultimate “hidden fee” because it applies charges to people who will never use the services.

People can only make good decisions about healthcare with good information, including details about the costs involved. The current structure destroys the consumers’ ability to make wise choices about their own healthcare. People find themselves trapped in an environment where compliance with the rules, regulations and bureaucratic red-tape is a burden that becomes more difficult as they age.

Hidden costs also sabotage corrective pressure coming from consumers. Consumers are the best agents for communicating directly with their doctors and healthcare providers. However, without valid information the consumer becomes powerless.

As consumers look for help, government responds by sending in an army of bureaucrats armed with price-controls, regulations, and reporting requirements. Unfortunately, their intervention is after they created the problem in the first place.

Obamacare, like the 1965 enactment of Medicare, did not erupt spontaneously on the American political scene. In truth, this mess has been festering and growing, like malignant cancer, since the Progressive political movement sought power through government control during the early 1900’s. Socialized medicine and centralized control over healthcare is the Progressive’s dream.

There is no good reason for bureaucrats to substitute their opinions into the relationship between the patient and his, or her, doctor. Individuals deserve control over their own healthcare and putting patients back in control is our only answer.

In closing, we have our work cut out for us. It will take enormous amounts of energy, tenacity and courage to return to free choice in our healthcare markets.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28