NOW:53219:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
20°
H 25° L 20°
Partly Cloudy | 7MPH

Conservatively Speaking

State Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents parts of four counties: Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, and Walworth. Her Senate District 28 includes New Berlin, Franklin, Greendale, Hales Corners, Muskego, Waterford, Big Bend, the town of Vernon and parts of Greenfield, East Troy, and Mukwonago. Senator Lazich has been in the Legislature for more than a decade. She considers herself a tireless crusader for lower taxes, reduced spending and smaller government.

You do not tax your way out of a recession

Taxes, Economy


Just ask Oregon. The Beaver State has had a long history of scorning taxes.

Nine times residents went to the polls to consider implementing a state sales tax. Nine times voters rejected the idea. Oregon’s constitution contains a ceiling on property taxes. If revenues surpass projections by two percent or more, taxpayers get automatic rebates thanks to an amendment adopted by voters.


It is stunning Oregon residents voted for large income tax increases during January 2010 rather than accept possible spending cuts. It was the first time since the decade of the Depression that Oregon voters approved tax increases.

With an increase of $727 million poring into Oregon coffers, it is the end of budget problems, right? Wrong.

Stateline reports, “In May, stunned lawmakers listened as the state economist outlined a new, $577 million shortfall in the current, two-year budget — the result of continued hemorrhaging in income tax collections. Last month, the National Conference of State Legislatures released a report showing Oregon and Illinois as the only states projecting shortfalls at the end of the budget year that ends next summer.”

What happened to the money from the January tax increases? 

The January tax increase ballots provide a lesson, and will be a hot campaign issue this fall in Oregon. Read more here.

Welcome to our new commenting system.
  • You can register through your Facebook account, sign on with your Facebook password and use the same photo and screen name. If you don’t want your account tied to Facebook, you can keep your registration through our site.
  • You can now personalize your Journal Sentinel account with a photo even if the account is not tied to Facebook.
  • You can now reply to comments. Replies will be threaded to make conversations easier to follow.
  • You can continue to sort comments according to oldest first, newest first, and most thumbs up.
  • Your comments are archived on your own page.
  • Please notify us if you see personal insults or other irresponsible comments. We reserve the right to eliminate any comments and block any commenter who is not civil and respectful of others.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
  1. It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction.
    Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.
  2. As long as were reading economic articles I suggest we all read this one http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?
    It's by David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget and shows how the GOP has destroyed the economy over the last 30 years.
  3. As long as were reading economic articles I suggest we all read this one http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?
    It's by David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget and shows how the GOP has destroyed the economy over the last 30 years.
  4. Mr. Reagan - I didn't know you were still with us. Anyway - yes, I enjoy reading any such articles authored by experts, and appreciate the link. I will not, however, limit myself to just this one article. I enjoy reading the educated opinions of all experts on a particular topic.
  5. Padraig
    Would you believe Art Laffer? He is an economist, and here is an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal on the subject. http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html
  6. This would be a fine example of why increased tax rates do not result in increased tax revenue - if only all things were held equal. But they're not. Reading the article makes it clear that Republicans in Oregon are saying that increasing income taxes on the rich reduces tax revenue; and Democrats in Oregon are saying that the budget deficit would have been massively worse without the added tax burden on the rich. So who's right? Hard to tell, because the increased unemployment rate in Oregon - the major and real cause of the revenue shortfall - is not unlike the increased unemployment rate in other states that did not raise taxes.

    There is a plausible economic argument on both sides - and I would much rather listen to the reasoned explanations of economists than the predictable press releases of politicians.
Back to top

Page Tools

  • Share

advertisement