Measures to fill budget gaps are tearing us apart

Besides the presidential race, and statewide races for office, Oregonians have important choices to make on their ballot this election.

Two of the most impactful are Measures 97 and 95, which address issues including education and economics across the state.

Measure 97, proposed by pro-education and public union forces, would remove the $100,000 annual tax limit on companies making more than $25 million in gross sales within Oregon.

These groups argue that Oregon’s state budget is chronically underfunded, and that schools, transportation, seniors and others are impacted. Measure 97 would remove this cap, which according to experts would generate about $6 billion in new state tax revenue per two-year budget cycle, which is nearly one-third the size of the Oregon’s current general budget.

If Measure 97 is approved, Oregon would be one of six states to have a business tax based on gross sales.

The Anderson Economic Group (a research firm that looks into economics, finance, market analysis, and public policy) released its 2016 “State Business Tax Burden Rankings,” which includes all 50 states and Washington D.C., ranking Oregon at No. 51 – dead last for the amount of corporate taxes paid.

Given that, supporters of the measure argue it’s time that large companies pay their fair share. They claim Oregon’s low graduation rates, large class sizes, poor health insurance enrollment, and high senior poverty rates are connected to the low taxes these companies pay.

Critics of Measure 97 say it’s way too big of a jump in the state budget. They note the measure doesn’t include explicit rules for spending, so the new tax money could be redistributed anywhere, not necessarily toward education or healthcare.

They also say that it won’t be just big, out-of-state corporations paying the cost of the high taxes: The trickle-down effect would impact smaller companies, and ultimately, consumers. The “No” campaign puts the new burden at $600 per consumer each year.

Measure 95 (House Joint Resolution 203), known as the Oregon Public University Diversification of Investments Amendment, would amend Oregon’s Constitution to remove a prohibition against public universities from “owning stock in companies, associations or corporations.” The measure would allow donations and foundation funds to be invested by the state’s seven universities into stocks and other “equities” in hopes of earning higher returns than now possible, but at some increased risk.

The change allowing schools this freedom has already been discussed and approved twice by the Oregon Legislature. The first time, it was discovered that to give universities this right, a change to the Oregon Constitution would be needed.

This prompted Measure 95. And although there could be some risk involved to schools, we at the Advocate agree this should be a possibility open to them to diversify their funding and to expand their budgets, perhaps minimizing tuition costs. It gives the universities another tool in their toolbox.

However, we feel that Measure 97 is not worth the risk. The measure isn’t worded in a way that guarantees the new funds go to the right place, and the cost to the average consumer could be just as bad as a regular sales tax. We say, vote “No” on Measure 97.