Fewer families making more that $500,000 annually does not prove flight of the wealthy but what we have been arguing all along-the economy only works for the super rich. If hard times have come to the upper middle class how do they think everyone below them is doing?

While these measures are a start to correcting the horrible economic wrongs that exist in our society they are just a beginning. We must continue to move toward real change that will make a difference for all working people

For a better description and more comprehensive analysis of the WSJ article check out the links below.

In Solidarity
Wesley Buchholz

http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/12/facts-and-logic-go-missing-again-wall-street-journal-editorial/

http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/or_wsjmigration_1210.pdf

The message to the legislature is that average citizens are no longer content to balance the budget on the backs of working people or suffer reduced critical services so that the wealthiest 3% of our population and corporations can maintain their privilege. Business interest and corporate lobbyist mounted an expensive campaign filled with misinformation and scare tactics to try and frame these measures as “job killing”. Voters across the state recognized these inaccuracies and voted to tell these special interests that they are not exempt paying their fair share. The financial responsibility for protecting our schools, ensuring in home care for the elderly and keeping our communities safe and providing public services (like those performed by members of Local 483) belongs to all of us and must be shared equitably. The voices of voters across the state agreed that we need a more responsible plan to move Oregon forward.

Most telling in this victory are the poll results that demonstrate this choice was not driven by Multnomah and Lane counties alone. Historically the bastions of liberal politics these two entities did vote strongly in favor –Multnomah 71% vs. 29% and Lane 64% vs. 36% but were joined by the following;
Clatsop-55% vs. 45%
Columbia 52% vs. 48%
Hood River 56% vs. 44%
Lincoln 58% vs. 42%
Marion 50.14% vs. 49.86%
Polk 50.32% vs. 49.68%

Both Jackson and Coos counties had yes votes totaling more than 45% of voters as well.

It is clear that communities across the state recognize that we are in an economic crisis and are unwilling to loose critical services so the wealthiest can be sustained. The passage of these measures does not level blame for these difficult times but demonstrates solidarity among Oregonians all across the state. Middle and working class citizens want all to know that the responsibility for supporting essential services belongs to all of us and that these very modest increases are not a harhship for the people and corporations who have benefited from years of conservative politics.

A special thanks to all who helped make this victory happen by canvassing, phone banking and talking to your families, friends and co-workers. Together we will always make a difference.

In Solidarity
Wesley Buchholz

Time and again the responsibility for maintaining the cost of our social fabric-schools and teachers, care for the elderly and sick, fire and police the services we need to have an even reasonable quality of life-is shifted to the population most affected by the economic crash. The economy that collapsed was not created by working people, on the contrary it is our work, sweat and tax dollars that bailed out the creators. It’s time for Oregon’s corporate elite and wealthiest citizens to step up.

Measures 66 and 67 will ensure a bit of equity be introduced to help cover the services that compromise 90% of the state budget. This attempt for fairness is being framed by the well funded business lobby as an attempt to ruin small businesses and drive what is left of the local economy over the nearest boarder to a friendlier tax environment.  Guess what it’s not true, for the real deal on the made up numbers being used to convince people these measures are death to small businesses check out the links to Vote Yes for Oregon or Oregon Center for Public Policy.

A well financed campaign based on mistruths and misleading information is a powerful tool but can’t match the power of one on one conversation. Talk to your co-workers, your neighbors, members of your congregation and neighborhood groups. Better yet volunteer at a phone bank or on a door to door canvas. People talking straight to people is how we defeat this anti middle class and working family rhetoric. We need an economy that works for those who contribute the most. Ballot measures 66 and 67 will begin to correct the current inequity by requiring corporations and the wealthiest Oregonians to contribute to the services that support all of us.

Yes on Measures 66 and 67. Talk it up!!

Experts Debunk Claim That Tax Measures Would Cost Jobs
Tax Policy Center calls arguments “misleading” and “fatally flawed”

(Silverton) — The central argument by opponents of Measures 66 and 67, that the measures will cause Oregon to lose jobs, is “without merit,” according to experts at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. They said the claim rests on “misleading analysis” and “fatally flawed assumptions.”

The Washington, D.C.-based center picked apart the work of Oregon economists Randall Pozdena and William Conerly, who have argued that raising taxes on high-income Oregonians and corporations would cause the state to lose tens of thousands of jobs. Opponents of Measures 66 and 67 — funded by banks, big corporations and rich individuals — have added together the upper limits of Pozdena’s and Conerly’s estimates and trumpeted the total as the centerpiece of their campaign.

“The Tax Policy Center’s analysis shows that the campaign against Measures 66 and 67 is relying on phony job numbers shoddily cooked up by hired-gun economists,” said Chuck Sheketoff, executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. “No matter how many times they are repeated, the job-loss claims aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.”

OCPP requested the analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. The center is staffed by nationally recognized experts in tax, budget and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

Tax Policy Center co-director Roseanne Altshuler and senior associate Kim Rueben conducted the analysis. A former professor of economics at Rutgers University and former editor of the National Tax Journal, Altshuler has served on a presidential tax reform panel and advised congressional committees and foreign governments on tax matters. Rueben is an adjunct fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California and specializes in issues of state and local public finance.

Altshuler and Rueben concluded that Pozdena, a senior economist at the ECONorthwest consulting firm, “wrongly” based his job-loss estimate on an international study of the impact of corporate tax changes. Not only are the findings of that study “irrelevant” in the case of industrialized countries such as the U.S., but they are inapplicable to corporate tax changes at the state level.

The tax policy experts also criticized Pozdena for failing to take into account the economic impact of losing federal dollars, a likely outcome should the tax measures fail at the ballot box. Without the revenue from the tax measures, Oregon would be forced to cut spending, which in turn would deprive the state’s economy of federal matching funds.

Other economists have similarly noted the importance of federal dollars. They include 36 Oregon economists who issued an open letter in October endorsing the tax measures and economists at the nonpartisan Oregon Legislative Revenue Office.

Altshuler and Rueben also reviewed and rejected the claims by Conerly, a self-employed consulting economist and chair of the board of Cascade Policy Institute, who has argued that raising Oregon’s top marginal income tax rate on wealthy Oregonians would lead to job losses. They noted that a 2005 analysis by the Tax Policy Center’s then co-director Len Burman had shown that Conerly’s economic model employed “fatally flawed assumptions.”

“Burman knew better than anyone that Conerly’s model was defective because, among its faults, Conerly’s analysis misrepresented Burman’s own research,” said Sheketoff, who in 2005 asked Burman to review the Conerly model.

At the heart of Conerly’s current job-loss claim is the assumption that taxes harm the business climate, a supposition rejected by the Tax Policy Center experts. As did Burman, Altshuler and Rueben said that a state’s attractiveness to individuals and businesses depends on many factors, including the quality of public services.

“To thrive, businesses and Oregon families need good schools, job training programs, small-business support centers, courthouses that are open Monday through Friday, cops on the beat and many other public structures,” said Sheketoff. “Protecting public structures that Oregonians and businesses rely on every day is the goal of Measures 66 and 67. It’s why Oregonians need to vote ‘yes’ in January.”

Without the revenue raised by the measures, the Oregon legislature in all likelihood would be forced to cut education, public safety and health and human services, which together make up about 93 percent of the state’s General Fund budget. The fiscal shortfall caused by the recession has already forced cuts in those three areas.

The measures “are reasonable responses to the unprecedented drop throughout the nation in state tax revenues due to recent economic crisis,” Altshuler and Rueben said. “We believe these measures will help ensure that Oregon has sufficient revenue to maintain essential services including spending on education and health care.”

Sheketoff hoped that the Tax Policy Center’s analysis would prompt voters and the media to scrutinize more closely the claims made by the “no” campaign.

“The stakes are very high in this election,” said Sheketoff. “Oregonians need to base their vote on the facts, not numbers trumped-up for the benefit of the big business lobby.”

The Oregon Center for Public Policy is a non-partisan research institute that does in-depth research and analysis on budget, tax and economic issues. The Center’s goal is to improve decision making and generate more opportunities for all Oregonians.

Here are some reasons you should vote yes on Measures 66 and 67:

It’s Simple: Corporations should pay more than $10 in Oregon income taxes

Like the rest of the country, Oregon is feeling the hurt of this financial crisis. Because over 90% of the state’s budget goes to education, health care, and public safety, this crisis could have a major impact on vital services.
The plan:
–Increase the $10 corporate minimum income tax for the first time since 1931. The new minimum will start at $150.
–Increase the marginal tax rate on corporate profits above $250,000 by 1.3% (above $10 million in 2013)
–Increase the marginal tax rate on personal income above $250,000 for couples by 1.8%
97.5% of taxpayers will NOT see their taxes increased
What does it mean? A corporation making $260,000 in profit will pay an extra $130 in taxes (1.3% of the $10,000 above $250,000). A corporation declaring no profits will pay a minimum tax of about one tenth of one percent of Oregon sales. A couple making $260,000 in taxable income will pay an extra $180 (1.8% of the taxable income above $250,000).

These reforms protect nearly $1 billion in vital services like education, health care and public safety. These funds preserve class sizes, save jobs for teachers, provide seniors with in-home care, and provide health care for thousands of Oregonians through the Oregon Health Plan. In this time of economic crisis, we must protect those who have been hit the hardest–seniors, children and the unemployed–without putting more of a burden on the middle class.

The resolution states: “The experience of Medicare (and of nearly every
other industrialized country) shows the most cost effective and equitable
way to provide quality healthcare is through a single-payer system.” It
continues: “We reiterate our longstanding call for congressional leaders
to unite behind such a plan.”

Resolution 34 singles out HR 676 as one of a number of single-payer bills
introduced in Congress and states: “The single-payer approach is one the
AFL-CIO supports and that merits dedicated congressional support and
enactment.” The Resolution concludes by stating: “Whatever the outcome
of the current debate over health care reform in the 111th Congress, the
task of establishing health care as a human right, not a privilege, will
still lay before us.”

The Convention adopted Resolution 34 after a thirty minute debate in which
12 delegates spoke in favor of the resolution and a number of delegates
who wished to speak were still standing at the four floor microphones when
the time allotted to debate ran out. No one spoke against the resolution.

Those who spoke for the single payer resolution included three members of
the AFL-CIO Executive Council, the Presidents of two state AFL-CIO
federations, four Presidents or Executive Officers of Central Labor
Councils, a high ranking official of the AFT who was chosen to speak in
favor of the resolution by the AFT caucus and delegates from AFSCME and
ILWU.

Rich Trumka, in his speech to the delegates immediately after being
elected President of the AFL-CIO the following day, reiterated his support
for single payer healthcare telling the delegates: “Now, I know that a
lot of us would prefer a single payer plan. I sure would.”

Over 70 resolutions, an unprecedented number, were submitted to the
Convention calling on the AFL-CIO to endorse single payer healthcare.
More than 575 labor organizations, including 136 Central Labor Councils,
22 international and national unions, and 39 state AFL-CIO’s have endorsed
HR 676, single payer legislation which has 87 sponsors in the House of
Representatives. #30#

Distributed by:
All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care–HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551
Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http://unionsforsinglepayerHR676.org
09/17/09

Dear Friends,

I am writing to you on behalf of the 340,000 members of the National Union
of Public and General Employees (Canada) about the scurrilous
misrepresentations of Canada and our single-payer health system in the
debate over the future of health care in the United States.

We applaud you for reopening the national discussion of health care reform
in the U.S. There are various policy proposals on the table and you’ll
have important decisions to make in the months ahead. As legislators, it’s
critical that you use the best available evidence to inform your
decisions.

Unfortunately, rather than a true debate about its merits, Canada’s
single-payer system, and by extension Canada’s reputation, has been the
victim of a multi-million dollar tidal wave of special-interest propaganda
and scare tactics. You need to know that an objective examination of the
evidence reveals that Canada’s single-payer health system is the triumph
of values and economics.

Our system speaks volumes about the character of our nation. It provides
all Canadians with equal access to care on the basis of need, not wealth
or privilege or status. Previous generations understood that sickness
doesn’t discriminate and they made the collective moral decision that
health care shouldn’t discriminate either. It was a courageous initiative
by visionary men and women that changed us as a nation and cemented our
role as one of the world’s compassionate societies. We will always defend
the proud legacy we have inherited from previous generations of Canadians.

Indeed, Canadians today still strongly support the core values on which
our system is premised – equality, compassion and solidarity. In fact, our
Medicare system is now tied to our understanding of citizenship. More than
just a social program, Medicare to us represents a birthright and an
identifying mark of “Canadian-ness”. It is, we believe, the clearest
reflection of who we are and what we value.

But more than that, our single-payer system is, quite simply, a good and
sensible idea that serves Canadians extremely well. The overheated
rhetoric and outright falsehoods that you’ve heard about the quality and
viability of Canada’s system simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

When it comes to health outcomes, on almost every critical measure,
whether it is life expectancy rates, infant mortality rates, or potential
years of lost life, Canada rates much better than the U.S. and we’re among
the best in the world. Notwithstanding the “real life” stories you’ve
heard in TV ads launched by the group Patients United Now, a very strong
majority of Canadians who use the system are highly satisfied with the
quality and standard of care they receive.

In terms of controlling costs, health spending in Canada is on par with
most countries in the Western world and it’s substantially lower than in
the U.S. And yet we devote a smaller portion of Gross Domestic Product to
health care today than we did over a decade ago. It’s totally unthinkable
to Canadians to experience bankruptcy due to medical bills, as do over one
million Americans every year. Unlike in the U.S., not a single Canadian
who is unemployed has lost the ability to access health care during the
current economic recession.

In addition, our single-payer system provides both small and large
businesses in Canada with a clear competitive advantage. Employers don’t
have to provide basic health care for their workers – our single-payer
system does that. Our businesses also enjoy the benefits of a healthier
and more productive workforce thanks to our universal system. Unlike in
the U.S. where basic health care is a major source of labour relations
strife, it’s hardly an issue at the bargaining table in Canada. We also
enjoy greater labour mobility because workers who don’t have to worry
about losing health benefits are more willing and able to switch jobs and
move to where the work is.

Finally, what you’re being told about government-run health care with
patients suffering and dying on wait lists is nothing but lies. No need
for emergency or urgent care is ever neglected in Canada. If your doctor
says you need the care urgently, you get it, period. Moreover, Statistics
Canada reports that the median wait time for elective surgery is four
weeks and the median wait time for diagnostic imaging like MRIs is three
weeks. And contrary to popular myth, we’re free to choose whatever doctor
we want. And all decisions about care and treatment are left to patients
and their doctors – there’s no interference by the government or private
insurance companies.

An objective review of the evidence shows that Canada’s single-payer
system has consistently delivered affordable, timely, accessible,
comprehensive and high-quality care to the overwhelming majority of
Canadians on the basis of need, not wealth. It has also contributed to our
international competitiveness and the productivity of our workforce.

Times of great need, we are told, are the times when true leaders emerge
and display the ability to separate fact from fiction and the courage to
set aside political agendas for the sake of the common good. The challenge
facing health care reform in the U.S. demands that kind of ability and
courage from each of you.

I would be pleased to speak or meet with you at anytime, or if you’re
interested we could arrange a “study mission” to Canada, to ensure you
have an accurate picture of the benefits and popularity of Canada’s most
cherished social program. Please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

James Clancy
National President

In Solidarity

House Vote on State Option TODAY
for Single-Payer Healthcare

Congress member Dennis Kucinich of Ohio will be introducing an important single-payer amendment today, Thursday – the House healthcare reform bill.

The Kucinich amendment which gives states the right to pass and implement state-based single payer plans and will ensure the federal rules waivers required to allow that innovation. It will benefit millions of Americans – from California to Pennsylvania to Illinois to New York and beyond.

While not stepping away from our shared fight for HR676 and national single-payer reform, this is a chance for nurses and patients to help Rep. Kucinich to press the single payer fight forward during this legislative session.

Please make your call immediately as a vote is expected to be held today.

We have built strong support in California for state single-payer reform, having passed it in the legislature twice, and in other states including Pennsylvania and Illinois so we can win going through the states.

Single payer remains the best way to provide healthcare for all – and the most effective way to improve quality of care and control costs.

Now is the time for us to contact Democratic members of the House Education and Labor Committee to support the Kucinich amendment. Please call now.

Call the Chair of the Committee, George Miller, at: (202) 225-3725

Calls are also needed to five of the key Democratic members of the Education and Labor Committee where Rep. Kucinich will offer his amendment, especially if you are a resident of their district or state.

Rep. Dale Kildee of Michigan: (202) 225-3611
Rep. Susan Davis of California: (202) 225-2040
Rep. David Wu of Oregon: (202) 225-0855
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York: (202) 225-5516
Rep. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii: (202) 225-4906

Here’s a sample of what to say:

“Hello, My name is __________, I urge the Representative to vote YES on Representative Dennis Kucinich’s state-based single-payer amendment to the Education and Labor Committee’s healthcare bill.”

If you are a resident of their Congressional district, be sure to say that as well.

Together we can win. Thanks for joining in this action.

Healthcare Justice!

California Nurses Association
National Nurses Organizing Committee
2000 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612