Countable Political News @countableus - Tumblr Blog

Two Major Bush Administration Bills Were Enacted on This Date (and Clinton Voted For Both!)

October 26 proved to be a busy date for President George W. Bush during his time in office.

In 2001, he signed the PATRIOT Act into law on October 26 and five years later, he signed the Secure Fence Act as well. Both pieces of legislation are still being debated in Congress and on the campaign trail in 2016. How should the federal government balance national security and Americans’ privacy? Is a fence (or wall) the best way to secure the U.S. border?

Click here to learn more about the PATRIOT Act and tell your reps what you think →

Click here for more information on the Secure Fence Act and contact your members of Congress →

#George W. Bush #border fence #patriot act #history #otd

Congress Required a 700-mile Fence to be Built on the Southern Border 10 Years Ago

On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law, to secure the southwestern U.S. border and prevent illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The law required the U.S. government to construct 700 miles of fencing along the border and add new surveillance by both federal agents and technology.

A decade later, the border fence is still incomplete and the debate around its necessity is as heated as ever. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made its completion a central pillar of his campaign.

Why did it come up?

The idea of building a border fence wasn’t initially part of Bush’s plan to reform America’s immigration policies. He had preferred to increase enforcement, while creating a guest-worker program to reduce the need for individuals to enter the U.S. illegally, and offering unauthorized immigrants already in the country a path to citizenship.

But going into a midterm election year, Republican lawmakers controlled both chambers of Congress and decided to pass legislation to secure the border before Election Day. In the House, the bill passed on a 283-138, party-line vote with a majority of Democrats voting against the bill. Things were a little more bipartisan in the Senate, which passed the bill on a 80-19 vote with the support of 26 Democrats, including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who will take over as the Senate Democratic leader next year.

What did it do?

The Secure Fence Act required the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) to “achieve operational control of the border” by using a combination of fencing and other technology. It called for 700 miles of double layered fencing in five segments stretching from Tecate, California to Brownsville, Texas.

In areas with rugged terrain and/or hills with slopes of 10 percent or greater, fencing wasn’t required and the law allowed for those sections of the border to be secured by other means, such as by aerial drones, cameras, satellites, etc.

The bill also designated priority areas for fencing and surveillance systems to be put in place, and set deadlines for the completion of projects in those areas. It required DHS to build an interlocking camera system from Calexico, California, to Douglas, Arizona, by May 30, 2007, and to complete the fence for that segment one year later. DHS was also required to complete the fence near Laredo, Texas by December 31, 2008.

What has its impact been?

For starters, the fence was never finished. This was due to a combination of factors, primarily a lack of funding and a change in the political landscape. Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, and after providing about $1.5 billion for the project in 2007 (the last fiscal year during which the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House) funding began to decline under the Democratic Congress. That trend continued when President Obama took office, who gave a 2011 speech saying: “The (border) fence is now basically complete.” That claim was rated as “mostly false” by Politifact.

While the government has built 652 miles of fencing on about one-third of the southern border, only 36 miles of it is double-layered, as required by the Secure Fence Act. Nearly 300 miles of that total is vehicle fencing (think standalone, waist-high metal posts meant to stop cars), which means that those parts of the border are still very accessible to people on foot.

Trump has called for an “impenetrable physical wall” to be built along the U.S.-Mexico border, which he made point number one in his 10-point immigration plan. His Democratic rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, has said that “we do need to have secure borders and what that will take is a combination of technology and physical barrier.”

Tell your reps

Congress has introduced a bill to prevent DHS from spending money on new facilities until the border fence is completed. Is the fence an integral part of any border security plan, or would building it be a waste of resources? Use our advocacy tool below to tell your rep and senators what you think!

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Kimberlee Hewitt / Creative Commons)

#border fence #border security #secure fence act #George W. Bush #otd #history

The PATRIOT Act Became Law 15 Years Ago

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act (better known simply as the PATRIOT Act) into law. The controversial legislation expanded the authority of the federal government to use surveillance technologies in order to prevent future terror attacks in the wake of 9/11.

(If you’re wondering about what the bill’s full acronym stands for, here it is: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. What a mouthful!)

Since its enactment, the PATRIOT Act has been the focal point of a debate between the need for personal privacy and for national security. While many of its original provisions are still in effect, civil liberties advocates have fought successfully for reforms in recent years.

Why did it come up?

Following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people, the American people and their lawmakers were deeply concerned by the threat of terrorism. The anthrax attacks that began one week later, only added to those concerns.

What did it do?

Members of Congress quickly drafted the PATRIOT Act as a response by combining three existing anti-terrorism bills. The package received a vote in the House just one day after it was introduced on October 23. The House passed the bill with bipartisan support on a 357-66 margin. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill 98-1, with now-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voting in favor. Then-Sen. Russ Feingold (R-WI), who is running for Senate again in Wisconsin this year against Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), was the lone dissenter in the upper chamber. President Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law the following day.

The PATRIOT Act contained 10 sections that were all related to counterterrorism in one way or another. It included provisions aimed at improving domestic security and surveillance, stopping money laundering, securing the border, redefining how criminal law treats acts of terrorism, and improving the nation’s ability to gather intelligence.

The surveillance sections made wiretaps more broadly available through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (or FISA courts), which were to be used to gather “foreign intelligence information” from Americans and non-U.S. citizens. The law broadened the definition of what information could be collected to include internet addressing and routing information and voicemail, while a related section allowed for the bulk collection of Americans’ communications. The law also authorized any district court judge in the U.S. to issue surveillance orders and search warrants in terrorism investigations.

The surveillance sections of the bill also authorized “sneak and peek” warrants, which allowed authorities to delay notifying the subject of a search warrant that a search had occurred. They also authorized law enforcement to use “roving wiretaps,” which focus on a specific person, rather than a device, allowing authorities to track suspects that may change phones.

What has its impact been?

Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act were initially supposed to sunset in 2005, but Congress reauthorized most of them in their original form in 2006. That set up another reauthorization battle in 2011, this time with President Obama in the Oval Office. Ultimately, Congress and Obama allowed roving wiretaps, surveillance against a non-citizen “lone wolf” terrorist, and court-approved seizures of records and property to continue. The 2011 reauthorization, however, did impose new limits on “sneak and peek” searches and subjected applications for roving wiretaps to a more rigorous approval process.

But the pressure to reform the surveillance program ramped up in 2013, after Edward Snowden leaked classified memos describing the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection programs. Later that year, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) — who introduced the original PATRIOT Act — brought up a new reform bill dubbed the USA FREEDOM Act. The Senate didn’t bring it up for a vote during the 113th Congress, so Sensenbrenner introduced a modified version of the bill in 2015, hoping for a better result.

The 2015 version of the USA FREEDOM Act reinstated roving wiretaps and “lone wolf” surveillance, which lapsed for a total of one day due to Congress’ inaction. But it also reformed the NSA’s bulk data collection programs, following public outcry after the Snowden leaks and a high-profile filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Tell your reps

Should the PATRIOT Act have remained unchanged, like some members of Congress proposed? Should it undergo further reforms or be repealed altogether? Use our advocacy tool below to let your rep and senators know what you think!

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Kimberlee Hewitt / Creative Commons)

#patriot act #George W. Bush #otd #history #privacy

Early Voting Numbers Look Good for Dems, GOP Works to Save Two Senators and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. The Big Story: “What the Early-Voting Numbers Are Telling Us”

Early voting “appears to be up significantly as compared to 2012, and that is with 34 of the 37 states with real early-voting opportunities having already received votes.” No ballots have been counted, but several of those states — including some major battlegrounds — at least report which party early voters belong to. The data so far shows that “Republicans are leading in absentee ballots returned in Florida and North Carolina, but not by the margins they had in 2012,” which is good news for Democrats as both states begin early in-person voting which tends to favor candidates with Ds behind their names. But the GOP seems to have the advantage in Iowa, where early voting numbers for Democrats are running behind 2012, and Ohio, which doesn’t report party affiliation for early voters, but has seen a drop in early voting “in the big urban [read: Dem-leaning] centers of Cleveland and Columbus.”

“Somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of voters in the 2016 general election will cast ballots before November 8.”

Read more at Politico.

4. “Poll: Respect for Police Near All-Time High”

Seventy-six percent of U.S. adults say “they have ‘a great deal’ of respect for their local police,” according to a new Gallup poll. That’s “a 12-point jump since last year and just one point shy of the all-time Gallup high in 1967.” Gallup found an increase among both whites and non-whites from last year’s poll, with 80 percent of white Americans now “saying they have ‘a great deal’ of respect for local law enforcement, compared with 67% of non-whites.”

Read more at Politico.

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

2. “Facebook co-founder drops unprecedented cash to stop Trump”

Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz surprised Democrats with $35 million, an unexpected cash infusion that “significantly altered the short-term financial position of the pro-Hillary Clinton forces and revealed a previously unknown source of cash for Democrats.” The donation from the “deeply private 32-year-old” has “puzzled Democrats in Washington and Silicon Valley” wondering whether Moskovitz could finally be their answer to GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson or whether “his unparalleled cash infusion [is] a non-replicable, one-off response to Donald Trump.”

Read more at Politico.

3. “Trump lands first major newspaper endorsement”

Donald Trump received his first endorsement from a major newspaper on Saturday, when the Las Vegas Review-Journal threw its support behind the GOP nominee. "History tells us that agents for reform often generate fear and alarm among those intent on preserving their cushy sinecures," the paper wrote. The LVRJ is owned by Adelson.

Read more at The Hill and check out the full editorial here.

4. “Ex-[Pennsylvania] attorney general sentenced to jail, then cuffed in court”

Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) “was sentenced Monday to 10 to 23 months in jail for illegally disclosing details from a grand jury investigation to embarrass a rival and lying about it under oath.” Kane was considered a possible contender to run against Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) this year, but declined.

Read more at Countable.

— Sarah Mimms

Image via Flickr

How Can a Presidential Candidate Contest the Results of the Election?

Donald Trump said during Wednesday night’s debate that he couldn’t guarantee that he will accept the results of the November 8 election, but would have to “look at it at the time.” Trump has repeatedly warned in recent months that the election will be “rigged” and added on Thursday that he’ll accept the results “if I win.”

While close elections have led to court battles and recounts, once the results have been finalized, no presidential candidate in U.S. history has contested the result.

But if a candidate on either side believes that the election results aren’t legitimate, what can they do about it?

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

They have to go to the states

CNN’s Steve Vladeck, who is also a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, broke down how to contest an election on Thursday. As Vladeck notes, a presidential candidate cannot contest the results of an election at the national level, they have to go state-by-state. That’s because the electoral system in this country is largely left up to the states and controlled by local secretaries of state and other elections officials.

Any question about the validity of election results would have to be run through state courts, individually for any area where the results are questioned. Potentially, these fights could make their way all the way up to the state supreme court.

But Vladeck points out that these cases are unlikely to make it to SCOTUS. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the 2000 election was highly unusual and it was based on the Court’s feeling “that the unique manner in which the Florida state courts had ordered a manual recount violated the U.S. Constitution.” The public wasn’t a huge fan of SCOTUS getting involved in that case, Vladeck writes, and given that the Court is one-justice short it’s “highly unlikely” that they’ll get involved in the 2016 election.

There is a timeline

There’s a federal law, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, that requires that states certify their election results “within 35 days of the election” in order for their votes in the Electoral College to count, Vladeck writes. In close elections, many states have their own laws that require recounts to determine a winner if, say, there’s a 1 percent difference between the candidates. That has to be done within that 35-day timeline, barring a legal challenge to extend the deadline.

And it’s important to remember that on election night, the numbers that the states are reporting aren’t final. Typically, they still have batches of absentee ballots and provisional ballots (those cast by voters whose eligibility to vote has to be confirmed after-the-fact) that need to be counted. Generally, the winner is clear enough that those ballots wouldn't make a difference. But in a really close election in a particular state, those ballots can be pivotal and a candidate can sue in state court to make sure that they’re counted (or not).

Not every state will matter

Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates aren’t necessarily competing to win more states or the popular vote, they’re racing to get to 270 electoral votes. So even close races in some states won’t make a difference in the final outcome of a presidential campaign and pushing back on those results would be pretty meaningless.

Vladeck points again to the 2000 race, in which George W. Bush and Al Gore fought over the results in Florida even though the race was even closer in New Mexico. Florida had enough electoral votes to change the outcome, New Mexico didn't.

What happens if no one gets to 270?

Then it goes to the House, where each state (not each representative) gets one vote for president and whoever has the majority wins. Given the political divisions of the congressional delegations in purple states like Colorado, those could be some really fascinating back-room discussions. Thanks to the 12th Amendment, only the top three presidential candidates can be considered by the House.

Currently Republicans make up the majority of 33 delegations, Democrats control another 13, while four state delegations are evenly divided. However, it’s not the current Congress that would be casting their votes, as that responsibility would fall to the newly elected Congress.

The newly elected House take on electing the president and the Senate would vote on a vice president before January 20. But if they haven’t resolved things by then, the Senate could choose a VP first so the country wouldn’t be indefinitely leaderless while the House figures out who the president will be. In the Senate, they don’t have to vote by state; each senator would get his or her own vote.

This has actually happened three times in U.S. history, Vladeck notes, in the elections of 1800, 1824 and 1876. In 1800, the House chose Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr, after taking 36 different votes. John Quincy Adams was selected over Andrew Jackson in 1824. And in 1876, Congress declared Rutherford B. Hayes the winner in three states where the results had been disputed, making him president, even though he lost the popular vote by three percentage points and had been behind in the Electoral College count as well.

What happens if there are still problems when all that is over?

Once the states have certified their results, ballots have been recounted, absentee and provisional ballots have been tallied and any court cases seeking recounts or throwing out ballots have been resolved, that’s pretty much the end of the ballgame — at least if you look back at U.S. history. A candidate who contests the results at that point “would be unprecedented in American history,” Vladeck writes.

— Sarah Mimms and Eric Revell

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Maryland Voters Could Impose Party Affiliation Requirements for Filling Vacant Statewide Offices

When elected officials in significant positions like the state attorney general or a senator vacate their post, the governor who is tasked with a replacement often has to make an appointment to fill the vacancy. The Maryland legislature decided earlier this year to limit their governor’s options when filling vacancies in the Senate to people in the same political party as their predecessor. This November, Maryland voters will decide whether or not to add those requirements for the attorney general and state comptroller as well.

What the Referendum Does

This referendum would amend the state constitution to require the governor to fill a vacancy in the office of the state attorney general or the state comptroller with a replacement from the same party as the person who previously held the office.

The departing office holder’s political party would provide the governor with a list of three names from which to choose a successor within 30 days. If the party doesn’t offer suggestions within that timeframe, the governor would be able to choose any qualified individual who is registered with the same party as the person who previously held the office.

The constitutional referendum will appear on Maryland ballots on November 8 as “Question 1.”

In Favor

The governor shouldn’t have the ability to subvert the will of voters by appointing a replacement attorney general or comptroller from a different party than the person who previously held that office.

Opposed

The governor should have the discretion to appoint a replacement attorney general or comptroller with the best available candidate, rather than being limited to only choosing someone from the same party.

In Depth

Earlier this year, Maryland’s legislature created a party affiliation requirement for filling vacancies in the state’s two U.S. Senate seats. Because that was only a change to Maryland’s election laws, rather than a constitutional amendment, a referendum wasn’t required to enact the Senate requirement, meaning that voters won’t get a say on it in November. The legislation as a whole is known as HB 260.

To put this on the ballot for voters, the legislature had to pass HB 260 with a 60 percent majority in both chambers. The House passed the bill 89-49 in March 2016 while the Senate followed suit 33-13 several weeks later, setting up the referendum.

While it isn’t clear how many states have similar laws on the books for filling vacant partisan offices, at least two other states — Indiana and Oregon — require that replacements must be a member of the same political party as the predecessor for at least some statewide positions.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Flickr user Fort Meade)

#maryland #election 2016 #political parties #appointments #attorney general #comptroller

Here Are the Actual Issues from the Final Presidential Debate

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrapped up their final, contentious debate Wednesday night. While the cable news talk today is largely centered on Trump’s refusal to say if he will accept the results of the election, which is now just 18 days away, the two candidates also discussed some pretty important issues that are worth taking a look at.

Who won the debate?

Vote in our survey and let us know who you think won: Clinton or Trump?

Tell your reps

Check out the issues below and click through to learn more, vote and tell your reps what you think. Passionate about something the candidates skipped over? Use the tool below to tell your members in Congress why it matters to you.

SCOTUS

Both candidates were asked Wednesday night what they'd look for in a Supreme Court nominee. That's a key question, given the current vacancy and the fact that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy are both over 80 years old. Clinton said that she would seek justices who support rights for LGBT Americans and women, and who would oppose the Court’s Citizen’s United decision (more on that later). Trump, meanwhile, said he would look for conservative justices who support the Second Amendment and are pro-life.

Trump also addressed some negative comments that Justice Ginsburg made about him earlier this year, arguing that the Supreme Court should stay out of presidential politics. Congress is considering legislation that would give SCOTUS a “code of ethics,” which would in part prohibit justices from engaging in political activity. Should Congress pass it?

Clinton also said Wednesday that the Senate should confirm President Obama’s current nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Do you agree?

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

Entitlements

The candidates were also asked during Wednesday’s debate to discuss their plans for entitlement programs and how they would save Social Security. Clinton suggested that she would raise taxes on the wealthy by raising the cap for contributions to Social Security in order to save the program. Congress is considering a similar move. What do you think?

Trump didn’t address entitlements directly, but called for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the law is raising healthcare costs across the board.

Abortion

Abortion was a major topic at Wednesday night’s debate, with Clinton calling for additional protections for the procedure, while Trump pushed for a ban on late-term abortions. Clinton said that she supports the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, while Trump said that pro-life SCOTUS justices under his presidency would likely overturn the decision, but return the right to make decisions about abortion policy to the states.

Should Congress ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy?

And should federal funding, including dollars from federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, be used for abortions?

Immigration

Clinton and Trump went back-and-forth on the issue of immigration, with Clinton arguing in favor of Obama’s executive actions allowing children brought to the U.S. illegally to stay, as well as the undocumented parents of citizen children. Trump, meanwhile, emphasized border security, with a plan that starts with building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border before moving on to figure out what to do with the illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. But Trump argued that it was “unfair” for Clinton to allow people who entered the U.S. illegally to stay, while many others are going the legal route and waiting in line for the same opportunity.

What do you think? Should Congress cut funding for Obama’s executive actions protecting children who were brought to the U.S. illegally and the parents of citizens? Tell your reps.

Citizens United

Clinton brought up the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision on Wednesday night, which made it legal for unions and corporations to participate in politics and elections through outside groups like super PACs and dark money organizations.

Clinton argued that Citizens United has “undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money” to influence elections. Trump didn’t address the court decision directly in Wednesday night’s debate. Throughout the campaign, Trump has been incredibly critical of the influence that wealthy individuals and outside groups have over the political system, but he has not said whether that translates into a desire to overturn Citizens United or some other kind of campaign finance reform.

What do you think? Should Congress pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision? Tell your reps!

Voters in both Washington state and California will have the chance to vote directly on overturning Citizens United in November.

— Sarah Mimms

Image via C-SPAN

Who Won the Final Presidential Debate?

#qp_main854190 .qp_btna:hover input {background:#00355F!important} #qp_all854190 {max-width:815px; margin:0 auto;}

Who won the final presidential debate?

Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump

Scientists Stumble on Possible Climate Change Fix, U.S. Hits Major Voter Registration Milestone and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. The Final Presidential Debate Starts at 9pm EST

Tonight’s your last chance to catch Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing the issues in a live, presidential debate. The two candidates will face off on Wednesday night from 9-10:30 pm EST at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Read more and live stream the debate at Countable.

You can also follow us on Twitter for live updates and explainers about the actual issues discussed in tonight’s debate.

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

2. “Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol”

Scientists in Tennessee accidentally “discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. ... The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.”

Read more at Politico.

Are you one of those 200 million registered voters? Register to vote and tell your friends to register as well right here!

4. “Two Americans Killed in Attack on Base in Afghanistan”

Two Americans, one service member and one civilian, “were killed and another two were injured when a gunman opened fire on a base used by foreign troops” in Kabul, Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by a man in an Afghan army uniform, according to the Afghan Defense Ministry.

Read more at Politico.

— Sarah Mimms

Oregon Voters Could Increase Taxes on Businesses’ Sales

Oregon is one of only five states in the country without a sales tax and since the 1930s, voters there have rejected imposing one on consumers nine times. This November, Oregon voters will have an opportunity to weigh in on “the largest tax increase in state history” when a different type of sales tax — that instead taxes a business's total sales above a certain level — appears on the ballot.

What the Initiative Does

This initiative would increase the minimum corporate tax on gross sales that exceed $25 million by imposing an additional 2.5 percent tax on sales above that threshold. Tax revenue generated by the tax would be intended to fund education, healthcare, and senior services (more on that later). It has been estimated that it would raise taxes annually by $3 billion.

Currently, corporations in Oregon pay either a minimum tax on sales of 0.1 percent, or 6.6 percent on taxable income up to $1 million and 7.6 percent on income above that threshold (whichever is greater). That tax structure would stay in place for sales under $25 million, even if this initiative passes.

It should be noted that the tax would be imposed on gross receipts (or total sales) rather than on profits, like most corporate income taxes.

The initiative will appear in Oregon ballots on November 8 as “Measure 97.”

In Favor

Oregon has been facing budget shortfalls for years and this initiative would bring in much-needed tax revenue to fund education, healthcare, and senior services. Big businesses need to pay their fair share to fund these priorities, and while it’s possible that these taxes will be partially passed on to consumers, average Oregonians would gain more than they lose.

Opposed

A tax increase like this will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices for the everyday products they buy. This ballot measure is misleading about how tax revenue will be spent because funds will go to the general fund rather than going for education, healthcare, and senior services directly. So, lawmakers in Salem could pass laws to spend it in other areas.

In Depth

Proponents of Measure 97 have said that funds from the tax increase would go to funding education, healthcare, and senior services. But when lawyers for the legislature were asked whether funding would be restricted to those areas, they said that it “would not bind a future legislature in its spending decisions… the legislature may appropriate revenues generated by the measure in any way it chooses.”

The Oregonian reported that economists for the state legislature and Portland State University said businesses would likely pass this tax to consumers in the form of higher prices for things like groceries, energy, and gasoline — among other items. They estimated that households earning less than $21,000 per year would lose $372 annually to the tax, while those earning between $103,000 to $137,000 would lose $868 per year. The economists also said that while the tax increase wouldn’t lead to layoffs, it would probably reduce hiring by the private sector while the public sector would use the tax revenue to hire more employees.

According to Legislative Revenue Officer Paul Warner, the tax increase would be the largest in the state’s history in terms of dollar amount, though it’s unclear whether it would be when measured as a percentage increase in tax revenue collected.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Flickr user ChrisHConnelly)

#oregon #election 2016 #sales tax #Business #consumers

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Countable Political News