Measure 8

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

We teach on the campuses of the Oregon University System. We are concerned about the damage that Measure 8 would inflict on our universities, our state, and our students.

Since 1989, the cost of attending has risen beyond the reach of many. Measure 8 would make this bad situation even worse and would make Oregon's public universities less able to do the job Oregon expects of it:

• This measure would limit spending from all sources that support our institutions, including Federal dollars, tuition fees, gifts and other sources. Thus we could not use Federal funds for programs like agriculture to replace state funds.

• Because higher education funds are in the same pool as other state agencies, any increase in spending on higher education, even from private or Federal funds, would force cuts in other agencies. Yet the Oregon University System should be expanding for the growing number of graduates from Oregon's high schools.

• If applied in the 1999-2001 biennium, Measure 8 would require a 20.4% cut that would have to come out of space for students, new faculty, outreach services such as extension and com-munity education, and scientific research supporting Oregon's economy.

Mark Clark, Associate Professor, Humanities and Social Sciences, Oregon Institute of Technology*
John R. Cooper, Professor of English, Portland State University*
Arlene B. Courtney, Professor of Chemistry, Western Oregon University*
Jeffrey L. Johnson, Professor of Philosophy, Eastern Oregon University*
Gordon Matzke, Professor of Geosciences and Faculty Senate President, Oregon State University*
Jeffrey A. Myers, Professor of Geology, Western Oregon University*
Adele Schepige, Assistant Professor of Elementary Education, Western Oregon University*
Paul E. Simonds, Professor of Anthropology, the University of Oregon*

*Institutions are named for identification purposes only and do not represent positions on this measure by the institutions.

(This information furnished by John R. Cooper, Jeffery L. Johnson, Mark Clark, Gordon E. Matzke, Adele C. Schepige, Jeffrey A. Myers, Arlene R. Courtney, Paul E. Simonds; Professors United to Save Higher Education (PUSHE).)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

(This information furnished by Shannon Floyd, The Committee for Our Oregon.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The League of Women Voters of Oregon is a grassroots, nonpartisan organization which encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government. Since 1920, the League has worked to inform voters, improve our political process and strengthen our Democracy.

Measure 8 says it will be a "limit" on state spending. However, it probably will be nearly a $5 billion cut from the current level of services all Oregonians count on. Yet Measure 8 does not guarantee tax reductions. And if there are tax reductions, the bulk could go to higher income taxpayers, which is unfair to the majority of Oregonians.

Because it affects all state spending (not just that funded by Oregon state taxes), Measure 8's probable $5 billion cut would seriously impact adequate funding for:

Measure 8 could force Oregon to turn away hundreds of million of dollars in federal funding ­ dollars that Oregonians pay in federal taxes. This will not lower Oregonians federal tax bills, but will in effect force us to send our federal tax dollars to other states.

(This information furnished by Paula Krane, President, League of Women Voters of Oregon.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Business Council is an association of chief executives from many of Oregon's largest businesses. Its member companies employ 88,000 Oregonians and contribute billions of dollars into Oregon's economy.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 75 represents 20,500 of the working families that provide our communities with services such as health care, state corrections, and other public safety services.

We are very different organizations. But we thought that by joining together we could make a point:

Whoever you are, whatever you do, Measure 8 is a bad idea for Oregon.

Together, we share a vision of a great Oregon future:

• Diverse businesses providing quality jobs and a talented workforce able to perform these jobs well.

• Communities that are safe, caring and engaging places to live.

• Quality public infrastructure and services.

Measure 8 claims to be a limit on government. In fact, the practical effect of this measure would be to arbitrarily cut public services ­ even those that are largely supported by federal funds and dedicated fees. It is probable that the state would have to return hundreds of millions of federal dollars to Washington.

That would become, in effect, a contribution by Oregonians to the public services of other states.

(This information furnished by Duncan Wyse, President, Oregon Business Council; Ken Allen, Oregon AFSCME Council 75.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Like Measure 91, Measure 8 offers Oregon taxpayers little or no benefit, at a terrible cost to our schools.

Like Measure 91, Measure 8 will force a nearly 20% cut in state funding. When those cuts get to the local school level, there is no way to avoid significant impacts, including:

• Increased class sizes
• Old and outdated books and materials
• Lost programs like music and art
• Teacher layoffs

Oregon's school funding system mandates that the vast majority of funds come from the state. And the way Measure 8 works would not only make it against the law to replace that state funding, it would make it unconstitutional!

At the same time, Measure 8 doesn't offer any particular benefits to Oregon taxpayers.

Oregon School Boards Association

Oregon Education Association

Oregon School Employees Association

Confederation of Oregon Schools Administrators

American Federation of Teachers

(This information furnished by Ozzie Rose, Confederation of Oregon School Administrators; James Sager, Oregon Education Association; John Marshall, Oregon School Boards Association; Debbi Covert, President, American Federation of Teachers­Oregon; Ed Edwards, Oregon School Employees Association.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 8 is one of those measures that sound simple. Just a "limit" on government spending, that's all.

But what Measure 8 really does isn't simple. If you look just a little closer, you can see that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Measure 8 isn't a limit, it is actually a nearly $5 billion cut in the next state budget. This magnitude of cut is far too great to avoid significant impacts.

And your state income taxes are only about one-third of the money Measure 8 applies to. It also puts a cap on the billions of dollars we get in federal funds and from non-tax revenues. Instead of using those dollars for Oregon's critical needs, we will have to turn them away.

That won't lower your tax bill. It just means that more of your federal tax dollars will stay in Washington DC or go to other states.

Will it mean the end of the world? No, it won't. But it will change Oregon from the state we know today. And it will certainly put a halt to efforts to build a stronger, fairer, more prosperous future for all Oregonians.

There is plenty of room for Oregonians to disagree about the extent and role of government. There is plenty of room for Oregonians to disagree about taxes. But one thing we should all be able to agree on is that Measure 8 makes no sense for taxpayers, and it makes no sense for Oregon.

(This information furnished by John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

No one has a better view of Oregon's health than Oregon's nurses. We work in every area of the health care system, in every part of the state. We know first hand the importance of access to quality affordable health care, and what happens when that access disappears.

That is why Oregon's nurses so strongly oppose Measure 8.

Measure 8 will cause a nearly $5 billion cut in resources for critical services in Oregon. And nowhere will those cuts be felt more than in health care. It will in all likelihood force the discontinuation of the Oregon Health Plan, ending coverage for thousands of Oregon's most vulnerable families. But this is not just a problem for them: the resulting increase of uninsured visits to emergency rooms and hospitals by the uninsured will raise all of our insurance premiums.

In other words, Measure 8 would be costly to just about all of us.

And much of the cut in health care will not save us a dime in taxes! Measure 8 will force us to turn back hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds that pay for things like the Health Plan, Medicaid and even some Medicare programs.

(This information furnished by Martin Taylor, Nurses United: affiliated with the Oregon Nurses Association.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

As some of Oregon's most active seniors organizations, we urge seniors, and all Oregon voters, to VOTE NO ON MEASURE 8.

Even for those who believe in limited government, Measure 8 makes no sense:

• It offers no guarantee of tax cuts. And if there are tax cuts, very little will go to seniors or the middle class.

• It will force Oregon to turn back hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars in federal funding. This will not lower our federal taxes, but will give back money that is ours!

• The federal money that we will turn back largely goes for things seniors count on, such as health care, the Oregon Health Plan and even some Medicare funding.

• And Measure 8 will force a nearly $5 billion cut in the state's budget. That is just too big to avoid serious impacts on other things that all Oregonians count on, including schools, roads and public safety.

(This information furnished by Jim Davis, Oregon State Council of Senior Citizens, United Seniors of Oregon, Portland Gray Panthers, Oregon Advocacy Coalition of Seniors and People with Disabilities, Alzheimer Assoc., Oregon Trail Chapter.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

• Measure 8 Makes Deep Cuts in School Funding

• Measure 8 Hurts Students.

• Measure 8 Is Flawed.

• Measure 8 does not belong in Oregon's Constitution.

Martin Bronstein, elementary teacher
Corvallis

Carolyn Clontz, elementary teacher
Bend/LaPine

(This information furnished by Martin A. Bronstein, Carolyn Clontz.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

• They all offer little or no benefit to middle class Oregon taxpayers.

• They all hurt basic values and services that all Oregonians count on and care about.

• They are all vague or misleadingly worded, and filled with unintended consequences.

• They all amend the constitution.

• They don't add up, and they certainly won't work.

(This information furnished by Shannon Floyd, The Committee for Our Oregon.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Oregon's constitution is supposed to protect the citizens of Oregon. But Measure 8 would change our Constitution to do just the opposite.

Measure 8 says that it limits state spending. What it doesn't tell you is that it limits far more than what your state tax dollars pay for. In fact, it offers no guarantees of tax relief. What it doesn't tell you is that it will force Oregon to give back to the federal government hundreds of millions ­ even billions ­ of federal funding that is rightfully ours.

And what Measure 8 doesn't tell you is the impact it will have on schools and our children.

If this measure passes it would force the state to cut nearly $5 billion from the 2001-2003 budget. That is far more than we can cut without seriously impacting things we all count on.

If this measure passed, our state school budget would have to be cut by up to 20%. That would mean cuts to teachers, to textbooks, to computers, to school libraries to school counselors.

It would mean an increase in children per classroom. An increase in crumbling school facilities. An increase in problems with troubled children. An increase in illiteracy and learning difficulties.

And it would mean cuts to other things important to children: health care, services for at risk and abused children and more.

When we invest in our schools and our children, we are investing in our own future. Measure 8 will damage that investment ­ and all for little or no real benefit for taxpayers.

What sense would that make?

Kathryn Firestone, President
Lisa Laursen Thirkill, Vice president for Legislation
The Oregon PTA

(This information furnished by Kathryn Firestone, President, Lisa Laursen Thirkill, VP Legislation; Oregon Congress of Parents and Teachers.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Consumer League works to make sure that Oregon consumers receive fair and legal treatment in the marketplace. Products should be safe, and honestly presented.

If Measure 8 was a product being sold in a store, we would demand it was pulled from the shelves.

Limiting government may sound like a good idea in the abstract. But on closer look, Measure 8 really limits Oregon's future. And from a consumer's perspective, it is a terrible deal.

First we would be giving up millions, even billions in Federal funds--for universities, highway construction, health care and other valued programs. That's a product you won't receive, even though you have already paid for through your federal taxes. And you won't be getting that money back.

Next, we would be slashing our public services with a broadax--instead of a scalpel. If that still doesn't bother you, ask yourself what would happen if you had to slash your household budget more than twenty percent?

Then think of what public services you would cut--schools? Police? Fire? Highways? Higher education? Parks and recreation? Public safety? Air and water quality? Job safety? Food safety?

Oregon has the highest percentage of hungry children in the nation. Shall we offer them less help?

Do we cut the Oregon Health Plan? Taking away the health insurance coverage of thousands of Oregonians will end up raising insurance rates for the rest of us.

And to top it all off, we wouldn't just be putting this faulty, misleadingly advertised product in our cupboard: we would be putting it in our constitution.

(This information furnished by Jason Reynolds, Oregon Consumer League.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Seniors in Oregon would see a dramatic cut in services and funding if Measure 8 passes. Not only will Measure 8 create a huge hole in Oregon's budget, it would force Oregon to return HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in federal funds each year. Thousands of frail elderly and disabled Oregonians require state and federal assistance to pay for the nursing home and assisted living care they so desperately need. Protect Oregon's most vulnerable population: seniors, by voting No on Measure 8.

Measure 8 seriously threatens many services our government provides including funding for health care, police, roads, and education. In a time where these services are already under stress, Measure 8 would cut essential community programs and drive funding away from our kids and seniors.

Measure 8 would turn back federal taxpayer dollars that rightfully belong to us. Because Oregon receives federal matching funds for many programs, with this spending Oregon would not only see an unnecessary cut in state funding: Oregonians would take a DOUBLE hit by losing needed federal funding.

(This information furnished by James Carlson, Oregon Health Care Association.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 93 will force a vast number of individual fees on the statewide ballot. Many of those fees are willingly paid by industries, communities and individuals that rely on the services they pay for.

Without those fees, it could be impossible to sustain business, agricultural or professional activity that thousands of Oregonians count on for their livelihood.

Nowhere is that more of an issue than in rural Oregon. It doesn't make sense for city dwellers to vote on things such as: grazing fees, or fees that support vital agricultural research, or help support developing markets for Oregon products.

But that is just what Measure 93 will do: force people to vote on hundreds of specialized fees that they don't pay for, don't know anything about, and the loss of which will cause others to suffer.

(This information furnished by Shannon Floyd, The Committee for Our Oregon.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

It's Unclear, Has Unintended Consequences And Is Bad Public Policy

Fellow citizens:

As former judges, we have a deep respect for the State's fundamental governing document ­ the Oregon Constitution.

That is why we hope you will join us in voting No on Measure 8.

The Constitution establishes our basic system of government and protects our fundamental rights. Unlike a simple statute, it cannot be changed by the Legislature. Only a vote of the people can change the Constitution.

We believe that the Constitution should be reserved for matters of fundamental importance. We believe it is entirely inappropriate, and dangerous, to crowd the Constitution with provisions that could easily be dealt with statutorily.

That is especially true about Measure 8. Whatever one's opinion of limiting government spending, Measure 8 is broad, vague and filled with unintended consequences. Even the proponents seem unsure of its ultimate effects. With a high likelihood of the meaning of the measure having to be settled in court, voters cannot even be sure what they will be voting for. Locking such a measure in our Constitution makes no sense.

We happen to disagree with Measure 8 as a matter of policy. It will force Oregon to turn back federal funding, while not lowering our federal taxes. It will force cuts that will undermine services such as schools, health care, social services and public safety.

But even if we agreed with Measure 8 as a matter of policy, we would believe placing it in the Constitution is wrong.

We hope you will join us in voting "No."

(This information furnished by The Honorable Jacob Tanzer, The Honorable Betty Roberts.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Children First for Oregon is the statewide voice on behalf of Oregon's over 800,000 children. We believe that who we are as a people, now and in the future, depends upon our commitment to the well being of children.

That is why Children First for Oregon asks all Oregon voters to vote No on Measure 8.

Measure 8 will require a nearly $5 billion cut in the entire state budget. While this will seriously impact almost every area of our state's life from transportation to state parks, no group will feel that impact more than Oregon's kids.

• Measure 8 will hurt Oregon's K-12 schools, with impacts including increased class sizes, loss of programs and other classroom cuts.
• Measure 8 will cancel the health insurance of thousands of children and families.
• Measure 8 will slash investment in our universities and community colleges ­ so important for preparing young people for successful careers.

Measure 8 hurts some of our most vulnerable kids. When we invest in children, we invest in ourselves ­ our neighborhoods, our economic well being and our future. Don't throw away that future.

(This information furnished by Marie A. Hoeven, Children first of Oregon.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 8 would strangle Oregon's public universities. Measure 8 puts a cap on all state spending, regardless of the source of the funds. For our universities, this includes tuition, dorm and food service income, research grants and contracts, and gifts from alumni. How could we operate if these non-state tax sources were cut severely, in order to get total state spending under the cap?

Measure 8 doesn't work for Oregon. Oregon's public universities receive more than $175 million each year to conduct research vital to Oregon and the nation. Our researchers are studying wheat, metals and advanced materials, tree diseases, software engineering, salmon habitat, and hundreds of other areas of
scientific inquiry important to Oregon and our quality of life. They are supported by federal, foundation, or other funds. If all of these research funds don't fit under the state spending cap, what don't we study, and what Oregon industry gets hurt?

Measure 8 hurts Oregonians. Oregon public universities award more than 13,000 degrees each year, in teaching, engineering, agriculture, social work, criminal justice, forestry, and many other subjects. How can we continue preparing Oregon's educated workforce, if tuition, room and board, and all the other non-tax revenues in our budgets are restricted because of the cap on all state spending?

David Frohnmayer President, U of O *  Paul Risser President, OSU * Daniel Bernstine President, PSU *  Betty Youngblood President, WOU*

Don VanLuvanee President, Oregon State Board of Higher Education * Tom Imeson Immediate Past President Oregon State Board of Higher Education* Joseph W. Cox Chancellor Oregon University System*

* Titles used for identification purposes only, and do not constitute a position on this measure by any institution of the Oregon University System or the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.

(This information furnished by Shannon Floyd, The Committee for Our Oregon.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

If you've read the fine print of Measure 8, you have probably figured out that there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

Or maybe, it's a lot less.

Measure 8 talks about "limits," "appropriations" and "percentages." But what it doesn't have is any guarantee that you will get anything out of it in tax reductions.

And because it will cut nearly $5 billion out of things we all count on and care about, all Oregonians will pay a price for that, in our economy, in our quality of life and our ability to keep Oregon a great place to live, work and grow.

But as a coalition that works for some of Oregon's most vulner-able citizens, we thought it was important to point out a few of the people who will feel a particular impact.

You see the authors of Measure 8 did not include in the text of the measure anything about taking health insurance away from thousands of children, pregnant women, seniors and working poor families.

Or cutting in-home living assistance for seniors.

Or cutting back on reimbursements to the foster parents of abused children.

But that's a pretty good description of what Measure 8 does.

And the irony is that the federal government pays for much of those services. But while it won't cut a dime of Oregonians' federal tax bill, Measure 8 will force us to give that money back.

It doesn't make much sense.

But that's what it means.

(This information furnished by Gina Mattioda, Co-Chair of HSCO.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Let's consider the facts. This measure would limit all state expenditures, even those that are paid for by the Federal Government, such as financial aid for college tuition. It would also include faculty research funding paid for by industry, and donations given by Oregonians to support scholarships and college athletic programs. No matter how hard colleges and universities work to seek private support for programs, they would be forced under an arbitrary and capricious cap of 15% for all state government expenditures.

That is a ridiculous policy and it will hurt Oregon's economy.

Measure 8 could mean that Oregon would turn back Federal funds for important programs like higher education. That won't save you or us a dime, but could send Oregon tax dollars to other states.

We urge a no vote on Measure 8. It just doesn't make any sense.

(This information furnished by Gary D. Salyers, Chris Groener, Marjorie Terdal, Roger Capps, Joan C. Johnson, Denise Duncan; alumni of Portland State University.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Recreation & Park Association and the Oregon Parks Association, organizations representing over 500 professional members that provide park and recreation services throughout the state, strongly urge our fellow Oregonians to VOTE "NO" on Measure 2.

Supporters of Measure 8 say it is a limit on spending. But what they don't tell you is that it will limit far more than just tax dollars. The limits will extend to federal funds, lottery funds, fees paid by out-of-state tourists and other non-tax revenues ­ that's unfair to Oregon taxpayers and it is a serious threat to our parks.

Oregonians are rightly proud of our nationally renowned system of state parks. Our parks are an important part of our quality of life, and a tourism industry that is vital to the economic well being of thousands of Oregon families.

For years, however, Oregon has deferred reinvesting in the infrastructure of our State Park System. For the first time in a long time there is the hope of reversing that trend, largely because of lottery funding, fees paid by park users, gifts and federal grants. Measure 8 will limit our ability to utilize those funding sources and it may prohibit us from pursuing the acquisition of new parks and the refurbishment of older ones.

Measure 8 is not what it seems. Even if you believe in limited government, or want to see tax reductions, Measure 8 doesn't deliver what it promises. And all Oregonians will pay the price.

(This information furnished by Stephen A. Bosak, Oregon Recreation & Park Association, Oregon Parks Association.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Business Association joins with Oregonians from all over the state who have united in opposition to Measure 8. Urban and rural Oregon, business and labor, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, seniors and young families with kids in school ­ folks from all walks of life are saying "Measure 8 is wrong for Oregon!"

MEASURE 8 IS ANTI-OREGON

Measure 8 will force billions of dollars in cuts to Oregon's quality of life, hurting health care, hospitals, K-12 and higher education, public safety, senior and disabled services, transportation, natural resources, and nearly all human services now available to the people of Oregon.

Measure 8 is a poorly crafted, shortsighted, shot-in-the-dark initiative that dramatically distorts the truth. The Oregonian called it "lying with statistics." (The Oregonian, Editorial, 8/27/00)

Measure 8 will force Oregon to send back billions of dollars in federal funds Oregon is entitled to receive or make even deeper cuts to health care and hospitals, schools, public safety, and other services.

Tom Kelly
Chair, Oregon Business Association

Lynn Lundquist, Former Oregon Speaker of the House
President, Oregon Business Association

(This information furnished by Tom Kelly, Chairman, Lynn Lundquist, President; Oregon Business Association.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Please join me in voting NO on Ballot Measure 8. Measure 8 is not tax relief and it is not tax reform. It is a poorly drafted measure that will cripple the state's ability to provide vital services. Measure 8 will cut more than $5 billion from the state budget, money that Oregon needs to fund basic services like education, public safety and healthcare.

Measure 8 would not only force devastating cuts in the state's budget, it would also force the state to return hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars to the federal government. This is money that rightfully belongs to Oregonians, money that we pay in federal taxes that would not be returned to us and instead go to other states.

Measure 8 would devastate our public schools. At a time when Oregon's dropout rate is one of the highest in the nation and our schools are overcrowded and in disrepair, we don't need another constitutional measure that would further harm our children and deny them the quality education that they deserve. Measure 8 will cause massive teacher layoffs, increased class size and a reduction in Oregon's standard of education.

Aside from the devastation to education, Measure 8 would damage the state's credit rating. Estimates show that a single drop in the state's credit rating would cost Oregonians more than $400 million in increased interest costs. That is money that we could be spending on education or healthcare.

This irresponsible measure endangers the financial stability of our state, threatens our healthy economy and restricts our ability to fund education and other essential state services.

Measure 8 is another example of special interests groups trying to impose their dangerous, narrow-minded views on the rest of Oregon. Please keep this measure out of our constitution and join me in voting NO on Measure 8.

Jim Hill
Oregon State Treasurer

(This information furnished by Jim Hill, Oregon State Treasurer.)

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 8 is a bad idea, because it's passage would hurt Oregon's most vulnerable citizens: Measure 8 will cut billions of dollars in essential financial support for programs like the Oregon Health Plan, which provides health coverage to Oregon's children and neediest citizens. Other important health-related programs will be severely harmed as well: health care services to seniors, the disabled, and programs for the blind will all be hurt if Measure 8 passes. These are the programs that are most important to all Oregonians, because they provide care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Measure 8 is a bad idea, because it goes too far: If adopted, Measure 8 would cut $5.7 Billion dollars the next state budget. In addition to health care cuts, large cuts to Oregon's education system will be likely, and public safety programs like police, fire and prison would face potential cuts. In fact, it's likely that if Measure 8 passes, nearly every state program will be subject to deep cuts in funding.

Measure 8 is a bad idea, because it changes the Oregon Constitution: Measure 8 proposes a drastic and arbitrary cut to Oregon's essential programs. Worse, it changes our Constitution, leaving our elected officials powerless to fix the problems it will create.

(This information furnished by Ken Rutledge, Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.)
Arguments in Favor

Explanatory Statement

State Measures

Table of Contents