Jason Atkinson: Taxes & Spending

Before I tackle Jason Atkinson's opinions about Taxes & Spending (according to the 2000 NPAT), a note on interest group ratings. Project Vote Smart (PVS) lists several areas of interest, and compiles the candidate's voting record as compared to the preferred positions of various interest groups.

I tried to look into those areas by going to each interest group's website and reading their Legislative Scorecard (where available). I quickly found it a waste of time, because those groups are going to warp the issue to fit their narrow focus. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's near impossible to get perspective without reading each bill in its entirety (not gonna happen) and understanding what the bill does (sometimes difficult). For the record, Atkinson voted in line with the Taxpayer Association of Oregon 100 percent of the time in2002 & 2003.

Also, a note of admission: Taxes and spending are not my forte. I'm learning, but there's a reason I got a Bachelor of Arts degree instead of a BS — no math, and almost no economics. There are plenty of people out there who hold more knowledge about these issues in their little finger than I have in my whole body.

TAXES:
First, PVS asks about 10 different taxing areas and whether Atkinson would increase, decrease or maintain the current levels. (Obviously, some of the current levels are different than they were five years ago.) Atkinson would maintain the current levels of taxation on:

• Alcohol taxes
• Cigarette taxes
• Corporate taxes
• Gasoline taxes
• Property taxes
• Vehicle taxes

He would "Greatly Decrease" the taxation levels on income taxes; he's given the opportunity to differentiate between incomes below $75,000 and above $75,000, but calls for lower income taxes regardless of income level.

He would eliminate capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes.

These priorities make sense to me, both because some taxes are basically non-negotiable (property) and some of his perspectives come down to fairness. Inheritance taxes are killers to small businesses, which provide the bulk of the country's jobs. Also, I've long been bugged by the liberal war against the wealthy, as if they don't pay their "fair share." If I earn $100,000, I pay nine thousand dollars to the state of Oregon in income taxes; if I earn $10,000, I still pay the same percentage, but that's just nine hundred dollars. Talk all you want about the amount of income that's left, or about how the wealthy can afford to pay more, but the fact still remains that the wealthy pay plenty in taxes.

In light of recent revelations about Portland General Electric's miniscule state income tax payment, I'd like to ask him again about the corporate tax; as a small business owner, however, I approach that issue with a huge amount of caution.

The survey also asks a series of questions. In them, Atkinson opposes:

• Internet taxes
• Creating a health care trust fund with the tobacco settlement
• Funding schools with a portion of that settlement
• Increasing gas taxes to pay for road repairs

He supports:

• A flat tax for state income taxes
• Returning any operating surplus to taxpayers (AKA the Kicker)
• Allowing a state tax deduction for federal income taxes over $3,000 per couple

He is undecided on two issues:

• Placing any operating surplus into a "rainy day" fund
• Replacing the weight-mile truck tax with a diesel gas tax

With the recent push for the rainy day fund, that would be a good question to ask again, particularly how it ties in with the Kicker law. The question about a flat tax is kind of a joke, because the only people who pay less than 9 percent on their state incomes are those who earn less than $6,500. The last time I earned less than $6,500, I was a poor college student working part-time in a minimum wage job.

SPENDING:
This is the only area that concerns me a bit, but it's sufficiently vague that it's tough to gauge. Atkinson is given the opportunity to increase, decrease, or maintain funding in seven different areas.

He calls for "Greatly" increased funding for higher education, and favors "Slightly" increased funding for K-12 education and law enforcement. He wants to "Maintain" funding levels in the areas of Environment, Health care, Transportation and Highway infrastructure, and Welfare.

None of those are necessarily bad on their face, but with no tax increases and no spending decreases, I'd be interested to hear a) if he still holds these persectives; and b) how that translates to a budget.