This appeared as an Op Edit in the Portland Business Journal on October 29, 2024.
Ballot Measure 118 is a well-intentioned, but naïve and misguided approach, to a very legitimate problem. The measure would impose a 3% tax on a business’s Oregon sales above $25 million, raising an estimated $6.5 billion a year. The resources would then be redistributed in the form of an annual check of $1,600 to every Oregonian—regardless of age or income.
I do not support BM 118 for several reasons. It is not means tested and, for many Oregonians, an additional $1600 dollars a year could push their income up enough to disqualify them from important public programs like health care, housing and nutrition. For example, a family of four earning 138% of the federal poverty level ($43,056/year) is eligible for the Oregon Health Plan. A family earning 139% of the federal poverty level ($43,368) is not eligible. The difference is $318 a year, or $26.50 a month.
My main opposition, however, is due to the fact that both proponents and opponents are talking over the real issue here: the fact that far too many Oregonian are simply unable to meet their basic needs—things like food, water, housing, child care and transportation. Giving every Oregonian $1600 a year is not going to fix that. And neither is simply defeating Measure 118 and pretending that this is not a serious problem.
The roots of this problem are complex. Some of it can legitimately be attributed to our tax code, as proponents of the measure are arguing. Some of it reflects our complex, centralized, and often paternalistic system of public agencies, programs and bureaucratic structures through which we seek to help people meet their basic needs. And much of it—I would say, most of it— is rooted in how we see our responsibility to one another as a community.
Regardless of whether 118 passes or fails, our state—the Oregon community—must have an honest conversation about all of these contributing factors Here’s why. In Oregon, over a million people (27% of our population) are living with incomes below 200% of the federal level. Fifty six percent of Oregonians earn less that 400%. The stress of this kind of economic insecurity is particularly damaging to pregnant women and families with very young children.
Brain science tells us that poor nutrition and maternal stress—both before conception and during pregnancy—can alter genetic expression in the unborn child, dramatically increasing the risk of poor cognitive functions, learning disabilities, mental health and substance use disorders and the early adult onset of many chronic illnesses. In short, the stress of chronic economic insecurity undermines every aspect of our society, from educational outcomes, to the quality of our workforce, to the health of our population.
When family income is persistently inadequate to pay the cost of basic needs, that family—and the children in that family—live with the stress of chronic economic insecurity. Think about it. Pregnant women, and very young children and their families, who struggle every day with the uncertainty of knowing whether they will be able to meet the most basic of needs—live in a crucible of toxic stress the undermines everything science tells us about what is necessary for healthy brain development in children. And the desperation associated with this kind of daily struggle, contributes to the social unrest and political polarization that is shredding the fabric of our community.
That is the problem we must address as a state, as a society and as a community. It is a problem that cannot be solved through a “silver bullet” statewide measure. Ballot measure campaigns are, by their very nature, divisive. They invite hyperbolic and simplistic rhetoric on both sides, from “Measure 118 would impose a massive $6.8 billion tax on sales in Oregon with no exemptions,” to “Pay yourself first, don’t leave $1,600 on the table.”
The real challenge, for both proponents and opponents of this measure, is to find both the courage and the wisdom to move beyond the polarization of the campaign, and join together to seek a long-term solution to the underlying problem that brought it to the ballot in the first place.
