Look For The Union Label ... Measure 50 in Oregon

I probably could have titled this article "Why I Am Not A Union Member", but the other was more to the point.

I work on a University campus in Oregon, and when I was hired in 1996 I was given a choice. I could either join the union, or I could become a "Fair-Share" employee. Essentially, the difference was that (a) I was a Union Member and could vote on issues, or (b) I paid union dues, but had no voice.

Of course, there was always (c) - if I was a Union Member and the Union called a strike, I was bound to respect their picket lines. Or face 'penalties'.

I chose (b). I don't agree with the liberal politics of the union, so I don't care to be associated with them more than is required by the (unfair) requirements of "Fair-Share" ... which takes $x out of my paycheck every month.

This month there is a state-wide Issue on the November ballot called Measure 50. Friday, I received a flyer from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) encouraging all Union members and "Fair-Share" employees to vote YES on the measure.

Here's what the (local 503) Union website (supported by the World Socialist Web Site) had to say about Measure 50:

Health Insurance for all Oregon Children
117,000 Oregon children don't have health coverage. They don't get necessary health care services, and are more likely to end up in emergency rooms or require more expensive treatments. Measure 50 is a fair and accountable way to provide our kids the health coverage they need.

Measure 50 Funds Health Care. Over 70% of the new cigarette tax revenue will fund the Healthy Kids Program. The rest goes to other health programs, including health clinics, tobacco prevention, and health coverage for 10,000 low-income adults.

As Employers Reduce Health Coverage, Oregon's Working Families Pay the Price:

• More than 80,000 Oregonians have lost their employer provided health insurance int he past four years
• As health care costs rise, more employers are either reducing coverage or shifting the costs to employees and their famililes

Kids can't wait! Kids should be at the front of the line when it come sto helth care. Let's protect the most important resource Oregon has ... our kids!

What they barely touch upon:
This measure would result in an increased tax on tobacco products to pay for this program. Not all Oregonians would pay for it ... only tobacco users. The flyer states that "70% .. would fund the ... program". The rest would go for 'other uses', including "tobacco prevention".

It doesn't mention that, as a result of a federal suit some years ago, Oregon has been receiving MILLIONS of dollars from the Tobacco industry ... supposedly to pay for "tobacco prevention" programs as well as to compensate for health-care costs which are directly imposed on the state as a result of uninsured tobacco users who incur medical costs which they cannot pay and which are absorbed by 'the state'. (More likely, picked up by health-care providers which are already required to pay for the medical care of 'indigent' patients ... such as Illegal Aliens.)

The State has not reserved these funds for the expressed purposes. Instead, it has included the funds in the "general fund", which could well be used (and has been) for 'any' purpose.

Now they want to impose a new tax to provide medical care for 'the children', who are generally supposed NOT to be 'tobacco users'.

A twenty-five cent pack of cigarettes now costs $4.40, because of the "Sin Taxes" added at the unilateral behest of Federal and State taxes.

Unanswered is the question: "What does Child Health Care have to do with adult Tobacco Users? If the concern is Child Health Care is at such a critical state, why should tobacco users foot the bill?"

What they aren't mentioning AT ALL:
The purpose of the bill isn't just another attempt to add another tax in Oregon. The State has attempted to add new tax revenue (including both Tobacco Taxes and a State Sales Tax ... Oregon is one of only TWO states which does not impose a Sales Tax on its citizens, and every time the legislature attempts to impose a Sales Tax it is voted down, and The State fulfills its threats by cutting back on Essential Services such as Police staffing).

No, Measure 50 doesn't JUST impose another tax. Instead, it proposes a constitutional amendment which would allow The State to impose a "Special Tax" on a consumer product.


Imagine, for comparison, a measure to enact a Constitutional Amendment to establish a tax on Mascara. This is a consumer product which is used only by a narrowly defined subset of the citizenry. Presumably, those who use excess mascara (harlots, professional models, actresses, Katherine Harris if she should move to Oregon) would only be affected and would be obliged to sacrifice for the benefit of another, unrelated minority.

Should we blithely accept this measure ... this constitutional amendment ... because the cost would only be borne by the 'unsavory element' of the voters?

This is the "Tyranny of the Majority", as John Stuart Mills defines it, at its worst.

More important, acceptance of this approach would impose a burden on a minority which is acceptable only because they are a minority.

Most important, it would lay the groundwork for other, even more egregious impositions on minority populations for the benefit of measures which are not generally accepted, and which have failed all other tests of the popular vote.

Fatuous, pernicious pusillanimous politicians. I detest them politically, and I detest their tactics both as a matter of personal and political preference.

Within the next week I will write to the local chapter of SEIU and require that they return all funds of my "Fair-Share" which are earmarked for political activism.

I have been acquiescent long enough.

What a bunch of Maroons!