Maybe not for long though. With the passing of Measures 66 and 67, voters in Oregon enacted by popular vote the increase of income taxes for those who reside in the top 3% (income > 250,000$/year) and the increase in minimum corporate tax for most businesses (which for decades meant most businesses paid a measly 10$/year in corporate taxes). The revenue generated by this increase (slated at roughly 727$ million) is meant to go towards public education, health care and other social services and was included in the Oregon State Legislature’s current budget.

The folks who railed against this increase saw their narrow interests overwhelmed by progressive populism – the argument for the tax increases relied upon stressing how many people would be negatively effected by the budget shortfall if the measures failed, particularly schools and students who faced the threat of having to cut 3 weeks worth of school days.

Coming on the heels of Democratic losses in a Massachusetts special election, many were quick to jump to enormous conclusions over what this means, and were keen upon drawing parallels between the two special elections. The bravado of the statements made after the Oregon election was much more reserved than those made by pundits after soon-to-be-Sen. Scott Brown’s victory, which included the brilliant analysis by David Gergen of CNN who opined “This is not the time to go out and crusade for liberal causes”.

As a matter of fact though, the two elections are completely tangential to one another, owing to the specific conditions in each coastal state. As to the Oregon vote’s larger interpretation, I think the Nation’s Katrina Vanden Heuvel got it right when she wrote:

“The campaign wasn’t about class warfare, or taking on the banks as evil beasts (though there’s nothing wrong with that!), it was about progressive taxation, an art form in economic policy that has somehow been lost over these many decades. It’s worth remembering that under President Eisenhower the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent.”