Doing your taxes? Don't forget the $3 checkoff!
This year, when you do your 2009 taxes, there's another opportunity to do something small to help combat the power of big money in our politics.
We political junkies call it the "Check for Democracy" or the "Klonoski check-off" (in honor of UO prof and former DPO chair Jim Klonoski) - but the state calls it the Political Party $3 Checkoff.
Thanks to 2009's HB 2004, here's how it works:
When you're filling out your taxes using the two-page Form 40 (pdf), you can donate $3 to the political party of your choice through your taxes.
To do it, hust fill in the code for the political party of your choice (and/or your spouse or domestic partner) - and then write in $3 (or $6) as a donation.
To donate to the Democrats, write in the number 501. Here's the full list:
500 Constitution Party of Oregon
501 Democratic Party of Oregon
502 Independent Party of Oregon
503 Libertarian Party of Oregon
504 Oregon Republican Party
505 Pacific Green Party of Oregon
506 Progressive Party
507 Working Families Party of Oregon
Even if you donate regularly to a political party - and to candidates of your choice - participate in the $3 checkoff, and help create momentum for voluntary grassroots campaign finance reforms. (And hey! Oregon tax form designers! How about including it in the Form 40S next year so everyone can participate?)
Learn more at CheckForDemocracy.com - or through the Facebook page.
|
February 8, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (1 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Who Dat!
What a thrilling Super Bowl last night. The onside kick. Brees with 32 completions. And Sean Payton making some of the gutsier calls seen in a Super Bowl.
How much fun do you think New Orleans had last night?
It was a win larger than football, and anyone who's spent any time in the Crescent City can tell you how much the Saints are part of the their culture.
This was a big weekend for New Orleans, and for politicos, celebrations didn't just start last night. On Saturday, the city elected a new mayor in a landslide unprecedented in modern city politics. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor-elect, is a politician to watch. For those rooting for the city from afar, it's exciting to see the coalition the campaign assembled and the potential for Landrieu to help get the city back on track.
|
February 8, 2010 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (3 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The Davis-Tapogna Revisionist History
The official election results are not even available yet, but pollster Adam Davis and the Oregon Business Council’s economic advisor John Tapogna are already attempting to rewrite the history surrounding this momentous election.
In an op-ed in The Sunday Oregonian, they write
As a tax analyst and pollster, respectively, we saw dozens of politically viable alternative tax packages that would have raised a little less money, expired when the economy recovered and wouldn't have launched a multimillion-dollar brawl. But instead the Legislature pushed through permanent taxes, business pushed back, the nasty ads were run, and the reservoir of public trust has been diminished.
Really? “Dozens” of proposals? All “politically viable?” None of which would have led to “a multimillion-dollar brawl,” also known as a referendum?
Hogwash.
During the legislative session, the business community wasn’t even in agreement about how (or if) to raise revenues. There were at least two camps – the Oregon Business Association and the Associated Oregon Industries-led Alliance of Oregon’s Business Associations. And the latter group didn’t have an agreed upon plan to distribute to lawmakers, according to AOI lobbyist J.L. Wilson. After the legislative session ended, I asked Wilson for a copy their revenue plan. He said none existed because it “was never formally endorsed by the respective associations.”
Governor Kulongoski correctly noted in an OPB story aired today that the business community is “spread out over a number of different trade organizations and the dilemma is that they never speak with a consistent voice about anything.”
But you don’t have to take my word or the Governor’s word for it. Let Davis and Tapogna show us.
If what they wrote is true, Davis and Tapogna should have no problem providing BlueOregon readers with what they claim they saw: A copy of the “dozens” (i.e., not less than 24) of particular proposals presented to the legislature that would have been "politically viable."
To demonstrate that those “dozens” of proposals were “politically viable,” Davis and Tapogna must also:
1. Provide evidence that the “dozens of measures” would have garnered the necessary supermajority needed to pass in the legislature.
2. Provide evidence – something substantive – that those dozens of proposals would not have been referred to the ballot by the likes of those who put Measures 66 and 67 on the ballot: FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, Associated General Contractors, the Oregon Home Builders, the Oregon Bankers Association and the chief petitioners for Measures 66 and 67.
3. Provide the polling questions and results that back up their claim that those dozens of proposals were politically viable with voters — a tall order for sure, since the business-backed revenue proposals that the Legislature rejected would have enacted across-the-board tax increases for Oregon’s beleaguered middle class, as well as low-income residents, and would have asked much more of businesses, especially small businesses.
My bet is that Tapogna and Davis can’t and won’t provide BlueOregon readers with these proofs of their claim that there were “dozens of politically viable alternative tax packages that would have raised a little less money, expired when the economy recovered and wouldn't have launched a multimillion-dollar brawl.” I’d love them to prove me wrong.
Davis and Tapogna conclude,
Our only hope to navigate these challenges is if those who see a legitimate role for government -- a majority of both elected officials and the business community -- quickly turn the page on this regrettable chapter.
I am one of those who recognizes the legitimate role for government and who would like us to move forward in strengthening our public structures, like Oregon’s rainy day fund, that will create a more prosperous and fiscally healthy state.
But moving forward is difficult when the business community continues to whine and the likes of Davis and Tapogna spin revisionist history of better plans ignored.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org
|
February 8, 2010 |
Chuck Sheketoff | Comments (8 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
A Choice in Salem: Tax dollars for working families struggling to make ends meet or for wealthy venture capitalists?
The legislature is working under a tight timeline to complete important business during a month-long special session. The economy and what’s been happening to Oregon’s workers are rightly taking center stage.
The House and Senate revenue committees will see lots of action, as we all know that those committees – not the appropriating Ways and Means Committee – are the big spenders. They decide the fate of tax credit subsidies and special exemptions and deductions – tax expenditures – which collectively exceed appropriations by Ways and Means and local governments.
While some legislators apparently still refuse to face reality and admit it in public, the legislature’s job was made a heck of a lot easier by Measures 66 and 67. Now Republicans and Democrats alike can focus on setting priorities for helping get Oregonians back to work and helping those who are struggling.
So, who should get the priority help from the revenue committees and taxpayers during these tough economic times? The revenue committees are faced with a stark choice.
On one hand you have a coalition of over 90 social service organizations, local governments, small businesses, unions and faith community organizations. They’re asking the legislature to increase Oregon’s support for struggling working families with children by increasing the state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Oregonians for Working Families wants the state EITC increased from the current 6 percent of the federal EITC to 18 percent of the federal credit, and they have a proposal to phase in the 12 percentage point increase in the EITC over four years (PDF). They point to the fact that the gas tax is scheduled to increase next January, adding to vehicle fee increases that already went into effect. Like the fees, the gas tax increase will hit low- and moderate-income households the hardest, making Oregon’s total state and local tax structure more regressive (PDF).
On the other hand you have a group of venture capitalists who want Oregon to set up a state New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC). There is already a federal credit for 39 percent of “qualified” investments in “low-income” community projects, and under that credit Oregon’s been doing quite well compared to other states on a per capita basis. The new Oregon New Markets Tax Credit would match the federal credit dollar for dollar, for a total credit of 78 percent, starting July 1, 2011.
The NMTC is essentially a giveaway to wealthy venture capital investors, some based out of state, who specialize in funding real estate developments (think The Nines hotel in Portland). It is being promoted here by Advantage Capital Partners, a Missouri-based venture capital firm represented in the Oregon capitol by the Campbells of The Victory Group. Advantage’s website touts the “excellent investor returns” available to its clients.
I guess so. What investor wouldn’t love a project where they would be risking only 22 percent of their capital but benefiting from 100 percent of the income if they succeed in getting an Oregon tax credit subsidy?
While advocates for low- and moderate-income working families with children would be content with an earned income tax credit equal to 18 percent of the federal credit counterpart, true to stereotype the venture capitalists want the whole enchilada — 100 percent of the federal tax credit — for their profitable ventures.
Two things the proposals have in common are that the hit on the state’s finances wouldn’t occur until the next two-year budget period and that both would cost the state about the same amount (roughly $33 to $36 million).
The legislature may be hard-pressed to reject these proposals just because they commit Oregon to spending in a future budget period, given that they are primed to extend a sunset on the we-can’t-control-or-accurately-predict-the-costs BETC tax credit past next biennium.
It is safe to assume that the 2011-13 budget period isn’t expected to be so flush with funds that the revenue committees this session would commit to both the New Markets credit and the EITC on top of BETC that they are extending. If they were going to pick only one, who would you rather help with your tax dollars — working families struggling to make ends meet or wealthy venture capitalists looking to squeeze even more profit from an already generous federal tax credit subsidy?
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org
Make Bob Tiernan Pay!
All day today, Portland's lite-rock station K103 is running a radio-thon fundraiser for the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Oregon. Make-A-Wish, of course, is the organization that grants wishes to children with life-threatening illnesses. They provide hope and happiness to children and families that need it most.
Anyway, Bob Tiernan - the chairman of the Oregon Republican Party - just called in to the radio-thon and pledged $500. Tiernan told Make-A-Wish that if Democrats called in and made donations that totaled in excess of $500, he'd match the Democrats dollar-for-dollar.
So, folks, this is our chance: Donate to a worthy cause - and empty Bob Tiernan's wallet. All of us, combined, can surely put a little hurt on Tiernan's bankroll. One man vs. the Oregon progressive grassroots? We can do this.
Make your donation by calling Make-A-Wish at 503-598-9474. More info here. All donations stay right here in Oregon and Southwest Washington.
And remember, this is key: Tell 'em you're a Democrat calling to match Bob Tiernan's donation.
I'm in for the first $100. Who's with me? Whether you've got $5, $50, or $500, let's bring Tiernan to his knees.
|
February 5, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (45 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Schaufler's Not Happy
Rep. Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley) is not a happy camper down at the Lege. I'll share this with you without comment:
Hat tip to WW's Hank Stern. Discuss.
|
February 5, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (49 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The shameful campaign by Steve Doell and Kevin Mannix to scare taxpayers and squander our money
The past few mornings as I commute in to work, I've noticed an ad on KPOJ on behalf of the Anti-Crime Alliance (ACA), narrated by former Sherman County District Attorney Tara Lawrence, the group's Executive Director. Kevin Mannix is a Director with the organization.
The ad paints a scary scenario of a registered sex offender and convicted burglar breaking in to a woman's home and attacking her. Lawrence's narration goes on chide the 2009 Oregon Legislature for passing a law increasing earned time for good behavior for current and incoming prison inmates. We're then told that 33 year old Demetrious Payton was released in October, earlier than his original sentence. Lawrence goes on to say that Payton was "charged three weeks ago" with unlawful sexual penetration and felony burglary. She then tells us in a voice that sounds like she's warning the kids to play nice on the playground that there are more of these cases to come. And oh by the way, the Anti-Crime Alliance will just keep trotting them out there for us.
What Lawrence won't tell you is that the 2009 Oregon Legislature was facing a massive budget shortfall. In order to protect vital public safety services (like the State Police, for example), everyone involved agreed that there would have to be some kind of sentence reduction program. This included the Anti-Crime Alliance and Steve Doell of Crime Victims United. What Lawrence also won't tell you is that Mannix, Doell and the DA's had a pretty hefty sentence reduction plan of their own.
|
February 4, 2010 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (72 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The Oregonian on Earned Time: Mend It. Don't End It.
This morning, The Oregonian weighed in on the 10 percent increase in earned time eligibility passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009. That increase in eligibility was part of HB 3508-B .
The easy out for the Legislature is to abandon its effort to save a few million tax dollars a year by increasing earned time for nonviolent offenders in Oregon's prison system.
After all, apparently there's enough money in the corrections budget to get through this biennium even if lawmakers reverse course on the law they passed increasing earned time for nonviolent offenders from 20 percent to 30 percent of prison sentences.
But if legislators retreat from this modest prison cost savings measure now, they will all but surrender on the larger question of whether Oregon ever will be able to find savings in corrections policies, even as the state faces a structural deficit in 2011-13 that could force sweeping cuts in education and other services.
The editorial board continues...
We might agree with them [Kevin Mannix's lobbyist Doug Harcleroad and his allies] if state government and schools were not facing a looming structural deficit of perhaps several billion dollars in the next few years. But they are. And a state that already spends more on corrections than it does on higher education should not decide, now or ever, that its prison sentencing policies are sacrosanct, untouchable even when the state is approaching a financial crisis.
The earned time provision in the law sunsets in 2013. It is not a radical policy -- it shaves, on average, about 55 days of prison time for each inmate. Every single inmate who earns this time is coming out of Oregon prisons anyway, and soon.
Oregon criminal justice experts already are studying the effects of the additional earned time. Research in a few other states has suggested that earned time can save money and possibly slightly reduce criminal recidivism at the same time.
Three years from now, when the law expires, Oregon will know much more about earned time, what it saves, what it costs and how it affects public safety. Given what lies ahead in this state, this small change in corrections policy is well worth doing, and doing right.
Read the full editorial here. Discuss.
|
February 3, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (14 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Bend Bulletin bucks dissenting voice
The Bend Bulletin's hierarchy appears to make no apologies for it's decidedly conservative editorial stance on issues. They came out with full-throated opposition to protections for the Metolius and banged the drum against Measures 66/67, for example.
But interestingly, they seem to have a problem with allowing strong, dissenting voices in their letters to the editor too. At least in one case.
Bend resident Milo Thornberry submitted a letter pushing back strongly against the Bulletin's editorial position, and their subsequent targeting of State Representative Judy Stiegler (D-Bend).
The Bulletin reportedly rejected Thornberry's letter, which was then published by The Source Weekly, an alt-weekly in Bend:
The Bully’s Sour GrapesWednesday, 03 February 2010 10:57 Milo Thornberry, Bend
That’s what the editorial in the January 28 editorial sounded like to me. Over these past months, I have increasingly wondered what was driving the Bulletin’s almost hysterical opposition to the ballot Measures 66 and 67.
I understand the loss of people’s confidence in government, in part because of the influence of lobbyists. Government has a sacred trust to provide for the welfare of the whole people—not just those who can get them re-elected. Equally sacred is the task of a free press to tell not only the truth but to care for the welfare of the whole people—not simply the advertising accounts that fund the paper. In my life, I have known individual reporters and publishers who worked hard to be independent—even of those who funded them. Alas, I have not seen that in The Bulletin, either in its editorials or staff articles, in this campaign.
Painting a target on the back of Judy Stiegler because she supported the measures is your right, but I suspect you may have diminished credibility because of the way you covered the campaign. Those you paint as villains may have increased public credibility. Lack of confidence in you may well have increased support for the measures.
Washington and Salem must take steps to increase credibility and transparency. The times demand it. No less must The Bulletin reorder its house!
Editor’s Note: This letter was originally submitted to and rejected by The Bulletin. It’s printed here at the author’s request.
This seems like an odd letter to reject, if it is an accurate representation of what was rejected by The Bulletin. It's not profane or especially hyperbolic. It lays out a strongly-worded case against the paper, certainly. But it's no worse than what comes in the opposite direction from the editorial board of The Bulletin.
So..what gives?
|
February 3, 2010 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (39 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
BETC: Oregon should lead on clean energy
By Matt Blevins of Portland, Oregon. Matt is a vice president with M+R Strategic Services and works with Renewable Northwest Project which advocates for increased renewable energy development across the Pacific Northwest.
Today in Salem, the House Revenue Committee is meeting to consider changes to the state’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC). At issue is the increasing cost of the program in a time of budgetary belt tightening.
In the past decade, the BETC has become a critical tool in the effort to reduce the state’s dependence on oil and coal; help businesses save money by increasing efficiency and conservation; and create jobs in the emerging industries that will shape the future.
To date, Oregon has seen more than $2 billion in investments in renewable energy projects. This has meant, throughout the state, over 1600 jobs created; over $76 million in farmland leased; and over $142 million in property taxes and community service fees contributed. Oregon now ranks #1 in the nation in green jobs per capita.
Recently, there have been some great examples of the impact the BETC has had on communities across the state. Judge Steven Grasty from Harney County talked about the reversal of fortunes the BETC has meant for his community. And Brian Konen of West Linn Paper Co. outlined how the BETC has helped his company to become more efficient and stay in business despite the current downturn.
While Oregon has emerged as an early leader in renewable energy manufacturing and generation and increased energy efficiency, competition for the limited dollars being invested in renewable energy nationally is becoming fierce. To maintain and expand its leadership, Oregon must continue to ensure a competitive business climate that makes continued investment not only justifiable, but also desirable.
Any changes to Oregon’s current incentive programs, particularly the BETC, must ensure that the state continues to be a leader in attracting clean energy projects that grow our economy, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and address climate change over the long term.
More importantly, Oregon should not be penny wise and pound foolish. It must uphold its commitment to projects that have received preliminary incentive certifications to provide certainty to the market and encourage additional investment in the state. And Oregon's policies must support both small and large-scale renewable energy project development and be accessible to non-profits, businesses, and public entities.
|
February 3, 2010 |
guest column | Comments (25 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
What does "business-friendly" mean?
There's been a lot of talk in the run-up to the special election and in its aftermath about whether Oregon and its legislative leaders are "business-friendly". I've had some fascinating conversations with advocates and legislators in recent days about what term means - not just in theory, but also in practice.
Let's start by stipulating a few things: Businesses, large and small, are the primary employers of Oregonians - and the engine of our economy. It is in everyone's interest to ensure a growing and robust business sector. Legislators have a responsibility to do whatever they can reasonably do to grow the economy, encourage local business growth, and increase employment.
So, what does it mean to be "business-friendly"?
Obviously, there are ideological anti-tax activists who will argue that being business-friendly simply means cutting taxes - no matter what the impact is. (Or, perhaps, precisely because of the radical impact on government services.) And they'll argue that it means slashing regulation and limiting litigation - all in the name of the free market.
We progressives will argue that being business-friendly means ensuring that businesses have access to a high-quality educated workforce, efficient and well-maintained transportation systems, public safety and a functioning court system, and access to state-funded research programs (like agricultural extension, etc.) We also argue that a free market means regulations that ensure a level playing field, protect consumers and businesses from bad actors, and improve transparency for buyers and sellers. We also believe that a free market requires a way to adjudicate disputes between parties and fairly compensate people and businesses that are harmed by bad actors.
These principles, on both sides, are often used in the rhetoric on the floor and in the political debates outside the halls of the Legislature.
But it turns out that these lofty arguments aren't really what corporate lobbyists mean when they use the phrase "business-friendly" to describe a legislator.
Rather, the phrase "business-friendly" has come to be defined by some lobbyists as the rate at which a particular legislator will do the bidding of those corporate lobbyists and their clients -- irrespective of whether the particular request is actually good for the broader business community or not.
Sure, they'll couch it in terms of "relevance" (as the AGC's Mike Salsgiver did last month) - or "keeping the door open" or "listening to us" or "working with us."
But as one legislator told me, "business-friendly" has come to mean: How many votes will a particular legislator make at the behest of particular lobbyists? Is he or she the kind of legislator who makes sure that each of the prominent corporate lobbyists "gets a win" from them?
Around here, we've often complained about Willamette Week's "Good, Bad & Awful" lobbyist-generated reviews of legislators. And the reason is simple: it's the most obvious manifestation of the lobby-based chattering class that defines the effectiveness of a legislator by how often he or she is willing to "toss a vote" to the key lobbyists in the building.
(Remember 2007, when Rep. Ben Cannon was hammered by an anonymous lobbyist who complained, "[He] over-thinks way too much ... Trust us, Ben, we did the research." -- as if it's a legislator's job to blindly trust anybody and not think about the issues.)
So, dear readers, next time you hear "so-and-so just isn't business-friendly", don't accept the premise. Instead, evaluate for yourself: Are they doing what it takes to build a robust and successful economy that works for all businesses, employees, and consumers? Or are they simply doing the bidding of particular corporate special interests and their consigliere in Salem?
We should have legislators that work hard to support a robust business climate in Oregon. But that doesn't mean they should be checking off a list of corporate lobbyists, making sure each one got a cookie. And the lobbyists shouldn't be demanding and expecting that sort of treatment.
|
February 3, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (29 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Ron Maurer challenges Susan Castillo for Supt. of Public Instruction
State Rep. Ron Maurer (R-Grants Pass) has announced his intention to run against Susan Castillo, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The O's Betsy Hammond reports:
With the election less than four months away, Maurer is the only candidate who has said he will run against Castillo. After ousting a scandal-damaged incumbent in 2002, Castillo faced only token opposition, from an opponent who had never before run for office, when seeking her second term in 2006. ...Maurer, first elected to the Legislature in 2006, has a master's and doctorate in education and years of health care management experience from his decade in the Army and the past decade owing and operating a health clinic in Rogue River. He served on the Grants Pass school board for four years, including a year as chairman. ...
If he wins, he says, he would reorganize the department to do more to help school districts support classroom teachers. He would assemble a stronger team of department staff who would get things accomplished. He says he accepts that Oregonians are not going to dramatically increase funding for education and would advocate for ways to improve schools without more money, he said.
So, we should put someone in charge of education who isn't interested in advocating for adequately funding our schools? Hmmm. So much for that idea.
The nonpartisan election will be in May. If one of the candidates gets 50% (as will certainly happen if there are only two candidates), then it's over. If there are 3+ candidates - and no one gets a majority - a run-off would be held in November.
Maurer doesn't appear to have a website up yet. Sign up to support Susan Castillo here.
|
February 2, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (53 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
