OK, we won. What now?
I'm loving these big-think posts that we're seeing at BlueOregon. Jeff's recent posts about the future of liberalism nationally - and Carla's post about the future of the Oregon GOP - are fantastic.
But I'd like to encourage some thinking and some conversation as well about the future of liberalism in Oregon. If it is true, as big-shot GOP strategist Dan Lavey says, that the GOP is dead in Oregon -- "broke and leaderless and with more ideology than ideas" -- then what does that mean for Democrats here in Oregon?
A couple nights ago, I was IM'ing with a friend living overseas - she had worked in Democratic politics in Oregon and in DC, planned a brief trip overseas after Dubya got elected, and fell in love and stayed.
When I noted for her that Democrats in Oregon now control both U.S. Senate seats, every statewide office, 4 of 5 congressional seats, and have consitutional supermajorities in both houses in the Legislature, she said, "Oh shit. What kind of trouble will they get into now?"
Which is an interesting question. Some others:
Without a viable opposition, and with big supermajorities, will Oregon Democrats factionalize on ideological or issue lines? Will they be able to govern smartly, or will they overreach and/or bungle things?
Better questions: How can Oregon Democrats make sure they don't screw it up? Are there things that they must do to cement these majorities? Things they must not do?
Surely, some of the answers lie in the way we govern - but just as surely, some of the answers lie in our politics. How can we make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who signed up with the Barack Obama campaign turn their attention now to building a bigger, stronger, smarter, and more effective progressive movement here in Oregon?
Talk to me, folks. What do you think?
|
November 16, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (109 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 16, 2008 1:10:23 PM
Uh oh. I'd like to discourage folks from making this a thread about the sales tax.
We've had that conversation many times before, and I'm sure we'll have it many times to come, but for now, I'd like to focus comments on the substance of my post -- what can the Democrats do to keep things on track?
As for #3, I agree. I've been doing quite a bit of thinking along those lines, and will be sharing some thoughts shortly.
Posted by: Karol | Nov 16, 2008 1:27:04 PM
I'd push back on that, Kari. If Dems want to keep things on track, there need to be some real financial solutions statewide to the problems we have. If Dems can't start making inroads to solving some of them, we are in serious trouble before we even begin. Problem number one? The crappy state of the buildings we sent out children to for school. Our children are learning depite public education, not because of it. Sales taxd would be a great revenue source to start with and Dems would be ground breaking if they grabbed a hold of their figurative cojones and made that serious move.
Posted by: Dena | Nov 16, 2008 2:03:01 PM
Oh Lord. Karol, I love your posts. I love your comments....but a sales tax is such a non starter in today's environment. Nick Kahl used John Nelsen's words in support of a sales tax as ammunition for a reason.
Raise the minimum corporate tax in a winnable manner and eliminate the corporate kicker.
The legislature revives the Healthy Kids Initiative and takes care of it in-house. Some of those new voters are parents of kids without health coverage.
Convince citizens and elected officials that this is NOT the time to disinvest in early childhood education, K-12 andhigher ed funding. Cuts of any service levels, after years of reductions, will prove to be short sighted, ill-gotten and regressive.
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 16, 2008 2:04:58 PM
Dems need to focus on economic development by creating public/private partnerships and incentives for small businesses that are energy and eco-friendly. Small scale locally based energy development could be huge, such as, geothermal projects in eastern and Southern Oregon, and wind energy along the gorge and coast. Right now the emphasis on health care access needs to be a federal priority. Dems need to focus on a campaign to end the meth epidemic that is such a huge cause of crime and child neglect and abuse.
Dems will quickly become a minority party and out of power if they start talking sales tax. It should be noted that the sales tax has been more of a Republican interest because of its regressive nature.Unions have historically been adamant about opposing a sales tax. Our govt. finance picture needs to focus on ending the kicker permanently for corporate taxes and building up the rainy day fund. The ending of loopholes and dodges for the high income and corporate is a better place to look than creating new taxes.
Posted by: rw | Nov 16, 2008 2:07:46 PM
Goodie. Finally. A conversation about women and people of ALL colours and cultures. There are plenty of good minds and people with the backgrounds to add to this if it's really going to be a serious call for purviews. My native relations are glad and grateful for this election outcome. But, they say, based on the entire process as demonstrated in America, and the coverage, it was not their election. It again had nothing hugely to do with them. It is not their way, it is foreign to their original culture, anyway.
But the largeness of their view and culture say that this is the chance for all people to open their hearts and minds now, and to do something new in America. They hope in spite of being of little interest to anyone beyond being a tool or a sentimental story.
Posted by: LT | Nov 16, 2008 2:20:11 PM
I agree with Karol's 2nd comment but I would broaden it.
The more bipartisan a proposal, the better. The closer we can get to "everything on the table" about the state's financial system, the farther away we will be from the Minnis "the voters have spoken on Measure 30" nonsense which only polarized and didn't solve anything. (Although it might have paved the way for Minnis's party to lose majority.)
Recently I came across a printout of a slide show St. Sen. Morse once had online--someone printed it out for me because at the time my computer couldn't handle the size of the file.
The conclusion page talks about a solid financial foundation for Oregon based on 4 components:
*How we collect revenue
*How we budget
*How we spend
*How we save.
If there could be an open public discussion of that, rather than "can't have sales tax, can't touch the kicker, but we must have spending discipline" debates of the past, some intelligent new ideas might emerge.
I'd suggest the first reform be to return to the days when Ways and Means decisions were made in open committee session, not in some small room with a bunch of people around the table but the public not invited to watch.
Second, I understand there is something presession filed about creating a task force or whatever to look at all the Tax Expenditures (aka tax breaks). If need be, get some sort of legal opinion on whether eliminating tax breaks counts as "raising taxes". If it does, then make it public if there are Republicans who are willing to keep tax breaks without specifying publicly what specific budget line spending they want to cut to pay for the tax breaks. It takes 31 + 16 votes to cut spending, and all the rhetoric in the world won't change that. For all the talk of Democrats, it was Republican Sen. Jackie Winters who said some of the cuts would affect needy Oregonians and she wouldn't let them out of her subcommittee the year the Senate was 15-15.
Babies born the year Measure 5 changed so much of state budgeting were old enough to vote this year, so don't let anyone again insult our intelligence by saying "the voters have spoken on Measure 5".
Don't forget that during the 5th special session, a Ways and Means chair said the reason it was so hard to balance the budget was that "Gov. Roberts was right about Measure 5 in everything but the timing". Didn't hurt his political career to say that--we just elected him State Treasurer. Remember that candor impresses many people more than jargon and sloganeering.
Think of transparency as a general rule: for instance, OK to have closed caucus lunches, but why do there need to be caucus meetings in the middle of floor sessions? That's the kind of political game which makes ordinary folks angry.
Make this the year that management is held accountable, not just front line workers. Maybe that means more regular performance audits of the business practices of school districts. Contrary to some rhetoric, "the teachers unions" no more set those policies than front line auto workers decide which cars GM or Ford will make.
Are school district central office administrators making twice as much as teachers? More than that? Is there a way to make those salaries publicly available? What about benefits? What exactly are those administrators (HR, curriculum, etc.) doing to merit such high pay? Are school boards just going along with whatever management wants while not paying attention to the needs of frontline workers? And is administrative pay taking away money which could be used for building maintenance and other essential spending? As long as the state pays such a large amount of school funding, they should be held accountable for ALL the school district budget decisions. If someone complains that Democrats are being partisan in doing that, remind them that when Mike Huckabee was running for president, an interviewer gave him the opportunity to say teachers unions are the cause of all problems in schools. Instead, he said "When I was Gov. and we took over a failing school, first we fired the Supt. and then we told the school board their services were no longer needed". Management held responsible, what a concept!
What he said of teachers was that there was a real burnout problem--too many teachers decided to leave between their 4th and 5th year because there just wasn't enough support given them.
Finally, I disagree with Karol's #2. This is going to be a tough enough session regarding budget issues, without getting into divisive social issues.
Posted by: rw | Nov 16, 2008 2:20:14 PM
Karol, if we are going to talk about sales taxes again, I think we should require an income/debt disclosure from each poster. It might shed light on the bloviations therein. Mine is driven by the fact that I'll barely be able to breathe again if I am stifled by a layer of sales taxes. We live without frills, have nothing but student loan debt crushing. Our footprint is not small in a conscious and defensible way yet. We continue concerned by instability in this market.
Can you honestly advocate for food stamp recipients paying sales taxes on their purchases? Really? Or the unemployed who get just enough to only have that unemployment to make all bills upon? There are many layers to this! And it has been discussed to a nubbin up here before.
I think disclosure of just how hard or not it will hit YOU personally is a good place to start before we start talking about moral obligations and willingness to tighten belts, eh? We could do like the politicians do: just a lite version of their disclosures for the sake of bloviational transparency.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 16, 2008 2:27:26 PM
Why is it that Oregon insists on focusing its job growth in only ONE area at a time? First it was silicon forest and that failed. Then we were gonna be the biotech capital of America, don't hear much about that anymore. I think the next focus was biofuel, but then we found out do so makes food too expensive. Now, "green tech" is the mantra.
I have a suggestion, why don't we work to make Oregon a great place for ALL businesses to grow and thrive.
Posted by: paulie | Nov 16, 2008 2:34:58 PM
I think there is a sense of urgency in Oregon to make things better than the status quo. We have to convince people that the status quo is more dangerous than the unknown. I have often felt that we Democrats have under estimated the difficulty of moving people from their comfort zones. An example is the Sal Esquivel race. The Medford Mail Tribune didn't endorse him and the Medford Chamber of Commerce didn't endorse him, yet he was re-elected much to my fellow Democrats disappointment. Lynn Howe was a class act and lost the race. We vastly underestimated the resistance to change.
We are right on the edge of assmbling a group of Democrats in Oregon who hopefully will develop a shared committment. The Democrats will have enough power to make a difference. Like Obama, I'd encourage our elected officials to work as a team outside of the normal hierichy. I certainly wouldn't declare victory too soon as a party. We have miles to go to deliver a first class performance. The resisters will fight change in both parties.
Read TheNewRight.com and marvel at the highly self- critical Republicans trying to rebuild their party. I recommend you add it to your favorites list. The internal resistance to change in the Republican Party reveals they don't seem to realize that transformation efforts are already underway.
Just as we must demonstrate credibility as the state's majority party, we also must make connections across the party lines. Think TEAM of RIVALS and channel President Lincoln.
We will fail if we do not promote shared values, flexibility or take too many shortcuts.
Kari, your thoughts are right on!
Posted by: Joe Hill | Nov 16, 2008 2:37:48 PM
It will be very important to gain back the ground we've lost in K-12 education since Measure 5.
Here is a semi-specific suggestion . . .
In Portland Public Schools, and perhaps in some others, 3% to 5% of the students wind up commanding 20% to 40% of the institution's time, care, and resources. They are simply more needy, they start from a different place. Some of them come with serious undiagnosed (up to then) mental illness. Some of them are recent immigrants from a region with a language that has no written form. Some have been abused beyond my will to describe it. And on and on and on.
Now, about half of these 3% to 5% can be helped in a regular public school by mainstreaming them. It's rough going for a year or two, and it takes a lot of patience on all of our parts, not the least on the part of the student, but good things eventually happen. I know many many success stories and the memory of their faces get me out of bed in the morning.
BUT . . . the other half seem to need placement in some alternative situation where they can benefit from a much more tightly structured environment than we can provide in a public school. We have some of those places in Portland, but students are lined up for placement. Too many students want to be there, not enough places for them.
If we simply made things more manageable for Special Education teachers and English Language Learner teachers, we would relieve a lot of the pressure on the entire system.
Because Multnomah County is the large urban area for Oregon and the largest place for social services, employment, international culture, health care, etc., our school system gets a disproportionate number of very needy students.
By the way, this is another reason why the Portland Public School "neighborhood choice" system makes no sense - all schools get the same ratio of students to teachers (FTE) no matter if those students are from well-to-do connected families from the West Side or from dramatically different family situations . . . kind of like staffing hospitals with the same number and kind of doctors where some hospitals treat ankle sprains and mild flu symptoms and the other hospitals treat exotic cancers and all the city's trauma victims.
But I digress.
If the Democrats could see their way clear to helping the worst off of the children in our school system by increasing their educational and treatment options, it would help everyone. If the legislative leaders would simply ask working Special Education and English Language Learning teachers (not the bureaucrats, bless 'em all), the solution would be quite cost effective, not to mention morally satisfying.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 16, 2008 2:40:39 PM
Thanks, Karol. Revenue stability is definitely part of the puzzle.
But we've got a half-dozen folks here at BlueOregon who inevitably descend into a 100-comment thread whenever the phrase "sales tax" is uttered. We'll surely have another of those threads sometime soon -- but my questions are much broader than that, and I'd like to encourage folks to explore and discuss some of the other stuff... especially ideas that haven't been beat to death here before.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Nov 16, 2008 3:45:22 PM
In Oregon we need to recognize that the global economic game has changed. It's generally called globalization. Forget lots of your assumptions about how life works. This new global economy is a little like our wild west in that it lacks rules. And, guess what, the US cannot not make the rules for the globe anymore. And we play or we wither. IT is going to be a wild ride.
China's economy is expected to be as large as the US economy in 2035 and twice as large in 2050. Looking at all the emerging economies around the global, there will be a new global middle class of 2-3 billion in the next thirty years (remember the US has about 300 million). All are our competitors, and all are our possible customers.
With China and India adding coal power plants like gangbusters, we are not going to solve global warming in our ecotopia of Oregon.
For Oregon to survive, much less thrive, in the future we must ferociously engage the world in ways we have yet to discover. But most importantly, we need to change our education system. We need to invigorate our world (foreign) languages programs. We need to emphasize languages strategic for our future, like Mandarin, Russian, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian and the languages of India. We need to immerse students in such language programs starting in kindergarten. We need to send our students abroad to study in large numbers (does 20% of each high school graduating class having spent an academic year abroad seem possible by 2020? or enough?).
We need to rediscover the spirit of the pioneers who came over the Oregon Trail for we have new trails to blaze.
It is all about "change." And, "yes, we can."
Posted by: Karol | Nov 16, 2008 4:04:41 PM
I'm not a native Oregonian; I don't understand the knee-jerk fight against a sales tax. I am accustomed to paying a sales tax, never higher than 6% on everything under the sun in New Mexico and most every other state I've visited I've paid between 6 and 11%. There are ways to make a sophisticated sales tax that doesn't attack the working poor and maintain fairness in the system. So the argument about WIC and food stamps doesn't seem to flesh out for me quite yet.
I'm sure another post will explain it to me at some time in the future, but I don't get it. If it's all about Democratic reelection and control, awesome, no sales tax. But if we ever want to help people, we need to find a consistent revenue source. Corporate minimums, yes, let's get rid of that. But when those corporations find another great lax-tax state to hide in, we'll still have less usable cash. It's early, we've got a couple of years to sell it Oregonians. Sell it! Ok, no more tax talk, I'm done. Thanks for letting me.
Posted by: LT | Nov 16, 2008 4:58:30 PM
Karol, part of the knee jerk reaction comes from the 1980s. Imagine the fight in the GOP between people who believe in abortion rights as a freedom issue (individuals having the right to make their own medical decisions without government interference) and those who believe abortion is morally wrong and the government should make the decision that every child conceived should be born.
And you'd have the atmosphere of the sales tax debate within the Democratic Party of the 1980s. There were certain party activists who regarded certain Democratic legislators as traitors. There were those who thought it was OK to be rude to anyone who disagreed with them. There were people who said if their views were going to be the subject of insults, then the Democratic party should realize they wouldn't send donations to a group whose activist members insulted them publicly.
On the other hand, a friend of mine who is a previous (over a decade ago) Democratic office holder says he could design a sales tax which would be a revenue solution but not hurt ordinary people.
This is why I quoted Sen. Morse. If we could get a bipartisan debate going about a package of several changes, maybe we could finally come to a solution.
A generation has grown up since those battles of the 1980s. Budget problems have only gotten worse. Yes, the kicker is in the Constitution, but so are a lot of other things which should be statute instead. Tim Knopp put that in the Constitution, but he is no longer a legislator. What is stopping the discussion of what one wit called "sticky notes on the Constitution" being somehow changed to statute or some other intelligent solution?
The question is whether we can put the polarization of the last decade plus years behind and have civil debates over serious issues.
My hope is that yes, we can.
Posted by: Frank | Nov 16, 2008 5:09:51 PM
What do Dems need to do?
1) Don't kill anyone or steal anything, or do any else that would earn a person a felony sentence.
2) If someone gets caught committing a misdemeanor, don't lie about it. Nobody really cares about petty crimes. They only care about the lies trying to cover-up petty crimes.
-------
Karol
Sales tax = one form of flat tax.
All forms of flat taxes = regressive taxes that inflict greater pain on the poor and middle classes. They are inspired by various right wingers throughout history. It's one particular precept of right wing dogma we've been lucky to avoid in Oregon.
If citizens of New Mexico passed a law saying they would start doing Lent parades in Santa Fe like the Lent parades in Philippines with citizens walking down the street flaying their backs open with barbed leather whips, I can't stop them from doing that. They can copy anyone they like and start inflicting whatever pain they wish on themselves.
Doesn't mean I'm gonna start flaying my back open, though.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 16, 2008 5:16:07 PM
Frank
Don't we in fact have a de facto "flat tax" of 9% here in OR since the income threshold is so low?
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Nov 16, 2008 5:30:56 PM
Three things. First, progressives need to create a progressive revenue system: one that brings in revenue based on ability to pay; one that doesn't let large, profitable corporations pay too little and shift the responsibility for government onto households (an I'm not just talking raise the minimum tax - I want Intel to start paying $50 million a year again); and, one that saves adequate revenues for economic downturns and doesn't squander unanticipated revenues during good times. How do we get there? First step, we need climate change on the revenue issue, and that would come from corporate disclosure.
Second, progressives need to work to restore trust in government. From our actions and our words we need to create public support for public structures.
Third, and this will be an outgrowth of the first two, we need to restore political leadership that to date has been turned over to the initiative system. We need legislators to show leadership and take back the power that was ceded to the Dick Wendts and Loren Parks. We need legislators who bring about progressive change and are looked to for progressive change. The initiative system needs reform while at the same time legislators need to be bold.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Nov 16, 2008 5:36:52 PM
Number one on my list is strengthening the "by the people" component of democracy. The communication and technological developments of the last decade -- including expanded talk radio options, near-ubiquitous cell phones, and interactive collaboration spaces on the Internet -- make it possible for the public to be much better-informed about public policy, and quickly form coalitions to influence it.
As Wayne Morse said in the Vietnam era, "I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you give them..."
Which is why I'm working to develop a bill for the 2009 session that would make the workings of government more accessible to the public. See here for more info; and of course, feel free to pitch in.
Posted by: Pete F | Nov 16, 2008 5:42:08 PM
And to tie this in with Chuck's comment, it's key to #2. In order to trust government, it needs to be worthy of trust; and to be worthy of trust, it must be meaningfully open to our influence.
We can't meaningfully influence initiatives that are hidden from view, or difficult for non-insiders to decipher. The more government work carried out in the public sphere, the more it can be appreciated, and the more it can be influenced to take better account of all stakeholders.
Posted by: Frank | Nov 16, 2008 5:47:43 PM
MP
No. It's not. That said, the need for money in this state means there's need for tax rates to be more progressive. A higher top rate.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 16, 2008 5:52:56 PM
A big thing that the Democrats shouldn't do is go in and start doing things that make the economic situation even worse for those who have been hard hit by our economy. Those in the lower income levels are finally starting to see they do have a voice when it comes to elections, and they're voting. They've been hit hard by this economy, and they're having to give up not luxuries, but necessities. We've had to give up the only car we had, which is hard in Gresham since getting around to the basics like the grocery store can be extremely difficult (especially in getting to the economical stores).
Going in and doing something like a sales tax, for instance, would be a slap in their face. There is no way to make a fair sales tax for those in the lower incomes. Even when you exempt things like unprepared foods and medicine, you still have to buy toilet paper, toiletries, cleaning supplies, clothing, shoes, etc. Believe me, I lived for 22 years in a sales tax state and saw what it did to people living on food stamps and welfare. There's a reason why those at the lowest income levels have the ability to have no taxes taken out of their check rather than getting a refund at the end of the year - they need their money today, not 12 months from now.
People are looking to the Democrats to do what they can to improve the economic situation in Oregon. We need to fix our roads and bridges so that businesses can get their goods moved. We need to encourage more businesses to come to Oregon, and we need to support small businesses. We need to do what we can to put people to work. If people see their taxes/fees go up without seeing a benefit to their community, they're going to be up in arms.
We need to improve our education system. Not only do we have one of the shortest school days and school years, but our country's curriculum has fallen way behind. We need to develop a completely new curriculum for our schools. What we're doing isn't working, spends too much time reteaching, and our students are falling further and further behind as compared to students around the world. We're not even teaching our students to think for themselves anymore - we want a cookie cutter kid with a one track mind. Without kids who think for themselves, we're not developing the kind of mind that has brought forth so many innovations over the history of our country.
I've been noticing lately, for instance, how messed up the curriculum is here in the Gresham-Barlow School District. Go to one elementary school and the kindergarten class spends most of the year on shapes, colors, numbers, and some writing. Go to another and they're learning the pre-primer sight words and bringing home books to read. This is a huge problem when you have to move in the middle of the school year - which happens a lot in a community with as high of rental rates for families as we have.
I know we're only going to be able to get so much done at a time. But right now people are feeling so disheartened that they need to see some things done right away so that they feel that the change that was promised is actually coming. Some of that is in the economic stimulus bills that both Obama and Kulongoski are proposing. As many of us said from the beginning, giving money to banks and financial institutions was not the answer - it's just going to the top execs and none is going back into improving our economy. We need funds that go directly into putting people to work, which then gets spent in our local communities.
Posted by: LT | Nov 16, 2008 6:00:12 PM
"We can't meaningfully influence initiatives that are hidden from view, or difficult for non-insiders to decipher. The more government work carried out in the public sphere, the more it can be appreciated, and the more it can be influenced to take better account of all stakeholders."
AMEN, Pete!
Which is why the legislature needs to turn its back on the closed door discussions of the Minnis et. al years.
If House Bill 1234 is supposed to be discussed on Tuesday at 1 pm and there are individuals in the general population coming to the capitol to testify, it is only common courtesy to make sure the hearing happens as scheduled--or else provide notification in a timely manner. If the chair is ill, can't the vice chair fill in? Too often in recent years, it seemed as if games were being played with committee hearings.
And maybe it is time reconsider the protocol where legislators and lobbyists who are in the capitol every day testify before ordinary citizens, unless it is the sponsor of the bill beginning the hearing by testifying and answering questions.
Along those same lines, legislators shouldn't be leaving a hearing during the testimony of ordinary citizens just to stand out in the hallway and talk to a lobbyist. They should only leave for emergency reasons (like a staff member coming to tell them they have an important phone call, or perhaps a constituent visit).
There was a wonderful legislator from a nearby district whose wife worked in his office. I happened to be in the capitol building when I encountered some teenagers from that district. They didn't know the name of their state legislators, so I took them up to meet their state rep. When his wife met them, she was as gracious as if they were important people (in fact, future voters are important).
Some things need legal changes, rule changes, laws passed, etc. But there is also a need for attitude changes--do legislators really care what those who aren't in the building every day think of them, or not?
Posted by: Ted | Nov 16, 2008 6:17:10 PM
Decriminalize recreational marijuana. Legalize industrialized hemp production.
Legalize prostitution and regulate it, Nevada-style, in counties and municipalities where the democratic majority supports it.
The war on drugs and war on human sexuality, homo and hetero, can't be won. It's not worth fighting either. Push the black market economy into the sunlight and use its proceeds for good.
Pass a resolution to bring home all Oregon National Guard from Iraq and not send out any more deployments until U.S. Congress officially declares war.
Posted by: LT | Nov 16, 2008 6:22:06 PM
OK Jenni, you don't want a sales tax.
How do you propose to pay for roads and improving education without debating changes to the revenue system?
If you have an alternate proposal, I'd be glad to listen.
However, I remember when Democratic legislators and others were supporting a plan to change the revenue system, and people like you said it was regressive because it had a sales tax involved and that was regressive, so those of us who supported it were "not real Democrats".
One of those "not real Democrats" was later elected to statewide office. Those of us on the State Central Comm. who had voted with the legislators basically found other uses for our time over the next few years because we had better things to do than be insulted. If we weren't "real Democrats", why were we spending our spare time being involved in party politics?
So yes, Jenni, you are proof of the "sales tax over by dead body" crowd still exists. But what is your alternative? If you don't have an alternative, then, as Kari says, Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 16, 2008 2:40:39 PM
we need a broader conversation.
And speaking of broader conversation, the legislature needs to do oversight. I sent this link about an Oregonian stuck in red tape to some local legislators.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2008/11/15/your-papers-please/
Already there has been a response from a staffer for one of them. The response could be summed up as "not my job unless the person lives in our district".
Talk about ways to turn off the public!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 16, 2008 7:33:39 PM
Actually, I never said those who don't support a sales tax aren't "real Democrats," and putting it in quotes like that while responding to me is saying that I said that. I'm saying that those who suggest a sales tax just don't get how hard it is on those at the lower income levels.
Back when there was a proposal by the legislature, I went in and pulled up the state's own numbers and showed how much more a lower income family like mine would be paying in taxes every year and how much a higher income family would be paying less. In today's economy when those of us at the lower income levels are giving up necessities, I think they're the last ones who should see additional taxes.
I've mentioned plenty of ways we can bring in additional funds. First, we make our income tax more progressive so that those at the highest levels pay more than someone making $40K. Second, we completely restructure the corporate minimum tax. I realize there are small corporations that really do need that tax to be low, but it doesn't have to be as low as we have it now. And there is no reason why companies like Intel, UPS, etc. to be paying such a low rate. They use a lot of services in our state, and they make a heck of a lot of money. They should be doing more to support our state. We can start looking at some of the stupid deductions and credits we have in our income tax system. The one that immediately comes to mind is one Sorenson brought up when I met with him when he ran for governor - a deduction for buying a yacht. A yacht?!?
There is a lot more we can look at that makes our system more progressive and has those who can best afford it paying in more. The last think we should do is immediately look at instituting a tax that puts more of the burden on those who can least afford it. And I'm sorry, but the numbers prove that it is the poor hardest hit by a sales tax.
There's nothing like watching your sister have to put back needed food for her family because of the sales tax she had to pay on her shampoo, soap, laundry detergent, etc. Even when buying the cheapest soaps, toiletries, etc., it was not out of the ordinary to see $10+ in sales tax in a shopping trip. Do you know how much food that keeps off that family's table?
Posted by: Nativist | Nov 16, 2008 7:51:59 PM
rw wrote:
"Goodie. Finally. A conversation about women and people of ALL colours and cultures."
RW,
Clearly by the way you spell "color" you are not a real American. Turn off the soccer (not football) and get your citzenship papers!
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 16, 2008 7:53:48 PM
The following was cut from my last post:
Even when buying the cheapest soaps, toiletries, etc., it was not out of the ordinary to see $10+ in sales tax in a shopping trip. Do you know how much food that keeps off that family's table?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 16, 2008 8:16:19 PM
Heck, even on a small trip where you only have a few bucks in sales tax that means food not making it to the table. Because when you're living on the absolute minimum, or just above, any extra you have to pay on something else is money not spent on food.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 16, 2008 8:18:12 PM
OK, let's shift gears here.
I'll re-ask the question that I thought was the most interesting and evocative one in my post. How can we make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who signed up with the Barack Obama campaign turn their attention now to building a bigger, stronger, smarter, and more effective progressive movement here in Oregon?
Posted by: Nativist | Nov 16, 2008 8:25:22 PM
In order to maintain control Democrats need to portray a sense of humor. Sorry, your feelings were hurt rw. Perhaps some government funded sensitivity training would have stopped my hands from typing.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 16, 2008 8:25:26 PM
First of all, I think people need to know what needs to be done. During the campaign season, it was simple - you received a phone call or email that told you what was needed. You showed up at a campaign office and was told what was needed. But once the campaign is over, we don't do that.
The DPO used to do a great ob of letting people know what was happening in Salem, but I haven't seen that in a few years. And finding out what things are being discussed in Salem in hearings and such can be so difficult to track down that you often only know about something if some group like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or Bus Project send out an email on it.
We've got to keep people involved and informed. When there are issues that we need people to testify on, contact their state legislator or member of Congress, etc., we need to let people know right away.
And we need to let them know why it's important. How does whatever action or issue tie into the greater good that we worked so hard for this year?
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 16, 2008 8:36:30 PM
How can we make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who signed up with the Barack Obama campaign turn their attention now to building a bigger, stronger, smarter, and more effective progressive movement here in Oregon?
By listening to all ideas and not dismissing them out-of-hand just because you don't agree with them. That seems to be the message Barack has sent this entire campaign. He listens to everyone. It is very easy to get the feeling that, as a moderately successful business owner, I am not welcome in this movement. If that is the case, that would be very sad as I feel I have a lot to offer, given that my POV might be different than many of yours.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 16, 2008 8:43:23 PM
1. Canadians spell it "colour" too and last time I checked Canada is a rather large part of North "America". Which leads me directly to...
2. Dave Porter's educational suggestions are superb, visionary and ought to be instituted ASAP. European nations roughly the same size as Oregon are vastly greater economic powerhouses in large part because their educational systems are forward-looking along the very lines that Dave laid out. Which leads me to...
3. Produce a highly capable crop of students and many corporations will overlook higher taxes to remain close to such a valuable comodity.
4. Lastly, I find it... um... interesting when I read comments opposing sales taxes because they are regressive yet advocating Kulongoski's "Healthy Kids Initiative" which was premised on funding from... an increased sales tax.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 16, 2008 9:10:08 PM
Kevin:
Yea, my Spanish teacher in the 8th grade was from Chile. He talked about how insulting it was that people from the United States considered themselves Americans, but not those from Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America.
Our education system definitely is in shambles and needs to be redone. We need more tracks for those who don't want to go to college and more in varied topics like engineering, computers, etc. We need courses that encourage kids to think for themselves and to look at current events. When I was in Honors Intro to U.S. History in my freshman year at the University of Houston, our professor required us to have a subscription to the NY Times. Every class would begin with a discussion on what was going on in the U.S. and around the world, what we thought about it, how it affected things, etc.
Why it takes until 8th or 9th grade to go beyond basic addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication has always been a mystery to me. While not every student needs to make it through calculus, there are important math concepts that need to be learned like working with a checkbook, working with credit cards, etc.
And computers shouldn't be something that kids gets to use once a week at computer lab. They should be something kids get to use daily, including learning to use word processing software, spreadsheets, etc. Gresham-Barlow is starting an online charter school where every student gets a loaner laptop. Why should something like that be limited just to those students when it could be further expanded and textbooks will no longer have to be years out of date since they could be in PDF format and updated regularly. I remember using World Geography textbooks that were so out of date they still had the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc. listed when they've been broken up for a few years.
We expect a lot from our teachers, yet we don't give them the curriculum they need to be able to teach kids in the 21st century.
Posted by: Douglas K | Nov 16, 2008 9:30:03 PM
Oregon needs a more progressive income tax. Raise the top rate to 10%, but put in some lower brackets (say, 6% and 8%) with meaningful graduation, and then index the brackets to prevent bracket creep in the future. That could be a revenue-neutral way to give most Oregonians a tax cut.
For stability, impose a reasonable spending cap (not the unrealistic "inflation + population growth" cap that doesn't take real costs into account, and make sure there's no "downward ratchet") and invest the surplus in good years, providing an automatic reserve fund. Also, dump the kickers and set aside part of the surplus into a rainy day fund, and the rest into a permanent endowment fund for education.
Actually, Oregon should look at create one or more permanent endowment funds to be fed with surplus revenues or even streams of dedicated revenue such as lottery money. The beauty of a permanent trust is that the money that goes into it stays there, and the interest can support vital state functions (such as schools) through good times and bad, forever. Imagine a $20 billion endowment feeding $1 billion per year to Oregon's public schools before we even need to touch the general fund.
Forget about a general sales tax; that's both regressive and a political non-starter. On the other hand, we should look at imposing specific excise taxes, such as taxes on lodgings or restaurant meals.
As for a ballot measure to overturn measure 36: that should be a citizen's initiative. It shouldn't come from the legislature.
Posted by: rw | Nov 16, 2008 9:42:36 PM
... also, "nativist", I've yet to see efficacious corporate-sponsored "diversity" training. Am sure you agree. It is surface, bullshit, mandated. And makes very little difference. It is mandated, and that's why it exists. Not because people are all that interested in checking themselves for dinner or for leftovers.
Karol: I've lived most of my life in sales tax states. Ponied up and shrugged b/c it was not a choice. AND b/c I was living in exciting places where you knew "pay thru the nose" was the deal.
But other than while living in SF, NYC, I did not pay outrageous percentages of my income to keep roof over head, making one third less per hour than peers of the same niche in other parts of the nation, locale notwithstanding.
Oregon pays like a lowball state. Oregon charges obscenely for board, comparatively.
Perhaps you make a good enough living it does not faze your consciousness at all. This may not be true of all others. Please try hard to be respectful of that knee-jerk you describe and use your wonderful powers of compadre to tease out the etiology of said jerk. Maybe some folks are at the edge of what they can afford. Some might have been in reaction against who's in charge of spending that dough! This could change! Ain't that exciting?
However, I concede that my reaction is probably of the kneejerk variety, and I'd somehow adjust to whatever gets dished out. I'd find a way, always have. And if I can make myself BELIEVE in what is being done with it, I'm famous for manifesting out of nothing.
Posted by: Douglas K | Nov 16, 2008 9:42:51 PM
Weird. The first few paragraphs of my last post simply disappeared when I posted it. I don't feel like going back and rewriting it, but it stressed the paramount importance of adequate education funding from pre-school to grad-school. The most important economic development step we can take is a first-rate education system.
As for how to keep the "hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who signed up with the Barack Obama campaign" involved in building a stronger and more effective progressive movement: social networking. And fun. Maybe parties and other fun social gatherings. Keep it friendly, keep it fun, and building in a lot of face time. Come for the politics, stay for the friends, keep the politics going. There are hundreds of ways to network socially, and people will be more responsive to requests to help out if there's a already a personal connection with the person making the request.
Posted by: Ken | Nov 16, 2008 10:04:57 PM
Ok Kari - I will bite.
To maintain and possible build a permanent majority in Oregon, progressives should remember the basics and stay focused on those priorities most important to voters.
1) Education
Improve graduation rates. Make sure schools are safe. Renovate or rebuild old schools to meet the technology and learning needs of today’s students. Freeze college tuition rates. Reevaluate how we meet the needs of our special needs kids.
2) Health Care
Make sure no child in Oregon is without insurance - do it now. This is perhaps the largest failure of our society that we refuse sick children health care. Then we can move onto controlling costs and preventing disease rather than just curing it.
3) Energy Independence
Want to make sure your kids have a better life than you? This is the key for Oregon's urban and rural kids. It is the cornerstone for a new economy, will protect the environment, and oh yeah - probably even help out with national security.
How can we screw it up?
1) Continue to talk about taxes rather than programs.
Let’s talk about what we want to do. If we convince people it’s a good idea - they will be more open to how we pay for it.
2) Underestimate the Republicans.
Oregon has a libertarian streak. If the Republicans can build a new coalition that makes them less dependent on social conservatives, they will be back. Smarter and stronger than ever.
3) Live in an echo chamber.
If there is one lesson that we should learn from conservatives it is that living in an echo chamber will bring certain doom. We must stay humble, open minded, and continue to listen. We must not become too beholden to our own special interests. Good ideas come from all corners - and in this economy we need all hands on deck.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Nov 16, 2008 10:08:52 PM
My big concern is that Senate/House Dems will follow Republican Governor Ted Kulongoski, the most anti-environment governor Oregon has had in 3 decades, and enact the hardcore rightist agenda of the "Big Look Taskforce", stacked with industry stalwarts and fluffers like Bragdon.
Posted by: Fuchsia | Nov 16, 2008 10:34:09 PM
"I'll re-ask the question that I thought was the most interesting and evocative one in my post. How can we make sure that the hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who signed up with the Barack Obama campaign turn their attention now to building a bigger, stronger, smarter, and more effective progressive movement here in Oregon?"
Simple. By signing on to:www.november5.org
Posted by: LT | Nov 16, 2008 10:41:17 PM
OK, Ken, how do you propose to do these things:
"1) Education
Improve graduation rates. Make sure schools are safe. Renovate or rebuild old schools to meet the technology and learning needs of today’s students. Freeze college tuition rates. Reevaluate how we meet the needs of our special needs kids."
We can't wave a magic wand! Many in the Salem area worked very hard to pass a bond to pay for needed major maintenance for local schools (some of them aging to the point of needing major repairs) and then after the repairs to build some new schools. The school supt. and many other people spoke to many local gatherings in homes and elsewhere to get it done.
How should the legislature tackle such an undertaking on a statewide basis without discussing changes to our financial system in this state?
And about BIG LOOK, any Democrat stupid enough to go along with it as an unquestioning supporter deserves a primary next time around. In this state we had an excellent example of public process (Public Comm. on the Legislature) and on the other end of the spectrum Big Look, which seemed to think it deserved lots of money with minimal public process. And I'm not a big Mike Thorne fan.
It is not the same legislature that named mostly local government officials to this panel, there are many different members. It should be the responsibility of Big Look to persuade members to see things their way. The legislature didn't pass all PCOL suggested legislation, why does Big Look think everyone should see things their way?
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Nov 16, 2008 11:43:25 PM
Kari, more to your question: We need to give the folks coming off the Obama campaign an issue (or two, but no more) to work together on that will win and continue to build confidence an inspire hope.
Imagine if all the people who worked on the Obama campaign were fired up and ready to go on one or two big idea, bold action, bills in the legislature.
Posted by: paul g. | Nov 17, 2008 12:52:04 AM
Kari
I find it interesting that in the other threads, I am getting slammed for suggesting that perhaps the new Democratic President and Democratic majority needs to be a bit modest with their goals ... whereas when you set the agenda to be "what should we do in Oregon" which is a lot more reliably "blue" than the nation, all the proposals are predictably meek.
And sorry, I am with Karol. My kids schools are ONCE AGAIN going to get slammed by our irrational, unpredictable, income dependent revenue system. If I didn't live so close to my work, I might consider hopping over to Vancouver since it seems like it is foreclosure hell / heaven right now.
But Karol, you'll find that the liberal / conservative alliance on sales tax (among other issues) continues to leave Oregon in its permanent state of complacent mediocrity. Our higher education system is the best example. It sucks. No two ways about it. Underfunded, undersalaried, underutilized.
Posted by: Douglas K | Nov 17, 2008 1:27:32 AM
My kids schools are ONCE AGAIN going to get slammed by our irrational, unpredictable, income dependent revenue system.
Unfortunately, this irrational, unpredictable system is what the voters apparently wanted when they approved Don McIntire's 1990 proposal to eliminate local control of school funding and turn it over to the legislature to compete with other general fund programs.
If stability and predictability of school funding is a goal, there's a simple solution: Get rid of those idiotic Measure 5 limits on education spending and the arbitrary Measure 50 limits on property valuation. Let each community set their own tax limits at the ballot box by voting to fund their schools above and beyond whatever money comes in from the state. A levy-based property tax system is far more stable than a system based on either income or sales tax.
We need to fix school funding in this state, and that will require top-to-bottom tax reform. A measure to lift Measure 5 limits on school spending will not increase anyone's property taxes. It will simply allow every community to decide for themselves whether they want to adequately fund their schools or not.
Post a comment
Posted by: Karol | Nov 16, 2008 12:59:44 PM
1. Sales tax
2. Ballot measure to overturn measure 36, then legislative passage of equal marriage bill
3. Activate more women and people of color in the movement (all white, all male congressional delegation is a little rough)