Is it true Mark Hass is carrying Ryan Deckert's water and waivering on the vote?

Isn't Hass the guy who called for real tax reform in the Oregonian?

Why is he now pushing the OBA temporary (and burdomsome to small biz) plan?

This should be an easy "yes" vote for Mark.

I hear that it's more than one Democrat who isn't on Board.

Nope, it's just Hass.

It's amazing he's blowing up the session and his political ambitions over this vote, though. He's got nowhere to go - the House isn't going to climb that hill again after the crap Jensen and Smith are taking from the right-wingers.

All Hass can do is make himself look like the Senator from OBA as he threatens funding for schools, public safety, childcare and seniors. Dumb move. Especially when OBA is getting off cheap to begin with.

Just when the end was in sight.

Don't believe the rumors. Hass isn't dumb enough to blow up the session and make himself look bad to every group dependent on this budget deal. He didn't do all those PSA's trying to promote himself for nothing.

He's probably just holding out for a deal like Smith got. Probably wants Courtney to hire someone to style and spray his hair for him. I hear newscasters miss that kind of stuff.

It's Hass. (The "H" is silent).

My money's on this passing.

Given how important this is, you'd think that Ginny Burdick could speak on it without stumbling through a staff-written text.

Jesus, Richie Havens sang for Ten Years After??? Who knew? Admirable sentiment though ("Tax the rich, feed the poor till there are no rich no more.")

Really, who votes for people this clueless?

Hass just said he wants to send the corporate minimum back to senate revenue for a fix- they MAY not have the votes on the floor and might have to come back another day.

Hass voted no- the revenue bills will have to come back another day.

Did anyone see who changed their vote at the end (light went from green to red) on the corporate tax vote?

I guess that makes it clear which Democrats are owned by corporations eh

That's what the OBA wants -- only to temporarily pay more. Then go back to getting off the hook while individual taxpayers continue to shoulder the burden.

This will blow up the session politically and logistically unless Hass changes his mind.

Hass is a corporate stooge. Disgusting.

So sad. No wonder so many people are so cynical about democracy. As Emma Goldman said: If elections changed anything, they'd be illegal.

Calling C. Wright Mills . . .

Everyone knows that Hass has statewide ambition. That said, after today's bs I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

Hass just earned my vote...at least one sign of intelligent life in Oregon's Democrat Party. Well done Mark. I can sense the rage already brewing here at BO..let the flag burning begin...sounds like TJ is already there...good luck schmucks.

Thank you Sen. Hass!

Americans are not supposed to be punished for working hard and smart and these Socialist experiments are a threat to my Child's future oppurtunities and have never ever worked anywhere.

Russia, Cuba and N. Korea can't make it work and even China understands the fruits of Capitolism do bear out for everyone.

After decades of experimenting with encouraging Big Brother reliance for all, even Europe is now voting for fiscal conservatives.

Why oh why do so many of our Democrats think winning an election equals destroying the American way as we are still the wealthiest and most admired (tens of millions want to emigrate to here) Nation on earth.

As a famous Black man said recently - "Poor Black people have been voting Democrat for over 40 years and they are still poor".

An Immigrant who owns two homes and drives a new Hummer and has only been here for 3 years and barely speaks English told me, "If you are poor in America, you are either lazy or stupid, and I'm amazed at how many of my fellow immigrants depend on the government to get by and that's all they will ever do, just get by". "Now that is stupid and lazy as they could instead be living the American Dream, as I am".

He doesn't vote or help fund Socialists.

Mark Hass stopped socialism?

Seems to me that if he has any future ambitions, he will have to explain his June 10 revenue vote every time he has a town hall meeting or any other event where ordinary people can ask him questions.

Maybe he has a good explanation, or maybe he caved to OBA, or whatever.

I had heard this was not a good session for him from an old friend. Maybe this is evidence of that.

But Rick and JJ, unless you are willing to actually go out and actively campaign for Hass in the future, your remarks on this blog are no help to him.

Real easy to make blog comments. Much harder to look voters in the face.

Such a weird vote for Hass. If I remember correctly, then Representative Hass served on the House Revenue committee where he led a group of (then in the minority) young freshman Representatives in 2003.

He was a good vote against single sales factor, lowering the capital gains rate, eliminating the estate tax, tip credit and other right wing, pro-corporate - screw working single mothers and old widowed ladies policies that OBA and others usually support.

Wonder why he has sold out now? Shame on you Mark Hass.

Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jun 10, 2009 5:00:59 PM

What kind of nerd do you have to be to find this fascinating to watch?

Is a dog, looking up at his master's table and drooling, a nerd?

This is not the first time that Hass has sold out to rich corporations. Starting in September 2008, Hass got $15,000 worth of campaign contributions from grocers and recyclers.

At the same time he was serving on the bottle bill task force and killed any possible expansion of the bottle bill by filing a "minority report" that sided with industry and opposed any expansion of our current system.

Talk about quid pro quo. Let's see, he is against the environment, against funding schools, and for rich corporate executives.

I've heard he has ambitions for higher office. What Democratic primary does he think he's going to win?

It was probably orginally Haas, like the fruit.

One of my ethnic stereotypes that I've always wondered about is Dutch people that come to the West coast and go to pains to act as anti-dutch as they possibly can. Add this one to the (long) list.

If the electorate had ANY political will, you would simply not go to work tomorrow. A little hardship for us, a huge headache if everyone did it. And probably the same money. Sends a message. Give it up nice, or we'll take it and burn it. You ain't keepin' it all. Don't like that? Russia is a really large country. So's China.

What have we come to that world communists are the wildest corporate frontier today? That's something they don't exactly qualify when righty tighty asses say BHO is a communist. What kind? When? If they mean now, that's very pro business! Actually it now covers ANY political behavior. It should be the new way of asking a person's political views. "What kind of communist are you?"

Senator Haas reminds me of an old joke which I tell with some reservations on this progressive site.

A man and an attractive woman (feel free to reverse or revise or eliminate the gender roles, no sexual offense intended) are riding up in a hotel elevator. The man asks the woman "would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" The woman thinks for a moment and reluctantly says "yes". The man then says "would you sleep with me for a hundred bucks?" The woman, now upset, says "NO, what kind of a woman do you think I am?" The man says, "we have already established that, now we are just haggling over the price".

Wondering what price Senator Haas received?

Can someone explain what tabling the bill meant, and why it was supported by both Devlin and Ferrioli?

Both of the tax measures, combined, will raise $1.2 billion over the next 5 years (this according to the Portland Business Journal).

In January 2007, the kicker sent back $1.2 billion to taxpayers that should have gone to a reserve fund to prevent the exact situation we are in today.

Since the beginning of the session, business groups have been calling for a repeal of the kicker to support the rainy day fund, the same business groups who are being demonized on this site.

Now, because the legislature is going to propose new taxes, they are not going to refer out a repeal of the kicker this session (limited political capital).

And....since it will likely be a tough battle to convince voters of the appropriateness of these tax increases, my guess is that they won't refer a kicker repeal next year either.

The economy could very well recover more quickly than expected, and we will send kicker checks out again just after we raised taxes and cut programs.

Then, Oregon will be known for two things it probably won't want to be known for: the highest income taxes in the nation, and the most ludicrous public finance policy in the world-the kicker.

This is not good.

How about we pass a temporary tax increase-which will prevent a lot of the backlash that will likely occur as a result of this vote--and use the remaining political capital to pass something that we all agree on-repeal of the kicker.

That is my .02.

A shout out to Mr. Chisholm:

Hey Kari, why did you pull your stirring rhetoric about Reps. Smith and Jensen voting their consciences, "using their brains," and being independent minded, in the recent post about the shenanigans in the House after Mark Hass obviously did just the same thing in the Senate?

Why is being a maverick good only when it benefits one's own herd of sacred cows?

A shout out to Mr. Chisholm:

You had this up well before the Oregonian had anything. Thanks, and good work.

Among the rumors circulating the capitol, is that labor is pissed at Hass and OBA (and their lobbyist and former Senator Ryan Deckert) and their tactics in lobbying against the revenue package (and their over the top opposition to SB 519). Labor and OBA have largely found common ground on most key issues at the legislature and had developed a detente. There are rumors that they will push forward a package of measures around corporate disclosure, making corporate tax rates follow the individual rates of 5-7-9, and something around executive compensation and companies that have contracts with the state. There are also rumors that there is a growing rift on the OBA board between their progressive members and newer additions who have defected from AOI. Looks like Deckert and others might have bitten off more than they could chew...

Looks like Hass picked the OBA over schools. Maybe his choice to pull his kid from public school and put him in private school was an early sign that he doesn't care about public school kids.

Mark Hass would be wise to explain his actions publicly.

There has been a lot of talk about "Democrats playing their cards too close to their vests", and a public statement would help in that regard.

Unless, of course, they don't care about what ordinary folks think nearly as much as what lobbyists think.

rhymes with ass:

OBA has been a champion for schools since it was founded a decade ago. OBA is one of the most progressive business groups in the nation. We are blessed to have a group like OBA. The fact that someone would even make a statement like "choosing OBA over schools" shows a serious lack of understanding of OBA, of school funding and of the larger picture of spending and taxes.

Mark Hass just cut the school budget by $723 million. He's given the legislature now a pass to blame the increased carnage in cuts in teachers and programs all on him. And they will be right. He is finished in the Dem. party and in this state, and with the constituencies that elect people.

Will Rogers said it best:

"I'm not the member of any organized political party or organization. I'm a Democrat."

Up until now I had been a big fan of OBA---Lynn Lundquist and Ryan Deckert being models of moderate centrists contrasting with polarizers and extremists.

HOWEVER, I think Chuck is right to have a post titled "What is OBA afraid of?".

And, if you think the debate over Merkley's 2003 vote here was controversial in the 2008 primary, you ain't seen nothin' yet until everyone rains down on Mark Hass for his vote today.

I've known Mark for many years--back to when he was a reporter. Too bad there isn't a TV reporter like Mark Hass and Paul Hanson were to find all the background on why this happened.

I find it hard to believe no one connected to Hass monitors this blog. He needs to explain himself, the sooner the better.

My message to Mark Hass:

Senator Hass:

I wanted to let you know how disappointed I am in your lack of support for House Bill 3405. I am outraged that you decided to allow Oregon corporations to once again get a free ride while the middle class and the poor are feeling the brunt of this economic downturn.

I am letting everyone I know in your district about your vote against Oregon's hard-working families.

Hoping you reconsider your allegiances in the Senate,

Daniel Ronan

Everybody seems so upset with Mark Hass, though this will probably pass in some form shortly anyway.

However, it is unfortunate that at least some Dems weren't principled enough to do this the right way: raise all tax brackets by one percentage point so that everyone would be sharing in the pain of increased taxes.

Yes, yes, I know that, if they did that, it probably wouldn't pass. Which ought to tell you something about the whole proposal. It's easy to ask people to support higher taxes on "someone else." If the crisis is as real, and the cause is so noble, why aren't we asking for sacrifice from all income taxpayers. The "rich" (however we define them) will still pay more of it than anyone else. If those making less aren't willing to sacrifice at least something in addition to their normal tax burden, then maybe this doesn't really have the popular support we've been led to believe it has.

Rep. Bob Jensen extracted a bill taking water from the Columbia and Rep. Greg Smith extracted a bill to expand a tax credit for "environmentally sensitive logging equipment" to get their votes for the tax bills.

Wonder what Sen. Mark Hass was asking for or is now being offered? Hopefully, if he is asking, they will not spend too much (now that I know what you are, let's talk price). And better yet, hopefully he will just realize he was wrong, admit it "after careful reconsideration" and change his vote.

There are many people here that have decided to simply blast Hass without considering anything further than passing this tax plan out of the Senate.

I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but step back, calm down, and consider what's going on:

The Republican machine (don't think it's not!) is already getting gassed up in order to refer these measures to the voters. It'll be pitched as the huge tax increase that it is and the currently-fractured Republican Party will get the Tax-Policy Holy War that they've needed to rebuild their ranks and, ultimately, scrap this tax plan.

It seems to me that Hass, unlike his party leadership, is looking beyond this week. Perhaps he remembers what happened with the 2003 tax package and Measure 30!

Perhaps he understands that the best way to nip a referral in the bud and to deny it traction is to make it a temporary increase. In my opinion, that's better than passing a plan that we celebrate over this week... and then gets scrapped in a few months by a newly-invigorated conservative right.

But meanwhile, Hass has to deal with the armchair activists and their immediate cries of bribery!

Go ask ANY Democratic legislator if they're worried about a referral. If they are, then Hass's insistence makes a large amount of sense. If they're not, then I don't know what state they're living in, but it's not Oregon.

Senator Hass: Thank you for looking beyond this week and insisting on a plan that will actually BE AROUND to raise revenue rather than a plan that would simply serve as a legislative martyr. When this plan comes back for a vote WITH a sunset clause, I hope we can count on your support then.

There are many people here that have decided to simply blast Hass without considering anything further than passing this tax plan out of the Senate.

I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but step back, calm down, and consider what's going on:

The Republican machine (don't think it's not!) is already getting gassed up in order to refer these measures to the voters. It'll be pitched as the huge tax increase that it is and the currently-fractured Republican Party will get the Tax-Policy Holy War that they've needed to rebuild their ranks and, ultimately, scrap this tax plan.

It seems to me that Hass, unlike his party leadership, is looking beyond this week. Perhaps he remembers what happened with the 2003 tax package and Measure 30!

Perhaps he understands that the best way to nip a referral in the bud and to deny it traction is to make it a temporary increase. In my opinion, that's better than passing a plan that we celebrate over this week... and then gets scrapped in a few months by a newly-invigorated conservative right.

But meanwhile, Hass has to deal with the armchair activists and their immediate cries of bribery!

Go ask ANY Democratic legislator if they're worried about a referral. If they are, then Hass's insistence makes a large amount of sense. If they're not, then I don't know what state they're living in, but it's not Oregon.

Senator Hass: Thank you for looking beyond this week and insisting on a plan that will actually BE AROUND to raise revenue rather than a plan that would simply serve as a legislative martyr. When this plan comes back for a vote WITH a sunset clause, I hope we can count on your support then.

There are many people here that have decided to simply blast Hass without considering anything further than passing this tax plan out of the Senate.

I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but step back, calm down, and consider what's going on:

The Republican machine (don't think it's not!) is already getting gassed up in order to refer these measures to the voters. It'll be pitched as the huge tax increase that it is and the currently-fractured Republican Party will get the Tax-Policy Holy War that they've needed to rebuild their ranks and, ultimately, scrap this tax plan.

It seems to me that Hass, unlike his party leadership, is looking beyond this week. Perhaps he remembers what happened with the 2003 tax package and Measure 30!

Perhaps he understands that the best way to nip a referral in the bud and to deny it traction is to make it a temporary increase. In my opinion, that's better than passing a plan that we celebrate over this week... and then gets scrapped in a few months by a newly-invigorated conservative right.

But meanwhile, Hass has to deal with the armchair activists and their immediate cries of bribery!

Go ask ANY Democratic legislator if they're worried about a referral. If they are, then Hass's insistence makes a large amount of sense. If they're not, then I don't know what state they're living in, but it's not Oregon.

Senator Hass: Thank you for looking beyond this week and insisting on a plan that will actually BE AROUND to raise revenue rather than a plan that would simply serve as a legislative martyr. When this plan comes back for a vote WITH a sunset clause, I hope we can count on your support then.

(What the heck? I didn't click it three times!)

1) How did Hass get to the Senate? Ryan Deckert. Deckert Resigned to run OBA, Hass was appointed. Hass owes Deckert and OBA. 2) This is what OBA invested in. They hired Deckert for the revolving door effect of a former D senator lobbying his colleagues. After all, there is no other reason for OBA to hire him. Deckert had no executive experience... no business experience... no association experience. As far as I know his entire professional career is as a legislator. Would the businesses that make up OBA hire Deckert to be the CEO of their own businesses? Or even in a management position? At Nike? At Providence? Never. Maybe as a lobbyist, but not an executive. But they hired him to run their association. Today's vote shows why. The revolving door pays off. This is no surprise.

JHL - You made an interesting point. However, when polling was done on various revenue proposals it was found that support for the initiative was not affected by the existence of a sunset provision (in part because voters did not believe that any tax increase would ever be temporary).

Fortunately, the poll found voters did support a tax plan that only raised taxes from the rich and corporations. We need permanent, structural reform of our tax code – this bill would have been a first good step had it passed.

Ok folks - lets talk some facts. Will this package end up on the ballot? The honest answer is maybe.

So far the Legislature has raised the gas tax, decided to tax health insurance to pay for low income kids, raised taxes on corporations, and raised taxes on the rich. They have put a lot out there that anti-taxers may want to send to the ballot.

I talked to one of the Senate aides tonight and she said that Hass believes that if OBA supports the package then it will NOT be put on the ballot by the anti taxers.

I don't believe that. OBA is way closer to Barack Obama than they are to Grover Norquist. I don't see Russ Walker sitting around wondering if OBA is supportive or not in making his decision about what (if anything) he puts on the ballot.

The anti taxers are going to look at what is highly unpopular with voters - make a strategic decision to collect signatures and build their memebership and then hopefully not even have to run a campaign.

My first guess is the gas tax. Most of my non-political neighbors HATE corporations right now - bailout, layoffs, etc - and think that they should be paying WAY more in taxes. That goes for rich people too. My second guess is also the tax on health insurance - not too popular with the stay at home mommies either.

Just my two cents and why I CANNOT understand what in the heck the Senator is thinking.

JHL: To correct your memory:

Measure 30 was temporary. It failed at the ballot box anyway.

Measure 30 was an across the board tax increase and hit all Oregonians regardless of income. That's why it failed on the ballot.

House Speaker Dave Hunt and his team have recognized this reality and passed revenue bills that are fair, balanced, will bring in some serious revenue now, and pass the smell test with voters as well.

I only hope the Senate will get their act together and pass these bills.

Does Hass supports LNG? Is he trying to get the pipeline bill passed?

I predict the taxes are passed today. Senator Hass will have given it much thought and changed his mind. OBA will now be irrelevant in Democratic circles. Ryan Deckert will shoulder the blame for their demise.

At the beginning of the session the Revenue Restructuring Task Force recommended three key reforms (among other things) to improve adequacy and stability of Oregon's revenue system:

1) Reform the kicker 2) Create a "balanced budget rule" for ballot measures 3) Conduct long-term budgeting with both revenues and expenditures in mind.

This was a broad-based group that met for over a year.

As far as I can tell, the legislature has yet to enact any of these reforms, yet is considering a permanent tax increase that has only been on the table for a couple of weeks.

Without passing these reforms, Oregon is likely to end up exactly where it is today even with a permanent tax increase.

I would like to see some of the legislatures political capital spent on passing these reforms.

"I'm sure there are a large number of seriously PO'ed Washington County Democrats tonight, though."

That would be an accurate statement. The WashCo Dems Central Committee voted to support both revenue bills that were tabled yesterday specifically to give political coverage to our Democratic legislators and to demonstrate our support for essential services in our county and state. We realized that the proposed revenue package was likely destined to appear on the ballot and we were ready to take that challenge to the voters. It's what we did with Merkley last year, getting the tough votes. We know we're the swing county and we're not afraid of a fight.

Many of us worked on Senator Hass' campaign, which was a challenge in itself since he ran unopposed, the campaign was not exactly like capturing lightning in a bottle, and, most importantly, to do so took resources and time away from campaigns in which every lawn sign and phone call actually mattered. Many of us are questioning our participation after yesterday's vote. Not that it would have made any difference in the outcome of Senator Hass' race, but in light of the tighter races we lost, perhaps those days canvassing and phone calls trying to convince reluctant voters to put a Hass lawn sign in their yard would have been better spent in HD 26...

Senator Hass has been given the floor many times at our Central Committee meetings, time he has used to show us professionally produced videos branding himself. I look forward to his next appearance to answer tough questions from his party about his vote yesterday.

My message to Mark Hass:

Congratulations for your vote! Your demand for a sunset requirement on the tax increase was fair-minded, far thinking, and entirely reasonable. You showed real courage in standing up to your party and voting your conscience.

While I disagree with any tax increase that targets a specific economic group of Oregonians at least you showed some testicular fortitude that is sorely lacking in Salem these days.

Keep up the good work!

People with the best seats pay the most for the tickets.

People who get the most out of the way government structures and regulates the economy should pay the most to maintain that structure.

Oregon has the second best tax structure, from business' point of view, in the country.

Oregonians rank 41st in the amount of tax they pay to support state and local government.

You can look it up--or Google it.

You are not over taxed, in Oregon.

EIEIO--Enough is Enough In Oregon

"However, it is unfortunate that at least some Dems weren't principled enough to do this the right way: raise all tax brackets by one percentage point so that everyone would be sharing in the pain of increased taxes."

The reason it makes sense, it's fairer and I support creating a higher tax bracket is because right now poor and working-class people pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes, because of the may regressive taxes we all pay like gas, alcohol and cigarette. The regressive taxes I pay mean that I'm paying a larger percentage of my total income in taxes. In whose reality is that fair?