Do you do your budget with a kicker? Really?

How's that working for you if your hours are cut, business down, or if you lost your business, or job all together. What would that kicker do then? Kick you in the butt on the way down??

Fiscal responsible conservatives defending the kicker? Would that not be an oxymoron?

Smoke and mirrors. The need to balance revenue and spending is the real issue. The state is upside down somewhat north of $2.5 Billion according to projections for the next biennium.

"After Kulongoski’s speech, Hunt said it would be a mistake to make too much of the dispute between Democratic lawmakers and the governor on the kicker issue. “There’s no disagreement on the importance of kicker reform,” he said. “The only small difference of opinion is on the timing.”

What exactly does Hunt mean "small difference of opinion is on the timing.”? Does he want to discuss kicker reform during the election year, or wait until after the election?

Does he agree with Courtney that if only one big idea could be passed in the Feb. session, annual sessions was a more important idea to pass out to the ballot?

Does he agree with a statement Kitzhaber made to the effect of "If you can show me how a coalition comes together before November, that's fine, but otherwise I don't see how it happens this year"?

I have no problem with either statement.

But it was my understanding that other issues were the subject of "informational hearings" in Feb. session---build up a record of information which the next session of the legislature could use to move on issues. So why no public discussion of the kicker? What would have gone wrong if the kicker had been publicly discussed in the month of February?

What bothers me is what I heard of Hunt's attitude as "first we build up a coalition, THEN we discuss the substance of the issue".

I happen to believe that election years are for discussing issues. If politicians take strong stands on issues, then when they are elected they have a mandate to move on those issues.

I have no interest in supporting anyone who says "elect us without asking questions, and we promise to fix the problem once elected".

I believe in wide open discussions of issues and asking candidates questions.

Does Alley realize that his .5% of the entire state budget idea requires votes on the Ways and Means committee to make that happen?

How specifically would Dudley "build up state savings?" He does realize the only way that happens is with a specific proposal, doesn't he?

Do our State Treasurer candidates have any ideas on the kicker? Does it have an affect on the state's credit rating?

Last June St. Treasurer Ben Westlund spoke to Marion Demoforum. Those are always broadcast afterwards on CCTV here in Salem.

Not only was I lucky enough to have been in the audience for the speech, but to have taped it off the TV.

A day or 2 after hearing Ben had died, I found the videotape and watched it.

Here, from my notes, is what he said:

*Oregon needs to reform 3 things to get a better credit rating: 1) volatile nsustainable revenue structure 2)permissive initiative system (too much out of state money, among other things) 3) crippling kicker law, which Ben called "Oregon's unique, and uniquely bad, kicker law"

• $1.1 billion in kicker checks were sent out last time.

*kicker is not just a conversation for the legislature to have but for citizens to have".

*there are multiple kicker reform proposals incl. one Ben described as : 85% of kicker recipients get back 85% of their kicker, but that keeps money because it prevents ginormous checks being sent out ("ginormous is an official word", he said).

Curious about that last one, I did a web search.

http://crosscut.com/2007/11/21/oregon/9241/ "For starters, 5,000 taxpayers will receive a refund check for more than

$10,000 each, according to new figures from the Oregon Department of Revenue. " "the top 20 income taxpayers will get kicker checks averaging about $786,000 apiece."

What I want to know is why we can't discuss the above publicly this year in order to have an informed debate on kicker policy in the next session.

I went back and read the ballot measure which put the kicker in the Constitution. Sounds to me like the system could be changed from sending out paper checks to sending electronic refunds without a constitutional amendment. And why do we struggle to balance the budget but send kicker checks out of state? Do the Republicans believe in that so strongly they are willing to say how Oregon should pay for that? Cuts? Other revenue?

Ben was an optimist, very comfortable discussing policy details, willing to trust voters with information and treat them as intelligent enough to discuss that information.

Surely there are living Oregon politicians with the same skills!

It has seemed to me that there are politicians who are comfortable having specific debates and some who would like to discuss details in a closed room and only discuss generalities with the general public.

Are there any politicians currently running for office who are willing to discuss this issue in the way Ben did? Or are they afraid if they stray from generalities that someone won't support them?

I support candidates willing to discuss such information with the general public.

Over the years there have been Oregon politicians whose behavior was to have policy decisions in private. If anyone complained about lack of public input, they'd say "Voters will have their chance to have public input--when they mark their ballots".

Those who talk about "stakeholders" and how they have to consider the wishes of lobbyists are not worth my time and attention. I have better uses for my time and energy than to care what happens to such politicians.

I am not involved in any current primary campaign. My vote will go to those candidates who engage us in the sort of intelligent discussion of issues that we saw from Ben Westlund.

Rainy Day Fund/Kicker Reform was one of the runners up (along with a Ben Cannon long range proposal) at Rebooting Democracy. There is a Facebook group for rainy day fund/kicker reform. The time to discuss this issue is now, during the election year.

Which politicians whose names are on the ballot this year will rise to the challenge?

The question of timing to which Speaker Hunt refers is an important one. Oregon has recently passed through legislative act and upheld through the referral process the state's first wide based tax increase in decades. Business groups that opposed the increases are disgruntled. Quickly moving to pluck away their tasty corporate kicker would rile up the hornet nest for sure.

Although the perception that Democrats are anti-business is mistaken, it is a common conception that should be managed wisely.

"Business groups that opposed the increases are disgruntled. Quickly moving to pluck away their tasty corporate kicker would rile up the hornet nest for sure.

Although the perception that Democrats are anti-business is mistaken, it is a common conception that should be managed wisely. "

How vague is "managed wisely"?

So, in a state where most House districts have several thousand people not registered in major parties (some have over 10,000 such voters) we couldn't publicly discuss the kicker in Feb. because business groups were disgruntled?

I can understand why no legislation was proposed in Feb.

But a state where business groups have to sign off on any public debate is a state which cannot call itself "progressive".

And who said this was just about the corporate kicker? The Westlund quote was "Oregon's unique, and uniquely bad, kicker law".

Ben Westlund had actual business experience. St. Sen. Frank Morse has actual business experience. Dave Hunt has political staffer and Exec. Dir. experience.

In 2007, Frank Morse came out with an idea for an overhaul of the tax system in this state called Hopeful Tax Reform.

It can be found here.

http://www.ous.edu/state_board/meeting/dockets/ddoc070105-hope.pdf

In it, he discusses various aspects of Oregon's tax system. There is a page about the impact of Oregon's initiative system on the state budget.

There is a page titled Fiscal Impact of the Kicker Law.

Now, does that make Sen. Morse "anti-business"?

My point is this: how many business lobbyists have actually run their own business?

How many business owners let lobbyists do their thinking for them?

I once had a friend who had worked for an organization which hired lobbyists to "represent the membership". She wouldn't trust a lobbyist was speaking for the membership and not himself unless she knew the lobbyist had met with the membership within the last few days.

We need more specific discussion in this state, and not just what the lobbyists want.

Under that reasoning, why didn't Hillary Clinton get the Democratic nomination and Gordon Smith get re-elected?

Did Obama and Merkley win because all the lobbyists signed on to their campaigns?

Or was it because Obama and Merkley trusted that the general public was capable of discussing intelligent ideas among themselves?

Was it really true that every business owner in Oregon opposed 66 & 67?

Or was it that "business groups" wanted to show the legislature who was boss, gambled a lot of money that voters would take their side of the issue, and lost that money when voters (who may just had turned their backs on one of the clumsiest, most poorly run campaigns in many years) supported the legislatively passed budget? That's what Yes on 66 & 67 was--supporting the legislatively passed budget. To say otherwise is spin/propaganda.

Don't let it be forgot that the legislature did their job--they passed a balanced budget.

66 & 67 happened only because paid petitioners put the measures on the ballot----and then were never specific about their alternative proposals. There was a quote in the Sept. 27 Oregonian from an AOL lobbyist saying they would take it to the voters, it would be war, it would get ugly.

Yes, some of the campaign was very ugly. In the end, the voters decided to support the legislative budget.

And that stupid bakery commercial by OAJKT with the tagline "thanks a lot, Salem" (as if people with residential addresses in zipcodes from 97301-97306, not legislators from around the state, decide budgets in Oregon) may just have tipped the vote in Marion County. The measures won there by the slimmest of margins after a local SJ columnist wrote an angry column about all the parts of Salem which are not connected to the legislature (Bush Park, Willamette U., Riverfront Park, etc.).

If anyone tries to tell you that all businesses were for No on 66 & 67, tell them to look at this

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/10/the_restaurateur_that_wont_fee.html

One of those business groups had put the picture of a restaurant owner in their publication without his permission, and it turned out the restaurant owner was not an opponent of the measures.

But these are the folks who have to sign off before we can have a serious open public debate on kicker reform?

What we need more of in this state are legislators like Sen. Frank Morse who are willing to talk about the specifics of tax reform and not hide behind generalities about "business groups" or "timing".

Nothing passes the legislature without at least 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate. But that shouldn't mean that public figures are prevented from discussing important issues in an election year unless some group signs off on their discussion.

My support goes to those like Morse who actually provide us information and engage us in the sort of intelligent discussion that Ben Westlund always provided.

If some group or elected official doesn't like that attitude, not my problem.

Last time I looked, the Oregon Constitution still begins, We the people ...

LT,

I'm glad you are in favor of truth, justice, and the American way. Me too, but successful governance in a representative democracy requires political savvy as well. The attempt to reform the kicker has gone on for quite a while without much success. When the nut is tough, concerted, well-timed efforts are more likely to succeed than constant tapping with insufficient force.

I am sometimes peeved by Dave Hunt's moderation on certain issues, but dedication to sufficient funding of state government is unquestionable, and his political skills have been abundantly demonstrated

HJR 17 By Representative KNOPP; Representatives ATKINSON, BEYER, BUTLER, CLOSE, GIANELLA, HARPER, KROPF, KRUMMEL, LEWIS, LOKAN, MINNIS, MORGAN, SIMMONS, STARR, SUNSERI, WELSH, WESTLUND, WILSON, WINTERS, Senators DERFLER, FERRIOLI,GEORGE, NELSON, QUTUB, SHANNON, STARR, TARNO, WILDE -- Proposing amendment to Oregon Constitution relating to state finance.

Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to require return of excess General Fund collections to personal income and corporate income and excise taxpayers if collections for biennium exceed estimated collections by at least two percent. Requires separate determinations for corporate income and excise taxes and for all other General Fund revenues. Allows Legislative Assembly to declare emergency and increase amount of estimated collections. Applies to biennia beginning on or after July 1, 2001. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election.

Jake, you said, "successful governance in a representative democracy requires political savvy as well."

Guess you and I have a different definition of "political savvy".

I happen to think Bradbury and Kitzhaber (and for that matter Frank Morse) have plenty of political savvy. But they also discuss issues with the general public.

Not sure what you mean by "When the nut is tough, concerted, well-timed efforts are more likely to succeed than constant tapping with insufficient force. "

What exactly do you mean by "constant tapping"?

My sense is (anyone can feel free to correct me) is that Hunt's message is that we all should shut up about the kicker until he builds his coalition. Does that mean his will be the only authorized wording of kicker reform and anyone who wants to discuss any other wording is somehow subversive?

Democracy is about "we the people". Oligarchy is government by the few.

I support democracy, which I believe includes the Rebooting Democracy Shovel Ready Policy Contest held recently, among other things.

You may think Rebooting was part of "constant tapping".

I will support candidates who are able to discuss kicker reform in 2010 and the various ideas out there.

I'm the grandchild of an anti-machine politician who got elected statewide in Michigan in the 1930s even though the party establishment was against him.

I'm a big fan of the Public Comm. on the Legislature. Prior to the creation of that group, there were issues that the then-Speaker did not want discussed publicly. But PCOL discussed them in open meetings. The world did not come to an end.

Now maybe they didn't have "political savvy" at PCOL, but annual sessions and other ideas (incl. the remodel of the capitol which included plumbing and electrical repairs) came out of those meetings. Annual sessions were sent to the ballot. The remodel has been completed.

PCOL is how I came to know Frank Morse, a member of that group.

I have more respect for Sen. Morse than for Speaker Hunt.

I will be registering NAV after the primary for the same reason I did so in a previous decade---so that no one can tell me "but good Democrats believe....".

Jake, if you believe Dave Hunt has infinite wisdom, that is your right.

I happen to believe this state does best when people in leadership positions encourage public discussion rather than restricting it.

There was very little surprise to me that Westlund was one of the 19 names of GOP state reps. behind the HJR to put the kicker in the constitution on the ballot. Ben Westlund grew in office. The Republican first elected in the mid-1990s was not the beloved figure he later became.

For Rick and anyone else who has not seen it, watch the "return from the hospital" speech here: http://www.benwestlund.com/

By June of 2009, Ben Westlund talked in a speech about "Oreogn's unique, and uniquely bad kicker law".

Just because he voted for an HJR did not mean he could never change his mind.

I can't remember many speeches Dave Hunt has made. He seems to be a more inside player than an outspoken public figure.

I would love to know what his core beliefs are, but aside from getting the budget passed through the House incl. the taxes which became 66 & 67, I really don't know what those are.

Respect is earned. Westlund knew that, so do lots of other major public figures.

If Hunt would let us in on the timing he talks about (is it discussion during this election year, or only if he is able to put his coalition together in 2010?), I would have more respect for him.

Deaver was right--perception matters.

My sense of Hunt is that he wants all discussion of kicker reform to be postponed until he says it is time to have that discussion. Will he then let us debate more than his version of kicker reform, and the extent to which members of his coalition influenced his thinking?

I would be very happy to be proven wrong about that. It seems the St. Senate leadership of both parties is more outspoken than the House leadership.

Lt,

Making the change will take a lot more than talking. First it needs to be referred by the legislature or but on the ballot by initiative [perhaps you can put the signature gathering effort together, with the Governor's help, of course], then the resulting ballot measure amending the constitution needs to pass. Beginning that process when business/labor relations were already strained by Measures 66 & 67 would have likely caused even greater polarization.

There is nothing stopping candidates from talking about kicker reform. I hope they do. I believe Dave Hunt will be supportive of consideration during the next regular session.

You have been around long enough to appreciate Speaker Hunt's accomplishment in getting House Bills 2649 and 3405 passed. It was no small feat.

First, your exalted "kicker" is simply excess funds collected by the state over and above what was budgeted. Oregon will not have to worry about a kicker for a long time, as stated above, a $2.5 billion dollar shortfall is expected, RIGHT AFTER YOU RAISED THE BUDGET $2.7 BILLION. Are you surprised? To legislate that excess funds be KEPT by the state for any reason means our state constitutional balanced budget provision would be worthless. YEAH, let's permit our wonderful legislators a bottomless checkbook!!! After all, we all know that those being supported by state funds, PERS, teachers, state and local govt workers, are ALL MORE IMPORTANT than me and every other private sector worker out there (those left anyway). So if you think the state needs more money, please provide that money from your own account. Do you have any friends NOT on the state dole? Yunno, those that are competing in an economy with a real life 20% unemployment/underemployment? Do any of you even realize what the reality is in the private sector?

The state DOES NOT DESERVE my respect or money. There has been an economic setback, roll back all the state and local salaries by 20%, then you might have a taste of what has been going on OUT THERE. Shucks, you dont get a guaranteed 8% on your 401K? Too bad, you should have worked for the county/state. Keep paying, cause we deserve to retire on your backs. ahhahahhahahahahhahahahhaha! Disgusting folks.

See what I mean, LT. We need to contend with folks like dave above.

I'm sorry don't you read the economy.

Oregon has over 10% unemployment. Portland was 6th in the nation for business bankruptcies. And your worried about funding a government that refuses to be transparent about it's own funding.

Is this the same board that called the TEA PARTY racist and extreme. Only to find out there is more democrats and independents then even republicans in the TEA PARTY.

This the same board that calls corporations evil, but supports the sausage making both in Oregon and Washington.

Is this the board that said the insurance companies, are to bureaucratic and then want replace them with a 100 time bigger bureaucracy know as government.

To me this is the board that can't look around and do whats best society, how can you make claims Oregon is good for business? Business feel attacked right now, buy government, trust me I know.

I think this board drinks to much of it's self made KoolAid.

But also TJ's idea, Jake.

There will always be people who are naysayers.

I say let's have a debate over the following issues:

->TJ's 1-2-3 idea

->the Rebooting Democracy runner up Rainy Day Fund/kicker reform idea

->the debate on how much to put in a rainy day fund and how much to send back

->the folks who want outright repeal

->the folks who like the kicker but want it recalculated (Vicki Berger talks about this) so it won't be quite a shock to the system
(And let's have those who want to keep the kicker explain how they will pay for it next time around, and what other ideas they have for funding a rainy day fund if not the kicker).

->the 85% of kicker recipients get 85% of their kicker back, but not sending out 5 and 6 figure kicker checks

->denying kicker checks to those who live out of state--only checks to registered Oregon voters

->changing the practice of kicker "checks" into electronic returns of the sort people get if they qualify for a tax refund (by my reading, it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to do that one, but let's get some expert opinion on that).

I talked with one of my nonpolitical relatives about this, and her response was "if the choice is between funding essential services or sending out the kicker, fund essential services". Gee, how many other people feel that way? Why not engaging folks on a personal level about such questions?

Has a poll question ever been asked that way--about choices?

Maybe someone can start a movement that kicker reform will be on the 2012 ballot if not addressed by the legislature (in his speech last June, Ben Westlund said that change begins in "rooms like these"---civic groups discussing reform ideas).

Perhaps kicker reform could be part of a larger reform effort.

My vote and support is going to candidates who are willing to discuss kicker and other reform openly in 2010.

I've been around long enough to remember the beach bill and the original bottle bill (if you don't know about those days, Jake, read Brent Walth's FIRE AT EDEN'S GATE ).

In a state with so many people not involved in the older organizations (major political parties, major lobby groups, etc) I am not convinced that newer coalitions have no power.

Look at the effect the Oregon Bus Project has had on Oregon politics since their first election in 2002. Who could have predicted in April of 2002 what an effect BUS would have on the makeup of the Oregon Senate? (deprived GOP of their majority).

I am not of the political persuasion that mechanics come first, issues debate secondary.

I believe we should publicly discuss all sorts of issues, and educate the voting population. But then, I am a grass roots person.

YMMV

The HJR has it all wrong. The revenues are not "excess". They are normal variances from an economist's estimate. Some times the estimates are high. Some times budget estimates are low.

This is Budgeting 101. I think people understand that. After all, no other state in the country is gullible enough to have passed such a counterproductive budget anchor. One out of fifty - maybe Oregon isn't so brilliant here.

Great, Jim! There was an author on CSPAN who had written a book called 13 Bankers about the current financial situation and the too big to fail mentality.

He said the challenge is changing the concensus.

As I recall, putting the kicker in the Constitution was Tim Knopp's bright idea.

Same guy who said with utter assurance, "Everyone who voted yes on Measure 28 did so for the same reason, and it was an easy decision".

When I mentioned this to my friend who had agonized over Measure 28, sealed the envelope, and worried he had voted the wrong way (he had finally come down on the no side, but just barely) he was not happy.

Excessive certitude is unbecoming in politicians.

Lots of voters (my guess is that this includes many of the folks at Rebooting Democracy) had no chance to vote on the kicker because they were not of voting age in 2000.

But they have no right to a debate on the kicker in an election year because "business and labor relations are strained"?

I don't understand that logic---the Constitution says "We the people..." with no mention of lobbyists.

Assumed power (leadership, lobbying groups, etc.) only works if ordinary folks buy into that idea.

When they decide to do things differently (changing the consensus), things change.

LT,

I have heard House Speaker Dave Hunt discuss kicker reform openly and effectively on many occasions during the past few years. His commitment to kicker reform is undeniable.

Maybe if you came up out of your blog-infested basement occasionally you would have a chance to hear him and others talk about it. And then watch them act to accomplish it in the same way they have enacted so many major public policy reforms during the past three years.

Take your meds, LT.

Apparently none of the BO faithful really want to discuss the elephant in the living room. Folks, hate to tell you, but spending a whole lot of energy right now "fixing" the kicker is like being in a room full of people wearing dark blue pants and pi$$ing oneself. You'll get a nice warm feeling and be contented for a while but no one else will notice.

Face facts Oregon progressives, the state is facing a $2.5 BILLION dollar shortfall in the next biennium (2012-2013). Had the state done something to address the revenue/spending problems even 18 moths ago the problem would not be as hige as what is currently facing us all. The elected state officials need to address this rel issue instead of pandering about the Trojan Horse of kicker reform.

"LT,

I have heard House Speaker Dave Hunt discuss kicker reform openly and effectively on many occasions during the past few years. His commitment to kicker reform is undeniable."

I would love to have heard Hunt give a kicker reform speech. You are the first person I've heard mention such a speech---but then, I don't live in his district, I live in Salem.

I did, however, have some email exchanges with Speaker Hunt.

In one of them, he said, "Reforming the kicker just can't make the same mistake that double majority reform efforts encountered in 1998 -- moving too quickly and losing. That loss was not reversed for another 10 years until 2008. We can't wait another 10 years for kicker reform -- we've got to get it right the first time."

What does "get it right the first time" mean?

That 2010 is exactly the same as 1998? The same voter base? The same political climate and control of the legislature?

I don't see why a public discussion of an issue is so controversial.

JFK had a quote about how a nation afraid to let people judge truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation afraid of its people.

I have worked on many campaigns over the decades. I was local volunteer coordinator on a statewide primary campaign where party establishment and organized labor supported a different candidate. So how on earth did the campaign I worked on win 59% of the vote statewide? Could it have been people power--a large collection of individuals tired of the status quo?

Measure 9 campaign finance reform collected signatures in all 36 counties and passed in all 36 counties. It was supported by groups like Common Cause and OSPIRG, and lots of individuals. I recall running into a lobbyist in a grocery store and telling him I'd just been to a meeting where Common Cause had said they had enough signatures, they were just collecting more for a cushion.

After it passed, I remember a local Dem. county chair being stunned at the victory---no one he knew had worked on the campaign.

All this before blogs existed.

I would humbly suggest that personal attacks have been shown here on BO not to win friends and influence people.

It would, however, be interesting to see what the Speaker (and any other legislator) think of the Rebooting Democracy Shovel Ready Policy Contest winners and runners up.

Maybe someone who is a regular contributor to BO could interview top legislators on that topic? As I recall, a Ben Cannon idea was one of the runners up.

"Had the state done something to address the revenue/spending problems even 18 moths ago the problem would not be as hige as what is currently facing us all. "

Kurt, what should the state have done specifically 18 months ago?

What I heard from friends on Ways and Means is that actual suggestions to their members (as opposed to generalized rhetoric) were not that common.

I'd love to know what ideas you have.

You know very well what my suggestions were 24 months ago LT. your constant harping about ways & Means has a hollow ring. However in case you "forgot"

1. Cut the state motor pool in half, make people use their own rigs and pay them mileage at the IRS rate.
2. Cut down the state cell phone use by going to a single carrier (from the current 3) and only issuing phones to those who truly need them.
3. Have all state employees begin to pay at least $100/month towards their healthcare benefits; they currently pay $0 for full family coverage.
4. Freeze state hiring
5. Freeze state salaries - the state renogotiated contracts with OPEU 503 this summer. The state ODF firefighting employees got 40% pay increases.

Here is what I would add:

1. Abolish OLCC
2. Abolish Education Service districts
3. Abolish OR-OSHA; they are a fantastic agency and do a great job, but we can't afford them. Turn safety and health compliance back over to the feds.

Actually, Jeff, I was put off by what I saw as a clash of personalities over this issue. Anyone who engages in a personality clash does not get points in my book.

It took years until there was even any discussion of fixing the kicker. For years it was "the voters have spoken"---as if anyone who registered to vote after the 2000 election (such as people born 1983 and after and thus were not old enough to vote in 2000) didn't matter because, by golly, the voters have spoken!

By my reading of the 2000 ballot measure, it would not take a constitutional amendment to send kickers back as electronic refunds rather than paper checks.

I'd love to hear some legal opinions on whether that is true and whether any other changes, if any, could be made without a constitutional amendment.

One of the problems in this state in recent years (didn't used to be a problem decades ago) is the idea that discussing the substance of issues is of low priority.

When Ted ran for re-election in 2006 he shied away from issue debates like the plague. That twerp who was his campaign manager during the primary spoke after Jim Hill at the Marion County Dems. meeting. Hill had answered every question asked. The twerp tried to convince us that "the governor is doing what Oregonians want done". Right! How did the Gov. know what Oregonians wanted if he never answered questions in public?

So at least on this, he was actually talking substance.

Here's hoping this year's candidates for all offices give us more substance than Ted in 2006!

Is this a parody too? The big give-away with Steve's was it had Kulongoski being proactive. I guess this is serious because it's only asking him to do so. Agreed with Steve, how could anyone not know that was a joke?

<hr/>