Blue Oregon Blog Updates

Ever wonder how much you would benefit from the Obama tax cut extending middle-class tax cuts as compared to the proposal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy?

While The Rich Do Very Well When the Middle Class is Helped by Tax Cuts, virtually everyone benefits from Obama's middle class tax cuts.

Calculate the Income Tax Cut You Would Receive Under Different Tax Proposals, is a quick-to-fill-out form that does just what its title says, compliments of Citizens for Tax Justice.

Discuss.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

Political prognosticator Charlie Cook has moved the Oregon Governor's race from "leans Democratic" to "tossup".

I'm not a subscriber to Cook's report, so I haven't yet read Cook's analysis because it's behind the subscription wall.

Very not awesome for Team Kitzhaber, certainly. (sigh)

I'm starting to wonder however if Dudley has peaked out..or if he hasn't, if he's close. The press releases from Dudley's campaign are starting to sound especially shrill and nervous. It's an awful lot of protesting/complaining of late over very little and very mild stuff tossed at them by Team Kitzhaber. If Team Kitz actually decides to really go at Dudley, it seems like Team Dudley is ready to go to pieces.

Weird dynamic.

Remember the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes? A couple of guys told the king that they had magical cloth, which only the wise could see. Anyone who couldn't see the incredible suit of clothes the king was wearing was declared a fool.

In this years race for governor, candidate Chris Dudley has his own wise men, his trusted council providing message development and message strategy for his campaign. He dip netted into Mercury Public Affairs out of California and pulled out Steve Schmidt and Josh Ginsberg.

Schmidt worked in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant to the President and as a counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney. Additionally he was a member of the senior strategic planning group led by Karl Rove. In Bush's run for reelection he ran G.W. Bush's campaign war room. Fast forward to 2008 when Schmidt ran the John McCain presidential campaign and found himself working overtime supervising Sarah Palin. He threw Palin under the bus in a 60 Minutes interview after McCain lost, saying she wasn't qualified to run for president in 2012.

Dudley brought in young Josh Ginsberg to run the day-to-day operations for his race here in Oregon. Gingsberg was identified by Politics Magazine as a political rising star in 2009. He too works at Mercury Public Affairs, most recently as one of the vice-presidents. In Political Magazine's June 2009 edition he was described as follows:

"In the summer of 1999, Ginsberg caught the eye of Ken Mehlman, who at that time was the national field director for the Bush-Chaney campaign. Ginsberg interned in the strategy department along side Karl Rove and Matthew Dowd that year. "It was a jumping off point for me, says Ginsberg, "Working with people who are that good and actually take an interest in you has had a profound effect on my career." In 2004, Mehlman hired Ginsberg to work on Bush's reelection campaign. From there he went to work as field director for Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2006 campaign for governor, At 24, he was leading the largest turnout operation ever undertaken by the Republican Party of California," says Terry Nelson, who was so impressed with Ginsberg he tried to recruit him for McCain's 2008 campaign. Ginsberg opted instead for Mit Romney's campaign where he was named national field director."

When Schmidt and Ginsberg unveiled their candidate Dudley, just months ago he arrived grandly dressed in a magnificent suit made of their magical cloth. They focus grouped, microtargeted, crowd sourced and insulated their candidate from debates. Political advisors generally do not promote an attitude of integrity. They work to create an atmosphere, in this case a carefully scripted Dudley, with the thinnest of resumes. All the while Steve Schmidt is claiming Dudley is his own man and can speak for himself.

Dudley might as well have been aboard the Russion space station circling the earth. He didn't touch down and insert himself into Oregon politics until a few short months ago. He's living on out-of-state money, buckets and buckets of it. His advisors are right out of the Karl Rove-Dick Cheney political shops.

There is a reason that fables survive through the ages because of the truth they tell. Will Chris Dudley be exposed, metaphorically speaking?

Your turn.

I'm a little late to this story, but given how this has the potential to essentially end Kevin Mannix in Oregon politics, it's a pretty big deal.

Mannix's sugar daddy, Loren Parks (who has a, shall we say, colorful...background) has shut off the money spigot for Mannix.

Les Zaitz, The Oregonian:

One of Oregon's most high-profile political alliances – between Republican activist Kevin Mannix and millionaire industrialist Loren Parks – has ended in a dispute over money.

For years Parks bankrolled Mannix's runs for state office, his ballot measures and his charities but now has told Mannix he'll get no more money.

That has crippled the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, a group used by Mannix to crack down on criminals through legislation and ballot measures. Tara Lawrence, a former Sherman County district attorney who has been executive director since last October, confirmed she is leaving the job next month.

"Our funding has dried up," Lawrence said in a statement to The Oregonian.

Uh..what?

So one guy bails out and the organization is "crippled" and their "funding has dried up"?

How the Oregon media ever thought this organization was a credible grassroots group is beyond me. It seems like the first obvious question for these groups going forward is: how many grassroots funders or dues paying members do they have?

The O story also details a web of money shifting through the Parks-Mannix connection:

Contributions from Parks have been the primary source of money for the Anti-Crime Alliance and its separate foundation. Federal tax returns show Parks through his own foundations gave $445,000 to the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance Foundation in 2008 and $200,000 more the next year.

He also gave $125,000 in 2008 to another Mannix organization, Common Sense for Oregon. That tax-exempt group works on ballot measures and promotes itself as a watchdog for government waste. Ross Day, a Salem lawyer and Mannix business partner, is executive director of Common Sense for Oregon.

Parks also has been a major donor to a group called We Care Oregon, a Portland group providing support to faith-based organizations. In 2008, Parks gave the group $215,000. We Care Oregon reported on its tax return for that year that it paid $163,200 to the Mannix law firm for consulting. The group also donated $150,000 to the Mannix's Anti-Crime Alliance Foundation.

In a written statement, Mannix said his firm has done legal work for We Care Oregon, and he wouldn't comment further. The president of We Care Oregon didn't return telephone messages.

That isn't the only recent instance where money has moved through groups backed by Parks to private businesses owned by Mannix. Last year, the Anti-Crime Alliance paid $175,000 to a canvassing firm owned by Mannix and two others. The money funded signature gathering for Ballot Measure 73 and for a redistricting measure that didn't make the ballot.

Basically, Parks has been bankrolling Mannix in a huge way. Parks is likely not Mannix's only source of income, but he sure appears to be a main source. Mannix doesn't appear to be telling even his close allies why the money is drying up, but the O hints at a potential scandal in the works:

The state Justice Department is looking into Parks' contributions as part of its investigation of Oregon War Veterans Association. The Justice Department is probing several veterans groups to see if they are properly handling money.

The Oregon War Veterans Association is a $1 million-a-year operation in Salem that has lobbied for state laws to benefit veterans.

The Justice Department last spring demanded financial records, specifically asking for information on the Parks Education Foundation

Mannix's statement said his law firm has handled "limited projects" for the veterans group. He said his firm recently took over representing the association in the face of the state investigation. He said his law firm otherwise hasn't served as general counsel for the association, but Greg Warnock, the association's president, told The Oregonian that the Mannix firm "has worked for us for a couple of years."

Tax records show the association contributed $60,000 in 2008 to Mannix's gubernatorial run. Warnock said the group "has supported both Democrat and Republican candidates since 2003." The 2008 tax return listed only two other political campaigns – $1,000 to a Salem school board candidate and $2,500 to John Kroger's campaign for attorney general.

I expect there will be more on this in the not-so-distant future.

Chris Dudley would have you believe that he's pro-choice. He even deliberately picked a fight with Right to Life to make the point.

But the fact is, as Carla Axtman noted a few weeks ago, Chris Dudley is not pro-choice. He supports parental notification - which Oregon voters rejected at the ballot as recently as 2006. (And here's why.)

But I can't put a finer point on it than Roey Thorpe, from Planned Parenthood, who wrote today in the Oregonian:

In June, Dudley sent a letter to Planned Parenthood Political Action Committee that is very revealing. While he declined to fill out our endorsement questionnaire, Dudley makes his views on abortion clear -- a position that is alarmingly out of sync with the majority of Oregonians. In his letter to Planned Parenthood, Dudley indicates that he is in favor of rolling back abortion access and supports restrictions to choice that Oregon voters have rejected on the ballot time and time again. And he also favors abstinence-only education -- a failed concept that has been proven to be unsuccessful and is only supported by 12% of all Oregonians. This would mean a significant rollback of current state law that already includes abstinence education as part of a comprehensive, age-appropriate program that helps keep our teens safe from STDs and unwanted pregnancy. ...

Dudley has indicated he supports the principles of Roe v. Wade, but that's not all it takes to be a pro-choice candidate. Being a pro-choice candidate means making your positions clear along with a commitment to back up your actions by standing up for Oregon women when they need it the most. ...

Not only is [John] Kitzhaber the only pro-choice candidate in the race, but he has a proven track record as a leader in women's health care and prevention....

Unfortunately, we conclude that Oregonians cannot trust Chris Dudley to stand up for Oregon's long-standing history of protecting personal freedom.

There's going to be plenty of confusion - deliberate confusion - about this in the final stretch of this campaign. Don't assume that your friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers understand the facts. Make sure you spread the word -- Chris Dudley isn't pro-choice. At least, not as Oregonians define it.

Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States. Since his failed attempt in 2008, Romney has been squirreling away cash and chits in an effort to build an infrastructure as he prepares to try again in 2012.

Other than efforts to build this infrastructure, I'm not aware of any significant ties to Oregon for Romney. A search (albeit not comprehensive) yields no news stories of Romney visiting our state, not even during his bid for President. But apparently he thinks he knows us:

If it's Tuesday, it's another round of endorsements from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who is backing four Republican candidates in Oregon and contributing a total of $17,500 to their campaigns.

Romney's Free and Strong America PAC announced that it is backing Oregon gubernatorial nominee Chris Dudley, Rep. Greg Walden in the 2nd district, state Rep. Scott Bruun in the 5th district and businessman Rob Cornilles in the 1st district. The PAC is giving $10,000 to Dudley and $2,500 each to Walden, Bruun and Cornilles.

"Oregon -- and our nation -- needs leaders who will say no to the culture of higher taxes, higher spending, and higher debt, and that is why I am proud to stand with these candidates today," Romney said in a release.

It sort of makes sense that Romney would give to Congressional candidates. They work at the federal level and a reasonable argument can be made for trying to influence national policy, because it has the potential to effect him. But shoveling cash at Dudley is simply a shameless attempt to curry political favor.

Plus, what we do here in Oregon is none of Mitt Romney's damn business.

Other than genuflecting toward some sort of political base, it doesn't make much sense for Dudley to drag Romney out here, either. He's already got plenty of out-of-state donors with deep pockets.

By Alex Lawson of Washington, DC. Alex is the communications director for the Strengthen Social Security Coalition.

Debate rages in Washington about how to reduce our nation’s growing federal deficit, and pundits and politicians alike propose cutting Social Security. Even Congressman Earl Blumenauer was recently featured in a major New York Times article about the effort to reconsider Social Security.

And while Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader, and Ron Wyden have all come out strongly against privatization of Social Security, they have not drawn a line in the sand against any cuts to Social Security. And of course, Greg Walden is nowhere to be seen.

Paul Krugman and others wonder why.

It doesn’t seem to matter that Social Security has not caused the federal deficit, and the program has a $2.5 trillion surplus today, which is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion by 2025. Nor does it seem to matter that the housing equity and retirement savings of many Americans collapsed during the nation’s Great Recession. Cutting Social Security’s protections – especially for middle-aged and young workers – will undermine Social Security as a financial foundation, and often a financial lifeline.

Social Security is paid for through dedicated taxes contributed by workers and their employers. That is why Social Security is a promise, a bond between generations that belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and to their families.

Social Security is family insurance protection against lost wages due to old age, disability, or death.

The importance of Social Security’s earned protections cannot be overstated:

• 659,700 Oregon residents (1 out of 6) receive Social Security benefits
• Social Security has helped lift 273,000 Oregon residents out of poverty
• Without Social Security, the elderly poverty rate would increase from 1 out of 13 (7.9%) to nearly half (47.1%)
• Social Security payments into Oregon total over $8.6 billion a year, equal to 5% of the state’s GDP
• 447,000 workers receive retirement benefits, the average benefit received is $14,200 per year

That’s why a coalition of organizations from across the country have come together to fight any efforts to cut Social Security. The Strengthen Social Security coalition is made up of over 100 national and state organizations representing over 50 million Americans including the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, the Gray Panthers, NAACP, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, USAction, and United Cerebral Palsy.

The coalition is united behind seven commonsense principles:

1. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit; its benefits should not be cut to reduce the deficit.
2. Social Security should not be privatized in whole or in part.
3. Social Security should not be means-tested.
4. Congress should act in the coming few years to close Social Security’s funding gap by requiring those who are most able to afford it to pay somewhat more.
5. Social Security’s retirement age, already scheduled to increase from 65 to 67, should not be raised further.
6. Social Security’s benefits should not be reduced, including by changes to the COLA or the benefit formula.
7. Social Security’s benefits should be increased for those who are most disadvantaged.

Over the coming months, the coalition will be working to ensure that Social Security continues to be an important part of America’s social contract.

There is overwhelming public support for Social Security.

The only question is if Oregon’s congressional delegation is going to be on the public’s side.

By Rev. Joseph Santos-Lyons of Portland, Oregon. Rev. Lyons is co-director of OPAL Environmental Justice and a Unitarian Universalist Community Minister affiliated with First Unitarian Church of Portland.

Today at 4pm, bus riders organized by OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon are rallying at Portland City Hall saying “enough is enough” to fare increases and service cuts.

In a region with a powerful sustainability vision, and a knack for leading the nation in creative urban land use and transportation planning, it is a shame that TriMet’s bus system is in such decay. With over 70,000 100,000 bus service hours being cut this year, on top of the 10th fare increase in 10 years, the region’s bus rider’s are increasingly bearing the burden of transit cut-backs. Will we see bus service continue to decline? Will we see another decade of fare increases and a $3.00 fare? Is this what is best for our region?

Bus riders are the backbone of TriMet, accounting for 2/3rds of daily boardings (pdf), and coming from all parts of the Portland-Metro region. Reliable, affordable and accessible bus transportation needs to be TriMet’s Board of Director’s and General Manager Neil McFarlane’s top priority. We need to restore bus service and roll back fare increases, to echo BlueOregon's TA Barnhart. Public transportation is critical to our most vulnerable communities, folks who depend on TriMet because they can’t drive due to economics, mental health, physical ability, or age. In my view, it is a human right as it is a public good which is our lifeline to basic necessities such as jobs, education, health care and cultural community.

The problems facing Los Angeles and more than 8 in 10 transit agencies hurts us all when overcrowding and missed transfers caused by service reductions make people late to work, when line reductions eliminate our dependable daily exercise, and when our public health risks increase as people are forced to drive at all costs.

OPAL’s Bus Riders Unite community group is building leadership among those most affected by transportation inequities, and we hope you would join them today to hear their story about how they will be impacted by the recent round of service cuts and fare increases.

When critics of Measures 67 say that it caused or is causing Oregon businesses to flee across state lines, I have - along with many others - been imploring the media to insist: Show us the math.

The critics almost never even point to an actual business that's actually moving. When they do, they never provide the hard numbers. They just wave their arms wildly and expect us to believe that any tax increase at all is enough to drive folks into the waiting arms of Idaho, Nevada, Washington, or California. (And here, I'll offer another plug for the Is the Grass Greener? report that actually answered the question - are taxes on business higher or lower in Oregon than in other states?)

At the O, Steve Duin provides a welcome example of how to handle the critics. Insist on specifics. Insist on the math. In his column a week ago about the "Is the Grass Greener?" report, he engaged with critics in his comment thread - insisting on specifics:

Jimbob: Which company? For all I know, it made sense: This stuff is impacting every company differently. But I'd appreciate a few more details.

And again:

I'll repeat the request. Name a company that's left Oregon because of 66/67. And tell me where that company landed in search of a better deal.

There were, of course, no specific responses. Later, one of his commenters noted that the Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter, has been saying that Oregon businesses have been fleeing there. So, Duin called Gov. Otter. Here's what he found...

So, I called Gov. Otter's office Wednesday and was directed to Don Dietrich, the director of Idaho's Department of Commerce.

And I asked Dietrich if, indeed, 97 Oregon companies were moving to Idaho owing to their owners' unhappiness over Measures 66 and 67?

Uh, no.

How many Oregon companies have crossed the border?

"I can point to two businesses that have made the jump across the line," Dietrich said.

Large businesses?

"Small."

Would he like to name them?

"We simply don't share that information."

As John Calhoun noted to Duin (and to me, in person, over the weekend), one of those companies is a five-employee firearms manufacturer called Next Generation Arms. The owner of that firm says he's moved for all sorts of reasons - including complaints that Oregon is regulating firearms manufacturers, providing health care for children, and just generally becoming a "socialist" state. (Laughable, of course.) But the bottom line is: He's moving for what we'll generously call "lifestyle" reasons, not economic ones. As we now know, business taxes are higher in Idaho than in Oregon.

Back to Duin, he still wants specifics:

If anyone can come up with the name of the second company that decided Idaho was a better place to do business, I'll be happy to list it.

Steve Duin's got the right approach here. Journalism should be about finding and accurately describing the truth -- not the he-said/she-said foodfight. There's plenty about politics that's about the arguments on both sides, but when it's a factual, quantifiable question - how much did your taxes actually go up? - it's the numbers that should carry the day. Every time.

From the always interesting Oregon Economics blog, Professor Patrick Emerson provides this graph, courtesy of the New York Times Economix Blog:

State economist Tom Potiowsky describes corporate profits in Oregon as "booming", largely due to staff cuts and pay. Apparently all those incentives for businesses in Oregon are helping somebody, if not the rank and file Oregonian.

Tax revenue from corporations are up enough to possibly trigger the kicker to the tune of $40 million while at the same time facing a massive budget shortfall.

In the meantime, Oregon Republicans are hand-wringing about the lack of revenue while wanting no substantial discussion of ending the corporate kicker.

Comments are closed here. You should definitely comment over at Oregon Economics blog because this is really Professor Emerson's story, not mine.

Over at this Oregonian blog, Jeff Mapes makes a hilarious suggestion:

Here's the next thing I think the Blazers ought to do: host a half-time free throw shooting contest between Dudley and Kitzhaber for charity. It would be entertaining - and generate a lot more publicity than you could buy with the money the team gave the two candidates.

Given that Chris Dudley is the worst free-throw shooter in Blazers history, it might actually be a contest. Thoughts?

There are some serious drawbacks to electing people who warn of government takeover, socialism, who fan immigration flames and warn of death panels. I'm tired of hypothetical hysteria.

If you jumped out of an airplane over Washington D.C. and you had 24 hours to report everything you learned at the Glenn Beck rally, what would you say?

Yesterday in our nation's capital, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin soiled the national mall with their cynical perversion of Dr. Martin Luther King. Apparently the conservative policies of bankrupting the country with tax cuts and massive defense/pork spending while obstructing any and all attempts at reform of the health care and financial systems are popular with the estimated 87,000 folks that showed. Kind of a small crowd for a national DC mall event--but the media still flocks to cover it. Of course, little Portland, Oregon drew 75,000 all by itself just for an Obama rally and the SEC College Football Conference regularly eclipses 90,000 for a home football game. But apparently Team Teabagger Crazy and their mini-DC legion's attempt to foist their "I have a Nightmare" vision on us matters..cuz..well, we're not screwed enough already as it is.

Thankfully, Oregon is 2700 miles away from all that Crazy. And while we have our elements of it here, our citizenry has thoughtfully kept their policy positions out and in fact pushed the opposite in many cases. Which is why we're not as screwed as, say, Nevada, who has embraced elements of Teabagger policy.

So as I sit here, a grateful Oregonian, let's Span the State!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::gong!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Now that Washington County has worked so hard to steam roll citizen concerns over developer dollars in the urban/rural reserves process, the next link in their steam roll chain will happen in the Bethany area. Washington County plans an 800 acre development while setting aside only $69 million to pay for estimated transportation needs, or about 25% of the total cost estimate. Bethany-area citizens are asking the County not to approve the development until funding for all transportation costs (about $289 million) are identified. Note that citizens were not allowed to give testimony in front of the Washington County Planning Commission on Aug 25th as they pondered what to do with the development.

Taking an interestingly different approach, a slick and pretty website asks Lake Oswego residents not only to engage in the process but to take an active role in shaping their city's comprehensive plan. WashCo Citizen Participation Organization info is here. Kinda stark, isn't it?

This letter to the editor in this week's Albany paper caught my eye. North Albany resident Richard Smith is complaining that public dollars are being used to fund "gifts" to the Catholic Church. A story in the paper from mid-July says that about $32k in requests were made by nine property owners to the Central Albany Revitalization Agency for various projects. Among the nine was a request from St. Mary's Church to make one of their buildings handicapped accessible. The LTE infers that the money was approved to the Church. Public dollars to make improvements to church-owned facilities? Hmmm.....

Oregon's County Clerks descended on the little burg of Burns for their conference, bringing a little economic juice to the town's engine. Local vendors were used to provide meals for attendees and over 80 hotel rooms were occupied for the three-night stay.

Recently, the Grand Ronde Tribe held their annual powwow at the Uyxat Powwow Grounds. Photographer Adam Korst captured some gorgeous images of the attendees, which you should definitely click through to see.

Not learning from the mistakes of others is stupid. When that mistake results in public humiliation and job loss, its egregiously stupid, as the Interim City Administrator of Lafayette has discovered.

It’s now official: with state regulators declining to let the Boardman Coal Plant run through 2020 with minimal pollution controls, PGE intends to hold Oregon’s clean air—and the Columbia River Gorge—hostage. The Portland area’s main utility is throwing a giant-size temper tantrum, employing scary threats and unsubstantiated claims to get its way.

An article on the Boardman Coal Plant in Saturday’s Oregonian was the first major instance where PGE publicly stated it will shelve all plans to close its coal plant, unless state regulators accept the environmentally irresponsible “2020 plan.” The 2020 plan would allow the plant to stay open another ten years, making state carbon-reduction goals all but impossible to achieve. It would also let the utility off the hook regarding pollution controls required under federal law.

The Department of Environmental Quality has rejected the 2020 plan once, suggesting a 2015 closure date if PGE doesn’t want to put in major pollution controls. But PGE hasn’t given up, and now hopes it can threaten agencies and environmental groups into submission.

Here’s a rough paraphrase of PGE’s new line for the public: “Accept our 2020 plan, or you won’t like what happens. We’ll put millions of dollars of your money into pollution controls, then leave our plant running through 2040 or longer. We’ll scrap plans to close the coal plant, and scenic areas like the Columbia River Gorge can pay the consequences. If you want to see Oregon’s air and climate safe again, stop whining about things like federal law.”

In mafia terms, it seems like an offer you can’t refuse. Except PGE has left important facts out of the picture. Forget all the reasons running the coal plant for a decade or longer is a bad idea in the first place. There’s no assurance PGE can even make good on its threat to leave the plant open indefinitely.

PGE can’t run its coal plant through 2040 without using ratepayer money to pay for expensive pollution controls (the same can be said for 2020, though the 2040 option requires even larger investments). To do this, PGE needs approval from Oregon’s Public Utilities Commission, and there’s no guarantee they will get it. The wisdom of the investment is questionable at best: it means gambling on the assumption that at no point in the next thirty years will federal carbon regulations make operating a coal plant uneconomical, or a state law or ballot initiative mandate the Boardman Plant’s closure.

Between increased concern about global warming and environmental groups’ determination to phase out coal, such assumptions are highly unlikely. The Public Utilities Commission would be more than justified in rejecting any plan for the Boardman Coal Plant that includes a 2040 option. And without the Commission’s approval, PGE’s threats are not only heavy-handed, they’re at least partly bluff.

Oregonians shouldn’t be fooled.

I wrote back on June 14, 2006 that the Recession Cometh.

Sure enough the recession came and went. Now, the economic news is making mention of a double-dip recession. Yeah, I've been predicting that one too.

So why is this happening? It's easy. All recessions are caused by resource limitations. If businesses do not have access to workers, commodities or supplies, then they cannot service consumer demand. If the consumer cannot access capital either through income (wages) or debt, then they cannot demand what businesses are producing.

They need each other. Businesses need financially sound consumers and consumers need businesses to offer products and services. If you favor one over the other and tilt the balance, then you will not reach optimal economic levels. If you encounter a resource limitation, then economic activity will be limited by the deficient resource.

Businesses are currently fairly sound overall. The big issue rests with a consumer that is broke. Wages are stagnant while credit card and home mortgage debt is way up. The consumer's access to capital is the resource limitation and Democratic leadership has not done enough to remedy the situation. They went all guns into the financial sector and cleared up that mess, but the consumer is still broke.

Until the consumer's balance sheet gets fixed, our economic activity will continue to be limited by this one specific factor. So it becomes easy to figure out what is coming over the economic horizon. Just sit back and watch statistics on consumer debt and wages. Until they improve, the recession will continueth.

By Tyrone Reitman of Portland, Oregon. Tyrone is the Co-Founder, and Co-Director of the non-profit, Healthy Democracy Oregon. www.healthydemocracyoregon.org

What would it be like to discuss the pros and cons of a ballot measure over five full days with a group of fellow voters from across Oregon? Would it be a bore?

What if you had the chance to ask tough questions of the actual proponents and opponents of a ballot measure in an effort to figure out what a measure will or won’t do if passed? What if you could call on policy experts to answer questions that campaigners didn’t answer? What if you could provide Oregonians statewide with information about ballot measures in a way that could really make a difference?

Earlier this month, 48 Oregonians from around the state had a chance to do just that and it was, in fact, exhilarating.

From August 9th – 20th, two separate panels of 24 randomly selected, and demographically balanced Oregon voters met to evaluate two measures on the November ballot. The first panel evaluated Measure 73, which proposes mandatory minimum sentencing for repeat offenders of certain sex crimes and repeat drunk drivers. The second panel evaluated Measure 74, which would establish medical marijuana dispensaries in Oregon. The results of each evaluation will be published as a prominent new feature of the statewide Voters’ Guide in order to provide voters with a unique source of clear, useful, and trustworthy information about ballot measures.

This unprecedented civic experiment is called the Citizens’ Initiative Review. My colleagues and I at Healthy Democracy Oregon have been promoting the CIR since 2007. The Oregon Legislature took a bold step by approving a pilot of the CIR process during the 2009 Legislative session in order to see if this reform would be a valuable public service to voters. We’ve just wrapped up the two Reviews for this election cycle, and want to get your take on this new way of reforming our political process.

Here are the basics of how the Citizens’ Initiative Review works:

Put concisely, over five days, a cross-section of 24 voters hear from advocates for and against a measure, call upon policy experts to answer questions, and then summarize their findings as a resource for fellow voters.

The Review is designed to provide voters with high quality information about measures on the ballot from a source they can trust—themselves. In order to keep the Review process trustworthy, a random sample of Oregon voters is contacted to serve on a CIR panel. Of those who voluntarily opt-in to serve, 24 are selected based solely upon their demographic information to create a balanced panel that reflects the state electorate in terms of age, gender, party, ethnicity, education, likelihood of voting, and location of residence. The panel is a cross-section of the state’s voting population.

The Review is also designed to be fair to both the advocates for and against any given ballot measure and the panel of voters. In order to be fair, the Review process is in-depth. It gives advocates enough time to present their case and answer questions, provides the panel the opportunity to really grapple with the information they receive, and gives the panel a format to have their questions answered. The Review is fair in terms of time—both sides of a measure are given equal time, resources, and opportunities to engage in the Review.

At the end of the Review process, the panel of 24 voters draft their ‘Key Findings’ and summarize the best reasons to support and oppose the measure—all on a brand new page in the Voters’ Pamphlet (and online). Here are the results:

Review of Measure 73 Healthy Democracy Website Measure 73

Review of Measure 74 Healthy Democracy Website Measure 74

So why do this?

Because voters deserve a whole lot more than they’re getting when it comes to well-reasoned information during elections.

When it really comes down to it, most ballot measures are complex. On the other hand, most campaigns (both for and against) work to oversimplify what a measure will or won’t do to win at the ballot. That’s the reality of our modern-day initiative process. No one’s really to blame; that’s just how it works.

The Citizens’ Initiative Review, however, is an opportunity to step beyond that campaign reality, have an in-depth deliberation with everyday people about the very real choices at election time—and provide every voter with a powerful new tool for sorting through even the toughest questions about ballot measures. We hope, given a chance, this new form of public service will become an integral part of our initiative process—adding deliberation to our system of direct democracy.

Are you excited by the idea of adding quality deliberation to our system of direct democracy? Whatever your thoughts are on this subject, I’m sure they won’t be boring.

(Tyrone Reitman is the Co-Founder, and Co-Director of the non-profit, Healthy Democracy Oregon. www.healthydemocracyoregon.org)

It’s not the Watergate hearings, but it’s still interesting stuff for those of us who care about Oregon’s economic and fiscal situation. It’s the quarterly meeting of the Oregon House and Senate revenue committees, where the state economists present the quarterly economic and revenue forecast.

Yesterday’s hearing lacked much of its usual suspense, given that last week the Governor braced us for more bad news on the revenue front. So the $377 million revenue shortfall this biennium announced yesterday did not come as shock.

But as is often the case, the hearing yielded interesting information. We learned, for example, that we are once again on the fiscally irresponsible road of automatically spending unanticipated revenue. According to the latest forecast, right now Oregon is scheduled to give away $42 million to profitable, and mostly-out-of-state, corporations in the next budget period, even as the legislature will face a huge revenue shortfall and will face decisions to slash schools, public safety and health and human services.

We also received confirmation from state economists Tom Potiowsky and Josh Harwood of the following: (1) revenue would be even lower but for Measures 66 and 67; (2) Oregon’s predicament is not unique, as 40 other states face revenue shortfalls, and (3) it’s the national and international economy, stupid!

Below is a transcript of important excerpts from the hearing yesterday on these points, (with the “time” in the audio file noted, available here noted).

On the importance of Measures 66 and 67:

(45:20) Harwood: It’s safe to say that without Measures 66 and 67 we would be in absolutely lower level of revenue than we are now.

On whether people could have moved out of state to avoid paying Measure 66 & 67 taxes this past April 15:

(54:14) Q. So, with regards to that timing, to the extent that there are were location decisions that may or may not have been made, in order for there to be a change for the 2009 tax year, an income tax filer would really need a time machine, and not a U-Haul, in order to change their tax liability, is that correct?

A. Potiowsky: Mr. Chair, Representative Baily, I think that’s yes.

On “it is the global and national economy, stupid!”:

(59:35) Q. “I also heard you say that 40 states have these budget shortfalls. We’re certainly not alone in a drop in personal income tax collections. So certainly Oregon, like the rest of the country, is moving along in pretty uncharted waters that may get pretty difficult to project. And so of that might be to use a really, really overused term, “It’s the global economy, stupid.” Is that, would that be accurate -- we’re being influence by national economic factors?

A. Potiowsky: Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Representative Gelser: Yes, there is not an Oregon mortgage rate that we can set that’s different than any other state. I mean, it is the financial markets and conditions that influence all those factors. Our exports levels that we have in the state, where manufacturing exports quite a bit. Yes, so it’s global and national, really basically push us around.”

More on “it’s the global and national economy, stupid!”:

(104:48) Q. “I need some clarification of some recent questioning, line of questioning, where I got the sense that we’re justifying Oregon’s situation to global and national effects. But all states — how do I couch this? It isn’t just national and global effects. Obviously global is doing better than nationally. But there are states that are able to balance their budget, there are states whose unemployment figures are going down, there are states whose income is going up. And, so it isn’t just Oregon responding to national and not having any choice on how to respond to it. It isn’t just national economic factors that are affecting Oregon. Or did I hear the line of questioning such that Oregon can justify its economic crisis on national and global factors?

A. Potiowsky: Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Senator Telfer: It’s sort of a two-part aspect, short-term and long-term. Now, short-term, what does your economy look like? In Oregon, we’re pretty much a state that makes things. And durable goods manufacturing tends to be much more volatile through the business cycle than, say, a North Dakota, which has a little bit of a financial aspect, but a lot of farming. And they have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now, I don’t know of any laws or something that North Dakota changed in order to get that unemployment rate down or what they did necessarily to their budget. So a lot of it depends on what type of localized economy do you have that is influenced by national and international conditions. So in the short-term, in my mind, and especially a state like the size of Oregon, it’s hard for us to pass necessarily, I would say, a law or a spending package that’s going to be able to push back on any these global and national influences — in the short-term.

Longer term, is this a desirable place to do business? Is there transportation capabilities? What is the education scale of the work force? Energy availability. Those things over time —a longer period — can, I think, be influenced by state governments.

Q. So, I’m hearing that we as legislators, other than balancing the budget, ought to just sit back and wait for the nation to pick up because there’s nothing we can do to improve our economic situation?

A. Potiowsky: Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Senator Telfer. No, not at all. There are things that you can do to, for example, there are programs to help the unemployed. For example, to try to get them through this rough time. There are other areas that you possibly can do investments today that will also help the economy into the future. They may not immediately help today. And you have a constitutional duty, right, to balance your budget. And so you have to figure out the hard, hard job of what is the best way to do that, that in turn will not cause a longer term harm on the economy.

On “Oregon is not uniquely in trouble; 40 other states confront revenue shortfalls.”:

(1:11:51) Q. And just one quick follow up, Mr. Chair. So If I heard you correctly, 40 other states have revenue shortfalls. And like us they will need to balance their biennium, their budgets, by the end of their budget cycles, just as Oregon will have a balanced budget.

A. Harwood: Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Representative Gesler. To the extent that they have similar balanced budget amendments, balanced budget requirements, yes. I mean, there are nuances with every state, depending on what’s the debt load, their capacity of moving stuff around. But certainly, Oregon is not unique in its budget situation.

The testimony by the non-partisan state economists should dispel the confusion or misinformation surrounding the tax measures and Oregon’s fiscal and economic reality.

Discuss.

Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org.

By J. Graber of Portland, Oregon. He is a former journalist and a graduate student in strategic communications at the University of Oregon, Portland campus.

When I was a little tike my sister had a doll with a string in her back. Pull the string and the toy would utter some reassuring little message like, “I love you.” That doll was her favorite toy. She kept it propped up on her bed like it was the real thing … for awhile. It wasn’t long though until this flashy little toy (it was pretty neat in the early 70s) ended up at the bottom of the toy chest. The problem was, the four or five little phrases the doll was programmed to repeat got old pretty fast.

I just can’t help but wondering these days that if you were to get a quick glimpse at Chris Dudley’s back, you might find a similar string.

What’s even sadder still is he’s not even singing a new tune. Tug Dudley’s cord and you get the same old tired song Republicans have been singing for years:

“Create jobs!”

“Lower taxes!”

As a reporter I developed a surefire system for separating the real thing from the posers with a sound bite: keep asking “How?”

Candidate: When elected I will create jobs.

Reporter: How?

Candidate: I will lower taxes.

Reporter: How are you going to cut the revenue stream when the state budget is already facing a $1 billion shortfall?

It doesn’t take too long before the sound biters start running out of answers.

I suspect Dudley hasn’t shared his opinions with us yet because he hasn’t been told what they are. When he figures out what he thinks everyone wants to hear, I’m sure he’ll come out on stage twirling a basketball on his finger and repeat it.

Case in point: After ducking numerous opportunities to discuss the issues in order to be do things like be groomed by current Republican governors … er … I mean, spend quality time with his family, Dudley has finally agreed to a debate with John Kitzhaber.

The golden date is Oct. 7th. That’s exactly eight days before ballots are mailed out. Eight days! How is anyone really going to have enough time to digest Chris Dudley’s stance on difficult issues like school funding and truly make any meaningful sense of it?

Where as John Kitzhaber has had all of his card laid out on the table since the primary election, it’s going to take Dudley’s handlers until Oct. 7th to program him with the right responses.

This election is turning out to be John Kitzhaber versus the Republican candidate. Normally I would say it’s never as simple as that, but the only argument Chris has made for himself is, “Vote for me, I’m a Republican.”

He’s been running some pretty slick television commercials since right after the primary and he just trotted out a brand new one last week trying to blame John for the recession (WTF?!). If you notice though, there no real substance to these ads. They might as well be narrated by Charlie Brown’s teacher, “WWWAAHHH WWWAAAHH WWWAAAHHH WWWAAAHHH.”

What’s that ma’am, vote for Dudley because he’s a Republican?

No thank you ma’am.

That’s not to say Dudley’s strategy hasn’t been effective … so far. With less than 80 days to go to the election, pollsters are calling the race a dead heat. Dudley and his right-wing pals seem to think that if he can scream his name the loudest at the voters, they won’t notice he’s not really saying anything else.

It’s the old strategy of trying to buy the election by outspending your opponent to get your face out there more than him. Dudley’s has out fund raised John nearly 2-to-1 so far.

As Attorney General John Kroger told a group of volunteer canvassers Saturday before heading out to talk to voters about John’s stances on everything from economic recovery to education funding, “The other side isn’t going to have a grassroots effort because they don’t believe in grassroots support. They believe in raising a lot of money from huge corporations.”

By Ann Kramer of Hood River, Oregon. Ann is a counselor and board chair for the Gorge Grown Food network, an organization working to building a regional food system in the Columbia Gorge.

Recent headlines indicate that the State of Oregon faces another $1 billion in deficits. The trickle-down effect of the financial crisis that started with Wall Street banks has now come to all our Main Streets across Oregon.

Ironically, while Wall Street is handing out ever- bigger bonuses, State employees will be handed pink slips. In parallel, the private sector has handed out its own round of pink slips as unemployment sits at 10.6% (and almost 20% if one counts those who are off the roles but have given up trying to find employment.). Thus many will clamor for cutting more out of the State coffers, but we must remember that State employees shop at local stores, pay mortgages, get their hair cut and otherwise are an intricate part of the dance between the public and private systems that create Oregon. There’s no way to separate them….they are interdependent. So while cutting back on State expenditures looks effective, it is far less so when you factor in how that cuts back on private businesses too.

We are not the only State in budget crisis. This is happening everywhere. The City of Los Angeles recently announced that they would need to fire 1000 City employees immediately else they would be filing for bankruptcy. But as one citizen said at a public forum on the issue, “If you lay off 1000 City employees, that’s 1000 mortgages that won’t be paid, 1000 people not stopping by our local businesses and eventually, we’re all filing for bankruptcy. When does this end? “

And that’s what we all have to stop and ask ourselves—when does this end?

The work of our State doesn’t exist because of green pieces of paper—it exists because our communities need and want these services in order to create a thriving Oregon. The State may have come up short on $1 billion green pieces of paper, but it is not short on the work that needs to be done.

Another billion in budget cuts in addition to the $2.3 billion last January results in a huge retraction of our lives. We keep acting as if there is no other option than this when in reality there’s a far better option available to us and that’s to create a State Bank of Oregon. Based on the 90 year, successful model of the Bank of North Dakota (BND), a State bank offers a way for us to recharge Oregon’s economy. The Bank of North Dakota model works: they have the lowest unemployment rate in the country (3.6%) and the only state in the country with NO DEFICIT. Right now 11 states are exploring the creation of a State bank as a way to untangle s from Wall Street and build thriving States backed by the full faith and credit of its citizens. Oregon should be the first to lead the way!

The State of Oregon collects and spends lots of money. Did you ever wonder where that money goes? Right now, much of it sits in the TBTF banks and they receive the benefits. In fact, we use the TBTF banks for lots of government services—even paying them to administer the OR SNAP program (food stamps). Instead, a State bank could provide these services, saving us millions as well as interest income returning to State coffers. The State Bank of Oregon would partner with local OR banks to make agricultural, small business, economic development and low-cost student loans to OR students. This availability of credit has all but disappeared from the TBTF banks, but with a State Bank of Oregon, small businesses and farms—which are the backbone of OR’s economy could once again get back to work!

The Bank is a profitable business but the profit belongs not to shareholders and CEOs but to the State of Oregon and its citizens. In North Dakota, it has enabled them to lower taxes and help fund more small businesses that benefit the state overall. As a bankers bank, however, it doesn’t compete with local community banks but instead helps them to compete with the TBTF bank and as a result, it ensures that Oregon’s money it put to work in Oregon and for the benefit of Oregon and her citizens.

Ultimately, this comes down to us thinking about the future of Oregon and our children. As we cut back more and more services, our children have to live in this world of limitations. The easy choice would be to simply say that we have no choice and to stay stuck in status quo and the same old way of doing things. Or we can stand up and make a new choice—one that isn’t all that difficult since the Bank of North Dakota has already proven this is a winning model. Taking this step is to tell Wall Street and the banking system that perpetrated this crisis that we will not let their actions ruin our lives but instead use it as a catalyst to create new solutions and a better Oregon.

90 years ago today, our nation finally got off its collective ass and enfranchised hundreds of thousands of women, by ratifying the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution.

It's as good a day as any to remember how awesome our Constitution is. And how awesome Schoolhouse Rock used to be.

You might also enjoy this nice little essay by Christine Stansell on the history of suffrage in the US. Note that Oregon was one of the first states to enact the right of women to vote. Yeah, we're cool like that.