po

The Alternate History of Tabored Oregon

TABOR (the ironically-named "TAxpayer's Bill Of Rights") has qualified for the ballot.  Without going into the horrible details of the measure, I'll note that it pegs the state's spending at a level that can only increase with population and inflation rates.

Never mind that TABOR neglects to stipulate that spending must increase at those levels as well... which allows for this little very-generalized trap:

But what really irks is knowing what Oregon would be like today if TABOR had been in existence earlier, say 1862.  Let's step into the Way-Back Machine and find out, shall we?

1862: Governor John Whiteakre addresses the legislature's third session, and announces that the spending for the biennium reached $55,372.  That's a pretty good load of cash back then.  With the population booms and runaway inflation rates, it'll no doubt increase dramatically.  The US Census reported Oregon's 1860 population at 52,465.  In 1870 it was 90,923.  Interpolating a value for 1862 gets us a population of 60,156.  (Assume an increase of 3,845 each year.)  That's a state budget of $0.92 per person.  And, adjusting for inflation, that's $18.90 per person. 

So with Oregon's current population of 3,421,400, that's a grand state budget of $64,664,460.

True, this is layman-grade research.  My methods use data from varying sources, and I do not take into account that severe economic downturns would have pushed that rate down even further.  But the ballpark we're looking at is a state budget of under a hundred million bucks -- less than 1% of the current budget.

So my standing challenge to TABOR supporters is this: Draft up how, exactly, you would spend $100 million per biennium... or present data that show how a TABOR in the original Oregon Constitution would not have limited the state to such a pittance.

Election Projection Forecasts Saxton, SEIU Crawling Back to TK

Election Projection the site that tracked all of the poll results and made predictions in the 2004 race is predicting a Saxton victory this fall. They just started tracking the race in July 14, but it is significant that even though they note a democratic trend, they still pick saxton. Wonder if anyone told TK's pollster, Lisa Grove that her guy isn't really as popular as they think. In other campaign gossip, word is on the streets that the purple haze will make its way to teddy k's campaign this week sending a strong message that fear is an essential ingredient to forgiveness.

Saxton hoping fires will spark support

Saxton is fired up over these fires in Central Oregon and sent out a  press release to beat up Teddy k on the issue:

KULONGOSKI WRONG ON FOREST MANAGEMENT
Saxton to tour Black Crater Fire and visit Sisters
Campaign also releases new Fires radio ad

As the Black Crater Fire grows to nearly 3,000 acres and threatens to evacuate the entire town of Sisters, Ron Saxton will TODAY visit the affected areas and question Governor Ted Kulongoski’s opposition to sound forest management and fire prevention.

“Oregon’s Governor needs to get serious about forest management,” Saxton said. “Not only has Oregon seen more than 500 forest fires this year, but we’ve witnessed destructive fires every summer during the Governor’s term and yet nothing has happened to reduce the fire risk in Oregon.”

Also, a new radio ad accompanied the PR:

Ad Title: Fires
Length: 60 Seconds
Production: McCarthy, Marcus Hennings, Ltd.

RON SAXTON
Another summer has brought us another round of devastating forest fires across the west, including a massive fire near Sisters and more than 500 fires across Oregon.

Yet Governor Kulongoski has left Oregon unprotected – and his opposition to sound forest management has made fires more likely.

This is Ron Saxton

Unlike Governor Kulongoski, I support federal legislation that allows for the removal of dead and dying trees – reducing fire fuel and hastening recovery from fires that do occur - like the Biscuit Fire of 2002.

Forest fires ignore boundaries, so Oregon’s Governor must support these efforts at the federal level.

As Governor, I’ll maintain Oregon’s proud tradition of conservation by working with the federal government, local forest managers, private landowners, researchers and scientists to promote healthy forests and protect against fires.

Because politics as usual – puts even more Oregonians at risk.

I’m Ron Saxton.

Funny that Ron attacks Ted during a natural distaster for political gain and then condemns "politics as usual".

Although Teddy K, not to be left out, plans a tour tomorrow.  The fires are in Westlund's senate district, and although his campaign confirmed he toured the site last night,  no press releases, or radio ads, to that effect could be found.

Where has all the money gone?

As the union leadership lines up behind Teddy K, we ran across another, seemingly unrelated post by the National Journal's Chuck Todd:

...it's probably the biggest mystery of the cycle. It's not clear who is funding get-out-the-vote efforts for the Democrats this year, or more important, who is running them. Is it a coordinated state-based campaign with a loose connection to the Democratic National Committee? Is it labor, and if so, which part -- John Sweeney's the AFL-CIO or Andy Stern's SEIU? And where did all the money from America Coming Together go? Will even half of it make it back into Democratic coffers in some capacity? There are still lots of unanswered questions, and Election Day is less than five months away.

Todd brings up an excellent point, does labor have solidarity now that the break-up of the big guys is filtering down into the states. What happened to all of the national money that helped keep oregon blue in 04? How is the national split affecting Oregon?  Will AFL-CIO and SEIU kiss and make-up with the threat of Saxton looming?  And, even if they do, do they have the capacity, or desire, to pull it out for the d's?  Some say no after the purple haze failed to kill the king in the primary.

The r's have some conservative ballot measures and their first real shot in years at Mahonia Hall to drive their base.  But what do the d's have?

Without sexy progressive ballot measures, D insiders are in a tizzy over what will turn out the vote they need in the house and senate.  One insider even confided that legislative candidates were wary of hitching their horse to TK's wagon (is any candidate in this state polling worse than a 55% disapproval except Ted?)

Usually in these circumstances, the campaigns turn to good old-fashioned fear to mobilize a base, but is Saxton scary enough (if you say yes, see the T-shirt section of the PurpleOregon store)? It almost seems like the same campaign play book is being used against Saxton that was used against Mannix, "too extreme for Oregon" I believe it was titled.  That play almost didn't work as mannix, who was extreme, closed the 16% lead Ted had during the summer months and labor and the d's had to sacrifice 5 house seats to pull out a win.  Can they/ will they do it again?  Will the base bite?  Will the voters buy it?

Update: A clue from one side of the split, from the afl-cio 7/26 email newsletter seeking interns:

Interns will help implement our aggressive grassroots campaign to register, educate, and turn out more than 100,000 union voters across the state. Among our top priorities are sending a pro-worker legislature and governor to Salem, and defeating a pair of ultra-right ballot measures designed to strangle state spending on education, public safety and health care.

Duties will include: research, working with state labor leaders, recruiting and organizing volunteers, member outreach through canvassing and phone-banking, working with our activist database, and assisting staff in planning rallies and other volunteer activities.

Free Speech (for Staff) Dead in Oregon?

A not-so-interesting debate is raging over at BlueOregon on the significance, or not, of a recent Zogby poll on the race for Governor.  But it has highlighted an issue we at PurpleOregon find deeply concerning, that of free speech for those of us "in the biz".

A commenter over there, under the name DifferentSalemStaffer, makes the comment, "I'd be fired for expressing my personal opinions."  This is not a unique problem.  We at PO were invited to be on Thom Hartmann's radio show on KPOJ, but alas, we have the same problem.  Our reliance on "the biz" for financial reasons makes it impossible for us to comment, except anonymously.

Anonymous writings are not new to politics, as our sidebar explains, nor are they less compelling.  If you desperately need to know if a comment was posted by a republican or a democrat before you know what to think about it, you probably aren't getting our point.

But the comment makes us curious, have staffers been intimidated into supporting the status quo?  Do you risk your job if you support someone in another party (or none at all)?  Has anyone out there been told, "Support Westlund and you'll never work this state again?"

Anonymous postings welcome!

   

Parks Playing?

Have the big players from the primary taken their toys and gone home?  Word on the streets is that Grande Ronde has pledged to spend over $2 million for the benefit of Saxton this fall.  Even more interesting is the rumor that Loren Parks is still pissed at Saxton for the slam ads in the primary and plans to play big this fall, and maybe not just against Ron.  The unions, unable to get their members enthusiastic about supporting Ted, are trying to stir the troops with the message (and video) that Ron is public enemy #1. 

Will Parks play hurt both parties? Will the tribes battle for portland market share drive the debate? Will the union's members play follow the leader(ship)?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of As Oregon Turns...Even the parties may be shut out this election in the shout out between special interests.

A National Nonpartisan Trend? Unity 08

A new coalition made up of individuals from the beltway and beyond, including Angus King, former Indy gov of Maine, have come together to start a movement for a new slate for presidential o8 race. They are calling themselves Unity 08 and they say:

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups – with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system – and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

They are calling on people who have put parties behind them to step forward, join and become a delegate for the Unity 08 platform convention.  They cite a poll that demonstrates that 82% of Americans agree that “America has become so polarized between Democrats and Republicans that Washington can’t seem to make progress solving the nation’s problems.”

They are utilizing the internet and I noticed the Dean internet guru on their founder's list.  They plan "to build an online community of millions of registered voters who will participate in an online convention in the first half of 2008 to nominate a Unity Ticket among any two candidates constitutionally qualified to serve – as long as they represent more than one party."

Are we closer to the breakdown of traditional parties than we think?  Will it come from those in the middle who have been left behind by the extreme partisan agendas of left and right?  Or are moderates just too damn busy living their lives to participate in political action at all?

AFSCME to Members: Will Lie for Money

Anyone who doesn't see a recently-emerging disconnect between the general membership of Oregon's PACs and their boards should pay close attention to the recent AFSCME endorsement of Governor Kulongoski.  It's no secret that a good portion of union members are generally conservative folk on some issues.  It's no secret that an endorsement by AFSCME is not tantamount to an endorsement by each and every one of its members.  But what should really cause union members some pause is the conflict between what is communicated to them and what the union ends up doing with their dues.

In a recent (7/19) story in the Statesman Journal, AFSCME's Exec Director Ken Allen painted a very pleasant picture of a Kulo endorsement absent of any strife:

AFSCME's decision was a "no-brainer," Allen said. Only one member of the executive board, out of about 60 people present, voted against a motion to endorse Kulongoski, he said.

Sounds fair at first glance.  After all, Kulo is a Democrat and the membership knows that's just simply the way things work when you play for Gubernatorial stakes.  However, PurpleOregon recently snagged a copy of the minutes of a local AFSCME meeting on June 9:

The most recent use [of dues] will probably be to endorse the incumbent Oregon Governor, whose soul (sic) contribution was to annihilate the public employee's retirement system.  During a past visit to the local union hall meeting, Ken Allen stated that the Governor had betrayed us and AFSCME will not endorse him again.

Link to a PDF of the document

So the no-brainer suddenly becomes very much a puzzler for a large portion of AFSCME's general membership.  Why, then, would Mr. Allen say such a thing?  It seems to indicate that the "no-brainer" status of the decisionmaking process was localized only to the upper-echelon leadership... and discounted the wishes of the general membership.

Recently on a BlueOregon post, Joe Baessler (AFSCME's Political Coordinator) stated that "I don't have to worry about our reputation. We do what we say."  But there are apparently at least some members in Local 3940 who feel differently.

What will the effect be in the general election?  Certainly, AFSCME has the cash to hand around... but will they have the same dedicated field crews that we saw in 2002 - the phone bankers and canvassers that sent so many progressives to Salem?  Time will tell.

Are Traditional Parties in Decline?

Peggy Noonan had an interesting column a few weeks back in the Wall Street Journal entitled, Third time: America may be ready for a new political party. She wrote:

I have a feeling we’re at some new beginning, that a big breakup’s coming, and that though it isn’t and will not be immediately apparent, we’ll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began... people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats’ and Republicans’ control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it’s said they are too much alike—Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it’s said they’re too polarizing—too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses."

She goes on to say that we are on the verge of a new politics where the two parties are put aside and extreme partisanship is affecting America because the major parties use wedge issues to push those of us in the center back and forth across an imaginary line for political gain. 

Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous....The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it's a serious issue, face it. Don't play with it.

I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

Here in Oregon, we have the candidacy of Ben Westlund who left the Republican party to run as an independent becuase, as he says, "extreme partisan politics is keeping us from solving Oregon's problems."

Are "real problems for real Oregonians" going unaddressed as the parties play their games for control of the chambers?  If what Noonan asserts is true, that we are on the edge of a new era in politics, is Westlund a political entreprenuer and is Oregon once again on the forefront of national politics.

Are the parties too alike to get along?  Or too different? Does it even really matter which of the monopoly parties are in control if they are so paralyzed anyway? 

Last session, the democrats, supposedly the progressive party, controlled the Senate and the Governor's mansion and yet didn't have the power or political will to address tax reform, to pass prescription pooling, to get a biofuels package, to get even a smidgen of of equality for gays and lesbians.  They are the perfect examples of how having power is not equivalent to knowing how to use it. 

The House Republicans, more efficient at controlling their majority, didn't know how to lead them towards anything and they spent most of their time keeping any political gains away from the D's.

Yes Oregon, our two party system is working real well... for the extreme partisans.