Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Mark Ufkes and William Gerdes some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Oregon Democrats bite the bullet on tax increases

    While Washington legislators punted on tax increases, Oregon's Democratic majority passed some big increases. One reason for the contrast: Gov. Ted Kulongoski can't seek a third term, while Gov. Gregoire might still hope for one.
    Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski

    Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski State of Oregon

    Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire

    Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire State of Washington

    One legislative reporter called it a "billion-dollar day," and the Democrats who control Oregon's Legislature and the governorship certainly laid it on as they moved Friday toward adjourning their six months in session.

    Three measures approved by the Legislature will raise some $1.1 billion in the 2009-2011 biennium. There is a sharp contrast with the Democratic-controlled Washington Legislature, also with a Democrat as governor, such that one can only wonder which strategy will best preserve party control after elections in 2010.

    Washington Democrats avoided serious tax increases like the plague, following the lead of Speaker Frank Chopp and Gov. Chris Gregoire, basically leaving tax increases to local governments. (Seattle will predictably pick up the challenge, just this week sending a big low-income-housing measure to the voters in November.) Oregon's legislative leadership, like Washington's, has a super-majority requirement to pass a tax measure, and barely got the needed 60 percent in the Senate, when one Democrat fled the caucus on Thursday, cut a deal with Republicans, and returned to provide the margin in an 18-11 vote.

    Gov. Ted Kulongoski will sign the legislation, but in referendum-happy Oregon the taxes could wind up on the ballot if voters collect enough signatures. And Democrats might well get their comeuppance from voters in the 2010 elections, as Susan Nielsen predicted in a column in the Oregonian, noting "the lure of self-sabotage" for the Democrats in power.

    Overreaching or not, the Democrats approved: An increase in personal income taxes for taxable income above $125,000 for a single person or $250,000 for a couple, raising $472 million in 2009-11, less in later years as the rate drops. Increases in corporate taxes on a sliding scale, raising $261 million in 2009-11. (A portion of the added corporate taxes go into the state's "rainy-day" fund— the compromise exacted by the holdout Senate Democrat, Mark Hass of Beaverton.) Higher taxes on hospitals and health-insurance premiums, allowing coverage for some 115,000 uninsured children and adults; some of the $400 million will be offset by federal funds.

    Republicans for many years have used the "tax-and-spend liberals" label to tar even the most cautious Democrats. This year the Oregon Legislature has seemingly written the script for a revival of the label. "We're back to business as usual," Rep. Larry George of Sherwood told The Oregonian. "We're going to continue to spend and spend."

    The question is whether this line of attack will work in hard times, or whether Democrats can point to specific cases where use of the added funds helped keep teachers teaching, workers working, and basic services provided. Will voters like "the party of tax and spend" or "the party of No?"

    Meanwhile, in Olympia, Gov. Gregoire signed (on May 19) a budget with no general tax increases, relying instead on a hodgepodge of federal stimulus funds and quick fixes to hold the budget line for two years. Republicans were denied the "tax and spend" line they will exploit in Oregon. "They [Republicans] absolutely were persuaded that we were going to come in here and raise taxes, and it didn't happen. It didn't happen," Gregoire said in signing the budget.

    Although there is remarkably little back-and-forth between the legislatures of the adjoining states, they do watch their counterparts on big issues, and certainly this is a time when interest in taxes and budgets is keen. There will be Washington Democrats who would have loved to had the option to do what Oregon counterparts did. "All of us were miserable together when we made the very difficult choices for the people of the state of Washington," Gregoire said as she signed. In equal measure, Democrats in tight Oregon races held to their caucus line, knowing that it sets them up for political misery in 2010.

    The difference may be in the willingness of a governor to lead the battle for taxes to heal the economic wounds. Kulongoski cannot seek a third term in 2010, owing to term limits. Gregoire can. But the parlous state of Oregon's finances is also a factor. The state has been rocked by initiative limits on revenue-raising and has also experienced a more prolonged and deeper economic slump than has Washington.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Mon, Jun 15, 8:13 a.m. Inappropriate

    Excuse me, but did you forget Tim Eyman?

    In order to pass a tax increase in the Washington State Legislature, you need a 66.6% majority. Can you show us how Governor Gregoire or the legislative leadership of Brown & Chopp et al could have come up with that?

    This comparison between political leadership in Washington & Oregon is, accordingly, not based in any reality beyond looking wistfully across the Columbia River.

    Posted Mon, Jun 15, 9:16 a.m. Inappropriate

    Yes, of course I am aware of Eyman and the super-majority test, which I mentioned in my article. But this does not prevent Washington legislators from sending to voters any number of special taxes that will be paid by only a minority, or even an income tax on high-earning people, such as the Oregon Legislature passed. These ideas were considered here, but dropped.
    Floyd McKay

    Posted Mon, Jun 15, 9:39 a.m. Inappropriate

    It is not exactly clear what we are to make of this. Is the writer implying that Washington legislators are cowardly for holding the line on taxes? The writer's statement, "The difference may be in the willingness of a governor to lead the battle for taxes to heal the economic wounds," implies that somehow increasing the citizens' tax burden and giving the government more money to squander requires "courage." This coming from a "professor emeritus" of journalism at a state university. Something is tragically wrong when our top journalists, instead of holding the government's feet to the fire and demanding accountability, encourage profligacy and the fleecing of working people's pockets by politicians.

    Posted Mon, Jun 15, 9:59 a.m. Inappropriate

    Something makes me think that Mr. McKay has never struggled to make a payroll for his employees. Nor has his livelihood depended on making a sale, keeping a customer happy or motivating employees. Rather, the Washington taxpayers have paid his salary (and, presumably, his pension).

    When he implies that the Washington legislature should have had the "courage" to raise taxes, consider the source.


    Posted Mon, Jun 15, 10:03 a.m. Inappropriate

    "An average Oregon income-earner will pay no more in direct taxation as a result of the tax increases..."

    And that, in itself, is not something to celebrate. If public funds can be raised by extracting more money from a diminishing slice of the population a rather unhealthy dynamic is reinforced; that there is no incentive to restrain taxes if those paying the taxes are a distinct and tiny (and probably not terribly popular) minority. So that portion of the Oregon population who make less than $125,000 (95%, more?) can cheerfully accept higher taxes on the "wealthy". Are you saying this is a Good Thing? and that their legislature is brave?

    Somehow the sales tax enforces reality on the Washington State Legislature (and governor) and we should be thankful for that.


    Posted Mon, Jun 15, 11:04 a.m. Inappropriate

    Gregoire and the Democratic majorities in Olympia aren't behaving as their colleagues of yore -- or Oregon's. In the old days, when there was a revenue shortfall, they'd solve it with a combo of cuts and new revenue (last big example involved passing $1 billion in taxes, tuition and fees back in 1993, leading to voter approval of spending limit I-601 and loss of Democratic majorities in 1994 (House) and 1996 (Senate, too.) I guess they learned that taxes have consequences. I fully expected a big old tax plan on the ballot this fall to fund popular stuff like higher ed enrollment, health care, kids' daylong kindergarten, etc. Gregoire gave them little, if any, political cover, the recession put many out of work, and tax aversion began growing by the day. Frank Chopp does not want to lose his majority. Lisa Brown, who wants to be governor, was not going to break her pick if the House wasn't going to go for taxes. Yes, they used Obama Bucks and tons of gimmicks and fund-balance grabs, but still, they trimmed $4 billion in real terms and didn't pass general taxes. Tuition From Hell, yes, and some fees. But none of the big three taxes, and the soak-the-rich1 income tax soon became just another theoretical, rhetorical flourish that didn't go over well, even in progressive Washington. After nearly 40 years of Olympia-watching, I can still be surprised.


    Posted Thu, Jun 18, 8:23 p.m. Inappropriate

    Yes, David, surprising. But will it do the job? What is the sense in short changing higher education? Are we going to be victimized by all these personal agendas that most of us could not care less about? Surprising but not very enlightened leadership.


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »