January 16, 2004

Report From The 'Bus Project' Debate on Measure 30

"We changed our minds," I overheard last night outside Disjecta after the Bus Project debate on Measure 30, as someone explained how the Project's "Third Thursday" events went from being "shoot the shit" to something resembling the long-lost X-PAC.

That was his comparison, by the way, not mine. And it's also not the point of this item -- it just makes for a good opening.

A standing room only crowd of 150 or more people (I only did a quick informal head estimation) filled Disjecta to hear Richard Burke (Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Oregon), Representative Jeff Kropf (R-Halsey), Ellen Lowe (lobbyist for health and human services), and Representative Lane Shetterly (R-Dallas) debate the pros and cons of Measure 30, the tax increase referred to voters by cowardly legislators which is unfortunately destined to fail in much the same way as Measure 30.

Burke and Kropf were present to argue against the measure, while Lowe and Shetterly argued in favor.

After an introduction by Jefferson Smith, chair of the Bus Project, which included a story I'm certain I've heard at a previous event (it's the one where we learn that we have the butter, but I won't go into it here), and the setting of the ground rules by Jake Oken-Berg, participants gave their opening statements.

Much of what was heard last night was as expected: Arguments for and against Measure 30 that were essentially what we've been hearing all along. As such, the short bit that immediately follows merely offers a pull-quote from each introduction, which gives a general conception of each position.

Burke: "You don't have to support higher taxes to show that you support people."

Kropf: "We have reserves and opportunities in government to fund the things that are critical."

Lowe: "[Measure 30] safeguards most of the essential services to Oregon's most vulnerable.

Shetterly: "It's good for business [and] maintains a basic level of services."

In response to a question from Shetterly as to what the "Plan B" of opponents might be in the event of the failure of Measure 30, Burke's most pressing intention seems to be the selling off of SAIF into private hands, giving me the distinct impression (as members of the Libertarian Party almost always do) that he's looking for ways to exploit and/or force another budget crisis in order to pursue various Libertarian wet dreams.

(Readers, hopefully, recall that I report on these things with a distinct editorial, well, bias. They likely also will recall that such biases run fairly bitterly against the Libertarian political mindset and their disdain for the social contract as spelled out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. This has no direct bearing upon the SAIF issue, except to make clear that I happen to believe that Libertarians hail from a planet whose sky is not colored the same as ours, and make decisions from fairly strange motivations and within peculiar mental contexts.)

Kropf, meanwhile, stuck to repeating his introduction, arguing that there are "opportunities to find other funds to backfill some of this spending." Shetterly, for his part, defended SAIF and warned that Measure 30 "deal with immediate needs" -- the implication being, I take it, that selling off SAIF is a process that would not meet these immediate funding needs.

Burke then asked the measure's proponents if they agreed that spending needs to be managed so that it doesn't outpace the growth of the private sector. Shetterly responded that "structural reform" which would "stablize our revenue system" would help protect the budget process from the troubles caused by a cycle of booms and busts, which he held responsible.

Lowe, for her part, offered a reminder: "In the area of human services, needs are greater during a time of recession."

There appeared to be a relatively general agreement that the state needs to develop a "rainy day fund."

Asked by Lowe how opponents would explain to people the loss not only of state funding but Federal matching funds in the event of Measure 30's failure at the polls, Burke called the warnings of opponents about dramatic cuts to things such as social services "blackmail."

"We cannot tolerate that in our legislators," he said.

He also argued that it is only successful, and not struggling, businesses lining up to back the measure, because "they want the tax base to be centered on people and not on themselves."

Kropf meanwhile stated that cuts to the Department of Human Services would not be as large as predicted, and therefore neither would loss of Federal matching funds, especially if we "do certain things" -- although to my recollection he never specified just what those things were. Lowe stepped in to offer the figure that for every $1.00 of state spending lost, Oregon will lose $1.71 in Federal funds.

Kropf also asked if measure proponents would support Constitutional spending limits, a Constitutional rainy day fund, and retention of the kicker.

"Complicated question," replied Shetterly, "but I think the answer is yes." He added that steps would have to be taken to consider the initiative process in such Constitutional spending limits.

"I would give the boot to the kicker right off," said Lowe, who also cautioned that economic indicators of the state's needs would need to be built into the formula for both a rainy day fund and spending limits.

Returning (heaven help me) to the Bizarro World of the Libertarian Party, I also have to mention this Burke argument: "We're using government force to make our neighbors pay for a vision of government held by supporters of Measure 30." See, to Libertarians, taxation is the equivalent of outright force, rather than an expression of the social contract arrived at through the processes of representative government.

Burke also argued that when the tax package to which Measure 30 refers was being debated, the Legislature knew ahead of time that it would be referred to the voters, and they therefore could have saved everyone the trouble and referred it to begin with.

As opposed to, say, having the balls to stick with a tax package that both parties adopted into law rather than weasel out and refer it to the voters at all, I suppose. [Note: See comments for the accurate information as to who referred this measure. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote the preceding. - 01/17/04]

Due mostly to the absence of much new argument, my notes from here on out get progressively more sketchy. Being in the doorway to the back room for part of the audience question period also interfered, because the sound was strangely failing to reach that far back. So random tidbits from the remainder of the debate follow.

Asked by the audience to tell an easily understood story which supports their respective positions on Measure 30, the only answer I managed to note was Kropf's: "Measure 30 is about increasing taxes, and I think we're already overtaxed."

(It should be noted that there was some discussion, at some point, about Oregon's ranking when it comes to taxation. Some sources place it fairly low when compared to other states, while Measure 30 opponents argued that if other charges and fees are included, Oregon than ranks high. I have no idea if, when including other charges and fees in Oregon, such comparisons do the same for other states, or if they are comparing Oregon taxes, charges, and fees to only taxes in other states. Shetterly, for his part, argued that this discussion is only about "general revenue" funding sources, which while strictly true, doesn't in and of itself dispute the legitimacy of trying to do full-cost comparisons involving taxes, charges, and fees. I just don't happen to know how those comparisons work out.)

Some concerns were raised that referring the decision to voters will result in "second guessing of the Legislature's decision" by a "less informed" electorate. While this may be true to an extent, if only because the budget process (as Kropf indicated) is fairly complicated, there's always something of a bad taste to such conversations, because one can't help but sense that there's a broader assault against the initiative and referendum system underlying it.

Which brings us around to the closing statements, or parts thereof.

"There is a cost if this measure fails," said Shetterly, countering the arguments of opponents which point out the costs of Measure 30. "The question is, which costs move us forward and which costs take us back."

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," said Burke. "But if we need coercion to make people be compassionate, how civilized can we be?"

(Okay, here we go again. Understand, many or most Libertarians believe that "taxes" should be something voluntarily enacted through contract between and amongst various interested parties, rather than something "imposed" by government.)

Here my increasingly chicken-scratch ntoes fail me, because I honestly cannot tell from my writing just who said the following during closing remarks. It seems to say either Shetterly or Lowe (I was using seat numbers rather than names), but Shetterly already gave his closing, and I don't recall Lowe saying this, which would mean it would have to be Kropf, but the number doesn't appear to be "2" which is what would have indicated it was him. But, to be honest, it does sound like something Kropf would have said.

"I think we all want the same things regardless of our respective ideologies," said maybe-Kropf. "I think we disagree on the semantics of how we get there." Semantics, of course, striking me as a fairly dismissive characterization of what's at stake, but maybe that's just me being cynical.

Which brings us to the end of this occassionaly disjointed item. It also, however, brings us to the start of PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE finally getting around to covering Measure 30 -- something I've neglected thus far.

Today's papers have a fair amount of Measure 30 coverage, so expect a round-up item on those later today. And this weekend, expect a report from the Bus Project trip to canvass for Measure 30 in Beaverton. I'll be joining them on the bus for the trip there and back, since the story just isn't the full story if you're not on the bus.

Posted at 01:36 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Metro-Area Politics, State of Oregon

« Previous Next »