Cantwell Introduces "Cap and Dividend"
If you want to pin a group of green wonks down for a few hours, casually ask the question, "which do you favor, carbon tax or cap-and-trade?" They've been having that debate in earnest for the past few years, always hoping to one day apply the solution to law. But if reforming health insurance by insuring 30 million people and reducing the cost of health care is a political loser, addressing carbon emissions has become a punchline. ("A snowball's chance in Alaska!" har har.)
Maybe Maria Cantwell has cracked the nut. She is offering door number three:
She is pushing a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend”. Under her bill, the government would impose a ceiling on carbon emissions each year. Producers and importers of fossil fuels will have to buy permits. The permits would be auctioned, raising vast sums of money. Most of that money would be divided evenly among all Americans. The bill would raise energy prices, of course, and therefore the price of everything that requires energy to make or distribute. But a family of four would receive perhaps $1000 a year, which would more than make up for it, reckons Ms Cantwell. Cap-and-dividend would set a price on carbon, thus giving Americans a powerful incentive to burn less dirty fuel. It would also raise the rewards for investing in clean energy. And it would leave all but the richest 20% of Americans—who use the most energy—materially better off, she says.
Politically, it has far greater prospects. Maine's Susan Collins is a co-sponsor, and other Republicans have also apparently expressed interest. There's nothing like offering the folks back home a nice check to grease the wheels. As policy, it's getting cautious thumbs up from the environmental folks (with caveats about the sausage-factory process). At this point, anything that keeps the issue of substantial carbon reform on the table gets my thumbs up, too.
Bill Provisions (all pdfs): full bill, short description, side-by-side comparison with Waxman-Markey (a cap-and-trade bill that passed the House but is still working its way through the Senate)
Note: since we've had many, many battles over the science of global warming, I'll be watching the comments to make sure we don't have that debate again. This post is about Cantwell's bill.
|
February 9, 2010 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (26 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
2010 Money Race: Schrader, Wu, DeFazio & their challengers
Last week, congressional candidates - incumbents and challengers - reported on their campaign finances through the end of 2009. It's a useful snapshot of where those races stand. Which candidates are rolling along - and which ones are struggling?
First, the easy ones. Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Congressman Greg Walden have no challengers thus far, and are both sitting on big warchests. Blumenauer ended the year with a cash balance of $409k. Walden ended the year with a cash balance of $793k. Senator Ron Wyden also has no credible challenger to date - and is sitting on $3.1 million cash on hand.
In the 4th, once-ballyhooed GOP challenger Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken appears to have crashed and burned. He ended the year with a cash balance of just $5022. Meanwhile, Congressman Peter DeFazio has a cash balance of $628k.
In the 1st, Congressman David Wu - one of the most prodigious fundraisers around - has $472k cash on hand. Wu's Democratic challenger, Navy veteran David Robinson, doesn't appear to have made much headway - with only $1141 on hand (having spent most of the $15,769 he raised last year.)
Given that Wu's NRCC-recruited opponent, sports consultant Rob Cornilles, has $186k on hand, you might think Wu might be freshly vulnerable.
Curiously enough, however, Stephen Andrew Brodhead (known around here for posting incomprehensible right-wing rants and described by Jeff Mapes as someone who "seemed to be only a fringe candidate") released his numbers - and we learned that he had loaned his campaign $234k in November, and had spent almost none of it. Ladies and gents, we have ourselves a bona fide GOP primary race in the 1st! Pass the popcorn!
Update: Somehow, I forgot the third candidate in the GOP primary in the 1st. John Kuzmanich, who owns a local mortgage business, has raised $29k. We'll see if he can catch up to Brodhead and Cornilles.
And in the 5th, Congressman Kurt Schrader shows some strength, reporting a $563k cash balance. His GOP challenger, Rep. Scott Bruun, reported $153k cash on hand - and announced that he wouldn't be raising money during the Legislature's special session. That gives Schrader a chance to extend his lead, but make no mistake: this one is going to be the barnburner of 2010.
Click here to donate to any of these Democratic candidates.
Hat tip to Jeff Mapes for the reminder. All numbers in this post are from the reports produced by OpenSecrets.org, based on FEC data.
|
February 9, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (27 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Quick Hits: "E" edition
A number of news snippets have come across the transom in the last week that warrant mention here at the big Blue O, and they're brought to us it seems by the letter "e".
Two are endorsements, both going to Oregon Democratic Gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber. The first (and quite belated on our part) is Steve Novick. From last week's campaign press release:
Former US Senate candidate and grassroots activist Steve Novick has announced his endorsement of John Kitzhaber for Governor."John Kitzhaber has spent his entire political career boldly telling the truth,” said Novick. “It will be a pleasure to watch him work with a Legislature that can handle the truth."
Kitzhaber said, “I’m really pleased to have Steve’s support. He is fiercely devoted to Oregon, a great example of Oregon’s tradition of grassroots activism and one of the smartest people I know. I look forward to working with him to create a better Oregon future.”
And today, former Oregon Congressman Les AuCoin laid his marker with Kitz as well:
Portland, OR – Former nine-term Oregon Congressman Les AuCoin has endorsed John Kitzhaber’s campaign for governor. “John Kitzhaber is a progressive fighter and will be a Governor that listens to the concerns of Oregonians in every corner of our state,” said AuCoin, a Democrat and former dean of the Oregon House delegation. “As Governor, John always stood on principle, even when it was not popular. His creativity and courage made a lasting difference on issues like health care and the environment, and these qualities make him exactly the right leader for the challenges facing Oregon right now. I am proud to endorse him.”
The other "e" word: employment, in the form of some job shuffling by former Wyden Chief of Staff Josh Kardon (via Willy Week):
A couple of weeks ago, Josh Kardon, who has served as Chief of Staff to U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) since 1994, announced he was taking a leave to run his boss’s re-election campaign. But now it looks as though Kardon’s departure might be permanent.Today, the Tonkon Torp law firm, which has an active lobbying practice, announced Kardon will be joining the firm, although he’ll also operate an independent political strategy firm as well.
Given Kardon’s access to his former boss and other federal pols and his senior role in many campaigns and important policy and personnel decisions over the past 17 years, the hiring is a coup for Tonkon Torp.
Normally, staff changes like this probably don't warrant a mention. But Kardon is widely considered a major political force in Oregon, as the WW story alludes.
Discuss
|
February 8, 2010 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (4 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Doing your taxes? Don't forget the $3 checkoff!
This year, when you do your 2009 taxes, there's another opportunity to do something small to help combat the power of big money in our politics.
We political junkies call it the "Check for Democracy" or the "Klonoski check-off" (in honor of UO prof and former DPO chair Jim Klonoski) - but the state calls it the Political Party $3 Checkoff.
Thanks to 2009's HB 2004, here's how it works:
When you're filling out your taxes using the two-page Form 40 (pdf), you can donate $3 to the political party of your choice through your taxes.
To do it, just fill in the code for the political party of your choice (and/or your spouse or domestic partner) - and then write in $3 (or $6) as a donation.
To donate to the Democrats, write in the number 501. Here's the full list:
500 Constitution Party of Oregon
501 Democratic Party of Oregon
502 Independent Party of Oregon
503 Libertarian Party of Oregon
504 Oregon Republican Party
505 Pacific Green Party of Oregon
506 Progressive Party
507 Working Families Party of Oregon
Even if you donate regularly to a political party - and to candidates of your choice - participate in the $3 checkoff, and help create momentum for voluntary grassroots campaign finance reforms. (And hey! Oregon tax form designers! How about including it in the Form 40S next year so everyone can participate?)
Learn more at CheckForDemocracy.com - or through the Facebook page.
|
February 8, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (9 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Who Dat!
What a thrilling Super Bowl last night. The onside kick. Brees with 32 completions. And Sean Payton making some of the gutsier calls seen in a Super Bowl.
How much fun do you think New Orleans had last night?
It was a win larger than football, and anyone who's spent any time in the Crescent City can tell you how much the Saints are part of the their culture.
This was a big weekend for New Orleans, and for politicos, celebrations didn't just start last night. On Saturday, the city elected a new mayor in a landslide unprecedented in modern city politics. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor-elect, is a politician to watch. For those rooting for the city from afar, it's exciting to see the coalition the campaign assembled and the potential for Landrieu to help get the city back on track.
|
February 8, 2010 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (8 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The Davis-Tapogna Revisionist History
The official election results are not even available yet, but pollster Adam Davis and the Oregon Business Council’s economic advisor John Tapogna are already attempting to rewrite the history surrounding this momentous election.
In an op-ed in The Sunday Oregonian, they write
As a tax analyst and pollster, respectively, we saw dozens of politically viable alternative tax packages that would have raised a little less money, expired when the economy recovered and wouldn't have launched a multimillion-dollar brawl. But instead the Legislature pushed through permanent taxes, business pushed back, the nasty ads were run, and the reservoir of public trust has been diminished.
Really? “Dozens” of proposals? All “politically viable?” None of which would have led to “a multimillion-dollar brawl,” also known as a referendum?
Hogwash.
During the legislative session, the business community wasn’t even in agreement about how (or if) to raise revenues. There were at least two camps – the Oregon Business Association and the Associated Oregon Industries-led Alliance of Oregon’s Business Associations. And the latter group didn’t have an agreed upon plan to distribute to lawmakers, according to AOI lobbyist J.L. Wilson. After the legislative session ended, I asked Wilson for a copy their revenue plan. He said none existed because it “was never formally endorsed by the respective associations.”
Governor Kulongoski correctly noted in an OPB story aired today that the business community is “spread out over a number of different trade organizations and the dilemma is that they never speak with a consistent voice about anything.”
But you don’t have to take my word or the Governor’s word for it. Let Davis and Tapogna show us.
If what they wrote is true, Davis and Tapogna should have no problem providing BlueOregon readers with what they claim they saw: A copy of the “dozens” (i.e., not less than 24) of particular proposals presented to the legislature that would have been "politically viable."
To demonstrate that those “dozens” of proposals were “politically viable,” Davis and Tapogna must also:
1. Provide evidence that the “dozens of measures” would have garnered the necessary supermajority needed to pass in the legislature.
2. Provide evidence – something substantive – that those dozens of proposals would not have been referred to the ballot by the likes of those who put Measures 66 and 67 on the ballot: FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, Associated General Contractors, the Oregon Home Builders, the Oregon Bankers Association and the chief petitioners for Measures 66 and 67.
3. Provide the polling questions and results that back up their claim that those dozens of proposals were politically viable with voters — a tall order for sure, since the business-backed revenue proposals that the Legislature rejected would have enacted across-the-board tax increases for Oregon’s beleaguered middle class, as well as low-income residents, and would have asked much more of businesses, especially small businesses.
My bet is that Tapogna and Davis can’t and won’t provide BlueOregon readers with these proofs of their claim that there were “dozens of politically viable alternative tax packages that would have raised a little less money, expired when the economy recovered and wouldn't have launched a multimillion-dollar brawl.” I’d love them to prove me wrong.
Davis and Tapogna conclude,
Our only hope to navigate these challenges is if those who see a legitimate role for government -- a majority of both elected officials and the business community -- quickly turn the page on this regrettable chapter.
I am one of those who recognizes the legitimate role for government and who would like us to move forward in strengthening our public structures, like Oregon’s rainy day fund, that will create a more prosperous and fiscally healthy state.
But moving forward is difficult when the business community continues to whine and the likes of Davis and Tapogna spin revisionist history of better plans ignored.
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
|
February 8, 2010 |
Chuck Sheketoff | Comments (14 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
A Choice in Salem: Tax dollars for working families struggling to make ends meet or for wealthy venture capitalists?
The legislature is working under a tight timeline to complete important business during a month-long special session. The economy and what’s been happening to Oregon’s workers are rightly taking center stage.
The House and Senate revenue committees will see lots of action, as we all know that those committees – not the appropriating Ways and Means Committee – are the big spenders. They decide the fate of tax credit subsidies and special exemptions and deductions – tax expenditures – which collectively exceed appropriations by Ways and Means and local governments.
While some legislators apparently still refuse to face reality and admit it in public, the legislature’s job was made a heck of a lot easier by Measures 66 and 67. Now Republicans and Democrats alike can focus on setting priorities for helping get Oregonians back to work and helping those who are struggling.
So, who should get the priority help from the revenue committees and taxpayers during these tough economic times? The revenue committees are faced with a stark choice.
On one hand you have a coalition of over 90 social service organizations, local governments, small businesses, unions and faith community organizations. They’re asking the legislature to increase Oregon’s support for struggling working families with children by increasing the state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Oregonians for Working Families wants the state EITC increased from the current 6 percent of the federal EITC to 18 percent of the federal credit, and they have a proposal to phase in the 12 percentage point increase in the EITC over four years (PDF). They point to the fact that the gas tax is scheduled to increase next January, adding to vehicle fee increases that already went into effect. Like the fees, the gas tax increase will hit low- and moderate-income households the hardest, making Oregon’s total state and local tax structure more regressive (PDF).
On the other hand you have a group of venture capitalists who want Oregon to set up a state New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC). There is already a federal credit for 39 percent of “qualified” investments in “low-income” community projects, and under that credit Oregon’s been doing quite well compared to other states on a per capita basis. The new Oregon New Markets Tax Credit would match the federal credit dollar for dollar, for a total credit of 78 percent, starting July 1, 2011.
The NMTC is essentially a giveaway to wealthy venture capital investors, some based out of state, who specialize in funding real estate developments (think The Nines hotel in Portland). It is being promoted here by Advantage Capital Partners, a Missouri-based venture capital firm represented in the Oregon capitol by the Campbells of The Victory Group. Advantage’s website touts the “excellent investor returns” available to its clients.
I guess so. What investor wouldn’t love a project where they would be risking only 22 percent of their capital but benefiting from 100 percent of the income if they succeed in getting an Oregon tax credit subsidy?
While advocates for low- and moderate-income working families with children would be content with an earned income tax credit equal to 18 percent of the federal credit counterpart, true to stereotype the venture capitalists want the whole enchilada — 100 percent of the federal tax credit — for their profitable ventures.
Two things the proposals have in common are that the hit on the state’s finances wouldn’t occur until the next two-year budget period and that both would cost the state about the same amount (roughly $33 to $36 million).
The legislature may be hard-pressed to reject these proposals just because they commit Oregon to spending in a future budget period, given that they are primed to extend a sunset on the we-can’t-control-or-accurately-predict-the-costs BETC tax credit past next biennium.
It is safe to assume that the 2011-13 budget period isn’t expected to be so flush with funds that the revenue committees this session would commit to both the New Markets credit and the EITC on top of BETC that they are extending. If they were going to pick only one, who would you rather help with your tax dollars — working families struggling to make ends meet or wealthy venture capitalists looking to squeeze even more profit from an already generous federal tax credit subsidy?
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
Make Bob Tiernan Pay!
All day today, Portland's lite-rock station K103 is running a radio-thon fundraiser for the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Oregon. Make-A-Wish, of course, is the organization that grants wishes to children with life-threatening illnesses. They provide hope and happiness to children and families that need it most.
Anyway, Bob Tiernan - the chairman of the Oregon Republican Party - just called in to the radio-thon and pledged $500. Tiernan told Make-A-Wish that if Democrats called in and made donations that totaled in excess of $500, he'd match the Democrats dollar-for-dollar.
So, folks, this is our chance: Donate to a worthy cause - and empty Bob Tiernan's wallet. All of us, combined, can surely put a little hurt on Tiernan's bankroll. One man vs. the Oregon progressive grassroots? We can do this.
Make your donation by calling Make-A-Wish at 503-598-9474. More info here. All donations stay right here in Oregon and Southwest Washington.
And remember, this is key: Tell 'em you're a Democrat calling to match Bob Tiernan's donation.
I'm in for the first $100. Who's with me? Whether you've got $5, $50, or $500, let's bring Tiernan to his knees.
|
February 5, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (45 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Schaufler's Not Happy
Rep. Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley) is not a happy camper down at the Lege. I'll share this with you without comment:
Hat tip to WW's Hank Stern. Discuss.
|
February 5, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (51 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The shameful campaign by Steve Doell and Kevin Mannix to scare taxpayers and squander our money
The past few mornings as I commute in to work, I've noticed an ad on KPOJ on behalf of the Anti-Crime Alliance (ACA), narrated by former Sherman County District Attorney Tara Lawrence, the group's Executive Director. Kevin Mannix is a Director with the organization.
The ad paints a scary scenario of a registered sex offender and convicted burglar breaking in to a woman's home and attacking her. Lawrence's narration goes on chide the 2009 Oregon Legislature for passing a law increasing earned time for good behavior for current and incoming prison inmates. We're then told that 33 year old Demetrious Payton was released in October, earlier than his original sentence. Lawrence goes on to say that Payton was "charged three weeks ago" with unlawful sexual penetration and felony burglary. She then tells us in a voice that sounds like she's warning the kids to play nice on the playground that there are more of these cases to come. And oh by the way, the Anti-Crime Alliance will just keep trotting them out there for us.
What Lawrence won't tell you is that the 2009 Oregon Legislature was facing a massive budget shortfall. In order to protect vital public safety services (like the State Police, for example), everyone involved agreed that there would have to be some kind of sentence reduction program. This included the Anti-Crime Alliance and Steve Doell of Crime Victims United. What Lawrence also won't tell you is that Mannix, Doell and the DA's had a pretty hefty sentence reduction plan of their own.
|
February 4, 2010 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (70 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The Oregonian on Earned Time: Mend It. Don't End It.
This morning, The Oregonian weighed in on the 10 percent increase in earned time eligibility passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009. That increase in eligibility was part of HB 3508-B .
The easy out for the Legislature is to abandon its effort to save a few million tax dollars a year by increasing earned time for nonviolent offenders in Oregon's prison system.
After all, apparently there's enough money in the corrections budget to get through this biennium even if lawmakers reverse course on the law they passed increasing earned time for nonviolent offenders from 20 percent to 30 percent of prison sentences.
But if legislators retreat from this modest prison cost savings measure now, they will all but surrender on the larger question of whether Oregon ever will be able to find savings in corrections policies, even as the state faces a structural deficit in 2011-13 that could force sweeping cuts in education and other services.
The editorial board continues...
We might agree with them [Kevin Mannix's lobbyist Doug Harcleroad and his allies] if state government and schools were not facing a looming structural deficit of perhaps several billion dollars in the next few years. But they are. And a state that already spends more on corrections than it does on higher education should not decide, now or ever, that its prison sentencing policies are sacrosanct, untouchable even when the state is approaching a financial crisis.
The earned time provision in the law sunsets in 2013. It is not a radical policy -- it shaves, on average, about 55 days of prison time for each inmate. Every single inmate who earns this time is coming out of Oregon prisons anyway, and soon.
Oregon criminal justice experts already are studying the effects of the additional earned time. Research in a few other states has suggested that earned time can save money and possibly slightly reduce criminal recidivism at the same time.
Three years from now, when the law expires, Oregon will know much more about earned time, what it saves, what it costs and how it affects public safety. Given what lies ahead in this state, this small change in corrections policy is well worth doing, and doing right.
Read the full editorial here. Discuss.
|
February 3, 2010 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (13 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Bend Bulletin bucks dissenting voice
The Bend Bulletin's hierarchy appears to make no apologies for it's decidedly conservative editorial stance on issues. They came out with full-throated opposition to protections for the Metolius and banged the drum against Measures 66/67, for example.
But interestingly, they seem to have a problem with allowing strong, dissenting voices in their letters to the editor too. At least in one case.
Bend resident Milo Thornberry submitted a letter pushing back strongly against the Bulletin's editorial position, and their subsequent targeting of State Representative Judy Stiegler (D-Bend).
The Bulletin reportedly rejected Thornberry's letter, which was then published by The Source Weekly, an alt-weekly in Bend:
The Bully’s Sour GrapesWednesday, 03 February 2010 10:57 Milo Thornberry, Bend
That’s what the editorial in the January 28 editorial sounded like to me. Over these past months, I have increasingly wondered what was driving the Bulletin’s almost hysterical opposition to the ballot Measures 66 and 67.
I understand the loss of people’s confidence in government, in part because of the influence of lobbyists. Government has a sacred trust to provide for the welfare of the whole people—not just those who can get them re-elected. Equally sacred is the task of a free press to tell not only the truth but to care for the welfare of the whole people—not simply the advertising accounts that fund the paper. In my life, I have known individual reporters and publishers who worked hard to be independent—even of those who funded them. Alas, I have not seen that in The Bulletin, either in its editorials or staff articles, in this campaign.
Painting a target on the back of Judy Stiegler because she supported the measures is your right, but I suspect you may have diminished credibility because of the way you covered the campaign. Those you paint as villains may have increased public credibility. Lack of confidence in you may well have increased support for the measures.
Washington and Salem must take steps to increase credibility and transparency. The times demand it. No less must The Bulletin reorder its house!
Editor’s Note: This letter was originally submitted to and rejected by The Bulletin. It’s printed here at the author’s request.
This seems like an odd letter to reject, if it is an accurate representation of what was rejected by The Bulletin. It's not profane or especially hyperbolic. It lays out a strongly-worded case against the paper, certainly. But it's no worse than what comes in the opposite direction from the editorial board of The Bulletin.
So..what gives?
|
February 3, 2010 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (38 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
