Who Controls the Purse-strings??
John Doty
Peter Wong, reporting for the Statesman Journal on Saturday, introduced (link will require subscription after 7 days old...) us to the new committee chairs for the Oregon Legislature. The focus of the article was on the appointments to the Joint Ways and Means committee, which is responsible for authoring Oregon's budget.
There are several things that caught my eye in the article:
- the decision by Karen Minnis to appoint 7 R & 3 D to the committee, despite the House not being split at that ratio (the actual 33-27 distribution in the chamber rounds to 6 R, 4 D). This allows the R's to keep a majority of the votes on the committee after adding the 6 D, 4 R from the Senate.
- the decision to not give the chair to Susan Morgan (R-Myrtle Creek), despite her seniority and 2 sessions chairing budget subcommittees. Why? she voted in favor of the tax increase compromise legislation... tsk, bad Republican.
But who WAS selected? Going back to the Wong article, we learn about Joint Ways & Means co-Chair Dan Doyle (R-Salem)...
In March, the Statesman Journal reported (link requires subscription) that Doyle and his wife, Victoria, racked up $32,366 in unpaid federal income taxes for 1995 and 1996, about the same time they bought a new $222,475 home in South Salem.
The Internal Revenue Service placed a lien on their house, and the Doyles took more than 4 1/2 years to pay their back taxes. They cleared the lien two weeks before Doyle entered the House in 2001.
In June, the Oregon State Bar suspended Doyle from his law practice for 30 days for neglecting two clients a couple of years ago. Doyle cooperated with the investigation.
The March article on Doyle is an eye-opener. In quick summary, federal taxes and homeowners' association fees were unpaid in several different years and liens were placed against the Doyle home from multiple parties. This started prior to Doyle's initial election, but went unknown, unreported, undisclosed until his third campaign was in primary season. The article also notes some extenuating circumstances that give pause to leveling the charge "hypocrite" summarily - I can personally relate to what happens when you purchase a home with an anticipated income stream that then changes... but the numbers involved on this one boggle the mind.
$32K owed over two years represents tax liability greater than many Oregonians' total annual income (According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the median per capita income in Doyle's Marion County is a tad over $25K, while statewide is nearly $29K). One might think such revelations would be a re-election killer - that Doyle would be left practicing law, rather than making laws in Salem. They did dampen his numbers somewhat, with support dropping 7% from his previous election, but the efforts of Democrat Brian Grisham weren't able to overcome the strength of Doyle's resume. Amazing how highly people think of you when they don't know how poorly you are actually doing parts of your job, eh? Maybe not - in the endorsment from the Statesman Journal - "Doyle is a poor choice, but Grisham is worse", it is clear that given a choice between two crappy candidates, voters will go ahead and vote party line.
So I ponder the Dems culpability in this, too. Since second-guessing is something that happens so often in post-election analysis, I want to know why, if such debilitating political baggage is being written up 18 days after the filing deadline, WHY did the Dems have someone in the race who could be deemed a WORSE choice than the guy who had $32K in overdue past taxes and liens, yet preached fiscal conservatism?
Could it be because we are unwilling to get into the races we believe we can't win? Doyle claimed nearly 2/3 of the vote in 2002, so seemed invulnerable. I know the seat I sought (the 6th) was held by an unassailable incumbent, so I was put out there to fight the good fight, only to have the incumbent bow out and the new choice have liabilities comparable to Doyle's (bankruptcies, land-use complaints). Did the local party seize the opportunity and dust off a big gun in the 4 days before filing deadline? Nope. They didn't respond at all. They did nothing to put the BEST up against a bozo in a swingable seat. Is the Salem seat similar? Let's hope not.
And since I don't want to leave the GOP out, let's ask why Minnis is unwilling to apportion this committee in line with the distribution of the House? Is it because it's tough to push a partisan agenda when forced to compromise? She was willing when the Senate was 15-15 and sent an even 5 of each party to the joint committee. Aren't you glad you live in a state where the representatives forget the meaning of the term "representation?"
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 21, '04
Where is the outrage? This is the guy who is in charge of making Oregon's spending decisions...???
Dec 21, '04
Yeah, but through no fault of his own :P the voters of his district had a choice (though apparently not much of one) and the Speaker of the House had a choice, too (Morgan, or Dennis Richardson were available), and went with Doyle.
I think the actions of Minnis are where the outrage needs to properly be directed.
Dec 21, '04
Why is it that the democrats sit around and whine but don't take any action back? The democrats hold the more powerful senate and are also able to appoint 7D's and 3R's to the Joint Means and Ways, but they don't. Karen Minnis knows the democrats will stick their heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen subsequently strengthening her own hand. When are the democrats going to stop letting the repubs bully them around?
Dec 21, '04
For the rules of the Senate, this session is proportional representation; since it is only a 18-12 split or 60%-40%-this is why it six D’s and four R’s. Sen. Courtney and Brown do not want too “abuse” their powers so that it could come back and bite them in their arse in 2006 cycle. This mindset is too show the House under the leadership and direction of the Republican’s is about another variation of “lack of responsibility”; and stacking the deck on the Ways and Means Committee is the lack of responsibility of proper proportional representation. The actual 33-27 distribution under the proper proportional representation in make this committee ratio of 6 R’s and four D’s barely by rounding up, and not 7/3. Who started the “stack the deck” trend in the House—guess? It was the former Speaker of the House and outgoing Mayor of Portland Vera Katz. Since the Republicans felt the blow of the Democratic Leadership in the late 1980’s/early 1990's with this ideology, the Republicans have just kept it going.
Dec 21, '04
With regard to this quote: "the voters of his district had a choice (though apparently not much of one)", I live in a neighboring district. There was an excellent candidate named Brian Grisham who really gave Doyle a scare. The question is, why didn't House Democrats give candidates like that more support? Could it possibly be that their campaign operation deserves a shakeup because some state rep. candidates came really close but it has been over a decade since the Democrats had a House majority?
Dec 21, '04
Maybe Minnis extracted a deal for allowing Democrats to head a couple committees in the House. Robert Ackerman (D-Eugene) will be chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Law, and Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) will be chair a House subcommittee on criminal law. Did she do this purely in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, or was it in exchange for some other committees being a bit lopsided?
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/12/21/ed.edit.committees.1221.html
Dec 21, '04
Perhaps a Speaker married to a former policeman is attempting to score PR points by appointing a former policeman (Barker)as Judiciary Committee subcommittee chair on criminal law. Perhaps she got tired of being told she ignored Democrats and now she can say "SEE! I made Democrats subcommittee chairs!" and then claim that shows her "bipartisanship" as she stiffs Democrats on other issues. Or is that too cynical?
3:24 p.m.
Dec 21, '04
This ticked me off to also. The worst part is the House has lost one of the Dems with the most Ways and Means Experience Alan Bates to the Senate. Betsy Johnson might also be headed to the Senate. So only Gary Hansen will have any Ways and Means Experience on the Dem side in the House. Ways and Means is the most complex and most boring of all the committees. We really need Budget Dorks. As Peter Courtney once said the Dems just do have enought budget dorks, we hate that crap. (I'm paraphrasing.) You can blame the House leadership but for not targeting Grisham, but That's Stupid. In 2002 we targeted a crap load of seats and we lost 3 seats. This year while not targeting fewrer seats we picked up 2 almost 4. I think Future Pac was on the ball this year. We never have as much money as the Rs so we have to be careful how we spend it.
Dec 21, '04
Of the 17 contested Oregon Senate seats, all but one went to the candidate with more money. In the House, it was 54 of 60. In other words, neither party can cry poverty convincingly...they're both buying power in Oregon rather successfully.
Dec 21, '04
I agree about spending money wisely, but also that there is more to politics than money. Someone should interview all the downstate Dem. candidates (winners like Komp as well as losers) and find out what their experience was. Did the House campaign effort ever promise something they didn't deliver? Did someone from Portland claim to "know what it takes to win" and then actually visit the district and discover their own misconceptions? Have they looked at the pct. by pct. or county by county results closely?
There has been considerable anger in some circles (esp. Will. Valley and parts of the coast) that Portlanders seem to think the whole state is like Portland.
And I would esp. like to know what Cowan and Steigler think might have changed their near losses to wins. I got some really cynical emails after the election debating whether the House caucus was clueless, or didn't want to share power with downstaters. That is as important a perception to counter as the "Democrats don't have values" nonsense.
10:11 a.m.
Dec 22, '04
Steigler was a great candidate in a difficult district and she might have won if given more resource but Larry Galizo might have lost because we would have had to take away resources from him. I don't know if he got more, and I don't know if he was it because he was closer to Portland. I think only Jeff Merkley knows. I do know that Future Pac (The House Dems) spent every single dime they raised. (mainly because they had to lay off all there staff the week before Thanksgiving) I think other candidates didn't win not because "Portland Liberals" are bossy and only give resources to their candidates. I think they lost because they weren't great candidates and couldn't do it for themselves. If you run you need to work your ass off you can’t expect Future Pac or the Senate Democrats to do all the work for you. Chuck Riley and Larry Gailizo and Betty Komp worked there asses off and had great registration margins. They also received a ton of support from Portland not just from the House dems but also from the Bus and Coordinated Campaign.
I agree that Portlanders don't know everything, evidenced by Kathy Shaw and the monster win by Alan Bates. I wish we had the infrastructure like she has in every swing district in the State and I think some groups are trying to build that but on the coast its frickin' hard. Has anyone tried to organize there, it’s a pain in the ass. You don't have the local resources so you have to bring in support form Portland and when you do guess what they want a say in how you do things. In Ashland and Medford if Kathy Shaw (who ran Alan Bates Successful Senate Race) didn't want Portland help she could say screw off but only because she had built an infrastructure in Ashland over the last 20 years. That doesn't exist on the Coast; it’s starting to grow in Bend and I think we can take that seat in the next 4 years and hold it for a while. On the Coast it will always depend on the candidate. Alan Brown is a smuck that falls asleep in Committee but he won because he was an incumbent and there weren't enough ground troops to hit every door three to four times to convince people he was a smuck. The House Dems just don’t have the ability to create the kind of infrastructure that you need to win consistently in swing districts outside the metro area. Which is why the Bus was started.
Blame the Portland liberals and the House Dems if you want but I think it’s shortsighted and missing part of the picture.
Dec 22, '04
(Regarding Jon Doty's column) Jon you should be commended for running- I know how tough it is to take that step. One of the things that make a campaign tough is the carping from those who don’t have all the facts but pontificate as if they do. I know how much you raised, your vote totals and your district's registration. I have not fully investigated all the factors in your loss so I will assume you were a good candidate who worked hard and had good ideas. I wish you and others had afforded me the same courtesy and done your homework before you disparaged my hard work and all the people who supported and helped me. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Dec 23, '04
There are many people in Salem who don't trust the Statesman-Journal because of what it has done to their friends over the years. Like opinion on the news pages, and when called on it the response is something like "WHO? ME?". There are people who quit taking the paper during one election or another because of how their friends were insulted. I have read the Mail Tribune and many other papers which seem much kinder to local public figures.
A family friend of ours chose not to run for re-election to the city council because she was outnumbered. The SJ did an exit interview, and she really spoke her mind on the SJ practices. Here's what she had to say:
Q: How so?
A: First of all, they're ignored by the paper -- that's you guys. When they do say anything, they're labeled as divisive, polarizing, not inclusive, not business-friendly, unwelcoming, detrimental to the city. What kind of an incentive is that? Why would you want to spend 30 hours a week reading huge amounts of material only to put yourself in a place where you're going to get bashed every week? Would any sane person do that? <<
In the future, if anyone quotes an editorial from a community other than their own, perhaps it would be wise to discover whether that publication has a local reputation for fairness or bias.
9:37 a.m.
Dec 23, '04
For Brian Grisham - maybe it is a research issue... The Statesman Journal is impossible to read online after a week. I found it amazing thast despite two brutal articles on Doyle, the headline for their endorsement in the D19 race was what it was (Doyle bad, Grisham worse, paraphrased). But you are correct, I didn't go find out more to know what kind of candidate you were. You can read every word the Mail Tribune wrote about me, going back to 1997 (though most of it has nothing to do with politics).
As for money and support from upstate - it was very limited. I had hopes to run the most well-funded race the district had seen. I don't think I got there (I can get the dollar figures when I am working from home - am at the parent's house out of town this week). FuturePAC consulted on my uncontested primary election Voter's Pamphlet piece, got me access to the Astro list, and that was it.
I got donations from 2 House Dems (Bates and Johnson)
The county party kicked in money with 2 weeks to go.
When all was said and done, I got 42%. I had a 15 point deficit in D/R voter reg to make up and was looking at nearly a quarter of the district being NAVs.
My opponent ran almost exclusively on the comparison of experience (he was a 3 term city councilman who'd also 'served' as an appointed senator for a whopping 7 months). Medford went far more Red than recent trends would have suggested. The Bush-Cheney coattails were far greater than expected. Overall, it was a mess.
But, fact remains: in District 6, there were democrats who could have filed in the half week after Esquivel's candidacy was annouced, and could have beaten him by 10 points. And they sat on their hands to watch a first time candidate with no support network in place give it "his best shot."
<hr/>