A Democrat candidate promising to raise taxes in '06?

Maybe Mannix could win afterall.

By all means, please give this guy thorough consideration. Blue Oregonians should renounce that backsliding dealmaker Teddy K. Measures 28 and 30 would have passed if he had just been the "leader" he needed to be. Maybe Sorensen is that leader.

What do you have to lose?

(Other than the Governor's race).

First, I think that Cmmr. Sorenson will truly make tax compliance an issue since the State of Oregon would have more monies in it coffers if it goes after dead-beat taxpayers. I know that not make up all the shortfall of revenue in the general fund. However, there are bills that come out of the various committees that give tax breaks that benefits various major corporations and the high-income bracket individuals; that the Governor, as well other elected officials; know that these incentives take away revenues streams, in to the general fund; from that the schools and other critical services are finance with. For the removal of these tax breaks/incentives in past legislation; would require 3/5 of each house based on the Oregon State Constitution and that would be very hard to do right now. With that, I would state that it would not be a tax increase, if future legislation for the House would not give these breaks and incentives to the various major corporations and the high-income bracket individuals.

Sorenson is a nice guy. If he makes a serious attempt by discussing issues like the Tax Expenditure Report, he might have a chance. But he will have to run the way Kitzhaber challenged incumbent Gov. Roberts--not by being obnoxious but in a respectful way by gradually building a supporter base with concrete ideas and dialogue with voters. I recall Roberts supporters asking where their friends stood on that contest and getting responses like "Would she force us to make that decision?". I think Roberts was a good Governor in extraordinary times, but one term was enough given the forces at work at the time. If she had been as lousy as some said, why did she survive recalls?

I do not see Kulongoski as the failure some say he is. Sorenson needs to define and show leadership--incl. answering "What's wrong with a mediator?".

I just finished writing a long email to a friend on the subject of statewide elections. This Republican friend says Republicans will never win statewide unless they can attract Independent and Democratic voters. In what way are Republicans trying to do that? And does the House, led by Republicans for over a decade, have any responsibility? Or would that interfere with the politics of "all the fault of Democrats"? I think it will take someone of the caliber of Ben Westlund for the Republicans to win statewide.

And I think it would be wise for Sorenson to make a point of saying if elected he would continue the tradition of speaking at all military funerals the way Go. Kulongoski has. Does any other state have a Gov. who has gone to half as many military funerals? There IS more to public life than debates about taxes. My state rep. disagrees with a neighboring state rep. on the issue of a statewide insurance pool for teachers. I happen to think my state rep. is right and called the office to say so. Anyone running for statewide office should state a position on issues like that.

Jeff Alworth wrote:

"Glad to see this is posted. I heard the news and I wanted to talk Sorenson.

Question: is he as cool as his rhetoric?"

The Answer: Even better than cool, Sorenson is genuine.

The Oregonian said Sorenson is making an announcement in Portland today. Does anyone know where and when?

Commissioner Sorenson holds a press conference at 9:00 am at the Eugene Hilton Conference Center foyer this morning.

Sorenson then travels to Salem to file campaign documents. He meets with media afterwards at 11:15 am in the Capitol pressroom.

Sorenson holds his third press conference of the day in the Lovejoy Room of Portland City Hall at 1:45 pm.

Sorenson is available for interviews Friday afternoon, January 7 and Saturday morning, January 8.

Jeff, a small lingistic correction. You don't mean(I think), "with temerity like that we'll continue to hold no power in American politics." (In your reference to Pancho's comment.) Unless you're just being a bit heavy-handedly sarcastic, it should be " with timidity like that............"

I agree with Pam. Kulongoski is doing a good job given the circumstances. It is the job of a challenger to list the things he would do differently and why that would appeal to polarized voters. Perhaps Sorenson should try his message with ordinary people--like the ones in bowling alleys--in a variety of places around the state and see if people agree with him. The goal is to win the votes of those who don't vote straight party ticket and don't know what a blog is.

Suzanne wrote:

"Don't forget that in 2002 Pete was running against Dan Gardner for Labor Commissioner. I can't recall whether he stayed in the race."

Pete yielded very early. Gardner had been a loyal democrat and union man and was the Portland Demo machine's (you all can guess who that means) guy, and not a bad choice for Labor Cmsr given his background, so I think Pete decided to focus on Lane County and assuming the Chairmanship of the County Commission.

Pete is well-known and very well-respected down there and all around Oregon and the U.S.

Leadership from Ted? What do any of you mean? Ted's cutting funding for Community Colleges, head start, and oregon universities while increasing funding for corrections by 30%!

Ted's position on revenue is taken straight from Karen Minnis! His major bold stands are standing up to people who want to support education funding (by the way, these are the same ones who got him elected).

AND, Tim Nesbitt went out early for Ted and now Ted won't even acknowledge Nesbitts steady drumbeat about looking at tax loopholes.

Kulongoski has to be thinking one of the following things: A) "I'm not running again, so f it" B) "When I run again, I'll just get a different constituency than the folks who voted for me the first time" C) "Nobody will challenge me in the primary, so f it!"

Jeff,

You sarcastic--that is a laugh.

For any chance for Ted to have some loyalty from who stood for him 2 years ago, he will have to work very hard on so many fronts.

However, the real question is who will fall gullible this time around— some of the unions, the environmental groups, and/or the education groups? Who will kiss-up to the term of “THE INCUMBENT”?

Pam,

Where is your data on Oregon spends more money per student than any state west of the Mississippi with the exception of Alaska and Wyoming. Those two states fund education with oil and mineral extractions.

Based on the Census Report of Public Education Finances from 2002; for the states that are west of the Mississippi River: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana; that is 24 of the 50 states plus District of Columbia. The ranking of the states that Oregon is behind/ahead, west of the Mississippi: 1. Oregon ranks 25th on Total Elementary-Secondary Revenue per student—behind California 24th, Nebraska 23rd, Minnesota 19th, Hawaii 11th, Wyoming 9th and Alaska 8th 2. Oregon ranks 26th on Total Spending On Instruction per Student—behind California 23rd, Hawaii 22nd, Minnesota 21st, Wyoming 13th and Alaska 11th 3. Oregon ranks 37th on Salaries of Instructors per student—ahead of Montana 38th, Louisiana 39th, South Dakota 41st, New Mexico 42nd, Arkansas 43rd, Nevada 44th, Idaho 46th, Oklahoma 47th, Arizona 49th and Utah 51st 4. Oregon ranks 12th on Benefits on Instructors per student and is the best of the states above. 5. Oregon ranks 21st on Total Spending per Student—behind Minnesota 20th, Wyoming 11th and Alaska 7th

So yes, Oregon is in upper half across the board west of the Mississippi river; but middle of the pack nation wide.

Thanks to Aaron for the details.

Here is a challenge to others based on the old saying that actions speak louder than words. I have volunteered on many primaries over the years, and not been sorry about the candidate I chose, whatever the outcome. But I did study/ meet the candidates before deciding and could tell friends or others why I was supporting my candidate, where they stood, etc.

Here is my challenge: One of the first posters said "Blue Oregonians should renounce that backsliding dealmaker Teddy K. Measures 28 and 30 would have passed if he had just been the "leader" he needed to be. Maybe Sorensen is that leader. ".

Are those who are really angry at the current Gov. willing to ask Sorenson what specific steps he would have taken to have a diff. outcome on Meas. 28 and 30? What he would do differently (or the same) on a variety of other issues? Are they willing to answer friends who ask what positive contribution Pete could make that Ted has not, and whether Pete will run a positive campaign? Are they willing to pledge to work 100 volunteer hours for Sorenson for Gov.?

My experiences in politics included being at a county central committee meeting during a state employee strike where union members who had never been to that meeting before and never would come again demanded that a resolution condemning the strike and the Dem. Gov. be passed because they said so. Didn't matter that they hadn't bothered to be elected pct. people--they were angry and all the pct. people were supposed to bend to their will. And then they wondered why in elections after that the people in that room who were pct. people and had helped get the Dem. Gov. elected didn't look kindly on unions telling them what to do.

Another time the state central comm. passed a resolution on a ballot measure which they said "all good Dems" supported. They decorated the state fair booth in accord with that view--and couldn't understand why people on the other side of the measure who traditionally worked on fair booth shift a year said "If that is how you are doing the booth, you can do it with your "real Democrats" who support you on the ballot measure!" I heard they had a tough time staffing the state fair booth that year.

Are the opponents of the current Gov. willing to put their time and energy where their mouths are? Or maybe the anger is just talk, because volunteering on a primary campaign is hard work.

LT,

You have raised some very good points about volunteering in a primary and if these challengers are only talk.

I know that being “in-charge” you have to have skills that will lead, inspire, motivate and initiative compromises and confrontations. Nevertheless, I would question the motives of these elected officials that cannot take a risk and see where the cards land, instead of deferring issues to the people knowing that they can hide behind the doors of their offices once it fails. But constant lack of support from leadership, that do not say a word in public about the importance of the passage of M28, M30, M34, M36, M37, because of the potential losing of their positions of power; is tiresome.

It is easier for a volunteer, and for party PCP’s, to stand up for an incumbent that has the conviction of party principles and stands by them knowing that the other side will lambaste them every single from the day after the primary to the day of the general election. The volunteers and the party PCP’s, job is to engage the citizen to convey the importance of why this incumbent took a stand on this issue or that point.

If you cannot do that for a candidate, then it is better for you to seek out an alternative candidate, I hope within your party; that best suits your convictions towards the party.

It is one of the best things of a representative democracy, to see growth, challenges and confidence over party values. As well as the potential worse thing about it, if an incumbent loses the primary; and the challenger loses the general; to say that the party went down the wrong path.

The passage of 37 calls into question the leadership of all top state Dems, and TK most of all.

Most people did not understand the consequences that the law will have and TK should have made addressing that a top priority. I mean really if you aren't going to oppose 37 at every turn, what's the point of being a Democraticgovernor?

Pam,

Other critical issues that this group that you reference too, that are disturbing:

1. 26th highest percentage of population with only a HS diploma
2. 2nd highest unemployment
3. 11th highest cost of living
4. 7th highest crime rate, low on violent but high on property
5. 32nd highest rate of EPA violation of water quality
6. 12th highest gas tax
7. WE ARE THE HIGHEST STATE FOR LOCAL AND STATE REVENUE FROM INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES

In addition, the school spending numbers just do not look right from this group from the federal census numbers. From point 7, if there was better compliance there some more money in the state coffers per year. Therefore, this would give more money to schools and other social services.

Without compliance from all, it makes those, which pay, feel a greater burden from the lack of support from the government. Hence, the tax burden issue will be on the forefront of the conversation of the ineffectiveness of the government from a wide spectrum of citizens.

A message from Cmmr. Sorenson:

From Pete Sorenson:

Hello Blueoregon.com folks,

This is Pete Sorenson. I'm still in Portland this morning. After a flurry of press conferences yesterday I took my 18 year old son to PDX and he's going back to college today.

Yesterday was a pretty busy day and I'm not used to talking with so many print, radio and TV journalists, but I tried to answer all of their questions.

I've read the comments on the BlueOregon.com website this morning and I appreciate all of the comments and the interest shown my campaign for Governor. I'd like to make a few responsive comments:

1) On the big issue of my challenge to the Governor, I make no apology for my 30 years of work in progressive politics. The Governor and I have deep differences and I began this campaign yesterday by focusing on the failure of the Governor to support one of the most basic tenets of progressive politics: support for public education. I propose to close corporate tax loopholes and deductions, credits and exemptions so they will pay their fair share.

2) Yes, without question, I would continue the tradition of Oregon governors attending the military funerals like Governor Kulongoski is doing. I'd like to mention that when the Lane County veterans service office was underfunded (we had one half of one staff person to work with a veteran population of around 30,000) that I lead an effort to provide appropriate assistance. For this work I received an award from the Vietnam Veterans group in our community.

3) I was an opponent of the Iraq invasion. I walked through the streets of Eugene with thousands of other people to peacefully protest this invasion. I disagree with the Governor's decision to visit Iraq with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

4) For those who want more examples of where I have stood on important state issues, I'd like to invite scrutiny of my record as an Oregon State Senator. If we have the volunteer resources, we'll put this on our website. I have a strong record for labor, for the environment, for tax justice, health care, public education and civil rights.

5) On measure 37, I put a ballot measure statement in the 2004 state voters pamphlet to oppose it. I did the same thing against measure 36. I also spoke to several groups about these and other non-progressive measures.

Fine, Aaron, but it is one thing to say "this is where I stand" which Pete did well. It is another thing to say "These are the specific steps I would have taken that Ted did not take". For instance, in 2003, how would Pete have dealt with Karen "my plan is based on internal conversations" Minnis differently than Ted?

And why shouldn't that "we don't need a mediator, we need a leader" crack be seen as a slam, esp. by those of us who once had an excellent Democratic legislator who was by training a mediator? I think that was gratuitious sarcasm, and those using that tactic in either party have an uphill battle trying to win my support.

Not to mention Pete making the mistake the Bruggere people made of "our guy is good, how dare you be friends with anyone running against him".

Seems to me that the only people Pete wants as supporters are the "Ted is lousy" crowd. He is gambling that is a majority. But if he thinks "you're supposed to forget your decades of friendship with my opponent because my campaign is composed of the good guys" I suggest he ask Sen. Bruggere why that is a successful strategy.

It has often been proven in the past that telling ordinary folks not to support an old friend is a failed political strategy.

LT,

I as stated before "“in-charge” you have to have skills that will lead, inspire, motivate and initiative compromises and confrontations". Then tell the Governor to start enforcing what are already on the books so that schools and other social services can have slightly better funding. This issue would be confrontational but it would show resolve for party principles.
Ask Ted why an increase in Department of Corrections (approx. $304mill or 30%) vs. a decrease in Department of Community Colleges and Workforce (approx. $9mill or 2%); or vs. an increase in Department of Education (approx. $150mill or 2%)? To me that tells me that he desires to be an incarcerator not an educator. Especially, since that Oregon has a growing numbers of high school dropouts that might lead them in to the arms of the Department of Corrections. Yes, I know it is “hard work” being a Governor; but it is a sad day when there is a Democratic Governor that leaves PK-12 education revenue relatively flat and gives a lot more to the Corrections Department. Trust me; there is a lot of grumbling around about this budget that the Governor delivered.

Why should I ask your questions for you? Call the Gov. office yourself.

Get Sorenson on the record, if he is willing, to talk about the role of Gov. vs. legislature and how he would remedy this: "Ask Ted why an increase in Department of Corrections (approx. $304mill or 30%) vs. a decrease in Department of Community Colleges and Workforce (approx. $9mill or 2%); or vs. an increase in Department of Education (approx. $150mill or 2%)?"

The governor does not control what the revenue forecast says, or what ballot measures require. Mannix is the one who made the Corrections budget go up--that and the meth crisis. What does Sorenson propose for the meth crisis? Does he support Berger's meth cook registration bill, or would answering that take away from generalities about how he is a leader and Kulongoski isn't?

Did you see Senate President Courtney on KGW Viewpoint this morning? Replayed on NW Cable News sometime on Sunday. It would seem to me that former St. Sen. Sorenson understands what you don't seem to understand--that a Gov. does not have a magic wand to force the legislature to act.

And why do you place all the responsibility on the Gov. and none on Minnis? If there are 4 House Republicans who refuse to go along on Minnis on any issue, from budget to her shabby treatment of the Clerk of the House, Minnis will not have a majority on that issue.

Candidates for Gov. don't change that reality.

If you believe all good Democrats are confrontational, then say so. Have your guy Pete out there saying "the Gov. should have...". But expect him to be asked where the power of the legislature ends and the power of the Gov. begins.

Were you a big Kitzhaber fan? Which Democratic governors have you admired?

Or are we all supposed to jump on the "Current Gov. is bad because Aaron doesn't like him" bandwagon because real Democrats don't think for themselves?

LT,

Let us focus now on the statement of yours: And why do you place all the responsibility on the Gov. and none on Minnis?

For whom the responsibility is placed is what I stated from my first post on this thread: First, I think that Cmmr. Sorenson will truly make tax compliance an issue since the State of Oregon would have more monies in it coffers if it goes after dead-beat taxpayers. I know that not make up all the shortfall of revenue in the general fund. However, there are bills that come out of the various committees that give tax breaks that benefits various major corporations and the high-income bracket individuals; that the Governor, as well other elected officials; know that these incentives take away revenues streams, in to the general fund; from that the schools and other critical services are finance with. For the removal of these tax breaks/incentives in past legislation; would require 3/5 of each house based on the Oregon State Constitution and that would be very hard to do right now. With that, I would state that it would not be a tax increase, if future legislation for the House would not give these breaks and incentives to the various major corporations and the high-income bracket individuals.

Let us focus on the wording of tax compliance, hmmm what branch of government controls tax compliance hmmm. THE GOVERNOR Since the Department of Revenue, primary purpose is to make sure that all citizens and entities are complaint with the tax code. As well, since it is the Governor has stated that ODR will expect to collect only $23 million on back owed taxes—not saying where these funds will be collected from: personal income, corporate income, gasoline, tobacco or other fees—during the 05-07 biennium. There is a lot more back owed taxes, if the Governor informs the Director of ODR to pursue too the fullest extent of what is back owed. Yes, I know that there are many nickel and dime amounts owed, but there are many individuals, and other entities; that owe tens of thousands of dollars and potential some that owe millions. That adds up to be a lot more that the expected $23 million dollars, even after the expense of labor and legalities are taken out. If the Speaker of the House does not like this behavior from the Governor, too damn bad. If she does try to limit the controls of what the ODR and Governor’s enforcement policies by passing legislation, it might not get out of the Senate. If it does, the Governor can veto it. This is how I am stating to be confrontational; let the Republican try to lambast the Governor for doing his job to provide the best services and environment for the citizens of Oregon to live in.

On lacking of tax compliance, squarely the blame is on the Governor.

For tax incentives for corporations, the blame falls on the head of the executive and legislative branches of the government, and the lack of notice of committee hearings that could be dealing with issues of tax incentives. For the various PAC’s have a lot to say on what incentives will get through legislation and who has the power to say yeah or nah on it. For issues that make it too the Governor’s office to sign there is a need for him to show compromise and confrontational skills to justify the drop of revenue streams in the general fund. As well, for any future executive or legislative missions to remove any past tax incentives that are on the books, it would take 3/5 of each side of the legislature. Therefore, it will not be easy for the state to retrieved lost revenue.

Therefore, for the tax incentives, I blame the Governor, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, and all the citizens that are not involved in the process.

Taxes and the compliance of such tax code; are the dividend that society pays back for the society that it wants too live in.

Were you a big Kitzhaber fan? Yes, especially how he was able to get things done with a Republican controlled House and Senate. Yes, I know times have changed and the Republicans have gotten more conservative now. Now on too who is my favorite D Governor? It would be Oswald West (for environmental issues), John Kitzhaber (Oregon Health Plans), Barbara Roberts (first woman and a great all around), then Neil Goldschmidt (transportation issues)—he would be second but with the current historical issues that have arose. I really do not know that much about the other D Governors because of the lack of research on my part at the Oregon Historical Society.

For the last question/snipe…childish.

The lack of notice on legislative committee hearings has indeed been a scandal, but not one caused by the Governor. Sen. President Courtney has said they will be doing 48 hour notice on committee hearings this session.

Aaron said "For tax incentives for corporations, the blame falls on the head of the executive and legislative branches of the government, and the lack of notice of committee hearings that could be dealing with issues of tax incentives.". He also talks about "making an issue" of that. Sorry, but I think "making an issue" of something is symbolism which does not necessarily lead to solving a problem. The House Republicans last session were in such denial about this issue that some refused to admit that a document called the Tax Expenditure Report even existed. Some of these folks are so partisan that if a Republican told them it was raining outside they would take an umbrella with them, but if a Democrat said it was raining outside they wouldn't believe that without looking out a window or actually going outdoors and getting wet. And yet a Gov. "making an issue" out of this would make them change their ways?

There are splits within the Republicans and I think we should take advantage of those. For instance, the issue of whether there should be a statewide pool of insurance for school employees. Doyle is against it (protecting insurance companies is more important than saving the state money?) and his Republican neighbor St. Rep. Berger in the next district over supports a statewide health insurance pool. Wouldn't it be more productive to ask Republican House members "Do you agree with Doyle or Berger?" than merely to say "the Gov. has done things wrong"?

Is the objective to save money in order to fund programs in the 2005 session by stimulating discussion among the state reps. who have votes in the 2005 session? Or is the goal starting the 2006 primary before the 2005 session starts holding the first budget hearings? You decide.

I think Pam is right "If Mannix were the Gov. or any other Republican, do you think the school funding picture would be better?"

Pam and LT,

First, it's spelled Kulongoski, not "gowski". Out here in Oregon we can't seem to pronounce polish names correctly.

Secondly, LT really seems to be arguing against candidates that aren't in the race (brugerre) and sharing some pent up anger.

Third, LT resents union involvement in D politics and believes that the only ones who should have a voice are precinct committee people. This is short sighted and ignores who actually funds and does the majority of the work. In a word, not the precinct people, but bless them for their involvement.

First of all, if someone wants to say the Democratic Party and the union movement are the same thing, fine. But are all Bus Project people union members? Would Avakian, Barker, Boone, Holvey, Komp, Riley, Roblan, Wirth all be private citizens today if not for unions because it was unions alone who elected all of them? Mary Botkin lobbies for a union. Just what union does her DNC replacement Jenny belong to? If no union, that makes sense--many people who vote for Democrats do not consider unions to be infallible.

I was at the 1991 State Central Comm. meeting where Gerry Cogan announced he would not run for another term as DNC. He said "I have always supported unions, but unions should support Democrats". Can Rorovitz promise me that in no 2004 election did a union endorse an incumbent Republican and tell Democrats at any level that no money unions had contributed to Democrats should be spent to help the Democratic candidate against a union-endorsed Republican? Someone today told me such a thing HAD happened, but maybe Rorovitz knows otherwise.

Given that I knew a St. Senator years ago named Kulongoski, the odds are that if I misspelled Ted's name it was a typo. But I looked back and could not find such a typo.

I agree with:

I've met Peter a few times and think he is a heck of a nice guy. I do, however, think that based on his brand of attack on Kulongoski, he still has only a limited understanding of what leadership is.

Posted by: Notorious J.E.S. | January 7, 2005 02:35 PM <<

I liked the Gov. State of the State speech today. I know there is another thread about that. I also know there are those who say things like "Pete is a nice guy, but specifically what would he do differently?". And how does he react to Kevin Mannix making that crack about the Gov. talking "platitudes" and "attacking Pres. Bush in order to lean to the left because of his Sorenson problem"? Does anyone besides me think Kevin has a sarcasm problem--or that 3 strikes and you're out should prevent him from running statewide a 4th time?

My two cents:

I've known Pete for about 12 years. I clerked for him when he was struggling to make ends meet as an environmental attorney. He's authentic, passionate and extremely intelligent. He's an excellent communicator. He's cobbled together a surprising number of coalition votes on the generally conservative Lane County Commission, and he's been willing to consistently oppose the dominant development interests down here.

My questions to other posters about Kulongoski: why hasn't he provided any noticeable moral leadership during the recent post-911 McCarthy-esque period? Does anyone have the stats on the number of Republicans he's appointed relative to past Democratic governors? Where did he get his funding from in previous Democratic primaries?

You won't find many progressives in Lane County who doubt the strength of Pete's values. Is the same true of Ted? If you believe in Ted's values, please convince me, because I haven't seen or heard anything in the press that's impressed me.

Oregon is not Lane County. Why should we believe Pete would carry all the counties Ted carried (like the ones on the coast, or Hood River county) because Pete has friends in Lane County?

How would Pete carry counties Mannix carried in 2002 without being as well known as Mannix?

And what, pray tell, would Pete have done differently than Ted about J Davidson's concern: "My questions to other posters about Kulongoski: why hasn't he provided any noticeable moral leadership during the recent post-911 McCarthy-esque period? "

Let's see 3 concrete examples of actions showing "moral leadership" that Pete would have done as Gov. that Ted did not do.

Actions speak louder than words. If J. Davidson is unhappy with Kulongoski's actions, then he should spend all his spare time volunteering on the Sorenson for Gov. campaign. But don't expect all Oregon Democrats to drop the current Gov. and support the challenger because of vague complaints about the incumbent and vague promises that the challenger would do better. I would hope Democrats could be more specific than that. Let Republicans be the party of vague promises.