Showdown between Kulongoski and the Lege
Kari Chisholm
We've been a little slow on the tick-tock here, so let's catch up.
On Wednesday last week, the Governor threatened to veto the $6 billion schools budget moving through the Legislature.
The dispute? The Legislature's plan is to use $200 million from state budget reserves now in hopes that the economy turns around and they're able to pull another $200 million from reserves in 2010. The Governor has argued that the economy isn't going to turn around soon enough - and that passing a $6 billion budget means that legislators will be forced to make emergency cuts in 2010 to fill that $200 million budget hole.
On Friday, the Senate ignored Kulongoski's threat and passed the $6 billion budget anyway on a 21-6 vote. That's one vote more than the two-thirds veto-proof majority. (See the O's bill tracker on SB 5520.)
On Monday, the House joined the Senate and passed the budget, too. The vote was a veto-proof 42-17. As OPB noted, it was a bit of a Dirty Harry "Go ahead. Make my day." sort of moment.
Yesterday, the Governor made good on his threat and vetoed the budget.
Kulongoski said if lawmakers override his veto and the economy improves in the next year, he'll admit the error of his ways.Ted Kulongoski: “My guess is they'll come in and feel pretty good about themselves. They're right, and I was wrong. But I don't think that's going to happen though, because I think they're going to be standing there and saying ‘I wish I would have listened to what the governor said.'”
"Make my day, right back at ya" so-to-speak. Despite the Governor's certainly, legislative leaders seemed confident that they had the votes. After all, the budget passed with veto-proof majorities.
"It was a quick, cordial veto," Hunt said. "We will do a quick, cordial override."
The Oregonian reported that the Governor has been hustling for votes to sustain his override, including jawboning Republicans.
Democrats must team up with Republicans to get the two-thirds vote required for a veto override, and the governor has been working the other side of the aisle.He met last week with Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli of John Day and House Minority Leader Bruce Hanna of Roseburg. On Tuesday, he spent another half-hour with Hanna.
Both Republican leaders expressed some surprise -- and took some offense -- that after being ignored for the entire six-month session, suddenly they were in demand.
"It was like being called to the principal's office," Ferrioli said. He said Kulongoski asked whether he had talked yet to Courtney or other Democrats. When Ferrioli told him he hadn't, "the next words out of his (Kulongoski's) mouth were the bills that he would kill" if Republicans voted to sustain his vetoes.
Which catches us up to today.
This morning, the Senate took up the Governor's veto. Presumably, Senate leaders thought they had the votes. Nope. The vote was 19 to 11 to override - one short of the votes needed. All 18 Democrats, plus Senator Jackie Winters (R-Salem), voted to override. Senate Republicans Fred Girod, Frank Morse, David Nelson, and Doug Whitsett all switched sides.
Stay tuned. This budget showdown has a long way to go.
 |
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
Jun 24, '09
Yeah, a real profile in courage there -- threatens to veto the highway porkfest and folds, but carries through when it's funding schools. What a guy.
1:24 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
Kari (and others)--what do you make of the claim that the Democrats are so hot to drain the reserves, so that it can't be used against any referral of the tax bills, eg "Why should the Legislature raise your taxes when they refuse to spend $400 million in reserves to save our state?"
Jun 24, '09
I don't make much of those claims. It's a complex message, which doesn't resonate with voters.
The simple (though misleading) message will be the same as it's been all along: increased taxes on small businesses and families who create jobs - how dumb!
1:56 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
Put the politics aside for a moment: What about the governor's argument that the Oregon economy is far from out of the woods and that it isn't prudent to reduce the rainy day fund by an extra $200 million before the next biennium even starts?
I understand the argument on the other side, too: Why make deeper cuts now in anticipation of a problem that may not occur at all, and which if it does appear we can decide then whether to make deeper cuts or look for additional revenue?
This dispute is not so much ideological as temperamental, i.e., pessimists v. optimists, prudence versus risk-taking. It's too bad that, instead of articulating it this way, both sides are making it look like an exercise in political gamesmanship.
1:58 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
"It's a complex message, which doesn't resonate with voters."
It's complex to say "Democrats are raising your taxes while keeping a $400 million slush fund of your money?" I don't think so.
And in any case, regardless of the perceived complexity of the message, that doesn't speak to the potential fear of Democrats that it will become the message. It doesn't have to BE an effective message, if Leg Dems were worried it would be effective.
Jun 24, '09
Its fun to watch Gov Taxandgougeme court republican leaders in Salem. Its equally fun to watch the democrat leaders in the Senate also finally court the republicans. I would say that the republicans are playing the game as well as some democrats who switched votes last week and the week before on other bills after being given due 'consideration' regarding some of their pet projects.
If the gov is really as concerned as he states he is about the budget he could always rescind that ;ate fall payraise to state managers and directors which will cost $250MM - $300MM a year....... Nahhhhhh
3:24 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
Hey Kurt -- You gotta pay attention. The Governor already rescinded those pay raises to managers and directors.
From the O, last September:
Jun 24, '09
Perhaps the governor sees the headless Oregon Republican Party as a new career opportunity.
3:35 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
I'm with Ted on this one. Holding back the $200 million is the prudent course to take.
Jun 24, '09
Jack, your analysis is spot on. It is basically a matter of temperament. In this matter I tend to agree the Governor, but then I have found that the advantage of the pessimistic approach is that when you are wrong the situation is better. The problem with optimism is that when you are wrong the situation is worse.
3:59 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
Kari Chisholm: Hey Kurt -- You gotta pay attention.
Somehow I doubt that's going to change his mind, Kari.
Kurt did all the thinking he was ever going to do by the age of three (something about not sharing classroom toys in kindergarten - no! no!! nooooo!!!), and he's not about to go doing something different now.
Jun 24, '09
Kari, I'm pretty sure that in October/November the good Governor came back and gave across the board pay raises to all of the upper level managers and directors in the state. I have been told that it is there in the budget to the tune of $250MM - $300MM. If it isn't there then I'll be the first to say so, but I'm going to check.
Steve - BYTE ME
Jun 24, '09
Spending on education is exactly what is needed most when the economy is in a downturn. What happened to the legislation designed to base the kicker on the rainy day fund?
Jun 24, '09
The pay raise for managers that the governor approved back in 2007 cost the state $34 million in the 2007-09 biennium, not the $250-300M quoted above. That larger amount in the budget covered all state employee raises, including raises built into the various labor agreements.
Jun 24, '09
The governor's absolutely right on this. The question isn't whether you allocate $6 billion to education -- both sides agree on that. But allocating the funds is different than actually spending them. You can only spend what is backed by actual revenue. So the two options are:
1) Bank $200 million in case the revenues don't materialize, then release the money if they do, or 2) Allocate the $200 million assuming the revenues are there, then cut education mid-year if revenues continue to fall.
Right now, school districts across the state have made very different decisions based on their risk threshold. Some districts, like Clackamas, are banking their share of the $200 million in case the revenue doesn't materialize. Others, like Portland, are allocating their share, hoping that the revenue is there. All the Democratic plan does is cause more school districts to act like Portland, greatly increasing the chances of a painful, disruptive mid-year cut or shortened school year. Their plan does NOT increase funding to schools.
Given the economic uncertainty, the only responsible move is to bank the funding until the revenues materialize. I think TJ is probably right, what's driving this is politics. But politicians have a responsibility to be prudent and cautious, even when it undermines a separate political argument. I hope the governor wins on this one.
5:13 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
TJ, many Oregonians understand the difference between a slush fund and a rainy day fund. the voters have been demanding the latter for some time. they've been voting Dem in part because they want this type of policy: higher taxes for the rich 7 corporations, fund the schools decently, and don't even think about a sales tax, dude. i don't see this harming the Ds at all, not with the Rs having poster children like Palin & Sanford.
Jun 24, '09
...and of coures the Prisons budget gets all the money it wants.
Jun 24, '09
The Senate just voted 23-6 to over ride Sleepy Ted's veto. The House is expected to concur.
7:13 p.m.
Jun 24, '09
What a soap opera! While I see Kulongoski's point on saving the $200 million for later, I think the Republicans (dare I say I'm going to agree with them on this one) had a point in terms of being shocked that he ran to them seeking votes all of a sudden. If we have a D majority in both the House and Senate and a D Gov and they can't get a long and work together, what does that tell you?
Jun 25, '09
If we have a D majority in both the House and Senate and a D Gov and they can't get a long and work together, what does that tell you?
That Kitzhaber would still have a contentious relationship with a Democratic legislature despite his desire for a "do-over."
Jun 28, '09
Ferrioli is my Senator and I've visited with him on another issue and he seemed totally disinterested in whatever fights the Democrats had among themselves. I'm sure he had to stifle a yawn when the governor spoke with him.
Jun 28, '09
"If we have a D majority in both the House and Senate and a D Gov and they can't get a long and work together, what does that tell you? "
I seem to recall a time when there was a Democratic Gov. and a Democratic House and people said they would get along very well because of that. But then it turned out the Gov. and one member of House leadership had been in student government back in college--one at OSU and the other at U of O. Not everything is determined by party registration!
Observe, for instance, Marion County's 2 veteran state senators. As individual as the day is long, about as hard working as any 2 legislators, long experience in public service prior to becoming legislators, Peter Courtney and Jackie Winters (one from each party, strong ties to their community and state, often the 2 best informed and hardest working individuals at any meeting or event) are powerhouses, love them or hate them. Each has previously run for higher office and lost in the primary.
Keep an eye on Marion County next year. Both senators are up for re-election. Will either or both of them run again? Run for higher office? Hard to believe they would retire.
The state of Oregon would be a much better place to live if more legislators were that hard working. Everyone who served on a Ways and Means subcommittee deserves our thanks for their hard work, as well.
Folks, the 2004 speech Obama gave about how people in "red" and "blue" states were alike in a lot of ways is appropriate here. Not all Democrats agree with all other Democrats, not all Republicans agree with all other Republicans, and about a quarter of Oregonians are neither.
<h2>Do you really believe that if Jason Atkinson were Gov., Ferrioli was Sen. Majority Leader, Bruce Hanna was House Majority Leader, that they would never disagree on anything? And would legislators not from S. or E. Oregon go along with leadership on all issues regardless of what their constituents said?</h2>