The Davis-Tapogna Revisionist History
Chuck Sheketoff
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
 |
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
Feb 8, '10
Thanks for this post. I, for one, wasn't surprised by Tapogna penning this revisionist history. But I was very disappointed to see Adam Davis as a co-author. Adam knows better -- or at least he used to.
Feb 8, '10
The official election results are not even available yet,
Then it's not history. "Trying to spin the outcome", maybe, but it can't be revisionist when the history hasn't been written. HERE, you can post, run, and say that the comments don't affect the premise. The real world doesn't accept that, and the blog's triumphant posturing afterwards isn't the verdict of history.
If you're going to keep banging on about this, could we revist the nascent debate that was breaking out between rw and Steve Novick, at the end of his last posting on this? I am seeing more and more cases like hers everyday. I think their points are legitimate. Steve's argument about sole proprietorship overlooked the fact that most will STILL have to file the usual docs with the SOS, to operate with an assumed business name. 503(c) considerations also come into play. The logic that "you don't need liability protection" is just wrong in many cases.
Every one of those cases that I know of, involved people that voted for both measures. They have legitimate questions about why there was no attempt to exclude them. Some are saying that it was a conscious effort to take $150 from every small "paper corp".
I also found Steve's argument that if you get corp privs, you should pay for it, to be a really hollow swipe. That would be fine if the SOS did anything. But there is no validation of registration data, and there are no criminal penalties for failing to register. Do those things and I would agree. But, at present, who are we paying for that "privilege", and what exactly have they done for us?
Feb 8, '10
Newspapers and Network News was on the whole reliable for many years not only because of the Fairness Doctrine, but that if a journalist got it wrong the public had a voice in correcting the record. A consequence was implied when falsehoods, or distortions were found out.
Today, when a corporation or wealthy facilitators can't "fool all of the people, all of the time" they just act as if it didn't happen, and re-invent history to suit.
Like a miserable miser whom would rather live in a cave on the mountain alone instead of parting with their money. When did being American only meant being that miser that would rather let America fall into the abyss so long as they can rise above.
1:14 p.m.
Feb 8, '10
The repeated arguments for "temporary" solutions are absurd--the whole point is that the tax structure is itself askew, which is why revenue is always desperately short in a downturn. Only permanent fixes can address the structural imbalance.
And how do they substantiate a diminishment of public trust? Compared to when--the day BEFORE voters opted to trust their government with $733 million?
2:44 p.m.
Feb 8, '10
Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership (OSBRL)made the corporate minimum proposal that was closest to what the lege actually adopted.
My wife, the chair of OSBRL also gave testimony in favor.
FYI, Chuck, that's a business group. Teddy K may have his own reasons for blowing OSBRL off, but it should be as clear to you as it is to me that neither OBA nor NFIB nor AOI represent the outlook of the majority of small businesses statewide.
Admittedly, at one point, OSBRL refused to take dictation from some of the pro-66,/67 groups during the run up to the vote........but hey, that's what happens when your allies represent actual businesses rather than being Astroturf for either Salem lobbyists or liberal True Believers.
OSBRL was THE small business group that was there for house leadership when it counted. The progressives need all of the small businesses that are currently having their lunches eaten by their Big Business allies.
Use the tools at hand.......
Feb 8, '10
Right on, Pat. Because of the corruptive power of money in politics, big business holds more sway over legislation and administration than does small business; even with Democrats. If OSBRL can resist co-option by big business, they can help small businesses thrive and help Democrats fracture what often looks like business unanimity against their policies.
Feb 8, '10
I haven't seen any evidence that Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership (OSBRL) is any larger than Pat Ryan and his wife.
I guess I could try to join their mighty organization, but would they accept me if they know my party affiliation ...
5:22 p.m.
Feb 8, '10
In the Oregon Live online chat, Davis and Tapogna made references to a "toxic" campaign and in the op-ed, called it a "multimillion-dollar brawl".
Sure, it was expensive, but that campaign hardly seemed like a "brawl" or "toxic". I've observed - and been involved with - many campaigns that were much, much, much more "toxic".
Have we already forgotten the offensive attack ad from Gordon Smith in which Jeff Merkley was accused of standing on the side of rapists?
That's what "toxic" looks like.
The fight over Measure 66 and 67 instead looked like a fairly run-of-the-mill battle over taxes. Proponents argued that certain businesses weren't paying enough; opponents argued that it would kill jobs.
Fairly boring stuff, actually.
Maybe it just felt toxic to a couple of guys who had clients on both sides, so they were at ground zero for the private arguments. I don't know; but the public arguments weren't really all that out of line.
Feb 8, '10
Garage Wine commented: I haven't seen any evidence that Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership (OSBRL) is any larger than Pat Ryan and his wife.
Would tend to lend a bit more credence and legitimacy if OSBRL would update their website once in awhile. The only sign of recent life is a 2 sentence endorsement of Measure 67 on the home page.
Otherwise the 'Hot Topics' and 'In The News' items haven't been updated in 3 years or more...
6:13 p.m.
Feb 8, '10
I guess I could try to join their mighty organization, but would they accept me if they know my party affiliation ...
Party affiliation? Geeze, you don't even use your own damned name, which puts you pretty squarely in the weasel department in my book, given your comments here on The Blue. Here's a freebie for you though:
I am not a member of OSBRL.
On the steering committee there are several dems, an independent libertarian who's also active with NFIB, and a rock ribbed Republican, who despite very valid concerns about retaliation and thuggery, continues to advocate for small business in his best estimation of each bill considered, contrarian propaganda aside.
You could put down the damned wine bottle, get out of the garage and try for some intellectual honesty, although that would be a declaration of war against the Big Business lobbyists in Salem who seem to be buttering your bread for you.
Feb 8, '10
A package in the $500 to $550 million range that sunset the personal tax increases in 2013 would have taken the fire out the fight. One could mix and match a variety of targeted increases on personal income, capital gains, and corporate income rates to hit totals in that range.
The sunset would have allowed M66/67 proponents to use the Stiglitz-Orszag argument with intellectual honesty.
Feb 8, '10
I'm getting tired of the "business believes.." nonsense.
I can think of some locally owned businesses (the new coffee shop and new bakery that seem to be doing good business, the long established business supply store, dentist, orthodontist, the locally owned fruit market or grocery store, the locally owned vac & sewing machine store, etc. ) and it is hard to believe their owners never express political opinions without first getting the OK from the lobby to speak publicly.
I had email exchanges with one of the above during the campaign and he responded that although he had a C corp, he saw nothing wrong with the taxes.
Of course, not living in Portland, Adam Davis probably doesn't know he exists (unless, by chance, he ended up in one of the polling samples.
OK John T., to be trusted on the "politically viable" claim, you must answer the following questions on this statement:
"A package in the $500 to $550 million range that sunset the personal tax increases in 2013 would have taken the fire out the fight. One could mix and match a variety of targeted increases on personal income, capital gains, and corporate income rates to hit totals in that range. "
1) Name the legislator who actually sponsored such a personal tax package, and how many legislators that you know, of your own knowledge, were willing to support the bill. Any of them on Revenue or Ways and Means?
2) How do you know that Russ Walker et al would not have referred such a package? Or by "taken the fire out the fight" do you know for a fact that if your scenario had happened, all funding for Russ Walker would have dried up?
As far as "One could mix and match a variety of targeted increases on personal income, capital gains, and corporate income rates to hit totals in that range",
my state rep. is on Revenue and my St. Sen. has been on Ways and Means for a long time incl. being a subcommittee chair. Would either of them have been willing to carry the "mix and match" proposal in their committee?
You do understand that for something to even be debated as a bill, "mix and match " has to be put into legislative language, don't you?
As my st. sen. has said, there is a process a budget item must go through to become an official budget: 1) be debated and pass in W & M subcommittee---if it passes, a member then carries it in front of the full committee. 2) be debated in full committee, and if it passes, carriers are appointed to carry the bill on House and Sen. floor 3) if it passed both chambers, it goes to the Gov. 4) if the Gov. signs it, then and only then it becomes part of the Oregon budget.
"One could mix and match a variety of targeted increases ..." sounds like the theory one would use if one had not watched the Oregon W & M process closely.
And "temporary" is a ruse. As much as there were some legislative decisions Karen Minnis wanted engraved in the capitol marble, once her party lost majority everything they passed was subject to change.
You are right, Kari. Even Paula's Bakery and some of the other brainless ads came nowhere near the "furniture" and "hot dog" ads against Merkley, not to mention the "voice of Hitler " ad against Mike Kopetski.
And about the $10 being repeated when "we pay more taxes than just that" and therefore unfair, I have this question:
Did businesses pay license fees, property taxes or rent, downtown parking district taxes in some cases, income taxes, and a variety of other expenses before the start of 2009? Were there outrageous cases like PGE /Enron claiming "no profit" and thus only paying $10?
Aside from Nelson and McCormick running what may have been the most brainless and incompetent campaigns of their careers, I thought the whole thing was pretty run of the mill. And there were lots of private conversations where people who were paying attention expained the ins and outs to people too busy to pay attention. Of course pollsters and consultants don't know those exist---therefore they don't count?
For all the money spent, I know the working parents of a young child who heard over Christmas breakfast "don't forget there will be ballots arriving sometime in Jan. " and one exclaimed "That's right! I forgot!".
Commercials only affect those who see them. Lots of people live their lives without following this stuff closely. But they may discuss the issues with family and friends and vote accordingly. Or, has been mentioned elsewhere, they may just have said "the budget cuts stop here--I am voting yes. "
Just because a pollster didn't hear those sorts of conversations doesn't mean they didn't happen. There are certain people in public polling, campaigning, journalism (Davis and Tapogna among them) who should learn a little humilty about "what the public thinks".
I'm glad that the legislature doesn't have to struggle with filling the budget hole this created.
But I am also glad this punched a huge hole in "we'll just take this to the voters and they will agree with us".
I suggest that Davis and Tapogna find a copy of the Sept. 27 Sunday Oregonian front page. An AOI lobbyist said "it will be war, it will get ugly".
I didn't think the folks doing all the voter registration and turnout volunteering, the phone banks, the canvassing, etc. were engaged in a war that would get ugly. I thought they were engaged in "people power"---esp. laying to rest once and for all the notion that anyone not old enough to have voted on M. 28 and 30 would just have to accept "the voters have spoken" and that even though they were not old enough to vote they could never change what happened then.
Seems to me they just did change the tone of politics in Oregon. If some people are angry that the political tide has turned, not my problem.
Feb 8, '10
John, "intellectual honesty"? Which side of the political tracks were you born on? The side with referendum, or one of the 17 states without?
"The sunset would have allowed M66/67 proponents to use the Stiglitz-Orszag argument with intellectual honesty."
So, you're really saying you have one idea. Not "dozens" as you claimed.
But the bottom line is this: why should we raise taxes when things are bad, only to cut them when corporations and the richest of the rich are reaping in the dough? It simply doesn't make sense. Ideally, we would raise taxes and build a rainy day fund when things are good, and spend it down (and cut taxes) when things are bad. Right?
Or are you suggesting the right thing to do, as the tax analyst you are, is the opposite? Raise taxes when things are bad, and cut them when things are good? That may balance budgets, but as far as equity, or stability of services, or helping create government services to help the neediest when they're down, it's exactly wrong.
As much as many of the corporate flacks might have given less money if we'd made the taxes temporary, many of them were driven crazy by the idea that leadership just said "you know what, AOI and timber companies, you don't run this legislature. We're elected. We run it." so whatever tax package they adopted would have driven them nuts.
The big corporate folks were proposing a package to tax all of us - not the rich and those that did well during the recession. That would have gone over like a lead balloon. When leadership said no, the battle was drawn. It's not leadership's fault that they thought corporations can afford $150 in good times as much as they can afford $150 in bad.
Feb 8, '10
It's not leadership's fault that they thought corporations can afford $150 in good times as much as they can afford $150 in bad.
I think I finally get lumping sweat equity non-profits in with Intel and Nike. Taxing by filing status is much easier to understand than crafting an instrument which performs fine surgery.
Let's extend that to personal returns! Anyone filing the "long form" should be taxed at a different rate than the "short form". After all, if you're itemizing deductions, you must have enough to cover it. If not, you probably shouldn't be itemizing. Yeah, there are some other reasons, but we're really not interested in that.
Hey, it works!
Admit it. The regulars on this like the argument more than they like fixing the problem. Keeps you off the streets, I guess.
Feb 12, '10