Here’s a shock: I think you should vote for John Kitzhaber. But before you flip the page to the sports section or close out of your web browser, here’s why you might want to keep reading:
It isn’t because Kitzhaber is a strong candidate. It’s because Chris Dudley is an awful one.
I find it odd and slightly humorous that fiscal conservatives find this candidate attractive. Casting aside the fact that he was the treasurer of a labor union, his plans for the economy are potentially catastrophic. At some level, his goal jives with traditional conservative mantra — cut taxes. Mainly, cut capital gains taxes, which are the highest in the country. Common sense, right?
Wrong.
The cuts would lead to a loss of $800 million over four years in tax revenue for the already struggling state. While Dudley likes to point to the theory that the increase in business investment and subsequent employment within the state would offset those losses, can’t fiscal conservatives find this semi-alarming?
Surely, individuals who are concerned with spending can see the fallacy of this argument. It’s like investing money you don’t have in the stock market, or, for that matter, purchasing mortgage-backed securities so toxic that it is quite likely that they all will default.
What if those jobs don’t come? It isn’t that far-fetched to believe they won’t during a time when the entire nation’s economy is practically stagnant. Even if those jobs do come, it will take a couple of years. With an annual $200-million hole, cuts will have to be made. Dudley won’t say where those cuts are going to come from. How can fiscally conscientious people support someone who plans to do away with $800 million in state revenue and won’t detail where cuts in the state budget will come from?
The cuts, of course, will come from broad sectors of the state. Education, health care and public safety are just some of the groups that will be hit hard under Dudley. But he refuses to acknowledge this for the sake of his own political survival, hoping that by avoiding these topics the citizens of Oregon can somehow be duped into voting for him.
And it doesn’t stop there. Dudley has made promises of starting a college scholarship program, although again he refuses to say how he would pay for this. Gee, that sounds terrific, Chris. While you’re at it, why not just have the state government employ everyone without a job and remove taxes entirely.
If Oregon’s economy was booming, then I might be able to take what Dudley is proposing. Then again, if Oregon’s economy was booming, there would be no reason to slash capital gains taxes. The fact is, Oregon is currently one of the most economically depressed states in the country, and however badly Republicans may want to cut taxes, it is unbelievably shortsighted to believe that shortfalls in the state budget would be recouped by increased business. Dudley is essentially a politician without a plan — and that is the most dangerous kind.
I’ll admit it, Kitzhaber isn’t the most exciting individual. He tends to come across as aloof with his technical analysis of Oregon. When he left office in 2002, he claimed that Oregon was “ungovernable.” Obviously, his stance has changed somewhat on that notion, but his campaign, overall, has been relatively meek.
The fundamental difference is that Kitzhaber has an economic plan that is clear, plausible and manageable.
He wants to cut capital gains taxes more slowly, roughly $100 million over four years. The plan acknowledges the problem without creating an inescapable hole in Oregon’s budget. He wants to enact a series of weatherization projects, similar in theory to many New Deal construction efforts, to not only provide immediate jobs but also to cut down on energy costs throughout the state.
Kitzhaber at least acknowledges the fact that there will have to be a tightening of expenditures around the state. There is simply no way Oregon can continue without it. It strikes me that Kitzhaber is, if not more fiscally conservative then Dudley, than at least more fiscally responsible than Dudley.
Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama made an appearance in Portland to rally support for Kitzhaber. He made an analogy to the economy as a car stuck in a ditch. The president said, “Have you ever noticed, when you want to go forward in the car you got to put your car in D? When you go backwards, you put it in R? We don’t want to go back into the ditch.” I find Obama’s analogy mainly accurate. Although the more I come to see it, it’s more like we’re idling in our cars in front of a canyon. On our left are the Democrats, pointing to the fact that there is a bridge just a few miles down the road, while on the right the Republicans are rubbing their chins and saying, “I think we could make it.”
Go for the safe choice. Vote for Kitzhaber.
[email protected]