At a time when the nation’s economy is in shambles and every state is dealing with the harsh realities of the “recovery” that technically ended last year, Oregon resembles the hull of the H.M.S. Britannia at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. This is the ship that is continually sunk by pirates outside the hotel every 20 minutes — as in it actually goes beneath the water before it rises again for the next show. The point here is that while most of the ship clears the waterline eventually, the hull is forever submerged. It is for this reason that the race for Oregon’s governorship is going to be determined by which candidate can provide the most comprehensive plan for economic recovery.
And it’s probably the only issue that really matters.
Oregon’s unemployment rate has been hanging a full percentage point above the national average for months, around 10.6%, seventh-worst in the country. The candidates who hope to captain Oregon through and hopefully past the current rough waters provide very different courses to accomplish this task. John Kitzhaber and Chris Dudley met in Eugene on Sunday to discuss their respective plans.
Despite the importance of the economy, both seem more concerned with attacking each other than providing an actual plan for recovery. One of them took the opportunity given by the forum to bash his opponent’s inexperience with dense, technical jargon. The other detailed the same tried and true economic policies that got us into this economic mess to begin with and criticized the other’s prior resume as governor.
Kitzhaber governed Oregon from 1995-2003. Dudley has criticized Kitzhaber’s direction of the state, noting that “unemployment rose 65 percent, state spending went up 57 percent and personal incomes declined compared to the rest of the country.”
While this is essentially true, it is important to note several things. First of all, during most of Kitzhaber’s time as governor, unemployment was historically low. It was only during the final two years of his governorship that unemployment rose, and this could be linked to a national recession. Furthermore, Oregon’s legislature was controlled by Republicans during his time in office, so any spending during that time by the state would have been approved by the Republicans in office. So Dudley’s criticisms fall flat, even if they are numerically accurate.
Kitzhaber’s plan for Oregon’s economy is vague, although he has detailed some initial strategies to help employment. Kitzhaber plans to enact a series of “weatherization” projects, aimed at updating public facilities, such as schools. The goal is solid because it provides well-paying jobs and cuts operating costs for public facilities. But Kitzhaber can’t seem to spend enough time discussing plans for the economy because he feels the urge to constantly bring attention to his experience and his opponent’s lack thereof.
“You need a governor who knows how to hit the ground running on day one, who knows how to work in partnership (with local governments) and understands what it takes to get this state moving again,” Kitzhaber said.
Similar to Dudley’s attacks against him, I find Kitzhaber’s offensive kind of muddy.
While I think it is important we have someone with experience, I’m not confident Kitzhaber really has the type of experience Oregon needs. And I’m not entirely opposed to someone with a so-called lack of political experience, as long as he or she has a sound plan for economic recovery.
Sad to say, it doesn’t appear that Dudley does. Dudley’s economic plan is vague like Kitzhaber’s, but when he does talk about it, it should send shivers down anyone’s spine.
Dudley wants to cut capital gains taxes in Oregon to promote hiring by businesses.
Oregon, admittedly, has the highest capital gains taxes in the nation. The kicker?
The tax cuts for wealthy Oregonians would amount to about an $800 million loss over the long haul, according to Kitzhaber.
Dudley claims the increase in employment would offset these losses, but he refuses to discuss which cuts he would make in the state budget to allow for the capital gains tax cuts in the first place. I think everyone should be uneasy about limiting the tax revenue of the state with no real way to pay for it, except for hopes that it will stimulate job growth. We need to know where cuts are going to come from to make those tax cuts viable.
I don’t care about the candidates’ pasts, whether they have had experience or not, whether they did a crummy job at the time or not. I want to know what their plans for Oregon’s economic recovery are, and then I want to make a decision based on who has the best blueprint.
Neither, so far, has sufficiently addressed this issue — they both need to stop the political posturing and get to fixing the problems plaguing this state.
[email protected]