« If I Could Turn Back Time | Main | Do We Really Want to Know? »

September 09, 2006

Radio Jayne Gets Caught in the Rain

When Governor Kulongoski challenged Howard Rich to come out to Oregon and explain why our tax system was any of his business, I thought it was a brilliant move. The Governor's follow-up has been unsatisfactory, but he did have a moment there. Of course, not everyone sees it that way. Right-wing local radio talk show host Jayne Carroll (who, in comparison with Victoria Taft's legendary four listeners, probably has only two) wrote an editorial about it for The Oregonian entitled, "Governor's Position Cloudy on Rainy Day Amendment."

Clever wording notwithstanding, the Governor's position on Measure 48 isn't "cloudy" at all. He is very clearly opposed to it. So I thought if Jayne can write a clever, meaningless title for her opinion piece, so can I. So I did. The poor woman is clearly lost in a mythological world of the right wing's self-indulgent imagination (clever, eh?).

Jayne seems throughout the editorial to be enamored of her own use of clever phrases rather than any substance. For instance:

- She called Kulongoski's challenge "a campaign stunt apropos of a junior high campaign" and a "sardonic challenge."

- She pokes fun at Kulongoski's "kitchen cabinet" – his staff – and imagines their juvenile strategy session, even throwing in the now-tired phrase "yada yada."

- She says McIntire "would likely make 'mincemeat' out of the tax-and-spend governor."

Yawn. I guess her writing isn't any better than her radio show.

Looking past her fascination with language, she also makes some statements that are largely myth, with just enough truth to assuage the doubts of people who really do not want to wake up from their right-wing fantasy. For example:

The Kulongoski camp is well aware that Measure 48 is the longtime brainchild of legendary taxpayer-rights activist Don McIntire. He has been pitching the idea for a much needed spending limitation and rainy day fund since the early 90s.

This statement leaves out some very important background. Colorado's infamous TABOR amendment passed in 1992, which means probably two years earlier the measure was written, filed, and circulated to gather signatures. McIntire began pressing for a spending limit in the "early 90s." It would seem obvious to me he got his idea from Colorado, not the other way around. Ever since that time, McIntire, Sizemore and various conservative legislators have repeatedly attempted to pass a spending limit and it has repeatedly been blocked, either by legislators or by the Attorney General, who saw multiple subjects within the measure. When Howard Rich conceived his evil genius plan to spread Colorado's misery to other states, Oregon, with its right-wing dreamers and initiative process, was an obvious investment choice.

Supporters of Measure 48 never mention that similar measures have been attempted in 24 states this year (only 4 have made it all the way through the process), along with eminent domain/regulatory takings combo measures and term limits measures, and all have been financed by the same guy – Howard Rich. McIntire must think we are all idiots to expect us to believe his misnamed "Rainy Day Amendment" is a stand-alone piece, particularly since it has, so far, been almost entirely funded by Howard Rich.

As for the notion that McIntire has been pushing for a "rainy day fund since the early 90s," I can only say I've never heard anything about that, particularly in connection with a spending limit, until this year. It looks to me as if backers of the measure are just doing everything they can to try to equate Measure 48's spending limit with a rainy day fund, which it absolutely does not create. But we can't let the facts stand in the way of a good story, can we?

Next, Jayne says something truly amazing:

Evidently, Kulongoski fears a one-on-one debate with the populist McIntire. He should. No one knows more about Oregon's tax system than the father of Measure 5.

I always thought it was Sizemore who knew more about the tax system than anyone else. Oh, wait. Sizemore was the one who told me that. Anyway, the arrogance of the statement is really something. It means that McIntire, a cigar-smoking, heavy drinking health club owner, knows more about taxes than all the tax accountants, government tax law analysts and code drafters and code enforcers, state legislators, and governor. Whew. How do you even respond to a statement like that?

Jayne then claims the measure "will limit state spending to an 8.25 percent biennial increase while creating a rainy day fund for tough times." First, this statement presumes Jayne is an amazing prognosticator who absolutely knows how much population and inflation will increase from now to infinity, and that we will never again see an economic downturn that will include massive expenditures of unemployment payments. Of course, McIntire himself has been having a lot of fun with his claims that the spending limit would allow supposedly huge increases. If you want to take his word for it, fine, but in my opinion a look back at what would have happened if the measure had passed in 1990 gives a much more reliable picture, and just such an analysis has been done by the Oregon Center for Public Policy. It isn't pretty.

Jayne made another statement that made me nearly laugh out loud. She said opponents' "absurd claims that Measure 48 is a carbon copy of Colorado's failed spending limitation measure have been universally discredited." What's so funny? The fact that Measure 48 supporters keep touting the supposed economic growth that has occurred in Colorado under TABOR, but want to distance themselves from the severe damage the measure caused. How convenient.

And then there's this one: "To add insult to injury, they have the audacity to criticize the low budget, grass roots campaign in support of Measure 48."

I've worked on my fair share of "low budget, grass roots" campaigns. We never had enough money for an official web site or fancy lawn signs like Measure 48 has. But like Measure 48, in every case, a single individual or small handful of individuals donated all the money to put a fairly sure-fire measure on the ballot, knowing they would not have to spend a lot of money campaigning because the ballot title was strong enough that polling showed the measure would very likely pass without a campaign. Of course, there was always the added benefit that the opponents, namely public employee unions, would have to spend a fortune to try to defeat the measure. This would prevent them from going on the offensive on measures of their own or having enough money to support their favorite candidates.

So let me say something very clearly. If this measure needs the money, I believe Howard Rich, whose campaign coffers this year are exceptionally full, will find a way to get money pumped into the state. He's already worked things out to run a million-plus dollar anti-union campaign and a very hefty pro-term limits campaign. Clearly, he believes Measure 48 doesn't need his help. It isn't inconceivable that Rich doesn't really care about whether Measure 48 passes because he is trying to suck up public employee union funds. In any case, I hope Mark Nelson gets a clue soon.

The "low budget, grass roots" myth is Jayne's editorial is, of course, accompanied by the "face-off between the people and the politicians" myth. First, 162,000 people signing a petition means nothing. We do not know what they were told about the measure before signing it. Moreover, a fairly good number of that 162,000 were ruled invalid. This anti-government crowd on the right truly believes that as soon as someone is elected to office they become an idiot and can no longer be trusted. They have become a politician. The people always know better than those they have elected to office, even though elected officials are privy to a vast amount of information that the public never sees. So whenever a "politician" sounds a warning, even if it's "their" politician (i.e., Ron Saxton), that politician is automatically wrong because the "people" disagree.

We can't expect more from the Jayne Carrolls, Victoria Tafts, Don McIntires, and Ted Piccolos of the world. They live in their own reality. But before they succeed in leading the rest of us down their mystical path to la-la land, we had better hope that the voices of reason in this state speak out clearly and effectively about what fate awaits us if and when we get there.

Posted by Becky at September 9, 2006 10:46 AM