PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Here’s a great sentence I wish I would have been smart enough to write:

“Good government happens at the intersection of passion and thoughtful policies.”

That was the lead in a piece by ECO Northwest CEO John Topagna wrote for the Oregonian criticizing Ballot Measure 97, the public employee-union sponsored measure that would impose a tax on sales in Oregon.

While his lead applies to Measure 97, it also could apply to any issue where passion and an intelligent effort to find middle ground could produce solid public policy.

Here is a further excerpt from the Topagna piece:

“We use our hearts and our heads to advance programs that improve our schools, deliver better health care, make our communities safer, create jobs and move families from poverty to the middle class.

“This political cycle has been long on passion and short on policy. An angry share of the electorate wants to break up banks, build walls or both. And they have no patience for white papers. Trust in major institutions is at an all-time low. Newspapers, television news, public schools, banks, big business, organized labor and Congress all poll at 30 percent or less. Veteran Oregon pollster Adam Davis likens the mood to a Category 5 hurricane.

“All this passion creates a rich environment for skilled political strategists. And how they choose to harness it — for better or for worse — will shape our future.

“The architects of Measure 97 sensed the mood long ago as they set out to design what could become one of the largest tax increases in Oregon history. Give them credit for their political instincts and polling capabilities. But absent from their team was any expertise on tax policy.  

“The result is a sloppy, incoherent ballot measure.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

Topagna says Measure 97 is built on an ill-devised gross receipts tax. It assesses a tax on the total sales price of products as they move along a supply chain — for example, from a packager to a wholesaler to a retailer to a customer. That’s called tax pyramiding, and it’s a major reason only five states have a gross receipts tax.

Measure 97 tax would apply to virtually everything that Oregonians buy or use, with no protections for low-income consumers: groceries, prescription drugs, electricity, natural gas, gasoline, clothing, health insurance, cellphone service, and most forms of entertainment. The tax could hit you a half dozen times between your bed and the morning shower: flip on the light, check your phone, open the freezer, grab the coffee, turn on the stove, feed the dog. This goes on all day long.

The non-partisan Legislative Revenue Office estimates that the measure would impose a $600 burden on a typical Oregon household, a reality which is contrary to the tripe proclaimed by advocates who say a tax would not be passed on to consumers.

I have used this blog in the past to argue that the best place to hammer out tax policy for the state is in the legislature. That may not be a popular notion because some believe the producing legislation is a lot like making sausage – ugly and not a sight for sore eyes.

But the benefit of the legislative process is that tough issues like taxes are hashed out in a committee, which includes representation from both sides of the political aisle. There is the usual push and pull as legislators and those who testify argue competing viewpoints.

The staff – professional experts in the Legislative Revenue Office – listen and analyze proposals and report publicly and dispassionately on what they find. Attorneys in the Legislative Counsel Office write the language agreed upon in committee; it is not written by some amateur out of the glare of public view. And then there is a public vote in committee, which can send a piece of legislation to the floors of both the House and Senate. Votes there determine the outcome and, if a bill passes, it goes to the governor for his or her action, which is a signature if the bill gains the governor’s approval or a veto letter if it does not.

All of this – call it sausage-making – is far better than special interests making up language at, figuratively, their kitchen table and sending the mishmash to the ballot.

That’s happened again in Oregon this time around and the result is that both sides are spending millions of dollars to advocate for votes.

The process is flawed and, if Oregonians approve Measure 97, the result will be flawed, as well.

As Topagna put it in his Oregonian piece, “revenue would slosh around in all corners of the budget, making it impossible to say what we (Oregonians) would get for the money.”

So, to guard against that stupid result, plus to hold out hope for a more reasoned look at tax reform in Oregon — yes, in the legislature — vote NO.