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.

As the Oregon Legislature begins its long session later this month, one major issue is squarely on the table: Impose higher taxes on business.

Governor Kate Brown has built increased taxes into her “Recommended Budget for 2019-21.” And those who lead the Legislature are likely to go along, if, for no other reason, than Democrats are in charge everywhere – in the Governor’s Office for another four years, in the Oregon House by a super-majority margin, and in the Oregon Senate again by a super-majority.

And Democrats tend to believe that there is always room for new taxes.

Super-majorities in both the House and the Senate mean the now-in-charge Democrats can pass tax increases without trying to round up any Republican support.

But let me make this additional point, a critical one from the standpoint of fairness. Many Democrats in Oregon are solid elected officials. They may operate from the left of center, but that doesn’t mean they are all wrong or all bad, as long, I say, as they don’t move to the far left.

And, I would add that the far right is as bad as the far left. Both extremes are mostly interested, figuratively, in yelling on the street corner to illustrate how important they think they are without much regard for what is in the public interest.

For me, one question is whether the Democrats now in charge in Oregon will be able to answer a key question before they act: Is there a role for government in this public policy issue, one that warrants renewed spending and a tax increase?

Reasonable elected officials should be able to answer “no” to that question, at least on occasion. And, of course, a “yes” answer might be the correct one, as could be the case, for example, in new spending for K-12 education, though I believe the new spending should follow a critical look at the existing schools budget.

Answering “no” once in awhile to the question about a government role would add heft to the answer “yes.”

If lawmakers were to decide to tax businesses, they ought to consider the “cost” of those new taxes. In many cases, businesses would have to scrap plans to create new jobs – new jobs where the holders of those jobs would pay taxes to fund government.

I was struck last month when analysts at the Legislative Fiscal Office and the Budget and Management Office of the Department of Administrative Services jointly released a set of budget predictions for the 2019-21 biennial budget.

They suggested that revenue based on current taxes would mean the state would fall more than $600 million short of being able to balance the budget without spending cuts or new taxes.

The skeptic in me wondered if the set of budget predictions was meant to support the need for tax increases.

That skepticism was buttressed by a paragraph in an Oregonian story that appeared a few weeks ago.

“State law and Oregon’s Constitution require balanced budgets. Governor Kate Brown is scheduled to release her proposal for the next state budget on Wednesday morning. Unlike the budget estimate issued Monday, Brown’s plan will likely include revenue increases from a combination of tax and fee increases and might also include spending cuts.”

First, as it turned out on December 1, 2018, the biennial budget recommendation from the governor did include more than just spending. It included revenue increases from a combination of new taxes and new fees.

Second, the Oregonian said that the governor’s budget recommendations “might also include spending cuts.” Frankly, it was difficult to see immediately where those cuts had been proposed, though they might be imbedded deep in individual agency budgets – so the point is that they could exist.

For what my view is worth from the cheap seats – and this view is the product of nearly 40 years of dealing with budgets from my days as a state government manager, as well as a lobbyist – I would prefer a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” that did not include either tax increases or spending cuts.

It would be a document from the state’s leading elected official that showed what the cost of government would be for another two years if government continued to operate in a business-as-usual fashion.

Then, with that as a base, a second document from the governor would include recommendations for tax increases, including the size of the increases, who would pay them, and where the money would go – and, of course, from a gubernatorial leadership standpoint, WHY the tax increases were necessary.

A third document, again from the base of what government would cost for another two years, could outline spending cuts to assure that it was not just, without a critical eye, business-as-usual.

All of this would come into focus late in any long legislative session when lawmakers have to do what state law and the Oregon Constitution require: Produce a balanced budget by the end of the legislative session and the start of a new biennium.