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.

Two legislators – Representative Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, and Senator Mark Hass, D-Beaverton – went on record this week asking Oregon businesses, in turn, to go on record in favor of what kind of tax they wanted to absorb.

Over my years at the Capitol, I lobbied both Nathanson and Hass and found them to be interested in what they considered to be sound policy from their position as centrists, but a little to the left. I know their current request was made with the best of intentions, but I was left with a question.

The request was made in a letter to Oregon Business & Industry (OBI), the new organization that grew out of a merger of sorts between Associated Oregon Industries and the Oregon Business Association.

OBI Executive Sandy McDonough responded appropriately, I felt, when she said the organization she runs would expect government spending control in return for new taxes.

More detail on all of this can be read in various newspapers, but, for now, let me cite an axiom that would animate my lobbying on this issue – if I was still a lobbyist and, thankfully, I am not.

If Oregon businesses are going to accept new taxes, the deal should be part of a political transaction.

In return for supporting for more taxes for business to pay, I submit legislators should commit to taking either of two actions:

1. Commit to getting control of the now out-of-control Public Employee Retirement System. Some will say this is impossible given the contract the State of Oregon has signed with PERS pensioners, a contract upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. [And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am one of those pensioners.]
2. Or, put in place what I call a “results oriented” approach to state government spending. What I mean is that programs should, by law, be required to estimate the results they will achieve and, then, if they don’t achieve those results, be subject to termination. Otherwise, all new taxes produce is more government, with no accountability for performance.

Now, a number of my former colleagues who still work the halls of the State Capitol probably will tell me that the axiom I have summarized above will not work. One of the main reasons is that Democrats are in charge by super-majorities in both the Oregon House and Oregon Senate and, because of their clear control, many want to impose new taxes on a number of payers, including businesses.

So, my lobbyist friends say, business lobbyists should propose how they want to be taxed rather than simply let taxes be imposed by Democrat super-majorities.

Perhaps.

But, in the spirit of good and better government, I say impose the “results orientation” instead of just more government business as usual.