After Oregon: Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown on Oregon, Massachusetts, and the Independent Voter

By Sen. Lisa Brown

To me, the biggest lesson to come out the successful Oregon ballot measure to raise taxes on the wealthy– as well as out of the successful bid by Scott Brown to become Massachusetts’ newest U.S. senator– is about the importance of the independent voter.

Base voters for both the Democrats and the Republicans are (more or less) stable in their politics. Therefore, they’re fairly easy to predict at the ballot box – although both parties are wise not to take any voters for granted.

Independent voters, on the other hand, reflect the issues of the day, which are not at all stable. Because their concerns evolve along with the development of big-pictures issues like the economy and national security, as well as issues that are more local and state-specific, the behavior of independent voters is much more difficult to predict.

State Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane)

The Oregon result and the Massachusetts result– while producing seemingly different outcomes as far as the political parties may be concerned– are similar in that they highlight the growing populist sentiment throughout the national electorate.

And, both results were decided by independent voters.

In Massachusetts– one of the most liberal states in the nation– voters have a history of strong support for public services, including universal health care. But as the health care debate in U.S. Senate unfolded, they were turned off by the backroom, closed-door politicking that the bill required to move forward in the process. In January, Scott Brown promised to put that process on a different course, and won.

In Oregon, voters support public services that protect schools, access to college, and neighborhoods and communities. But in this time of economic crisis, they’re also sensitive to the question of who pays for them. In January, a revenue package was put to the ballot that sought to avoid hurting exactly the middle class families legislators were trying to protect by seeking more revenue in the first place, and it passed.

So the question everyone wants to know is: what does this mean for Washington?

Our state’s two-year budget shortfall is around $12 billion. Last year, we got $9 billion of the way there without raising taxes.

In the Senate, we’ve thought all along that we can’t take an all-cuts approach again to this year’s budget problem, but we can’t take an all-revenue approach either. We’re looking at a balance between the two, and the results from Oregon don’t change that strategy.

Like in Oregon, I think Washington voters would want to see what specific services they’re protecting– such as early learning and classroom size and financial aid– with that new revenue. I also believe the sentiment Oregon voters expressed about limiting the impact of a revenue increase on working families is as strong here in Washington as it is down there.

Last session, when we wrote the two year budget for the state, I came out in support of a high earners’ income tax. Here are my blog posts from that time:

• Yes, this is a post about taxes (part 1)
• Yes, this is a post about taxes (part 2)
• Who is going to stand up for Washington’s middle class?
• A proposal for Washington
• Answering some questions about a high-earners’ income tax
• A fairer tax system, if the public wants it

I still believe in having a discussion about tax reform. I think it’s a discussion that Washington needs to have, both on the business side and the personal finances side of the equation. And it’s a discussion in which I hope to have a strong voice.

But I also think it’s a multi-year discussion, and the success of any reform proposal to our tax structure will require a strong grassroots element (remember those independent voters?).

I’m not taking the issue off the table for the Senate, but I am putting it on my personal back burner as I focus on our efforts to deal with the current budget crisis. If other legislators have reform proposals to bring forward this session– and the support to pass them– they’ll have my vote.

In the meantime, on the day I write this, legislators have just 34 days left to fix a $2.6 billion hole in the budget, and any new revenue raised needs to come in quickly.

With the clock ticking, all solutions will likely need fit within our existing structure– as imperfect as it is– in order to get the job done.

[Publisher's Note: To submit proposals for op-eds to the Olympia Newswire, please email me at publisher [at] olympianews.org]

Comments