Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Today, I found out I don't really exist!

Update: I want to make something abundantly clear, after reading some of the comments about this matter on Blue Oregon. The 98 people in my Facebook account KNOW ME, including my last name. Generally speaking, we have spent some time together IN PERSON. I don't accept anonymous invitations from people who I have NEVER physically met (with one or two exceptions). So, as far as Facebook goes, I AM NOT ANONYMOUS. I hope this is clear. I merely control who I am friends with and I generally restrict it to people I KNOW.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

I want to just say something at the outset here. I bear no ill will towards BlueOregon or its proprietor Kari Chisholm. I wish the site nothing but success. Lord knows, we need more blogs for Progressives and Liberals and we need to value and protect the ones we got. We've already lost a few aspiring and fledgling Progressive blogger sites over the years here in Oregon so,... Godspeed man. Whatever.

However, as of today, apparently I am not welcome to post there. A while back, Kari made the decision to switch from anonymous comment posting to Facebook-verified posting. As a policy, I have no problem with this. Yes, it had the unfortunate effect of cutting down the number of posts by 2/3rds, easily, because many people are not on Facebook. The "old" Blue Oregon had so many commenters, there was absolutely no opportunity for discussing the issues. And then there was the problem of the anonymous "troll" flamers. Yes, it was as bad as any anonymous posting site you've ever seen, but I guess I wasn't so bothered by it because the sheer number of comments out numbered and overwhelmed such comments. But in the end, someone has to moderate all that, and I can see where Facebook-verified comments assists greatly in minimizing the work involved in comment moderation. The switch to Facebook-verified comments just makes sense from a practical standpoint. Here are BlueOregon's stated rules of participation.

However, Kari has more faith in Facebook and the Internet in general than I do, because when I mentioned in a post about Facebook that I keep much of my personal information on Facebook private, including my last name, Kari removed my posting privileges. I have been posting there as either Sonya Lee or ChickieBlue for the past 5 years. The reason he gave me (in an email response to me when I discovered I could not post) was: "We have a rule at BlueOregon -- we're requiring real identities for all commenters."

Real identities? On the Internet?

The lack of a "real identity" he is referring to is, of course, the fact that I freely admitted that I dropped my last name. Now, any internet security expert would tell you that, as a woman, this is only smart. Also, I have a business in my small town to protect. Plus I write this blog and another blog and I absolutely have a right to determine who knows me on the Internet. I also have a right to my views and I thought BlueOregon was a safe place to post them along with other people who shared my views. The fact that Kari could not ascertain that I was really "someone" based on my Facebook account strikes me as missing a point: I can be anybody I want. I can call myself anything I want. I can pretend to be anyone I want. I can open a Facebook account right now with a real-sounding last name and have my privileges restored without a question. Facebook does not legitimize the person I am. It does not lend its stamp of approval that I am a good person, a Liberal, a Conservative, a real person at all. I could have taken my husband's name when I married him, but I didn't. Facebook does not legitimize my marriage. No, I admitted that I omit my last name for the sake of my privacy and to protect other people in my family with the same last name. And for that, I am deemed as not using a "real identity".

Sonya Lee is my first and middle name. My parents gave me those names as a baby. When I was in trouble as a child, I knew it because my mother would address me as "Sonya Lee", and you knew a scolding was coming next. My friends and family on Facebook know my names. All of them. The ones I use on the Internet and the ones I don't. There is no reason that anyone posting on BlueOregon needs to know my last name. What matters more is my behavior while posting. I am consistent. I have never been disrespectful or flamed anyone. I am not a "troll", which was apparently the reasoning behind BlueOregon's switch to the Facebook verification. I had a two-hour lunch with one of the editors of BlueOregon last week, and I am friends with one of their regular contributing writers, who ironically also goes by a pseudonym. A real human being went to lunch last week, and a real human being regularly meets with the writer. But, hey, rules are rules. And "REAL" Fakebook identities are real identities.

But here is the thing: I have been Sonya Lee with a kitty avatar on the Internet for close to 2 years now. In lieu of telling the world my last name, I've effectively branded myself. I seldom change my avatar on Twitter and I almost never change my photo on Facebook because I want to be known and TRUSTED by that. That name and avatar is ALSO an identity. And these days on the Intenet, it is as much of an identity as knowing my name. Many people know me ONLY by my Internet identity and that is as much as they will ever know about me. They have learned to trust that I am presenting my ideas honestly here, on Facebook and on Twitter and on every blog where Sonya Lee and her kitty in the sink shows up and that a real human being stands by them, regardless of whether or not they know my last name or even my name at all. Hell, I have been using the nickname "bujeeboo" for 10 YEARS!

Is Blogger Sonya Lee any more or less credible than Sonya Lee with a last name on a Facebook account? In this day and age, is ANYONE who they say they are? And must we sacrifice our privacy (and even our personal safety) for the right to speak publicly?

Kari also said this to me in his e-mail: "Do let me know if you decide to do it differently, as I'll need to manually remove the block.". Decide to do it differently... I guess that means tell the world who I am "really" in order to post on BlueOregon. Sorry, Kari. I don't know you or anyone visiting your site well enough to tell you that information, Facebook accounts not-with-standing.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The escalating war with KGW

Honestly, when it comes to the point where Producers are accusing you of assuming the identity of every person or troll on Twitter that has taken an interest in this story in order to get out of having to take any responsibility, what is the point of trying to deal with them? A few folks on Twitter have been our heroes in taking on KGW (since we are blocked), one of them being a certain Mayor of Camas. Apparently, that was a bridge too far for the producer of Live @ 7, The Square Aaron Weiss and he saw fit to blame us for a tweet he got.

Belo Corp., do you have any adults in your organization that we can talk to???

Click here for the e-mail exchange between my husband and Aaron Weiss. I'm sorry that it's come to this. I really am.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

A lesson for KGW on Social Media

Since my last post, my husband has posted an update on the KGW matter on his Posterous page.

I don't think KGW understands the power of social media. One time I tweeted something about my Comcast bill that I didn't like. Before the day was over, "ComcastBonnie" tweeted me and asked how she could make it better. Another time, I was complaining about how I really wished there was a personal finance software that worked on the Mac that integrated with my cell phone or PDA. I even tweeted to Quicken as an existing customer, explaining my needs and inquiring if there would be any products coming out soon that would help me. The very next day, someone from a company called iggsoftware tweeted me and said "Have you tried iBank? Works with the iPhone". I downloaded the trial, used it for a few days and fell in love. I NEVER heard from Quicken after several attempts, and they lost a customer. When Bank of America sent us a letter saying they were raising our credit card interest rate by 75%, you better believe we went on a screaming terror about it on Twitter, as did MANY people. To B of A's credit, they hired a cadre of agents to scan tweets and deal with the outcry on Twitter. In the end, no one had the authority to make any decisions to change the interest rates on anyone's account, so we walked and took our personal and our company's banking business to our friendly neighborhood community bank where we remain happy customers. The point is, any business in today's world understands the advantages and opportunities inherent in reaching out to people seeking solutions and even to unhappy or angry people. The reason is, a problem resolved, or at least an honest attempt at it often leaves the complainant with the feeling that their patronage matters to someone. Who are you in the community to serve, KGW if not the public? There are A LOT of people who are unhappy about the slant of the KGW minimum wage story. For every person on Twitter who has read our tweets about it, or read this blog, or my husband's blog, there are literally thousands who are angry and aren't doing anything about it. But they do remember and there are other choices for news in the Portland Metro area.

In this day and age when people have choices as consumers of news, why on earth would you a) allow your reporters to engage unprofessionally with viewers on Twitter and b) not have an ombudsman or community liaison to engage with people who have a complaint? What was initially a legitimate complaint about the story (which I won't go into again here) has now turned into a story about KGW. Smart? Not at all.

Originally, I had posted a comment on KGW's comment section of the story page expressing our concerns with the piece. Those comments were removed. We asked @TheSquare who we should contact to discuss our concerns. They tweeted an email address. We wrote the email address and heard nothing. We waited 3 days and never heard back. When we again tweeted to @TheSquare to let them know that no one has responded to our complaint using the avenue THEY PROVIDED, we discovered we were blocked. This prompted my husband to post on his Posterous page. Yeah, we're angry.

So, KGW will run out the clock until the election and it will all go away in a week. But I want it to be known that if you have a complaint about KGW's reporting on something in the future you might be treated like we are being treated. It's unfortunate. Before this we felt KGW was the best news source in the area. Trusting a media outlet is something you take for granted until you find yourself betrayed. And that's EXACTLY how it feels. Like a betrayal of trust. We aren't just "customers", your public are your partners. We WANT KGW to succeed. Your customers can tell you a lot if you will listen. That is the beauty of social media.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Chris Dudley should stick to not voting

When he does vote, it reveals his confusion.

OPB's "Think Out Loud" has been able to follow-up on Chris Dudley's claim that he voted for Obama. Here is his capriciously fickle response, paraphrased by Emily Harris:

"Dudley says he liked Obama's message about working across the aisle, but now says he is disappointed in how that's turned out. He cited the health insurance reform bill as an example. He also says he thinks the president has lost some of the well-tuned connection he had to public sentiment during the presidential campaign."

I will not add much to Harris' analysis (click the link above and read). It's spot on. But someone needs to remind Chris Dudley (or perhaps inform him for the first time) that President Obama actually ran on a slightly more "extreme" (from a Conservative's perspective) version of the Health Care Reform bill. Much to my and other Progressive's dismay, the President conceded much even before getting to the bargaining table with Senate Republicans. The Republicans sought and got over 300 amendments to the Health Care Reform bill which did not net the Democrats a single Republican vote when all was said and done. I am only left with one belief, and that is Chris Dudley is a complex mix of naivete, misinformation and lack of understanding of the political process. Dudley is an interesting political figure by now, but every week he seems to prove that he is not ready for the task of being Governor of this state with its complex problems. Think about it. He's never held office, so he doesnt have working knowledge of how to reach across the aisle and persuade people to vote for his ideas. In his eagerness to sound like he has a grasp of the issues, he's stepped in a mess with his minimum wage comments and has been trying for weeks to walk them back. As for his strange voting philosophy, you don't vote for someone because you "liked his message" about reaching across the aisle, while completely disregarding what Obama campaigned on, and then blame him when he did EXACTLY what he promised. If Chris Dudley had ANY real, meaningful experience in setting policy and seeking consensus, I'd feel a lot better about Chris Dudley as Governor of Oregon. As it is, at this point, I'm terrified.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Another scolding for the Oregonian - by me

Okay. So it's been 3 days since Dudley, with Harry's help, let the little nugget drop that he voted for Obama.

I gotta say, when I tell Dudley's supporters about it, they say "well he made a mistake". See, the thing is, no where in this article does it say he feels his vote is a mistake. We don't really know what it was about Obama's platform he agreed with. In fact, the story before this was that Dudley never voted. So you can understand why I believe this is a ploy to get moderate Dem cross-over votes, given the recent polls.

But the biggest jerky thing in this story is that Dudley is leaving it to his supporters to defend, explain, or give a rationale because no one is following up in the media and asking the obvious questions about it. The way it was leaked, in paragraph 48 of a fluffy bio piece, as a quote by his father (which warranted follow up on that basis alone), in the middle of October on the eve of the election is sketchy at best, and looks coordinated at worst.

Here's why it matters. Allen Alley, who was far and away, a more qualified candidate didn't pass the GOP Purity test because he was perceived as too conciliatory to Democrats. But this tid bit, coming out now as it has, is to be consumed and digested by voters, with no explanation? If this is a race between two Democrats, one being a RINO, the voters should view it as such.

And Dudley, to borrow the phrase of the day, "MAN UP" and tell your supporters what you agree with about Obama's platform. Was it health care reform? How about the stimulus? Cap and trade? A candidate for governor should have a better reason than I didn't like Sarah Palin. The views you are running on now are more in line with John McCain's views. Are you a liar? Or a flip-flopper? Or just unprincipled and undisciplined? Please stay away from Salem. Our problems are too serious for someone who doesn't know where he stands on any given issue on any given day.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Oh My, but the Duds does pander

I don't know if you caught it in this weekend's Oregonian profiles of the Gubernatorial candidates, but in Chris Dudley's profile by Harry Esteve, Dudley's father happened to casually mention that his son voted for Obama in 2008.

Of course, I made a big deal about it in the comments of the article because the next question ought to have been "why are we hearing about this now?" but I hardly expect that from Esteve who has never had a kind or charitable word for Kitzhaber. But I wasn't shocked. I am a little doubtful of the truth of Dudley's admission, which I will entail reasons for in a minute. But shocked? Not at all. Being a Lake Oswego resident I had heard some months back from a Chamber of Commerce member that Mrs. Dudley was an Obama supporter and I privately wondered when that was going to come out. I sort of felt when she was named in Dudley's "18 Point Plan - Education for our Economic Future" that he had an ethical obligation to introduce his wife to the public. Certainly, we only need to look no further than Hilary Clinton to see how unelected wives can be perceived. He's been asked (if memory serves me, I believe it was in the Register Guard interview) who he would appoint to help him on various committees and came up expectantly short on names. But his wife has been named to a position, should he be elected, and she has been traveling the state attending Women for Dudley functions and speaking to Republican Women's Groups. I wonder if she mentioned she is an Obama supporter. Somehow, I doubt it. and the media hasn't seen fit to ask about her. I guess I am the only one with expectations on that front.

Chris Love Dudley speaking to the Linn GOP women’s group on July 12th

No, of course, I have no proof that I can provide to you that she is or isn't a Republican. But I DO feel, at the point when she was named in Dudley's plan, it's a fair question to ask.

So now what to make of Dudley supposedly voting for Obama. We aren't talking about a lot of time since Obama's election and when Dudley decided to run. Let's see, when Dudley filed his papers, Obama was still operating under Bush's budget. Dudley was attending teaparty rallies a mere 9 months after Obama took office. Health care reform, the stimulus, NONE of this was a surprise to Obama voters. The problem that Obama voters had with Healthcare Reform is that it didn't have a Public Option. Is this Chris Dudley's view? Hardly.

Folks, this is pandering in its lowest form. We don't KNOW who Chris Dudley voted for. What we DO know is that he is behind in the polls. What we DO know is that Oregon tends to vote Democratic. What we DO know is that he must get Democrats to vote for him in order to win. At the same time, Chris Dudley cannot alienate his extremist base. I mean for Pete's Sake, Allen Alley didn't pass the GOP Purity Test because he DARED accept an appointment to then Gov. Kitzhaber's Counsel for Knowledge & Economic Development. How will this bit of news sit with the same people who want Art Robinson for Congress?

I rule this one as a LIE. Two weeks ago, also in the Register-Guard interview Dudley made some rambling remarks about how half his family are Democrats and half are Republicans. I think this was not only a way of sticking a toe in the water to test this lie out, but it addresses the topic of how his wife voted, should anyone ask. So will the media press with the follow-up questions? I won't hold my breath. And if he DID actually vote for Obama, why the big secret? Secrets in politics are usually BAD and elude to... dare I say it? An Honesty Problem.

Errata: In my two references to the Register Guard, I meant Statesman Journal. My apologies to the RG! The entire interview with the clips I refer to above is posted here.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Dudley's Going Wobbly

Seriously, he's off his game.

First of all, the Right-Skewing Rasmussen came out with this poll on Monday showing Kitzhaber with a small but significant lead. I attribute this to Dudley's meager and barely adequate performance during the one and only televised debate on KGW. But Nate Silver who, this week, flipped the predicted outcome of the race from Dudley to Kitzhaber as the likely winner showed Dudley already beginning to make his descent down and Kitzhaber shifting up even before the debate on September 27th. In order to overcome the Blue Tide of Oregon Democrats' GOTV efforts, Dudley needs to be up in the polls by a good 5 points or it's a lock for Kitzhaber. That's the reality that the Dudley campaign is grappling with.

So, here Dudley is at the Freethrow Line again and what does his campaign do? Dredge up that wicked little "investigative journalism" piece on KGW's "The Square" explaining away what we all heard him say about Oregon's minimum wage, dismissing it as just an editing job. In fact, he uses the KGW reporter's own words in his brand new ad "Don't". Let's be clear. This is why letting an inaccurate piece of journalism float out there, largely unaddressed and uncorrected, is such a bad thing. Leaving aside for the moment, the appearance that KGW is just a media flack for a candidate, the "Don't" ad claims that "Kitzhaber highly edited Dudley's words" and cites the Oregonian on Oct. 11th.


The Oregonian piece quoted in the "Don't" ad pictured ACTUALLY reads thus:

"The fact is, the Kitzhaber ad does take some highly edited snippets from a rambling answer that Dudley gave to a questioner about the minimum wage back on Sept. 9 - and that Democrats have used against him ever since." Watching Dudley's ad, you'd get the feeling that Kitzhaber sat in a dark, smoke-filled room somewhere and edited the piece himself. Laughably, Dudley's campaign cherry-picked what they wanted from the article and left behind the nuggets that buttress THE FACTS. Mapes goes on to repeat what anyone with a brain and basic comprehension skills already knew:

"But the Kitzhaber campaign could point to parts of Dudley's answer that buttress their ad. The commercial quotes Dudley as saying that "having the highest minimum wage in the country negatively impacts the state." You can see from the transcript (or the Youtube video of his statement) that it is reasonable to think Dudley was agreeing with a questioner who expressed unhappiness about the minimum wage."

...it is reasonable to think because Dudley's mouth moved and his words said he was agreeing with a questioner who expressed unhappiness about the minimum wage.

Enough with this foolishness. First of all, whoever is responsible for the original KGW piece needs to, at long last, make a correction on this story! Stop painting the sentient, intelligent voters as unable to understand what we heard. The reporter in the story, or WHOEVER is responsible at KGW, edited the original video in a fashion to "prove" that the Kitzhaber people edited the video, and then gave a platform for Dudley to respond to it. It's disgusting, appalling journalism. And NOW, Dudley himself is using a snippet in his ad to attack his opponent. KGW should be concerned that it looks like someone there is in the tank for Dudley and I just don't think that's a good policy for a TV station broadcasting over the public airways.

But of course, the desperate Dudley camp is pulling out it's "big guns" now that HE is down in the polls. And KGW gave them a nice sound byte to do so.


Next on the blog, yeah that claim that Kitzhaber wants to tax the homeless is a load of garbage too.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Tracker trespasses in PDX Urban League event, gets what's coming to him?

BREAKING: The trolling tracker with the video camera has been identified as Daniel Sandini, 48, of Southwest Portland.

Mapes has the story here. And yes, he is apparently pressing charges, which is his right. But I hope this was a teachable moment for Mr. Sandini about the 1st Amendment and private property rights. (Somehow, I doubt that.) Anyway, he refuses to speak to the media because they will ask him, you know, QUESTIONS!

So here is my question: If Chris Dudley isn't a member of the Tea Party, then why is the Tea Party sending trackers to his opponent's speaking engagements?

By now many of you have seen the video of the citizen who was allegedly assaulted at the Urban League forum with featured guest John Kitzhaber, Democratic candidate for Oregon Governor. Here's what I know about this matter. At least two people who regularly attend these events have told me privately that this videographer is a tracker and attends these events with an eye for disrupting them. While I don't condone punching anyone to get them to stop filming, it seems to me this person had it coming if he was looking to cause trouble. So here's the deal. I want to know who this guy is. And I want the rest of his unedited film to be made public. There was another person filming it from the other side of the room, which leads me to believe this was a coordinated effort.

Does anyone know who this guy is?

I'm also perturbed that KOIN, who was streaming the event, will not post the archival footage of the event anywhere on line. Is it because it's now evidence in a police matter?

My best guess is that this will not be pursued by the videographer because a) we would then know his identity and b) the unedited version of his film will be made public and we can then see his role in the events. But I don't think someone whose motive was to embarrass an invited guest to an event should be allowed to languish in anonymity after his stupid prank.

The guy who punched him should not have done that, but it's not the responsibility of the invited guest to say or do anything about it as it is happening. If anything, the church where this took place owes Dr. Kitzhaber an apology for their mishandling of the situation. But this guy with the camera has some culpability too.

Anyone know who he is? DM me at @bujeeboo. And while you're at it, some stern word to KOIN, @KOIN_Local_6 are also in order. Who are they protecting?

The irresponsible journalism of KGW

One of the stickiest issues so far in the Oregon Governor's race has been this video taped comment made by Chris Dudley:

"it doesn't make sense that our waitresses are getting tips plus the highest minimum wage in the country."

Last night on Live @ 7 on KGW, Anne Yeager took a scatter shot approach to discrediting the people who are RIGHTFULLY appalled by the quote, implying that Dudley was somehow taken out of context due to the editing of the video. In an appalling piece of slipshod "investigative reporting" Yeager's piece ALSO edited the video to leave out the question that Dudley was answering in agreement. And THEN, she sticks a microphone in his face and gives him a platform to backtrack the comment. There's no doubt that this quote has been reflecting badly on Dudley and that he would take it back if he could. He has been careful about the whole matter up til the September 9th venue where he said the quote. Jeff Mapes seemed to get it when he addressed the matter of Dudley's stance on the tip credit back in July and that Dudley didn't want to go on record about it at all:

"At any rate, it's clear that Dudley - who didn't rule out taking up the tip credit issue if he is elected governor - is a favorite of the Oregon Restaurant Association." (who incidently, as of this morning, have given $90K to Dudley's campaign).

I became aware of the quote from Blue Oregon on September 21st, before it was edited into the "short" version. The Democratic Party posted the full, unedited version on You Tube on September 20th. Judging by the comments on the Blue Oregon page then, we were outraged then because, oh I dunno... we understand English and nuance and context. Elements that apparently Anne Yeager does not understand.

To be sure, there has been a backlash against Yeager already this morning. My husband and I, being vocal pains in the ass, challenged her investigative methods on Twitter. We mentioned the fact that she left out the $90K donation by the Restaurant Association. She kept trying to put the focus on Dudley's idea of a training wage. And then she admitted that she didn't understand the "lingo" of "tip credit".

Did she even watch the video herself? Dudley pretty much breaks it down for her. But in case she or anyone else is still unclear about what "tip credit" means, here is a nice explanation and breakdown of how it works in North Carolina.

Note that tipped employees make $5.12 LESS an hour than non-tipped employees. Furthermore, it amounts to less payroll tax, Social Security, and unemployment insurance being paid.

At 00:43 into the "long" unedited version of the video, Dudley says "I agree" to the question being asked about employees making too much money and then uses a third party's story to corroborate his point. Is this not AGREEMENT? Dudley COULD have used the opportunity to praise people who wait tables for a living for the relatively low wage they make. No. Instead, he commiserated with the whiny, cheapskate restaurant owner who was complaining about how much money his waitresses cost him. He has NEVER addressed tip credit and Yeager failed to ask that when she had the chance.

So here it is. The full, unedited video of Dudley agreeing that minimum wage (which he incorrectly claims is the highest in the country) PLUS tips is too much money.

And yes, he does offer up a training wage as a "first" step: "that’s one area I would like to tackle first is to at least get a training wage going" The follow up question to that matter should be: "what's to stop restaurant owners from overly relying on young wait staff making training wage and putting older, experienced workers out of work?" Think you can handle that, Anne Yeager?

The really inexcusable part of Yeager's report is that Kitzhaber is tacitly being blamed for the video. It didn't require investigative journalism to unearth the source of the video... the unedited video has been posted from the start, by the DPO and, in turn, by Blue Oregon.

And finally, please note: As of today, Chris Dudley has still not stated where he stands on "tip credit". This question must be explicitly asked on Thursday's debate on KGW.

I am constantly amazed at how woefully inept the media has been on the Oregon Governor's race. This comes from having to do research myself that I often post here. But this incident fails every journalistic standard of fairness. I wish the media would put as much effort in finding out the identity of the tracker who disrupted the Urban League forum as they did in giving Dudley his opportunity to backtrack off this quote.

Anyone know who that guy is?

Monday, September 27, 2010

Chris Dudley's Change

This is just the most awesome and powerful visual reminder WHY anyone who cares for the environment and our Oregon beaches should NOT vote for Chris Dudley.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Will Dudley's capital gains cuts help? nope.

We own a small business, our taxes have NEVER been lower. What are we doing with the money? Banking it. just like everyone else is doing:
The problem with Dudley's plan is that its' capital gains cuts creates an amazing imbalance. Cap gains are taxed as income in OR, Dudley's plan reduces cap gains to 3%. What that means is that his company Filigree Advisors which has no employees, stands to make millions and not create a single Oregon job. When large corps with large numbers of employees have piles of cash on hand, how do they grow? They BUY marketshare. Acquisitions and consolidation don't create jobs they create huge job losses.
He plans to "pay" for the loss in revenue to the state "with all the new jobs it creates!". Seriously? isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place... you know, projections?
We moved our company here from California. I'm never looking back. Oregon is a great place for a business (and an amazing place to live) and the statistics actually show that:
Because we are a B2B business, we're growing. 2010 will be our best year ever. As a business, cap gains has nothing to do with our hiring decisions. demand does.
Oregon does not exist in a vacuum, what happens nationally affects us. In the past year AFTER 66&67 we've closed the unemployment gap between OR and Nat rate by about 50%.
Under our last GOP Gov, Atiyeh Oregon went from a national tax burden rank of 6th to 3rd highest in the nation. Since Atiyeh we've risen to 26th (under Kitz we improved from 15th to 20th).
Yeah pick the guy who never had to balance a budget and assumes the best way to pay your bills is to reduce your revenue ... and watch how quickly Oregon collapses.

My comment in the Oregonian about Chris Dudley's 20-pt plan

Wow! If Oregon elects this guy, we're pretty stupid. This plan benefits Filigree Investments (Dudley's company) and the wealth-on-paper crowd he represents. I DO think there is a story here, if the Oregonian would pursue it.

Let me put it to you in perfectly understandable terms. My husband owns a corporation. He is based in Oregon and is the proverbial "small business" that Dudley is aiming to stimulate. Capital gains cuts won't help him. It won't help him employ a single person. Small businesses don't make purchasing or hiring decisions based on capital gains. Meanwhile, day traders and companies like Filigree are going to pay 66% less in taxes than a cop, firefighter, or teacher. Or you or me for that matter.

Dudley keeps using this disengenuous figure of 11% capital gains and that it's "the highest in the nation". What he's not explaining is that it's 11% above $500,000. This applies to millionaires. Dudley doesn't like the fact that he has to pay taxes on money made speculating in the market as if it were income. This plan is redistribution of wealth to people he represents at his firm with money that belongs in the Oregon coffers.

This gift for speculators WILL NOT CREATE A SINGLE JOB.

Reject this fraud!

(Link to article)