WWJD

The good news is that one statewide candidate bold was enough to present his own plan for solving the budget deficit last week. Unfortunately, that candidate is running for state schools chief, not governor.

Last week, Rob Kremer unveiled a proposal to fill the state's expected $830 million shortfall without cutting K-12 funding. Kremer proposed trimming every state agency's staff and professional services budget by 5 percent--and trimming the Department of Education's budget by 11 percent. "In tough economic times, businesses reduce staff. "So should the state," said Kremer in a press release. "Holding schools harmless means we have to cut the bureaucracy."

Kremer's budget may go nowhere, but at least he tried, which is more than you can say about the folks who are running for the job that actually involves balancing the state's checkbook.

To test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates' budget savvy (we previously quizzed Republicans on George Bush's attack on assisted suicide), WW asked all three what they'd do if they currently occupied Mahonia Hall. We got to all of them after Gov. John Kitzhaber outlined his proposed cuts, but before the state's top Democrat detailed his plan for boosting revenues.

Jim Hill spoke with the most authority. Hill was clear on two points: He wholeheartedly endorses Treasurer Randall Edwards' proposal to protect the K-12 education budget by "securitizing" the national tobacco settlement by borrowing against the future income stream from that settlement. (Hill made a similar proposal when he held Edwards' job).

Hill also declared that, given the combination of low interest rates and the state's infrastructure needs, he would urge the consideration of borrowing to pay for roads and other infrastructure projects. "While I was state treasurer, we reduced the state's debt by 40 percent," Hill says. "That frees up more capacity for borrowing until the economy improves."

Hill argues that filling some long-neglected potholes would stimulate the state economy.

One thing Hill absolutely wouldn't do is increase Oregon's reliance on the lottery. Lawmakers, who are expected to gather in Salem next month for a special budget-balancing session, have made noises about expanding state-sanctioned gambling to raise cash. Hill would have no part of such plans, saying, "As far as I'm concerned, we're already dependent enough."

Hill's opponents, both of whom have captured more local attention, failed to stake out much of a position on the budget. Ted Kulongoski was best at talking about what he wouldn't do, which includes adopting Edwards' plan or, as others have suggested, rolling a chunk of the education spending into the next budget cycle. "I'm opposed to anything that incurs a further debt in the next biennium," says the former Supreme Court justice, who also ruled out the idea of wiping out the state's year-end balance at this time.

Kulongoski says if he were governor, he'd work hard to protect a likely target of ax-wielding lawmakers: the Oregon Youth Authority. Kulongoski notes that the Department of Corrections has one of the state's biggest general-fund budgets. Yet, because of voter-approved minimum sentencing laws, the governor can't do much to pare down the adult prison population. But OYA, which funds a lot of prevention programs with its $229 million general-fund allocation, could be fair game. "OYA is one thing we've done right in this state," says Kulongoski, who served as attorney general before joining the state's top tribunal. "I think [gutting its budget] is the wrong approach."

So where would he cut? And what taxes would he consider? Kulongoski declined to be pinned down.

"Everybody recognizes it's a combination of things that the governor has to work out with the Legislature," he says. "I think he should be allowed to play this out."

Beverly Stein, the former Multnomah County chairwoman, was equally elusive. "I would find some way to increase revenues," Stein said finally, without offering--or eliminating--any sources. "I put together seven budgets at the county and know that you can't [talk about specifics] unless you're directly involved."

WWeek 2015