Oregon Democrats, Don't Screw It Up. Take Your Time. Get It Right.
Kari Chisholm
It's a new day for Oregon. After 16 years of GOP control of the Oregon House, the Democrats are now in charge. And not just the House - the levers of power belong to the Dems in the Senate and Governor's office, too.
As Senator Margaret Carter (D-Portland) said in Sunday's Oregonian, "This year's legislative session is about leadership ... Can the Democrats govern?"
We should certainly think big. The Republicans spent 16 years screwing up this state - and we've got a lot of work to do. I know that there are plenty of folks hoping for universal health care, comprehensive tax reform, civil unions, Measure 37 reform, public campaign financing, immigration reform, a long-term school funding solution, Measure 11 reform, living wages, investments in energy independence, initiative reform, and much more. (I'm sure I forgot something!)
But let's resist the urge to try and solve every problem in the first few weeks - or even in this first session of Democratic control.
For several reasons, Democrats should pace themselves.
First, we're the party of good government. As progressives, we believe that government is the way that we work together to solve problems for the common good. But that means we have a responsibility to get it right. The anti-government folks aren't similarly constrained -- if they create a bad program, that's a kind of success for them. (How else can you explain the No Child Left Behind mess, the Medicare Part D disaster, and the various Katrina fiascoes?) So, as progressives, we should make sure that legislation we pass actually works.
Second, we're the party of open government and citizen involvement. To get legislation that works, Democrats should open the process to the public. As Speaker, Karen Minnis regularly held no-notice hearings; trying to avoid public testimony. As progressives, we believe that the people can provide meaningful advice for lawmakers. So, we should take our time, hold public hearings, listen to people, and get it right.
Third, we need to earn the right to govern. This might seem counterintuitive - after all, we won the election. But if we're going to turn this one election victory into a long streak of victories, we need to prove to Oregonians that we're able to be smart, savvy, creative, accountable, responsible, and effective. How do we do that? By starting small, and getting it right. Before we attack universal health care, let's make sure we have universal health care for kids. Before we attempt comprehensive tax reform, let's start by rebalancing the tax burden between corporations and real people.
Finally, when you try and do everything all at once, you're likely to get nothing done at all. In Washington DC, there's an old line about trying to move elephants through a doorway -- they'll go through one at a time, but not side-by-side. Let's take on the big challenges, but one at a time. With all the routine stuff that has to happen during the session, there's simply not enough attention span in the building to handle multiple major projects all at once.
Let's not screw this up, my friends. If we get right in 2007, we'll earn the right to be charge for many years to come. And the big dreams will come true.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:48 a.m.
Jan 8, '07
let's not forget "legislative reform" as well. going to an annual session and boosting legislators' pay should be close to the top of the list. while it may not get too many people excited, it's probably one of the most meaningful reforms that the D's could make.
it just makes sense to have the legislature meet each year so they can respond more quickly to changes in the economy and budget more responsibly. and paying legislators 16,000 a year makes it impossible for a lot of people who would be great legislators to serve. paying for adequate staff support is a good idea too, since it could help "level the playing field" between the independently wealthy legislators who can hire staff out of their own pockets and those who have to deal with the meager staff allowance provided by the office.
6:12 a.m.
Jan 8, '07
paying for adequate staff support is a good idea too
I agree. But can we include in this ending the practice of hiring your immediate family? Espceially the ones who live out of state?
Jan 8, '07
Before we attempt comprehensive tax reform, let's start by rebalancing the tax burden between corporations and real people.
Realistically, comprehensive tax reform could take a couple of sessions anyway. Democrats should start work on it this year. They could make some quick fixes this year, like rebalancing the tax burden, or getting rid of some deductions and tax credits. But the party should accept that our tax system is a mess and start holding hearings now, and keep working groups holding hearings between sessions, on a complete top-to-bottom overhaul of the entire tax system. You know, "if you could design it from scratch, what should it look like?" kind of stuff. That might take two or three sessions to reach concensus, but the payoff could be huge.
Jan 8, '07
Rebalancing the tax burden should be viewed as one of the important items on any legislative agenda and must include the following:
Corporate and big business taxes only account for five to six percent of state revenue. The amount must be increased far into the double digit percentage range.
In Portland, approximately 14 percent of the land mass is in a urban renewal district where the property taxes on new and increased development are used for tax increment funding and no longer support the schools and other government services That places a higher tax burden for schools and city services on a smaller group of property owners which then end up subsidizing services in the UR districts. First the schools should receive their share of property taxes on increased development, and second, UR districts must be allowed to expire with NO opportunity for extensions. 40 years is half of an average lifetime and far too long to keep new development off the property tax rolls.
Property tax abatements on all kinds of development, except for low income housing, must be eliminated. This would include both high density and transit oriented development. Again such properties unfairly place the burden of supporting schools and other government services on other property owners indirectly subsidizing fat cat developers.
For transportation funding, motor vehicle fees and fuel tax revenues must be redirected to fund infrastructure motor vehicle infrastructure only such as roads and bridges. Bicyclists must be directly taxed to pay for bicycle lanes and other bike infrastructure, and transit fares must be set to better reflect the cost of service. In other words, rebalancing the transportation tax burden requires that the bicycle of mode transport pays its own way and is not subsidized by motor vehicle taxes, and transit riders pay a much greater share of the costs of operation that the current 20%. In addition, transportation dollars must no longer be allowed to be used to subsidize property development.
2:23 p.m.
Jan 8, '07
I agree. But can we include in this ending the practice of hiring your immediate family? Espceially the ones who live out of state?
I don't like the out-of-state hirings and I would agree that we should consider disallowing this practice.
However, until we start paying state legislators a better salary its my understanding that some of them need to hire their spouses. There are cases where a legislator can't support his/her family without that type of hiring.
3:08 p.m.
Jan 8, '07
While Carla's explanation makes me all kinds of twitchy (it's ethical because we don't pay 'em enough?) I do think there's this one key issue: Many outside-the-valley legislators seek to move their entire family with them to Salem. When they do that, the other spouse can't maintain their employment back home either. So, they need a short-term gig that corresponds to the legislative session. Shockingly enough, the job that makes the most sense is the one working for their spouse.
I do think that we should boost legislator pay to the median income of Oregonians, and then ban the nepotism. If you've got a family member that wants to work in politics, there are 89 other legislators that can hire 'em.
Jan 9, '07
Yes, the Dems need to act with due deliberation and Dem. special interest voters should not be too disappointed if their issue does not get solved during the first few weeks of the session.
At some point however, deliberation must end and bold action must begin. There are no perfect solutions, and every potential solution to Oregon's school funding problem, or health care problem, or tax reform problem, is going to make somebody unhappy. I hope that the Dem majority will have the courage to adopt the best available solutions for the problems that face Oregon, even if some traditional Dem supporters are unhappy with the result.
“Please all, and you will please none.” - Aesop's Fables
3:58 a.m.
Jan 9, '07
Shockingly enough, the job that makes the most sense is the one working for their spouse...
We've debated here whether term limits is a "disaster" because it deprives us of experienced legislators. I don't see how we can then argue that key legislative aides don't need any more legislative experience then being someone's spouse.
I totally sgree with you, Kari, that a better answer is raising legislators salaries and banning nepotism. I'd argue, too, that we should raise those salaries substantially...not just to elimnate nepotism, but also so that folks can buy their own dinners and not depend on the largess of Paul Romain.
Jan 9, '07
First, we're the party of good govenment
Good government starts with an understanding of the true meaning of ethics and where unethical behavior actually goes on in Oregon. As this blog, and Courtney and Brown prove with their proposed legislation, many in the Democratic Party in the NW either actually don't have a clue or don't care what ethics in government really is about. (the Randy Leonard/Randy Gragg debate provides an object lesson). It goes without saying this is true in the extreme for the current incarnation of the GOP that believes the purpose of the government is at most to serve corporate interests.
Second, we're the party of open government and citizen involvement.
I laughed out loud when I read this howler. Take a look at some of the exclusions seriously weakening the Oregon Open Records Laws that were passed recently with the support of truly clueless Democrats and signed by a Democratic governor who is one of the poorest excuses for a principled state leader we have had for a long time.
You're comment about open meetings is actually a non sequitor to your lead about "citizen involvement". While of course we need even stronger open meeting laws, and adherence to them, simply letting a bunch of people whine at an open meetings IS NOT citizen involvement in getting the work of business done. It is just a bunch of people whining for what they want like children, and I have been surprised at how much people increasingly like to do that rather than actually be informed about an issue and speak on that.
Jan 9, '07
I apologize that I was still laughing at the second claim when I wrote:
simply letting a bunch of people whine at an open meetings IS NOT citizen involvement in getting the work of business done.
That should have read:
simply letting a bunch of people whine at an open meetings IS NOT citizen involvement in getting the business of good government done.
Of course, the actual comment reflected as much what both Republicans AND Democrats in Salem are about, "getting the work of business done" more than anything else. As the failure to even propose meaningful ethics reforms demonstrates.
Jan 9, '07
After I finished that last comment, I heard Kulogonski on Hartmann's show (second half of the 8:00AM hour). He proved my point nicely about what an unprincipled leader he is and lot of our Democratic legislators are.
First, I did have to chuckle about his pandering to Oregonians by repeating that delusion that the country to looks to us as leaders. As in how our skill and leadership sustained the Oregon Health Care plan? Or maybe how land use reform proponents, led by 1000 Friends of Oregon, so impressed everyone with their arrogance and incompetence that we got Measure 37? Fact is, the rest of the country lets us do what we want to learn from the really bad mistakes we make, not our "leadership".
Kulogonski provided a shining example of this right in his comment. He touted how we are going to lead the charge on providing health care for children, a notable goal no sane person is against. The disreputable Oregon twist? The only serious funding for this he mentioned was increased tobacco taxes. In simple terms for you losers sputtering out there in your indignation that someone dares call out our side and our governor: Our scumball plan for providing health care for children rests on the financial base of adults killing themselves by smoking. (Oh yeah, and getting as many kids as we can qualified for federal subsidy - a plan I strongly approve, but hardly leadership in a new direction.) Of course, the cretins on the GOP side will only oppose this because it involves taxes,
Three cheers for Democrats, Republicans, and Oregon leadership that the country will look towards (god I hope not for the sake of the country).
9:24 p.m.
Jan 9, '07
PL wrote Take a look at some of the exclusions seriously weakening the Oregon Open Records Laws that were passed recently
OK, I'm willing to be educated. Care to post some details? And also maybe some links?
Jan 9, '07
Hello Kari,
Your points seem sound but, I fear they've already begun screwing it up. Opening day of the 74th session, and what does the new Senate do? Passes a resolution to approve a "test drive" of annual sessions -- without debate in public hearings.
You can read more here at rightoregon.org
Geoff
Jan 9, '07
A couple of notes from someone who attended many of the meetings of the Public Comm. on the Legislature.
The issue of hiring family was discussed at length. Some members of the PCOL voiced concern about equal opportunity--that no one other than a family member might have a chance to apply to work in such a legislative office.
About the annual sessions "without debate in public hearings", PCOL debated that and all those meetings are available for public viewing. The related complaint from Sen. Ferrioli was in the SJ--that not all members had read the resolution.
I called the Senate Republican Office and was told "that resolution was put on their desks on Thursday" but many members had been in the process of moving in and may not have read it.
Earth to legislators: There are people out in the real world who move for a new job and have material they are expected to read before beginning work. I don't see how this is any different.
1:39 a.m.
Jan 10, '07
Geoff --
First of all, as LT points out, there are been LOTS of hearings; just not in the Senate.
Second, it's a test drive, a pilot project, etc. The next legislature can decide to keep it - or not.
Third, weren't you a PSU College Democrat? What happened to you?
Fourth, what the hell is that fruit salad all over your blog?
Jan 13, '07
This is in response to what I'll assume is Kari's honest question:
PL wrote Take a look at some of the exclusions seriously weakening the Oregon Open Records Laws that were passed recently
OK, I'm willing to be educated. Care to post some details? And also maybe some links?
I was not able to post until now. I'm not going to go into a dissertation here because I don't have the time to expend on a very complicated issue, the details of which in large part revolve around the security state mentality post 2001. On the surface, Oregon does not seem as bad as most states, but I am persuaded that in large part that has to do with how inartful our citizen legislature is at conceptualizing and wording specific laws. One just has to pore through the laws since 2000 that included amendments to ORS 192.501 and ORS 192.502 to get a sense of the sentiment to tighten down on public records. In particular, this includes amendments that were passed and then repealed in what just amounts to a fight just to get us back to the status quo.
In what follows, since I choose to assume Kari's question was honest, all should understand I am excepting him from my editorial comments about what I have observed on this board in the last several weeks of actively reading it.
The amendments in this category which survived into the 2005 version of ORS 192.502 are paragraphs (30)-(34). These all sound very commonsensical when read in a general way, but it is the very broadness and imprecision of them which makes them such significant restriction of the public's right to know.
Paragraph (30) allows state officials to shield any information which has been provided by a range of government entities OR insurance commissioners?! solely because that state official has promised to shield it. This exemption holds whether or not information of the same type independently gathered and held by Oregon state government officials would be disclosable. This is the big black hole in which the Feds can hide information of relevance to Oregon citizens, or Oregon state officials could hide otherwise disclosable information merely by cycling it through covered agencies. Despite what some of you might want to argue, recent jurisprudence by increasingly regressive courts composed of Democratic and Republican appointees has severly curtailed the relevance of legislative intent that might otherwise circumscribe the reach of such poorly constructed laws when the courts are called on to interpret them.
Similarly, despite the fact progressives on this blog in their quite profound ignorance believe our election procedures in this state are transparent, (31) prevents disclosure of any detail of how ballots are actually handled since any official can claim any detail involves election "security" since ORS 254.074 doesn't explicitly or implicitly define what is a valid "security" matter.
(32) is the Oregon version of the big hole being ripped in state public records laws across the country and in the federal FOIA law that shields information about hazardous corporate activities, like handling of chemicals, nuclear power plant practices, etc. from environmental and public safety activists. Again, the generality and poor construction of the law, coupled with the fact legislative intent has no legal standing in the courts, is what makes this provision such an egregious attack on the public's right to know.
(33) is one of those provisions which seemingly is about protecting personal privacy. However, since the discretion to invoke the exemption rests with the CJ of the SCO, it is anything but a grant of an equitable right to individuals to protect their personal privacy. There is no reason to even entertain the kind of truly uninformed debate that goes on here by those who think they know so much by going into this further.
The last comment to (33) applies to (34).
ORS 192.501 provides for conditional exemptions. There also have been a few amendments partially due to the security-state mentality, and partially by private interests who leveraged that fear mentality for their own advantage. Again, I am persuaded by the words of posters here that understanding the nuances of the issues are not really of interest to folks here, so nothing futher needs to be said.
I'm confident that the ACLU and the journalistic community would be more than willing to provide anyone who has the honest desire to be educated about public disclosure and open records with more information about the problem areas with Oregon law, and what progressive activists should be focusing on to actually improve the situation rather than just patting ourselves on the back for the status quo.
Judging from the downright ignorant commentary on another thread about the ACLU's carefully reasoned and substantive opposition to Measure 46 and similar regressive, emotional attempts to circumscribe our free speech rights by the "opinion leaders" of this blog, I find little demonstrated reason to believe the so-called progressives here have any such strong and honest desire.
Jan 15, '07
Kari,
In reverse order:
I think we can both agree that Oregon has many problems, economic and social. From my vantage point one problem trumps them all, and if we can't get it right, it's going to continue to dog Oregon and exacerbate (spelling?) the relief of many of those other problems -- Oregon's economy is concentrated in too few industries and as such is unstable. If Oregon's economy were more diversified it would stabilize (when one industry zigs, the other zags, the combined effect being lower variability), lower variability means stable jobs, stable tax base, better forecasts, better decisions.
I get ahead of myself. I graduated with my finance degree into the 2000-2001 recession and found myself, a new graduate, competing with experienced individuals for entry-level positions. I imagine this experience was frustrating for many folks in the same position -- the whole time I had this notion in the back of my head that had Oregon been a better place for industry to be, I might not have had such a difficult time finding a job to support my family.
My fruit salad (I love that reference, I'm totally stealing it) is a kind of mash-up of the frustration I felt during that recession and my technical skills (mostly analytical).
While the rightoregon.org, it is right with a small "r". I know this may seem a bit disingenuous (spelling?) given my most recent postings critical of the Governor's budget but, don't think it has been lost on me that while Oregon was in the mire of recession, the legislature was controlled by the Republicans.
For the record, I believe I am solidly Libertarian.
(2) test drive - I know. (1) I appreciate LT's input, that still however doesn't help with perception.
Jan 15, '07
The third to the last paragraph of my last post should read
"While the fruit salad's name is rightoregon.org, it is right with a small "r"."
<hr/>