House and Senate Democrats Release 2007 Agenda

Too often, voters say things like "but I don't know what they would do if they got elected." Well, the House Democrats and Senate Democrats have each just released their plans for the 2007 session. The news coverage is sparse, but here they are:

Oregon Senate Democrats agenda (PDF)
Oregon House Democrats agenda

Dig in to the agendas, and come back here to discuss.

While you're at it, visit the campaign sites for the Oregon Senate Democrats and Oregon House Democrats - and sign up to help a campaign or two.

  • (Show?)

    It's always frustrating to see "safe neighborhoods" rhetoric not include an aspect of traffic safety. Traffic-related crashes are the leading cause of death for all ages 1-34. In almost all communities, more people die on the roads than from violent crimes.

    Here's a plank: "Create safe neighborhoods so that kids, families, and citizens of all ages and abilities can walk or bike to work, school, shop, and play."

    This isn't just me pushing my agenda: safe neighborhoods, speeding traffic, and traffic safety are always near the top of people's concerns when they fill out city auditor surveys.

  • John Bromley (unverified)

    There is even a third choice for Democratic plans -- the official Democratic Party Platform.

    While I find nothing I don't like in the three documents, is it too much to ask that the Democrats in Oregon's House and Senate get together and speak with one voice?

  • (Show?)

    John -- they're pretty similar documents. Not exactly the same, but pretty similar.

  • Jesse (unverified)

    I think you have a really good point, Evan. Portland is plagued by residential streets with 4-way intersections and no stop signs.

  • Shane (unverified)

    Yawn. Could the House and Senate Democrats 2007 agenda be any less inspiring?

  • Josh (unverified)

    When I was reviewing the agendas some important question arose. For instance: When politicians are voting does their duty lie in voting for what they think is right or pleasing their consitiuents? Should it be what is best for the nation or what is best for re-election (if these two conflict)? These points left me pondering, and I would love some feedback. If you guys could provide some examples for you viewpoints it would also be helpful.

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, Shane, take your "bootyholic" crap somewhere else. (That's his email address.)

  • Jim Oleske (unverified)

    A couple more links for folks interested in the Senate Ds' efforts to build momentum for a successful 2007 session:

    New legislative newsletter.

    New legislative website.

    To receive future issues of our newsletter, send an email to [email protected]

    In the meantime, stop by the Latest News feature on our website, where we'll have regular updates on topics Senate Democrats will be addressing during the 2007 session.

    Right now, in addition to a story about our new agenda, we've got pieces up about payday loans, early education (see yesterday's Blue Oregon post about full-day kindergarten), and affordable prescription drug coverage.

    Gotta run . . . everyone have a great weekend.

    Jim Oleske Communications Director Senate Majority Office

  • David Wright (unverified)

    Interesting ideas... and while I might quibble over parts of the legislative agenda, there's nothing in either of those legislative documents that's too terribly scary for moderate R's or Independents to consider supporting Democratic candidates (the party platform, on the other hand... ugh.)

    But in all this talk about agendas and priorities, all I hear is "spend, spend, spend." Which is not necessarily inherently evil, but there's no talk of how to pay for all of this new spending.

    How about advertising that information as well? Raising the corporate minimum tax and killing the corporate kicker surely won't fully fund these ideas... so where will the money come from? What is the Democratic agenda for net revenue enhancement?

    Saying that you want to make education, health care, etc. a priority, but not having any way to pay for it, isn't enough to earn a vote.

  • askquestions1st (unverified)

    Anyone care to comment on the moral integrity of a child healthcare plan that depends on adults ruining their health for financing? Or, alternatively, on what kind of committment this represents to child healthcare by basing it on a funding source that is not stable and declining? And what about the lack of commitment to health care for working people who are the source of funding for the many of the other goals we would like to achieve as Democrats?

in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon