NRCC: "Schrader does have a target on his back."
In Oregon, we can be proud that all four of our Democratic members of the U.S. House voted for the health care reform bill - and against the terrible, awful, no-good, very bad Stupak amendment. There are only eight other states with a similar 100% record among their Democratic delegations (and only Connecticut and Arizona have more than our four.)
Not that it was a foregone conclusion, to be sure. I know there was all kinds of drama here at BlueOregon (and elsewhere) in particular about Congressman Kurt Schrader.
But when all was said and done, he joined the vast majority of Democrats who voted against Stupak and for the House health care bill.
And now, the GOP is coming after him. From the AP:
"Schrader does have a target on his back," Joanna Burgos of the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C. said Monday. ..."He voted in lockstep with the farthest left elements of a very liberal Congress," Bruun said Monday.
And former legislative colleague Randy Miller had this to say in a letter to the Oregonian:
Rep. Kurt Schrader has done a nice job over the years to project the image that he is a fiscal conservative. The problem is that his voting record puts him comfortably in the camp of big spending, left-leaning liberals. ... Be it support for the job-killing, tax-raising stimulus bill or the government takeover of health care, Schrader has made it clear that he is no fiscal conservative.
Now, Congressman Schrader may not be Randy Miller's (or John Boehner's or Grover Norquist's or Sarah Palin's) idea of a fiscal conservative - seeking to "drown government in a bathtub" - but he's always been a budget hawk. And that's a good thing - we progressives ought to insist that public funds are used effectively. After all, if we don't, what's the point?
Make no mistake: The national Republicans are coming after Kurt Schrader. As pollster Tim Hibbits told the AP, it's that first re-election race when members of Congress are most vulnerable - and mid-term elections are always a struggle for the president's party.
Whether you agree with Kurt 100% of the time or not - and I certainly don't (even through I'm a friend and the guy who built his campaign website) - I hope you agree that replacing Kurt Schrader with a Republican won't be good for Oregon, won't be good for President Obama's presidency, and won't be good for progressive policy for America.
So, go beyond the drama and stay in touch with Kurt on his Facebook page, through his Twitter feed, sign up for his email newsletter, and visit his website. And, if you're so inclined, make a donation.
The election is in less than a year. And for Oregon's sake, let's make sure we don't lose this seat to the right-wingers.
|
November 13, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (22 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Falling Off A Cliff… Or Not: The Choice Is Ours
We didn’t need the Pew Center on the States to tell us this, but they did it anyway: Oregon is facing a severe financial crisis. Based on several factors, the Pew Center has listed Oregon as one of the ten states in most “fiscal peril,” tied with Nevada for #5. California’s fiscal state is so bad, it’s in a league of its own.
The report takes into account Oregon’s rise in unemployment, our decreasing ability to pay for basic services … and, pointedly, a system in which legislators’ power to act is undermined by the ability and willingness of corporate lobbyists to spend millions of dollars to protect their embarrassingly low taxes.
But what the report highlight more than anything is this: We have a choice in how this turns out for Oregon.
In January, Measures 66 and 67 will give us the choice between two Oregon futures. Do we vote YES, and protect schools and other critical services, or do we vote no to protect the antiquated $10 corporate minimum?
The corporate lobbyists opposing these measures have made their choice known, and that’s what worries the folks at the Pew Center:
“Limited ability to
act. In most of the 10 states, including Arizona,
California, Florida, Nevada and Oregon, lawmakers’ latitude to respond to the
fiscal crisis by raising taxes or cutting spending is limited by their states’
constitutions, ballot measures passed by voters, or other statutory or legal
impediments to change.”
In other words: the ability and willingness of the corporate lobbyists to use the referendum system to overturn legislative decision-making undermines our fiscal health.
But I have faith that in this time of crisis, Oregonians will do the right thing and vote YES on 66 and 67.
This report highlights the need to work to support Measures 66 and 67. By keeping $1 billion in the Oregon economy – much of which will come from big out-of-state corporations, and from Federal matching funds – we can protect Oregon jobs, preserve services, and put our economy back together. We can avoid the Ghost of Oregon Future that haunts the Pew report.
As the economy struggles, it’s critically important to maintain basic services for people who have nowhere left to turn. These measures will make sure that our most vulnerable—children, seniors, and struggling families—aren’t left in the cold.
(Measure 66 also helps Oregonians who’ve found themselves out of work this year by making the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits tax exempt for 2009.)
In the months leading to January, we have a choice: Do we allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to throw our schools, seniors, and other vulnerable Oregonians off a cliff, or do we come together to protect the Oregon that we all value?
|
November 12, 2009 |
Steve Novick | Comments (65 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Beyond Yes and No
As I was following last week’s elections, I was reminded of a debate that took place here in Oregon earlier this year. Careful observers of the referendums that were on the ballot in Maine and Washington might have noticed that supporters of equality were rooting for two very different outcomes on each measure. In both states, opponents of equal rights had referred pro-equality laws passed by the state legislature to the ballot (in Maine the law had legalized gay marriage, in Washington it extended the scope of domestic partnerships). Yet despite the referendums' similar backgrounds, proponents of equal rights in each state were rooting for the opposite result; a “no” vote on Maine’s Question 1, and a “yes” vote on Washington’s Referendum 71.
Why the disparity? When a popular referendum on a legislative act is placed on the ballot, each state essentially asks a different question of voters. In Washington voters are asked whether or not the contested legislation should be upheld; a yes vote preserves the law and a no vote overturns it. Meanwhile Maine voters are asked whether or not the referred law should be repealed. Thus, in Maine, a yes vote repeals the law and a no vote keeps it in place.
This difference between the two states reminded me of the debate over HB2414 that took place here in Oregon near the end of this year's state legislative session. The bill essentially would have changed Oregon's system for referendums from one mirroring Washington (no-to-repeal), to one copying Maine (yes-to-repeal). The bill died after conservative groups vocally objected and the local press ran editorials against it. The refrain at the time was that the Democratic legislature was trying to change the meaning of yes and no. This no doubt made for a great headline, but it was inexcusably ignorant of what the bill would actually do. I think it's unfortunate that the idea was dropped. Following last week's elections only further convinced me that Oregon should change how we word popular referendums.
Continue reading "Beyond Yes and No"
|
November 12, 2009 |
Nick Wirth | Comments (14 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
SD-6: Lee Beyer to mount a comeback
Today, Lee Beyer announced that he's running for State Senate district 6, in the Eugene area. He previously represented that area for ten years in the Legislature, before being appointed in 2001 to the Public Utility Commission by Governor John Kitzhaber.
His spouse, Rep. Terry Beyer, serves in the House. If they both win their races, the Beyers would be yet another husband/wife team in the Lege. Most recently, Karen and John Minnis (R) served together (and much earlier, Ron and Jane Cease - and Stephen and Gretchen Kafoury.)
At the O, Jeff Mapes notes that it's a probable win:
Beyer is seeking the seat being vacated by Sen. Bill Morrissette, D-Springfield. It's been solidly Democratic for years, so Beyer seems well-positioned to regain the seat. It's worth noting that the press release announcing Beyer's candidacy includes a favorable quote from Gov. Ted Kulongoski calling him the "next State Senator serving District 6."
A tipster sent along an email that Beyer sent to PUC staff on Tuesday - subject line "Clearing up the Rumors":
I know that there have been lots of rumors flying around about my future plans. So let me clear things up. I have met with the Governor and told him I plan to retire in early Spring next year. I haven t decided on an exact date but wanted to give the Governor time to seek a replacement.Secondly, I do plan on seeking election to my old Senate position currently held by Senator Bill Morrisette. Bill has informed me that he is not seeking re-election.
This decision was a hard one for me. I really have enjoyed working at the Commission, mostly because of the great group of fellow workers I get to share the day with and your commitment to resolving complicated issues for the benefit of ratepayers. But one has to grab opportunities when they become available, not necessarily when you would like them to occur. As most of you have observed, I enjoy the give and take of the legislative process. I think I might enjoy it even more in retirement without the press of working another job.
Incidentally, Senator Morrisette is seeking the Lane County Commission seat currently held by Bill Dwyer - as reported by Dave Steves at the Register-Guard back in September. At the time, Steves speculated that Beyer might jump into the Senate seat.
Update: With a hat tip to Jack Roberts in the comments, it turns out that Senator Morrisette announced yesterday that he is NOT running for the Lane County Commission, citing health issues.
|
November 12, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (10 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
The Curious Case of Anti-Tax-Fairness Lobbyists.
It is an odd and curious duality: the lobbyist who doubles as an anti-tax-fairness advocate. On one hand there's the individual whose day job is to cruise the halls of the various legislative offices with a hand out, looking to score some government cash for the pet project, idea, notion, etc. for whom they represent. Then there's the night job: the metaphorical caped crusader who snags media face time in order to stoke up anti-government teabaggers and squelch government's ability to get the revenue the day-job-lobbyist says they must have.
One such Two-Faced character is Dick Armey, leader of Freedomworks:
Led by former Republican leader Dick Armey, the conservative group FreedomWorks has attacked the Washington establishment this year, challenging bailouts, health care legislation and other policies that violate the group's free-market ideology.But for more than six years, FreedomWorks' own chairman flourished at the heart of that establishment, earning $750,000 a year to lobby for banks, green-energy producers and companies trying to shape the stimulus package that FreedomWorks opposed.
Armey recently left his lobbying day-job with DLA Piper, a lobbying firm that had Armey advocating for such anti-Freedomworks things like legislation to create a trust fund for people that suffered from asbestos poisoning. At the same time, Armey was cutting radio ads for Freedomworks asking folks to call senators to oppose it.
Oregon has an interestingly similar dynamic. Lobbyists Mark Nelson and Pat McCormick both have clients who lobby for public funds. The goofily and dubiously named Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes are being funded by a number of entities that go to the legislature asking for financial love, most noteably Associated Oregon Industries and Associated General Contractors, who as I understand it lobbied for the gas tax.
I'm curious if our legislators who did the right thing in voting for the corporate tax increase and the personal income tax increase are watching how ballsy these guys are. They're completely willing to show up at the legislator's office begging for help--but as soon as the session is over, rush to the arms of their other lover in a duplicitous Armey-style affair worthy of a bad beach novel.
When session begins anew next year, will they welcome back their cheating paramours like a battered spouse who doesn't leave the bad (and dangerous) relationship?
|
November 11, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (41 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
On Veterans Day, remember that someone, somewhere always pays a price
By Paul Evans of Monmouth, Oregon. Paul is an Air Force veteran who served in Afghanistan. He is also a former mayor of Monmouth. Previously, he contributed "Re-assessing and re-thinking our military structure"
Today is Veterans' Day. A day each year that our country at least attempts to recognize the sacrifice and selflessness of the men and women that defend our freedom.
Upon return from Afghanistan and Iraq our troops are treated relatively well; Americans have worked hard to separate the soldiers sent to fight our wars - from any feelings they might hold about the wars.
This is not accident: the hard-earned lesson of Vietnam is that it takes a nation to fight a war - blaming the troops is neither just, nor worthy of our better angels.
For good or ill, during Vietnam everyone had an opinion about the war - draftees, dodgers, family members, veterans - people were passionate because it mattered.
Today, few even remember that we are at war - or care.
An unfortunate reality of an "All Volunteer" military is that the few, shoulder the burden for the many; people can now avoid service with a clear conscience. The lack of a national service requirement diminishes expectations for all.
Like it or not, a draft guarantees the attention of the country. But in 2001, our nation sent our volunteer military to war - the rest of America to the mall.
This has made veterans almost invisible in the vastness of an America that has blissfully forgotten the daily slog that is Afghanistan and Iraq.
Most have adjusted their lives and forgotten the struggle in far off distant lands because so few have any real connection with the troops standing a post.
The reality in today's America is that a car accident is more likely to harm someone they care about than an enemy Improvised Explosive Device.
This is not inherently wrong, but it is different than wars of ages past. The nation used to go to war - now we send the nation's military. It is a subtle and powerful change.
Whether you know it or not, 2009 is an important year for veterans. This Veterans' Day small groups will huddle together in the shadow of another soon-to-be-shattered illusion. In hushed whispers frustrated veterans will begin to ask each other what happened to the promise of past visions.
Veterans understand the circumstances for what they are. Veterans know that soon enough our adventure - their adventure - in Iraq will end. After what is anticipated to become a hurried departure, Iraq will exist – indeed, it will likely even prosper under the umbrella of a greater Shiite regime.
Its resources are ripe for exploitation when the sound of mortar and rifle shot subsides. And in the absence of US troops an enforced "peace" will most assuredly envelope the country - even if over a quarter of its citizens find themselves living in fear.
Iraq will continue and in time its people will adjust to the new shackles of its new masters.
But Our America will not be the same - ever. The labyrinth at the bottom of the rabbit hole stole our spirit; our swagger is gone - and in its place a sense of wonder at the loss of nearly a decade of blood, sweat, and tears.
We will depart Iraq a lesser power than we entered - and that is a hard pill to swallow for those of us that did our duty in the name of our country. None of us joined the military to fail. We came of age in the post-Vietnam military and believed that our leaders understood the meaning of necessary war.
Like the hubris-filled empires of ages past we spent the promise of our youth - our time, talent, and treasure attempting to win a war in a place our leaders never understood.
The lessons my dairy farmer philosopher grandfather have been relearned on an international scale: "someone, somewhere always pays a price" he told me - especially for war. And for the past eight years the same people have been asked to pay it - we have asked too much of too few.
Continue reading "On Veterans Day, remember that someone, somewhere always pays a price"
|
November 11, 2009 |
guest column | Comments (25 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Eleven Eleven: taking back our Veterans Day
Today is the day that was Armistice Day: the end of World War I, the Great War — the War to End All Wars. Except it wasn’t. And now, on the day when once the hope was we would never celebrate the end of any war, we celebrate warriors. Kind of weird.
The fact is, however, that we have yet to get to a place in this world where peace happens because of the goodwill of human beings, and especially their leaders. Without a strong military, the United States would be isolated and under constant threat around the globe, especially in commercial ventures. This is not the best way to run a nation, an economy or the world, but it’s where we’re at for now. Had we not allowed our fear and anger to get the better of us in 2003, we would be celebrating Veterans Day with no troops in harms way in either Afghanistan or Iraq (well, I hope that would have been the case). Instead we mark this day knowing that over 5,000 American service members have lost their lives doing their duty in a war many of us believe to be illegal.
The key point today is not the legality of the war and occupation of Iraq; the key point today, November 11, is the service given to America by men and women. The millions who can call themselves “vet” came to service for many different reasons: the draft, family tradition, the desire to prove themselves, the GI Bill, economic and career opportunity, peer pressure, patriotism. There is no one reason to serve your country — I did so to get the GI Bill — but the simple fact is that we depend on Americans volunteering in this way to ensure we can protect our nation as needed, hopefully preventing the need for military action by the presence of our massive (over-massive) presence.
How sad, then, that Veterans Day (and Memorial Day) have become exercises in retail excess. It’s just another holiday for many people, few of whom will attend a commemoration or even take a few minutes for quiet reflection on the meaning of the day. Yes, the tragedy at Fort Hood has brought the nature of military service closer to our national attention for a few minutes, but that was just the work of some crazy, wasn't it? The deaths in late October in Afghanistan of seven soldiers based at Fort Lewis as the result of an IED strike is probably unknown to most Americans. But it is they, far more than the victims at Fort Hood, for whom these holidays exists. (The woman in Tualatin died for the same reason as the Fort Hood soldiers, just to put the murders into perspective against the deaths of the Fort Lewis soldiers.)
You can do something about this. Something tangible and meaningful. You can become a supporter of the “Eleven Eleven Campaign”. Over the next two years, leading up to Veterans Day 2011 — 11/11/11 — the Campaign is seeking to get 11 million Americans to contribute at least $11 to support veteran service organizations and charities. These groups provide real services to veterans and their families, and the contributions will support that work.
Further, the Eleven Eleven Campaign is seeking, as the phrase goes, to leverage the presence of retailers and restaurants in the public eye on our national holidays. The Campaign will be working to garner the support of businesses, to contribute a portion of their income on Veterans Day and Memorial Day to the Campaign. Even if American shoppers neglect to note the meaning of the day, some of their money can at least accept the responsibility of honoring America’s veterans and service members.
Continue reading "Eleven Eleven: taking back our Veterans Day"
|
November 11, 2009 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (25 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Obama addresses Ft. Hood Memorial Service
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
|
November 10, 2009 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (12 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Kulongoski in Iraq
At the O, Jeff Mapes reports that Governor Ted Kulongoski arrived in Iraq yesterday to visit with Oregon troops. Despite being in a combat zone, Kulongoski told reporters that the troops are concerned with how things will go when they arrive home:
Kulongoski said in a conference call with reporters that morale was high among the Oregon National Guard soldiers he has met so far. But he said several expressed concern about what would be facing them economically when they return home in the spring. Nearly 3,000 members of the 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, headquartered in Tigard, are now deployed in Iraq. ...Kulongoski said he supported Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden's "soft landing" proposal that would allow soldiers deployed in a war zone to stay in the active military - and on the federal payroll - for 90 days after returning home.
"They worry about jobs," he said, either if they can find one or if the job they did have will still be there when they get back. Now, the governor said, they only have about two weeks to muster out of the military when returning.
One of the terrible ironies of recent history is that the Bush Administration was so gung-ho about sending our troops overseas to fight and die for their country - and so unwilling to make sure that they had the gear they needed to fight and the services they needed when they came home.
It's almost like no one in the Bush administration had any experience with being a veteran returning home from war.
Oh, right.
|
November 10, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (23 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Health care for all means reproductive services, too
A couple of weeks ago I was walking through the farmers market and an Obama volunteer stopped me. I brake for Obama, so I waited for his pitch. Obama man handed me a flyer, asked me to "sign up for health care!" and call my elected officials. I read the back and it said very clearly that no federal funds would cover abortion. I told him that I wan't happy about the lack of abortion coverage and that it made me uncomfortable. He said, "Ma'am, I know that isn't good, but we'll all get health care."
No, no we won't. From The Washington Post:
The [Stupak-Pitts amendment] amendment would prohibit abortion coverage in the government-run plan and any private plan on the new marketplace that accepts people who are using government subsidies to buy coverage. Under that language, abortion coverage would be unavailable not only to working-class women buying coverage with government subsidies, but probably also to women buying coverage on the new marketplace without federal assistance. The amendment suggests that women could buy separate "riders" covering abortions, but abortion-rights supporters say it is offensive to require a separate purchase for coverage of a medical procedure that for most women is unexpected.
The reason that the Stupak amendment is terrible is because it says that if I am getting a tiny little afffordability subsidy for my coverage, then I can't buy an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. And since the vast majority of Americans will get some kind of affordability subsidy, that does two things: 1) wipes out abortion coverage explicitly for those women getting subsidized, and 2) probably will result in fewer insurance plans that cover abortion - even for women who are paying entirely with their own money.
Regardless of arguments to the contrary, this isn't about taxpayer funded abortions; it's about our right to have one. Women in this country have the right to a safe, legal abortion and to continue to undercut us doesn't mean less abortions, it means women resorting to unsafe methods to have one.
|
November 9, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (80 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
SEIU 49 fire: arson investigation continues
On October 30, a fire broke out at 5 a.m. at the SEIU Local 49 office in Portland. At the time, a number of folks noted in the comments on BlueOregon that the Tea Party Express was making the Portland stop on their nationwide tour that day. A pure coincidence - or a suspicious correlation?
I checked in today with a spokesman for Portland Fire & Rescue, Lt. Allen Oswalt. He confirmed that the arson team is investigating the fire as a deliberately-set fire. Other than that, he wasn't able to discuss any of the details, of course.
I noted for him that there's a lot of folks asking if there's a connection between the SEIU arson and the teabagger rally. According to Oswalt, "anything and everything is on the table" for the investigators - as it always is - until they're ready to announce their findings.
So, in other words: stay tuned.
As for the folks over at SEIU, their work continues. No one was hurt in the fire, and it was generally contained to the lobby (though there's smoke damage throughout the buiding.) On Friday last week, they held a rally to show that they're "stronger than ever." In a statement, Local 49 president Meg Niemi said:
“Our hall means a lot to us, but our union is not a building. Our union is each of us coming together to improve our workplaces and our communities,” said SEIU Local 49 president Meg Niemi. “We will continue our work, stronger than ever. We will continue speaking out in our workplaces, fighting for fair wages and benefits, bringing new members into our union, and advocating for meaningful health care reform and fair labor laws.”
I'll stay on top of this story and keep you posted.
|
November 9, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (19 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
What historic moments do you celebrate?
There’s been a lot of reminiscing this morning about the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which has become a symbol of “people power” and liberation. I’ve got a chunk of the wall at home, which a colleague who was in Germany at the time brought back for me; I managed to find it in my basement a few weeks ago after having misplaced it a while back.
It got me thinking about other landmark events I’ve witnessed like this in my lifetime. In 1974 I was in Greece at the time the junta fell, and it was quite a remarkable moment. I was in a café in Crete waiting out the war over Cyprus when news came that the Colonels had capitulated.
Just after the news was broadcast I heard a very loud sound of glass smashing above the plaza. A man was standing on his balcony, using a broomstick to smash one of the ubiquitous “Long Live the Army!” posters that were all over the country. The whole plaza erupted in cheering and celebration.
What were similar moments of liberation you’ve witnessed?
|
November 9, 2009 |
Dan Petegorsky | Comments (17 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
