In a representative democracy, and even more so in a populist representative democracy, isn't the legislature pretty much just a reflection of the self-governing skills of the people, left, right, and center, activist and silent middle alike?

And not to shift responsibility from the people at all, but isn't a major influence on the self-governing skills of the people the Fourth Estate?

As the famous Pogo comic strip said: "We has met the enemy and he is us".

Yes, that is the truth. And well and succinctly put.

Such hypocrisy.

Just a sample of the bills that passed the Oregon House with “bi-partisan” support that were killed in the Senate: our version of Jessica’s Law, a capital gains tax reduction, a reduction of the death tax, Measure 37 reforms, ‘lot of record’ private property rights, etc. etc.

You can criticize the House for not passing issues you agree with (i.e. SB 1000), but you cannot give the Senate a pass for doing the exact same thing. You may not agree with the list of issues above, but many moderate Democrats did, and if the standard is “bi-partisan support,” the Senate is just as guilty as the House.

As for John’s reference to House Leadership’s “corrupt relationship with much of the corporate lobby,” give me a break. Kate Brown and Peter Courtney raised record amounts of money last election cycle, much of which came from those evil corporate lobbyists (check the C&E reports on the SOS’s website). And if you don’t think Jeff Merkley is on the phone every single day trying to raise money from those same lobbyists, you’re delusional.

Feel free to keep it up though, it’s an approach that’s worked well for the House Democrats for the last 16 years.

Angus, perhaps the reason that "a capital gains tax reduction, a reduction of the death tax" didn't pass the Senate wasn't just about Democrats. Maybe it was about Republican senators (like mine) who wanted to know how the tax cuts would be paid for!

I saw great cooperation both in 2003 and 2005 in the St. Senate. In 2003 I saw my state senator refuse to vote for specific cuts to programs for the neediest while some in the GOP wanted tax cuts for the well off.

In 2005, I saw Sen. GOP leader Ferrioli engage in actual dialogue with ordinary citizens.

But the House featured leadership which said their way or the highway on the budget, split up Ways and Means, bullied a freshman of the other party for not voting with the Republican caucus, and of course the famous Richardson insult to parents wanting more school funding (Which he did based on hearsay--didn't see the event he complained about to the Portland City Club and a radio listening audience.)

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/representative_.html

Don't try to make this just about SB 1000. It was about a functional Senate and a dysfunctional House.

Tax cuts were to be discussed only if being added to current tax cuts, and no tax cut should ever be repealed. Don't tell me "the voters have spoken on Measure 30" unless you can show me the line and the page in the text of Measure 30 which says "should petitioners succeed, all discussion of tax reform or limiting of tax breaks is forbidden in the 2005 session".

Or maybe the capital gains tax cut could have been paid for if only per diem were denied to people not in the chamber (Kropf at KXL, per diem paid during the "rolling recesses")?

Both sides have plenty to be blamed for - how much, well to each what they deserve. I still hold that until the people are willing to exercise genuine reason and logic and hold their representatives accountable, Oregon will continue to have one of the most expensive, most corrupt, and least effective governments.

I think someone (askquestions1st) earlier in the thread was channeling Madison - in democracy people get the government they deserve.

Wes Wagner NW Meridian

Angus and others: For those who are speaking hyprocrisy, M37 is a good example. With over 60 percent support it seems that the dem/rep scrum match in Salem would have found a solution to some of the most pressing issues related to M37. The voters spoke (several times now) and still no results from our legislature. I put more of the blame on the dems, since the voters have been explicate that there are problems with our statewide planning. Let's not continue ignoring the problems and letting 1000 Friends and others dictate the "compromise platforms".

Let's not continue ignoring the problems and letting 1000 Friends and others dictate the "compromise platforms".

I doubt that it was 1000 Friends who came up with 1037-D at the end of the session which few people understood but some development interests said was good.

Yes there are problems with LCDC. There are also problems with the wording of Measure 37, and that is the fault of the sponsors. There was that business of "transferability" which wasn't in the measure but OIA tried to get written into legislation. If it was so important, it should have been in the text of ballot measure. Don't try to blame Democrats for that oversight (or was it intentional?).

Elsewhere on Blue Oregon (don't have the time to look it up right now) there is a comment from a real estate appraiser about a little glitch in the wording: if a building built on property where there was a successful Measure 37 claim, and the building burned down (or more appropriate to current weather maybe flooded?) could that building be rebuilt?

Such questions were not part of the public debate. It was "the voters have spoken on 37 so you are supposed to support our version of SB 1037 and not ask questions".

Seems to me it would be wise to let the Supreme Court rule on it.

The Oregon Legislature: Part-time pay for part-time work with part-time brains.

Adds up for me!