Would you pay $1-2/month for more state troopers?
Yesterday, Governor Ted Kulongoski called on lawmakers to find funding for 139 additional state troopers. He has proposed a dedicated funding source - a $1 to $2 per month surcharge on auto insurance - that would generate about $24 million annually.
The argument in favor? A dedicated funding source is needed to ensure stability in the state police force, and it should be paid by drivers - who are the primary "users" of state police services.
Some Republicans argue that it should remain part of the state budgeting process. Rep. Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg): "I'm not particularly a fan of dedicated funding. It should be funded through the general fund. It's a core function of government."
The governor argues that if the auto insurance surcharge doesn't make sense, his plan should still be funded by a dedicated fund: "If members of the Legislature have a better idea for a dedicated source of funding, I say let's put it on the table and make it happen now."
Let's hear from you.
|
Jan. 10, 2007
Posted in buzz poll. |
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
Jan 10, '07
Only if they reduce the amount of their mission that goes to "traffic enforcement".
I see troopers as good for things like responding to accidents, helping lost people or broken down cars, or keeping rest areas safe.
I don't think they should be giving people tickets for going 70 in a 65. Especially on interstates.
So until police agencies stop using traffic violations as revenue generation schemes - I oppose most police funding. I know, seems like a catch 22, but it is more than that. It is conceptual. If they want tax dollars they should SERVE us, not penalize us. Every one of my lifetime traffic violations has been on interstates or large divided roads. Pointless...
But we can't get the police to enforce the local school zone to save our souls.
Go figure...
Jan 10, '07
Agree with previous commenter... if the tax is on auto insurance, they better not use that time on non-auto related things.
I just popped over to pdxinfo.net to see what the latest press release from OSP is... they want help finding elk poachers.
Spending auto insurance tax money to find elk poachers doesn't seem like a good plan. Since the OSP's mission doesn't just cover traffic policing, their funding should come from the general fund as part of general public services.
4:02 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
Wow. I have a whole different take on the duties of the OSP. Sure they should do traffic patrol, coordinate search and rescue, aid stranded motorists, guard dignitaries etcetera.
(The troopers on the doors at the governor's recent soiree were tres butch, by the way. Love the jodhpurs, the boots....but I digress.)
They should also have a top flight crime lab, coordinate the state's anti terror efforts, and offer a top quality investigative branch that can range freely across county jurisdictions and coordinate with law enforcement in other states; a sort of Oregon Bureau of Investigation, since the feds are totally discredited with their apparently fuzzy grasp of the rule-of-law as outlined in the US Constitution. A robust and professional state law enforcement agency could be monitored by our own legislature.
Prior to the methodical evisceration of this agency by the law enforcement loving Republicans, we had made some progress toward these goals. Kinda like the Republican approach to the internal government ethics watchdog agencies, demonstrated their commitment to good gummint.
So I guess that they should be funded out of the general fund and have a broader mandate than standing on a corner in an orange vest with a whistle in their mouths.
5:00 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
FYI - we had some kind of glitch with the buzzpoll. I may have lost a few votes, but I've managed to restore it back to where it was before it zeroed out inexplicably.
5:03 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
Several years ago I was in an accident where the person that rearended me left the scene without exchanging information. Because of the team work of a good citizen who saw what happened and followed the person and wrote down the plate numbers as well as a state trooper they found the person.
One of the problems (even seven years ago when this happened) is that the state police are stretched thin in terms of resources. On the day of the accident there were only a few state police on patrol in the area I was in (near Oak Grove) and an officer wasn't able to take a report until the next day. My guess is it must be worse now.
Certainly expecting them to do so much with so few resources is rediculous.
Jan 10, '07
The notion that a new tax must be created to adequately fund OSP is ludicrous. Put that one on the ballot and see how many Oregon voters agree.
Jan 10, '07
The notion that a new tax must be created to adequately fund OSP is ludicrous. Put that one on the ballot and see how many Oregon voters agree.
Jan 10, '07
I will support more OSP troopers after the legislature raises the speed limit on I 84 and I 5 to 75 miles per hour. Otherwise, the last thing in the world I need is more traffic enforcement.
7:24 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
The only way they'll raise it to 75 is if semi-trucks and other such vehicles can go 70. And since it is dangerous for them to be going that fast, it isn't going to happen.
Studies have shown that the greater the difference between maximum speeds for vehicles, the less safe the roads are. So Oregon has primarily stuck with a 5 mph difference.
As I said on another blog earlier, I am all for more traffic law enforcement. I'd like to see it more stringent. Increase traffic fines. Keep track of warnings (they could drop off after a period of time, say 6 months). I'm tired of people getting warning after warning for the same infractions.
People breaking the traffic laws is getting worse and worse. Something has to be done to protect those of us who follow the traffic laws.
I know many people don't agree with me, because they want to be able to speed, run red lights, etc. But that's your choice and you should have to pay for breaking the law. I shouldn't have to pay for it in increase car insurance prices (never had a ticket, nor accident, but prices continually go up) and in fearing for our safety on the roads because people are flying around us at 85 mph+, playing musical lanes.
Jan 10, '07
Blue Note, that debate has been going on for years. There was even an attempt some years ago by one House member to pass a bill saying that if some drivers in the slow lane were going the posted speed limit and the flow of traffic was faster, the police should pull over the driver going the posted speed limit for impeding the flow of traffic. The chair of the Senate committee made it clear that if it reached the Senate it would die in committee.
Not only does going that fast waste gas (at over $2.50 a gallon not everyone can afford that sort of waste) but reaction time at that speed is, at best, measured in blinks of an eye.
I agree with Jenni. And I would remind those who love to speed that a Member of Congress running a stop sign in his home state caused a fatality and lost his seat in Congress. Traffic violations are serious.
Jan 11, '07
If the state police are expected to do more than just patrol the freeways, then any funding source MUST be more broad based than the Governor’s proposed narrow focus of charging a surcharge on Oregon motorist insurance premiums. For example, bicyclists use the roadways and therefore bicyclists MUST be required to accept some financial responsibility for the services they use instead just continuing to be arrogant freeloading slackers. However, since the state police have responsibilities that go beyond transportation issues, the state crime lab comes to mind, any dedicated funding MUST come from not only all Oregonians, but those who visit the state too.
Jan 11, '07
In theory Jenni's comments sound reasonable, but in practice I think there is more to it.
There are all kinds of considerations that go into setting road speeds, and safety is only one of them. Revenue generation is definitely in the mix, and on residential streets it's sometimes affected by the opinions of the residents, whether those opinions are based on facts or not.
There are many states in this country where 75 is the speed limit on most highways. I'm not aware of any studies showing that accidents are increased, even with lots of truck traffic. If those studies exist then of course they should be taken into account, but if they don't then there really isn't any good justification for not setting highway speeds higher, other than butt covering by state officials and revenue generation. I have personally driven cross-country several times in the last few years and can tell you that I felt perfectly safe driving 75, even when there was a moderate amount of traffic. We're not just talking about wide-open spaces here.
The problem with unreasonably low speed limits is twofold. First, most people routinely break them, and if you subscribe to the "broken windows" theory of policing then that's eroding the mental barrier that keeps us all being law-abiding citizens. And second, people feel victimized by the troopers and view them negatively, which only makes it harder for them to do their jobs and get the funding they need.
I believe that the right approach is to set the speed limits at much more reasonable levels, including minimum speeds on the signs to make clear that you don't have to drive at the max, and then enforce those. No revenue-generating games allowed, in fact the money from tickets should be allocated in such a way that the police have no incentive to make money. Their only goal should be public safety.
As to the original question, I think if they want to have a surcharge on auto insurance then it should only be available to pay for highway patrols. It should not be used to pay for anything else the troopers do, worthy though it may be.
2:01 p.m.
Jan 11, '07
Having lived in a state with higher speed limits, I can tell you it does decrease safety on the roads. And people break the speed limit in areas where it is 70 and 75 just as much as they do when it's 55. And often times there are more of then going over 100.
It also increases pollution in addition to using more gas for the same distance traveled.
And yes, you can go slower than the maximum. However, the more the speeds differ between cars, the less safe the roads are. This is why many areas across the country have enacted minimum speed laws in addition to maximum speed laws. As someone who goes the speed limit, I can't tell you how many times every day I am almost hit by people flying up on my tail, squeezing into the buffer zone between me and the next car, whipping in and out of lanes around me, etc. All of these people are going well over 10 mph faster than I am. And I'm usually in the "slow" lane since that's the only reasonably safe lane to be in if you're going the speed limit.
The fact is that overwhelmingly that people across the U.S. break the traffic laws. Why is that? Because they've been doing it for years and don't get caught. The longer they go without getting caught, the more they break the laws.
Not that long ago it was California stops at the stop signs. Then it was just running them. Now it's blatantly running stop lights. It's only going to get worse the further we go without doing something about this.
Jan 11, '07
I was living in California when the speed limits were first raised from 55. I fully expected that everyone who was currently driving 78 (25 mph over the limit was a felony speeding ticket) would increase their speed. But they didn't; they just relaxed a bit while driving the same speed as before. Now, I've been away from there for a long time and maybe speeds have crept up, but the reaction at the time was certainly not what you would expect.
Also, FWIW, on my cross-country trips I found people to be mostly driving very close to the speed limit. There are exceptions, of course, and it all depends on where you are, but I didn't see any widespread speeding going on.
To me it's very much like the drug war. Do we want to invest a lot of money in having lots of patrols out there giving tickets to people who are just driving along not bothering anyone? It's like a game of whack-a-mole; you get one, but there's another one coming along in a second or two. Or do we want to spend money getting the really egregious offenders and put the rest of it into the many other government services that need funding? It's not like we have unlimited funds; we have to choose what issues are the most important.
Most people who speed are generally law-abiding and yet they choose to break the speed laws; they decide for themselves what they feel is a safe speed. That tells me that they don't respect those laws; there is something about them that people are rebelling against in large numbers. In my opinion it would be better to set speeds to reflect reality and let the police go after the real criminals. That doesn't mean letting people drive 100+ through heavy traffic, but it does mean that 70 and 75 are perfectly reasonable speed limits in most places, especially since that's how fast people are going anyway.
Jan 11, '07
We don't have to increase taxes to pay for more government services. All we have to do is enforce the tax laws we have and require the tax cheats to pay their legal share.
Jan 11, '07
Can we add a button that says, yes, I want to fund the troppers, but I don't trust the governor?
We have this 20% upside in revenues and he cant find one dolar from that to fund more troopers? This guy is either incompetent or just loves taxes.
7:57 p.m.
Jan 11, '07
Dammit. Another glitch with the buzzpoll. Obviously, that code isn't quite ready for primetime. I've restored the counts, but again, may have missed a few.
12:35 a.m.
Jan 12, '07
Many, many cuts have been made to the budget. There's a lot of funding that needs to be replaced to a variety of services. Even with the revenue increases, it's not enough. We were already falling behind in things like higher education funding, funding pre-k, etc.
The governor is trying to replace funding where he can, and adding this small fee onto your vehicle insurance is a way to do it. I'd gladly pay $24 more a year to help fund the state troopers. That allows more funds to go to other services that have been cut way back.
Jan 12, '07
"Many, many cuts have been made to the budget."
I'd believe that when I see it. I think overall headcount has continued to increase while services to those who need it most (students/poor) keep getting cut. Witness what happened with all the extra money for schools that is not helping students.
If the governor had any skill set, he might be able to make government more efficient (more service/employee) and help all taxpayers who are already hit by rising energy costs without hitting them with more taxes.
Jan 12, '07
BlueNote:
I will support more OSP troopers after the legislature raises the speed limit on I 84 and I 5 to 75 miles per hour.
Bob T:
Actually, it's those drivers who weave from lane to lane, even at slower speeds, who are the dangerous ones. Speed itself is hardly a factor particularly if staying in one lane consistently while keeping a safe distance behind the car in front of you.
Highways are designed for that.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 12, '07
Why should people in Portland get dinged for all these places too small to have a police department?
Here's an idea - a surtax on anyone who isn't a resident of a town with a police force over a certain size. They're the "users" of the State Police, more than us people in Western Oregon who have multiple police forces in our territory.
8:48 p.m.
Jan 12, '07
We all use the OSP when we drive on a freeway, take a trip to the coast, drive to Pendleton, etc. I get so tired of this "I don't use that service so why should I pay for it" attitude. There are plenty of services that people don't, but still pay for. That's because it's a benefit for society and our state to have those services.
<hr/>Something more recent than California going to 55-- I lived in Texas when we raised the limits to 70. And yes, as soon as it went up a huge chunk of those who were previously driving 70 sped up to 80-85. When I visited in 2005, I was being passed by people going easily 90 or more.
8:49 p.m.
Jan 12, '07
We all use the OSP when we drive on a freeway, take a trip to the coast, drive to Pendleton, etc. I get so tired of this "I don't use that service so why should I pay for it" attitude. There are plenty of services that people don't, but still pay for. That's because it's a benefit for society and our state to have those services.
<hr/>Something more recent than California going to 55-- I lived in Texas when we raised the limits to 70. And yes, as soon as it went up a huge chunk of those who were previously driving 70 sped up to 80-85. When I visited in 2005, I was being passed by people going easily 90 or more.
Jan 12, '07
Aaron V:
Here's an idea - a surtax on anyone who isn't a resident of a town with a police force over a certain size. They're the "users" of the State Police
Bob T:
More likely they'd be dealing with the county sheriff's department, as are those in various unincorporated areas on the fringe of the Urban People Control Boundary.
I could be wrong, but although we often see State Police driving about, they are most likely on their way to one of their "compliance" visits (relating to various state laws and codes) rather than patroling. They really aren't exactly like local law enforcement.
Bob Tiernan
Jan 12, '07
And Bob, for all of your merits, you are not exactly like a member of the community.
Jan 15, '07
Dave:
And Bob, for all of your merits, you are not exactly like a member of the community.
Bob T:
How so?
Bob Tiernan
Jan 15, '07
Doesn't surprise me. This state government wants to spend spend spend. Why don't they just put up more speed cameras on the Interstates? It seems this would be cheaper than hiring more OSPs and would probably get more revenue.