Recruitment time.

So the healthy kids plan has once again failed by one vote. How interesting that once again just enough Republicans (potentially vulnerable Republicans to be precise) voted yes to bring the bill within a hair's breadth of passing while still assuring it would fail. A cynical person might even say a certain minority leader may have planned it that way.

Recruitment time.

Yea, for good and true Democrats who believe this kind of cynical, divisive strategy in the service of other political and self-serving agendas, particularly at the expense of poisoning the debate so we get no progress at all towards a solution, is not in the best interest of any child or adult in Oregon.

Anon, TJ, and Jenni -

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

The only question is: who will be the first troll/idealistic regular to use the oh-so-tired tin foil hat reference?

What I said yesterday

Rep. Phil Barnhart, however, has made a parliamentary motion - arguing that "common sense and the law" actually would allow 31 votes to send the measure to the people. Barnhart argued that it was "nonsensical" and "untenable" that constitutional amendments require only 31 votes - while statutory proposals require 36 votes. According to Barnhart, the Attorney General issued an opinion that 31 votes would be sufficient -- contrary to the long-held opinion of the Legislative Counsel. Barnhart argued further that the constitutional question is best resolved by the Oregon Supreme Court, rather than Legislative Counsel. Barnhart has asked the members of House to overrule the parliamentary ruling based on the Counsel's opinion. By a vote of 46-11 the parliamentary ruling was upheld - and the statutory referral of Healthy Kids to the voters failed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 cheers for Phil Barnhart! The sort of Democrat we should be proud of.

I tried to find out this morning why it took 3/5 to send it to the ballot, and some of the Democratic offices I called weren't very helpful.

If you live in a district with a Dem. state rep., please communicate to them that customer service should apply to all legislative offices. Or else they risk losing the next election because people offended by snide or uncaring remarks (as if the staffer can't be bothered to answer the question) don't have to lift a finger to help their incumbent state rep. get re-elected and might find someone else more appealing. That holds true regardless of party.

I've gotten great customer service (when contacting legislative offices to ask about legislation) from staffers for legislators as diverse as St. Sen. Frank Morse and State Rep. Ben Cannon. But also the reverse from more Democratic offices than I care to mention.

If someone calls and says something like "I have heard about this _ bill which is in Sen. Rules and since it passed the House it would be a real shame if it died in committee without coming to the Senate floor", a legislative office which cares about customer service could say "just a minute, I'll look it up....that bill you describe sounds like HB--- and I can transfer your call to the committee assistant to find out more information".

I have great respect for the office which did that. On the other end of the spectrum, someone said "have to keep a close eye on bills this late in the session or weird things can happen", as if it isn't their responsibility to be able to look up what happened to a bill.

A person who works odd hours shouldn't rely on people who are paid to be in the capitol following legislation because if they cared enough they'd follow the bill themselves in between their regular work hours? And then legislators wonder why they don't get much respect/ attention from the general public?

Is politics about "we the people" or is it about insiders playing political games? Seems like a debate we need to have following the question on whether a proposed ballot measure needs 3/5. Was Measure 28 (back in the days of the 5 special sessions) sent to the voters as an HJR, a House Bill, etc. or aren't we supposed to ask questions about the games insiders play?

You guys got it right!

I'm sure you understand now why RINO's are a pain in the ass. Ya cjust can't trust 'em!

Don't worry about mounting a campaign against RINO's.

As for Phil Barnhardt and the outgoing AG's opinion...give me a break. That was the lamest, BS, "parliamentry move" ever concocted.

If you want to raise taxes get the 36 votes (RINO's OK) but cut out the other bullshit.

Barnhart....I'm laughing out LOUD.

Why can't the bill get on the ballet by petitions? Are we not allowed to do that anymore?

Sounds like propaganda won this time. How sad.

Who else flipped their vote? If Donna Nelson, Bob Jenson, and Patti Smith voted Yes, doesn't that mean there were 37 yes votes? Someone clarify if possible.

Uh...LT. The staff that told you that you "have to keep a close eye on bills this late in the session or weird things can happen" was telling the truth. As much as the public hates it (as do people inside the building)...committees are now only subject to one hour notice. That makes it incredibly difficult for almost anyone to know where things are and what's going on at any particular moment. The way representative democracy works is that you have a Representative and a Senator that represent you (according to where you live). Those are the offices you should call for info...but if you can look up the information yourself like Kari explained...do it yourself for heavens' sake!

Now back to the actual topic of the blog...Healthy Kids! and the sleazy Republicans and the spineless Rep. Esquivel.

My state rep. voted for Healthy Kids, but has voted contrary to what many of us believe on other legislation. Should we in this district just accept that and try harder next time to have FP take our district seriously?

Politics is just a closed little circle where "They DO have better things to do than answering your dumb questions about which committee a bill is in."?

In other words, if one's state senator isn't supporting a bill stuck in Senate Rules Comm., or if their staffer doesn't know much about it, then an ordinary person should just give up and quit following the legislature because weird things happen at the end of the session due to one hour notice? And there is nothing an ordinary person can do about that so if they don't have the spare time to visit the capitol they should just shut up and let the legislature do what it will do and not ask questions?

Great link, Kari--clicked on it and got this:

"The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. "

There ARE legislative staffers who are willing to take a minute or 2 to look up a bill for a caller. But then, they have better manners/ customer service than some people I could mention.

I wish to associate myself with the comments of Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 12, 2007 11:56:31 PM

Especially this: "I found it curious that Bonamici cleverly fought the LC's ruling with a rebuttal by the same office...and it mattered not a whit. Half the time I think no one is even listening to anything anyone says. "

But then, there seem to be people here whose main agenda is to bash anyone they disagree with.

<h2>The state just had an increase in money some 22%, that’s a 22% raise for the state from the last budget. That’s a lot of money, tell me why then, we need to tax a consumer product to create more revenue to fund a new program? With all this new revenue coming in shouldn’t they use some of that new money to fund this new program? How many people out there got a 22% raise this year…? Ya, didn’t think so, so why do we need to take more money from people to fund this program? Let’s say the program is funded by the new Cig tax, and a budget is then created to fund this new program entirely from this new tax. What would happen if Cig sales drop by 30% because of the new tax increase and the new budget is short by 30%, were does the money come from that would fill that new void? Could it be possible that money would need to come out of the general fund, would new taxes need to be increased to help pay for this new program? What happens when Cig sales drop and the tax revenue isn’t there, how do we pay for the program? Does this program cover all kids in the state of Oregon or just those without insurance? I think you need to cover all kids, not just a few, otherwise its discrimination. I may not have the best insurance but if I can get it for free then what would stop me or others from dropping my company insurance and keeping that money and going with the states free insurance? I could see a lot of people dropping there marginal company insurance and signing up for the Free State insurance, then all of a sudden the state needs more money because they had not anticipated the surge of newly uninsured kids. Then were does the money come from. Just being devils advocate…</h2>