Oregon's awesome initiative system

Check out the initiatives that have already made it on the ballot for the upcoming election (via the Register-Guard):

The five initiatives already approved would create mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, forgery and drug crimes;

Crap - mandatory minimums are and have always been a terrible idea.

exempt property owners from obtaining building permits for improvements valued under $35,000;

Sketchy - I'm a proponent of land-use planning, as land-use planning has proven to be at least somewhat good for the environment, and this smells like an effort to undercut that on the bizarre grounds that private property rights are sacred instead of merely existing because we all collectively choose to abide by them.

prohibit unions and others from using “public resource” funds for political purposes;

Crap - specifically put there to weaken the ability of unions to speak in the political realm. Don't get me wrong; I think money and politics need a quick and painful divorce, but this, being unilateral, would lead to an increase in the power of corporations, which I oppose. Also, I think it's sponsored by Bill Sizemore, who is a mortal enemy of unions and the public good.

prohibit teaching public school students in a language other than English for more than two years;

Short-sighted, racist crap. I don't think I need to say any more; even Hering is against this one, it's so obviously a bad idea. Come to think of it, it's a lot like cutting off federal funding to underperforming schools, like in No Child Left Educated Behind.

and would allow Oregon taxpayers to make federal income taxes fully deductible on state returns.

This is explicitly designed to starve the state of funds on the simplistic grounds that government = bad. I believe it's a Bill Sizemore initiative. Therefore: crap!

... don't get me wrong. Governments do stupid shit all the time; certainly I've been known to criticize all levels of government, from D.C. down to *cough* local school boards. But Sizemore's whole schtick is to starve the Oregon government of funds so it can't maintain the level of services it currently provides - and there's to be no replacement. Clearly, this is problematic, as it leaves a lot of people out in the cold.

What, you think the free market is going to solve that problem? Buddy, you must be outta your frackin' mind if you still believe that after that last several decades.

Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum, a moderate California Democrat, advocates taking a default position of "no" on all initiatives. For the first time, I'm inclined to join him. This year's crop of initiatives makes the entire system look like it's merely a conduit for moneyed, corporate interests to buy ballot measures.

He's baaaaaack!

Of course I'm talking about Hering. How could I not comment on this?

Among the few people in Oregon who care about justice in land use matters, there had been an argument before the last general election about the effect of Measure 49. The proponents said the measure would “modify” Measure 37, the previous law on land use restrictions after someone had acquired a property. The opponents said that Measure 49 in effect canceled Measure 37.

Oh. Wait. He's mostly right, except for that part where he confuses "justice" with his (and only his) point of view on the issue. Never mind.

On the other hand, this part pretty much negates the fact that he took the high road in the rest of the editorial:

Neither the courts nor the lawyers in state government, including candidates now running for office, told voters ahead of time that with that measure, a bunch of people’s rights to divide or build a house on their own rural property were going to go up in smoke.

As the first commenter notes, this is total bullshit. Measure 49 does not completely eliminate that right, and Hering should know better than to confuse restricting and completely removing one's ability to build houses on agricultural land. In fact, he does know better, which means this is intentionally deceptive and dishonest, and better suited to a Heritage Foundation memo than a newspaper.

The other thing Hering's stance on this indicates is that he prioritizes individual choice over the collective good to a dangerous degree. I'd ask whether or not he's heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, but that's probably a little too highbrow for his taste.

[Hasso Hering] Best. Headline. Ever. (Almost)

A recent Hering editorial headline:

Why prisons are full: Crime

Seriously, what the hell? I get that headline space was likely short, but COME ON. I. CAN'T. TAKE. IT. ANYMORE.

Oh, and then there's the actual editorial, which was shockingly decent:

The answer to the swelling prison population is not to relax the sentences but to seek ways of preventing crimes from being committed in the first place.

When I read that, what's left of my tiny little brain melted. It's easily the most sensible thing Hering has ever said, as far as I can tell.

So kudos, Hasso. This editorial - except for the headline - doesn't get mocked. It proposes a decent solution to a problem you illustrate with facts.

UPDATE: I forgot about the very last line. It suggests something I think is flat-out wrong:

Instead we have to make a more fundamental change. We have to get back to a system of values in which it is the height of virtue — which is looked up to and rewarded — not to harm other people and to leave their property alone.

Reverence for property is most certainly not the answer. But it is very consistent with Hering's other writings. Valuing people, on the other hand, would be nice. Maybe we could start by changing US policies as an example?

P.S. This, of course, is the best headline ever.

[Health Care] Oregon House Refers Pro-Health Care Item to Ballot

From the Oregonian:

Do Oregonians have a fundamental right to effective, affordable health care?

That question threw the Oregon House into a lofty and philosophical debate for more than an hour Wednesday before it voted 31-29 along strict party lines in favor of referring it to the November ballot.

Nice.

The Republican response:

Republican opponents said the resolution would expand government, socialize medicine and create another entitlement program.

I call bullshit - not only are these the same tired catchphrases the R's always throw out, they're not even related to the measure at hand. Promoting health care as a fundamental right does not inexorably lead to any of the boogeymen listed. It's just a stupid, silly scare tactic: First, train people to respond (negatively, of course) to certain key words or phrases (socialized medicine, entitlement). Second, throw those phrases around whenever you don't get your way and watch people respond like Pavlov's dogs.

These same tricks are getting old. At the least, I would think Republicans would need to find new key words by now.

Youtube Videos: Yes on 50

Not generally work safe unless you're wearing headphones, and maybe not even then.



This video is even better, and really eviscerates the tobacco industry's history of advertising. Favorite line: "Why do you hate the children?"



Via Blue Oregon.

The Very Definition of the Modern Establishment

I am talking, of course, about OSU Political Science Department Chair Bill Lunch.

From the recent Portland Tribune article on Steve Novick, who has entered the Democratic Primary in the hopes of challenging Gordon Smith:

“He’s taken a series of positions over a long period of time that – take your pick – are either highly advanced or on the left edge of the Democratic Party,” says Bill Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University. “In the city of Portland, those positions aren’t bad ones to have. But if you have to run statewide … in Medford and Burns as well as in Portland … by the time you get to rural Oregon, he’s not a terribly attractive candidate to a lot of voters.”

Oregon and national Democrats realized they needed to find a more establishment candidate, and they’ve found that in Merkley, Lunch says. “Unless the Democratic establishment is enormously inept, it’s very, very likely that Merkley will be the (Democratic) nominee,” he says.

Sometimes I wonder if there is a person underneath the jovial, bearded, walking political science establishment named Bill Lunch. I've never really seen him express an opinion that's out of the mainstream, especially in public. Even in the class I took from him he treated politics like a he-said, she-said game, always careful to never place himself in danger of holding anything but a moderate opinion.

Lunch's second quote is pretty despicable, if you ask me. It suggests that Merkley has a right to win based on his Establishment credentials. I don't know much about Merkley or Novick, but that's just not cool.

h/t Blue Oregon.