An Aversion To Mischief

By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
Published in the Powell Butte View, January 2005

The Legislature Can Avoid Making Things Worse

On January 10, the 60 representatives and 30 senators who collectively comprise the 73rd Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon will convene in Salem. When the gavel drops, the Democrat-controlled upper house and the Republican-controlled lower house—even more divided than in 2003 by philosophical differences—must somehow find a way to cut the state budget by somewhere between $600 million and a billion dollars. And that just keeps the current government running without addressing the demands of special interest groups that want to see cuts made last session restored.

It makes one wonder why anyone would want to be a part of this group.

I think it’s going to be a long, difficult road to adjournment. Veteran observers say that the session, which always aims to wrap up business by the end of June, may not call it quits until Labor Day. That’s a long time during which there is plenty of potential for mischief to occur. I offer here my own views of some mischief legislators ought to avoid, no matter how greatly they may be tempted.

Avoid the revenue discussion
Legislators are going into the session saying all the right things about the need to balance the budget through cuts, not revenue hikes. Many were around for the last two votes on hiking the income tax—an idea voters rejected. Most are starting the session saying they learned their lesson, but as Sen. Westlund put it in a recent media interview, for some legislators, tax hikes are in their DNA. If that’s so, leaders of both parties need to provide “gene therapy” to members as needed. I believe that the majority of Oregonians are neither conflicted or confused on the subject of taxes: they don’t like them, they don’t intend to pay more of them, and they don’t agree with those who say that the tax system is broken. It doesn’t bother them that the state has no sales tax. It doesn’t bother them that the property tax is capped. It doesn’t bother them that we rely so heavily on income tax as a source of revenue, and they like the kicker. End of discussion. The discussions of the last four years have produced no change in voter sentiment. This session, let’s get on to the next step of living within our means without any pointless detours down the Yellow Brick road to tax hike city.

Keep common sense in the Oregon Health Plan
The spectacular failure of the 2003 legislature to procure new revenue forced cuts in the Oregon Health Plan. Some of those cuts were accomplished by imposing a co-pay on every participant. A significant number of participants simply refused to pay even small copays and lost coverage as a result. A big priority for the Dept. of Human Services as the session open is the restoration of benefits to nearly 24,000 Oregonians previously covered by the plan. While children, the elderly and the very ill are very sympathetic and make great media copy, this is another idea that ought to die without further action on the legislative floor. Let’s face it: every tax-paying, hard-working Oregonian out there is facing his or her own problem with healthcare costs. Co-pays are rising for everyone. So are deductibles. Many small businesses have dropped healthcare coverage for employees altogether. Even for many employees who have decent coverage, the escalating cost of adding family benefits is forcing families to do without. Many of those folks are angry: they are angry that Washington seems indifferent to their plight. They are angry at the two-tier system of healthcare coverage emerging between public employees and private employees. What is needed is broad-based healthcare reform aimed at shoring up the medical safety net for everyone. Adding back coverage piecemeal for a single-class of voters, no matter how deserving, will provoke further voter anger and will eventually bring down the entire system. A long-term fix is needed, but it must be a systemic fix, and although there appears to be now incipient leadership around the issue, that’s where the Legislature should spend its time this session.

Don’t mess with the voter intent on measure 37
There has been considerable speculation that either these legislature or the governor will propose a “fix” to measure 37—the measure which provides compensation or waiver of land-use regulations whenever government reduces the value of property post-purchase by regulation. Aside from the fact that I don’t think the Governor, the Senate and the House could agree on a fix, I think there are some valid reasons emerging why they shouldn’t even try. Not the least of these is that measure 37 seems to me to be having the unintended consequence (and benefit) of restoring some long-needed balance to the land-use system. Although the measure goes into effect Dec. 2, the state was apparently caught off-guard when the measure passed in 35 of 36 Oregon counties. At this writing, the response on the state’s part seems to have been general confusion and near paralysis. Lacking state guidance, local jurisdictions have charged ahead re-ordering their systems to accommodate the measure and its impact, and long-overdue discussions have resulted about how land-use is applied and what the role of the government is in considering fairness to all property owners when enacting regulations. Measure 37 has been a boon to local control, which was supposed to be an original core principal of land-use planning when it was first adopted. The legislature would do well to watch and see how this thing unfolds before it pursues legislative fixes to what may well be non-existent problems.

Give the gay issue a rest
Oregon, like other states in the union, tore itself up over the gay marriage issue. In the end, 57 percent of the voters (and majorities in 34 counties) limited marriage to opposite sex couples. 43 percent (and majorities in two counties) didn’t want to go there. The voters have spoken, but the Supreme Court may get the last word. Stay tuned. There has been some talk that the Oregon legislature might now look to the question of whether “civil unions” (without benefit of “marriage”) might be worth looking into. I hope we don’t go there. My sense is that while a clear majority of Oregonians have strong feelings about preserving marriage as it has been traditionally understood, there is considerably less agreement about the degree of tolerance the state ought to extend to other aspects of same-sex relationships. Any further debate on that subject (such as the proposal to legitimize civil unions) only keeps the issue stirred up and detracts from the more important question of how to balance the budget. One of my criticisms of the 2003 session was that there were too many sideshows and not enough acts in the main ring. Let’s stay on task this time. We can talk about social agendas when fiscal crisis isn’t at hand.

Mend the White House fences
For all the good it did him, no U.S. President history has visited Oregon more times than George Bush did in his first term. That’s a little uncomfortable considering that we ended up in the “blue state” column. As hard is may be for some, now it’s time to recognize that statewide we backed the wrong horse in the last election. Now we need to reach out and work on repairing the damage. Notwithstanding his upcoming re-election campaign, the governor needs to call at the White House and “make nice” with the President. Key legislative leadership needs to publicly recognize and thank the President for his efforts on behalf of our state during the last four years, despite the revulsion that many vocal Oregonians felt for some of those proposals. The state needs to employ somebody close to the current administration to lobby an Oregon agenda. The predominantly Democrat Oregon congressional delegation isn’t in a position to get it’s phone calls answered. Mr. Bush will be President for the next four years. He can advance Oregon’s agenda or ignore it. There are no election consequences, regardless of his choice. Having blown the opportunity to prevail on the President’s sense of gratitude for our support, we now have to be the President’s friend or at least be friends with his friends and rely on them to make our case.