Oregon Blog Updates

Two weeks ago, the Oregonian published an editorial by Dave Lister - in which he slammed Oregon's minimum wage.

Minimum-wage jobs in the past were available for students who were interested in making some money to help with their expenses, or for stay-at-home moms who wanted to supplement the family budget by working a few hours a day while the kids were at school. Minimum-wage jobs were the conduit for young people just entering the work force. Through such jobs, they could gain experience and expand their resume. And the employer offering the jobs wasn't subjected to great risk in the case of an employee who didn't work out.

Is it really realistic to pay a high-schooler scooping ice cream or a sign twirler outside of the local mattress emporium $8.40 per hour?

On Monday, Senator-elect Diane Rosenbaum (D-Portland) responded with an editorial published on the Oregonian's blog. Rosenbaum was the chief petitioner on Measure 25 in 2002, which established the inflation-adjusted minimum wage in Oregon.

Lister's piece is filled with factual errors and anecdotal myths as he tries to prove the case that Oregon's minimum wage -- approved by voters in 2002 to adjust annually for increases in the cost of living -- has been a drain on Oregon's economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. ...

Perhaps Lister's most egregious error is his stereotype of minimum-wage workers. It must have been in the 1960s when Lister last entered a fast food restaurant if he thinks minimum-wage jobs are filled by "stay-at-home moms" or "a high-schooler scooping ice cream."

Stay-at-home moms and teenagers? There are 143,000 Oregonians working at minimum wage jobs who are struggling to support themselves and their families. It's true that 59 percent of these workers are women, 79 percent are adults, and that many have children. Today's mom is an equal partner in paying the bills, often working multiple minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet. Those wages are going right into the family coffers to pay for food, medicine, rent and utilities.

Especially in these tough times, minimum-wage jobs are the backbone of our economy. These workers represent 7.5 percent of Oregon's workforce, and they perform some of the most difficult and important jobs in Oregon. In addition to growing and serving our food, they also care for our kids in child care centers and our elderly parents in nursing homes.

As Rosenbaum notes, Oregon's minimum wage is hardly generous:

Lister is right about one thing, though. The minimum wage is not a living wage. Even with the increase in January, a full-time worker at minimum wage will earn only $336 a week -- that's barely $1,400 a month before taxes. That's hardly a living wage and barely a subsistence wage in today's economy. Yet 143,000 hard-working Oregonians are trying to support themselves and their families on this amount.

Oregon voters were right when they adopted this sensible economic strategy. Nine other states have followed our example and passed laws that provide annual cost-of-living adjustments, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Vermont and Washington. We should take pride in our minimum-wage law that stands for the principle that no one who works full time should be forced to live in poverty.

Discuss.

You can make an intellectual case for the Governor's budget. You can't make a case for the way he presented it.

Let me make it clear that I like the Governor. He's a nice guy who's always been very kind and respectful to me personally. And I applaud his near-obsession with global warming; we may disagree on details, but his commitment on that issue is dead-on.

What's disturbing to me about the Governor's budget is that he refused to acknowledge the cuts he is making. For the most part, the Governor was all happy talk, proudly explaining the wonderful things he says his budget will do. Although he had a generic sentence or two like "It [the budget] makes choices for what state government does and how we do it. And those choices are going to impact the lives of real people. I know that," he did not, in his press release or his speech, explain a single specific cut. No mention of the 100,000 Oregonians who will lose vision and dental coverage. No mention of the thousands of poor families who will lose child care subsidies. No mention of the thousands of seniors who will lose in-home care. If you were only listening to the Governor, you would get the impression that all of our important 'priorities' were being funded; that heck, when the economy recovers, we should give everyone a big tax cut, because after all, the State's already paying for everything that matters. Yes, I know that's not what he said. But when you don't think a single cut is worth mentioning, isn't that the impression you'll probably give a lot of people?

And because the Governor doesn't acknowledge that we're cutting anything important, there's not even a whisper of the possibility that we might take some temporary revenue-raising steps to help the vulnerable. (The Governor's proposed taxes, as far as I can tell, are permanent measures to expand programs, rather than efforts to make up for cuts in the services we have.) Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing a temporary tax increase. In 1982, Vic Atiyeh passed a temporary tax increase. For our Governor, it's off the table.

I am well aware that in the last recession, the voters twice rejected a temporary income tax surcharge. I am also aware that the first effort, Measure 28, came much closer than anyone imagined it would. And Measure 28 was a fairly broad tax on a broad range of people. You could raise a significant amount of money (although you would NOT close the whole gap) by, for instance, creating a temporary 10% (as opposed to 9%) rate on people with taxable incomes of over $100,000. (Remember, taxable income is a good deal less than wage or salary income; it's income after deductions. And the extra 1% would not apply to people's entire incomes - just the amount over $100,000.) Now, I realize that Oregon already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the country, and as a permanent measure, even I would worry about Oregon being too out of line with the rest of the country in terms of taxing the relatively well-to-do. But not to even consider, as a short-term measure, asking the least vulnerable to help the most vulnerable? Is that really the kind of State we want to be? I would add that economists say that in terms of impact on economic activity ('stimulus' or de-stimulus), taxes on the well-to-do are least dangerous in the recession, because those are the folks least likely to spend all their money.

Three and a half years ago, when I worked for the Citizens for Oregon's Future, I developed a classroom exercise on 'balancing the state budget' that six high school teachers used in their social studies classes. At the time, the Legislature had started the session with an $800 million budget shortfall. The students examined a wide range of options for cutting the budget or raising revenue, and, broken into groups of three and four, they presented their plans. The students came from towns ranging from conservative Creswell to liberal Portland. I don't think a single group balanced its budget only by making cuts. Why not at least try to have that conversation? Explain the cuts, and outline some alternatives?

Senate President Peter Courtney was blunt. "We are going to put out in the streets children or seniors or people with disabilities," he said. Courtney can be a bit dramatic, but I much prefer his dramatic bluntness to the Governor's happy talk.

Governor Kulongoski has released his budget proposal, and with it come the usual recriminations you'd expect in an period when the economy is stumbling around like a 2 am-drunk.  In moments like this one, it's not possible to please everyone--some programs will get cut, some taxes will go up.  The Governor had to make priorities, and that means there are winners and losers. But did he set the right priorities given the unique suite of challenges Oregon faces?

Setting a budget means balancing the needs of the present against the future, triage versus long-term planning.  Give Kulongoski credit for vision--he's crafted a budget that is more forward-looking than you'd expect is politically tenable in these grim times:

• The budget will grow overall by $1 billion dollars to $16.1 billion; it would be funded by new tax hikes that would raise a projected $2 billion in total revenue.  Kulongoski envisions raising taxes on gas and cigarettes as well as increasing car registration fees, the corporate minimum tax, and taxing health providers.
• The gas tax and registration fees would fund transportation projects.
• Taxes on health care companies would be used to provide health care to the uninisured, particularly children.
• Kulongoski also offers a new slate of tax cuts for alternative and renewable energy projects and incentives to consumers to buy hybrid and electric cars.

Also:

• The K-12 budget would grow $147 million, less than the rise in inflation.
• University spending would increase 5.3%, but community colleges would see their per-student support drop.
• Human services get the biggest hit.  Funds will increase $200 million to $3.5 billion, but this is well below the 28% hike needed to keep services funded at their current level. 
• Within the DHS budget, child welfare would be mostly protected, causing the burden to fall on the elderly, disabled, and poor.

Looking through the proposal (or the reportage on it anyway--special hat tip to Jeff Mapes, who is really doing yeoman's work at his blog), I think Kulongoski's got a nice first draft here.  The reality of the collapsing economy is ulitmately going to trump pet projects.  But there's no reason to start from a panicked, fortify-the-barricades mentality.  Kulongoski's proposal highlights the future--Oregon's central role in the growth of the green marketplace and the importance of education and higher ed to the state's well-being.  At the end of the process, the Dem-led legislature just isn't going to let the poor, elderly, and disabled suffer like they did under Karen Minnis.  (And they shouldn't.)  But they also can't overlook the long-term health of the state during what has become a cycle of regular fiscal crisis.

According to Mapes, some of the proposals are probably DOA.  Peter Courtney, he says, thinks the prospects for the cigarette tax, in particular, are dubious.  On the other hand, the budget also reflects the reality of the new balance of power in Salem.  The GOP are howling--aren't they always--that new taxes are a no-go.  But their stewardship has led us into this swamp; and anyway, they don't have the numbers to stop legislation.  That makes this a discussion among Democrats. 

I think this is an interesting conversation-starter.  What are your thoughts?

The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

This statement is not wrong. This is a religious statement, a “Consideration” from the Vatican on “unions between homosexual persons.” A religious statement is, by definition, a matter of belief. It is a matter of faith, and such things are never wrong; they just are. I fundamentally disagree with the statement and the entire range of thought and belief behind it. I would say marriage exists between the people who choose to deem themselves married. If it’s Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, or Eve and Edie — let there be love, that’s all I would say is required.

Yet I recognize that religion is important to the majority of the earth’s peoples. I do not believe in god, as such, but since I do have a set of beliefs about life, morality, etc, I’d have to admit that I am a person of faith. There’s not much difference between me and a religious person. We both believe, and that’s what is critical here.

Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others believe homosexuality is wrong. I refuse to engage them in that argument. Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others once believed (and too many still do) that persons of other faiths and ethnicities are inferior, worthy of enslavement or even death. I’m not sure what changed in their religion over the years to undo the belief in slavery, for example; that’s something for them to explain, if they can — without undermining the sanctity of their teachings (good luck on that one, fellas). If people want to believe “gay marriage” is wrong, fine. I say: Don’t let gays marry in your church. Don’t even let gays in your church. I have no problem with that.

What I do say is, who do you actually want in your church? Obviously not people who engage in sinful lifestyles, as you define it. That makes sense. People of a particular religion will naturally want to congregate with persons who share their beliefs. As long as they don’t over-react to the presence of sinners — no stoning, no burning at the stake, please — then I believe, under our Constitution, a church has the right to refuse entrance or membership to persons who do not adhere to the doctrines of that church.

But the churches have made a huge mistake that threatens the sanctity of their beliefs and practices: They have tied their religious beliefs to the laws of the secular state. Currently, a minister of a church can perform the legal, government-sanctioned act of marriage. The minister serves as an agent of the state, and the church services a major program of the state. This is not a good thing for any church.

Sue Hagmeier made a tremendously cogent point to me recently in discussing this: Churches in America have forgotten what it means to suffer religious persecution. Mormons, of all people, have the most recent memory of true religious persecution within this country. Their prophet and founder, Joseph Smith, was murdered — they would say martyred — for what he taught and practiced. The early Mormons had to flee their homes in order to practice their religion, much the same as Daniel Barnhart fled Germany over three hundred years ago, bringing my family to this country.

Who, today, is persecuted for their religious beliefs in America? Scientoligists are mocked, jokes are told about most religions, but no one is hounded by mobs, much less threatened with jail or made to fear for their lives. Separated from the memory of persecution, American religionists of all kinds use the power of their pulpits, their congregations, their funds and their station in society to force their religious views on government. The passage of Prop 8 in California is just the latest example of religion persecuting those outside of their own faith.

Yet we already see the backlash. The Church of Latter-Day Saints spent millions on passing Prop 8, and now it finds itself under attack not only by those it attacked, but friends of the GLBT community, by fair-minded people of varying beliefs and even by Mormons disgusted with the naked power play of their church. In seeking to transform religion into political power, the Mormon church has revealed the danger any religion faces in attempting to wield political power: that same power can turn around and attack the church.

I truly believe a church should be free to decide what it considers marriage. This definition varies among the many different faiths the people of America hold; the broad defitional umbrella of faith-based marriage would be called “sacramental” marriage. Those who submit to a church’s particular sacrament can consider themselves married in the eyes of their god(s). That is both logical, right and constitutionally sound.

But what the state determines marriage to be — now that’s another question altogether. Let’s say a church's sacrament of marriage is 48-hours of prayer, fasting and then the repetition of particular words. That might be great for a sacramental marriage; the State of Oregon requires a lot more. But what if a religion forbids the paying of a fee in the performance of a sacrament? What if they forbid a woman to sign any legal document? What if they say marriage can occur at the age of 15? Under such scenarios, the church and state, quite clearly, can find themselves at odds over what constitutes marriage. (Examples of church and state, in this country, being at odds over the practice of religious ceremonies already exist, including over marriage: the Mormon polygamist sects.)

And what if the voters of Oregon decide that in order to serve as an agent of the state and perform legal marriage ceremonies, a minister had to swear an oath of allegiance to the state itself — an allegiance that was meant to trump their allegiance to their faith? Now we’ve turned the problem around entirely, with churches forced to either submit themselves to human, and not heavenly rule, or being deemed traitorous, unpatriotic and losing the right to practice their faith. Yet there is no logical or even practical reason this could not happen. Get a groundswell of support and a good political campaign, and we could easily impose secular restrictions on the free practice of religion — restrictions that flow from the churches' own efforts to impose religious restrictions on the state.

This is why the United States has separation of church and state. The Founders understood religious persecution. They knew how easily the fulcrum could swing in either direction. By establishing a divide between the sacred and the secular, they did their best to protect each. We must follow their wise example and re-establish the separation. We must remove the state from having any role in how religions practice their faith (beyond the obvious, as demonstrated by so many civic-minded priests). The Oregon Legislature should do the following:

• Submit to the voters of Oregon the repeal of Measure 36.
• Have in place, to follow that repeal, a structure of marriage for all persons who seek to have their marriage recognized by the state. “Civil marriage” would apply to all persons and would have no restrictions based on gender. It would be the same for all couples (and, at this point, for couples only; polygamy is a critter I ain’t even gonna touch). Civil marriages would be administered by civil servants and would involve an oath or affirmation in recognition that this legally binding relationship is of critical importance to society — even if the couple is gay.
• Recognize the right of churches to limit their sacraments of marriage to only those who submit to the teachings of that church. If a church refuses to marry gay people — or straight people, for that matter — no penalty would apply in any way.

Initially, I expect many persons devoted to the dogma of “gays is bad” to object to this line of thought (which is not original with me, of course; the first I read of the idea was from an evangelical Christian — in Christianity Today). But in time, I hope enough people of faith would come to recognize several important ideas:

• All citizens deserve the same legal rights regardless of what others think of them. An ugly man and woman have the right to marry; why not two pretty women? Where once we did not, we now allow “mixed” marriages; the word “miscegenation” was last heard, by most people, in the Coen Brothers’ “O Brother Where Art Thou?"
• Religion in America may not have known persecution for many generations, but that could change. We must ensure the Founders’ vision of a nation where all citizens are free to practice their religion as their conscience leads them remains the guiding light. Churches today are vulnerable to political attack just as they have used politics to attack others.
• The religious beliefs of one person cannot be forced upon another person. Faith is chosen freely or it is not chosen at all. Forcing the practices of a religion on non-believers is not religion; it’s tyranny. Unless churches wish to align themselves with such an ideology — and that might be a poor choice in this country — they better come to grips with the fact that laws apply equally to all persons. Even the ones you are pretty sure are going to hell for all eternity.

Measure 36 and Prop 8 are acts of religious tyranny, and yet they open the door for religion to be tyrannized by non-believing citizens and their government. If churches wish to maintain the full sanctity of their beliefs and practices, they need to relinquish the human lust for power. History has many examples of persons of faith finding ways to integrate their beliefs into the legal structure of their nation without violating anyone's rights: the civil rights movement, after all, was led by Christian ministers among others. Believers can bring their faith into the public forum, but if they attempt to have those beliefs codified into law at the expense of non-believers, they have to recognize their are no longer practicing their faith: They are giving to Caesar what belongs to God.

As much fun as it is to simply point and laugh at Bill Sizemore, there's a serious legal battle that has, today, finally landed him in jail (however temporarily). And it's worth understanding.

The Oregonian explains the back story and today's finding:

The latest contempt finding against Sizemore stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Oregon Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers in Oregon. In 2002, a Multnomah County jury found that Sizemore had engaged in a "pattern of racketeering" that included forged signatures and the filing of false financial reports as part of his effort to place two anti-union initiatives on the 2000 ballot.

The jury awarded $2.5 million plus attorneys fees to the unions from two now-defunct organizations that Sizemore controlled. Another judge in that case issued an injunction restricting Sizemore's use of tax-exempt organizations to advance his political activities.

This time, Wilson ruled that Sizemore violated the injunction for a fourth time through his use of the American Tax Research Foundation, a tax-exempt foundation that Sizemore set up in Nevada in 2006. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were funneled through the foundation to support Sizemore and his family and for work on 2006 and 2008 ballot measures. ...

Wilson devoted much of her 42-page ruling to a description of a dizzying array of organizations that she said Sizemore used to conceal the source of his funding. She cited $569,000 that went to Sizemore or his wife, Cindy, and said that did not include more than $13,700 in ATRF-paid personal expenditures at Fred Meyer and other grocery stores, restaurants and convenience stores and gas stations.

"The inescapable conclusion is that ATRF was a sham charitable organization set up to pass money provided by Loren Parks and Dick Wendt to compensate Mr. Sizemore for his work on initiative measures," Wilson said.

Wilson ordered Sizemore jailed until the 2006 and 2007 federal and state tax forms for charitable organizations are filed.

Hartman said that the filing of false forms is a potential criminal violation and that filing accurate forms could expose Sizemore to a potential tax liability for the money he received from ATRF.

In other words, Sizemore is sitting in jail until he actually files the federal and state tax forms for his supposedly charitable organization. Why hasn't he filed the forms? Because he's got a choice to make: Either file false tax forms that hide the transfer of money for personal purposes - or file truthful forms that fully disclose what he's done.

Either way, he's in a world of hurt. And if they knew what was going on (and I suspect that they surely did), then sexual hypnotist Loren Parks and timber baron Dick Wendt are too. They could all be going to the big house for federal and state tax fraud (and conspiracy as well, I suppose.)

As Judge Wilson said today:

"Mr. Sizemore is so blinded by his hatred of the unions who are plaintiffs in this case that he seems to have concluded that he is not required to follow the law."

Two more good roundups from the Associated Press and Swing State Project.

The time has finally arrived: I am canceling my subscription to the "dead trees" version of the Oregonian.  I got close a few times over the past few months as the experienced reporters and columnists took their buyouts. 

Every Sunday, I would take apart the circulars, ads, and junk inserts and look at what was left--less than what used to constitute a decent daily--and was sure I'd pull the string.  There have been a few recent stories that were so poorly sourced that I came close once again.  Each time I read a wire service report that I'd already read days before, I told myself why pay for this paper?  And when I would turn to the Metro section and it consisted of four pages--just one broadsheet--I told myself no more.

But today's reorganization of the Monday paper was the last straw.  Now the Metro section has been eliminated and merged into the front page, explained as a cost-savings measure, but surely one that will only reduce further the amount of news coverage in the Oregonian.

Like many of you, I have been a loyal newspaper reader my whole life.  I don't mind the ink stained hands.  Reading a paper on a computer is not the same. 

Strike one was getting the NY Times for an academic discount of only $21/month for the full seven day paper.  Sure, even the Grey Lady is showing her age, but at least that paper arrives with a satisfying thump every morning on my porch.  I admit, the IPhone interface has made me question that subscription, but how can I justify $18/month for the O when I pay just $3 more for the NY Times?

Strike two was the buyout.  And strike 3 is today's reorganization.  How can I pay for a paper that takes me less than 5 minutes?

This leaves me detached from Oregon news.  Oregonlive is improved but still abysmal.  The blogs aren't consistent.  The Tribune is just once a week. 

What should I do?  What do you do for your Oregon news?

Bill fought the law and got the perp walk. Via Amy Ruiz at Blogtown:

Yep, that's Bill Sizemore being hauled off by Multnomah County Deputy Sheriffs, after Judge Janice Wilson read a lengthy opinion finding the initiative king in contempt of a 2003 judgment barring certain campaign activities (like collecting nearly a million bucks for his personal use, in connection with his political activities). Fortunately, Matt Davis was at the courthouse for an unrelated case, so he snapped the pic.

This one's for you, Bill:

Updated: 1:31 PM

Today's Sizemore entertainment comes complete with a mugshot!! Cribbed from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.

This morning in Salem, Governor Kulongoski released his 2009-2011 budget. The document includes maintaining the current level of expenditures for education, heavy investment in "green" technologies, health insurance for all of Oregon's children and an ambitious layout for improving transportation infrastructures.

From the Portland Tribune:

Among Kulongoski’s priorities for the next two years were education at all levels, which he said would not face cuts for at least a year; health care for children and low-income families, which would require the “rebuilding” of the Oregon Health Plan; investing in transportation, including roads, mass transit and other systems to stimulate job growth and move people and goods around the region; and launching an effort to combat global warming and improve the state’s environment.

To accomplish this, the governor said he would propose new increases in the state tobacco tax, increasing the minimum tax on corporations, adding a tax on health care providers to boost care for children and “modest” increases in the state fuel tax and motor vehicle registration fees.

“Oregon families are sitting around their kitchen tables trying to balance their own budgets,” Kulongoski said. “I want to create a vision for the future that inspires hope and confidence in the middle of an economic storm.”

As part of the plan, the governor said the budget probably would force “just about every agency” to make cuts to services and programs.

Discuss.

By all indications, tomorrow morning the President-elect will name his national security team - including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Jim Jones as National Security Advisor, and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.

Update: It's official. Obama has named Gates, Clinton, and Jones, as well as Susan Rice as UN Ambassador, Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Eric Holder as Attorney General.

Like many in the lefty blogosphere, I've been skeptically pondering these picks for a few weeks now. But I think I'm going to reach a different conclusion.

For the Obama Administration, I think it's a good thing that Bob Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, is going to stay on for the next year or so.

As a political hack, my first thoughts go to the political ramifications. Now, it's true that I'm concerned - as many are - that picking a Republican sends the wrong message: that Democrats can't operate the military.

But as a political hack who came of age in the Clinton years, I remember one thing about Bill Clinton's presidential transition: how distrustful the military brass was of the young fresh-faced liberal who hadn't served in uniform and was promising lots of big changes. It led them to manufacture the gays-in-the-military debacle as a way to "teach him a lesson", and immediately jammed up the Clinton team in its earliest days (and led to the absurd don't-ask/don't-tell policy - Clinton's attempt to walk a tightrope out of that mess.)

Now, we've got Barack Obama - another young fresh-faced liberal who hasn't served in uniform and is promising lots of big changes. (And don't forget, a certain chunk of the population is convinced he's a crypto-socialist and secret muslim who pals around with terrorists.)

If he's going to be a successful president - and any measure of success for him must include the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq - then he's got to move quickly to gain the trust of the military.

(Sure, the obvious response is, "Why does he need their trust? He's the commander-in-chief, they'll follow orders!" And that's true - but only to an extent. Without the trust of the military, especially the brass, they'll ONLY follow orders. They won't provide creative leadership, share their best advice, and worst of all, the best and brightest will leave.)

So, yeah, I've decided that I'm OK with keeping around the Secretary of Defense for a little while. In addition to quickly establishing trust, the move will also communicate loud and clear that the Iraq debacle was and continues to be Bush's Folly. Keeping Bob Gates around to wind things down is a way to say to the world: the Bushies made this mess, they're going to fix it.

And keep in mind: Gates was the principal author of the Iraq Study Group report, which was very critical about the way that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld went to war and managed the war. It's easy to paint all Republicans with the same brush (god knows, I do that all the time), but the Robert Gates position on Iraq is much closer to Barack Obama's than George Bush's.

It's clear that Obama is setting up a national security team full of strong personalities - unlike the Bush team, all of whom were subservient to Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative vision for a satellite state in Iraq.

In particular, Jim Jones will be a strong national security advisor with his own independent views and influence inside the Pentagon. After all, he's a former general who was the top military aide to the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton years. On Face the Nation today, Bob Woodward noted that Jones fought against the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal:

Jones comes out of the Rumsfeld Pentagon as one of the renegades, to a certain extent, who would say publicly that Rumsfeld had emasculated the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So Jones is strong and he's going to be a voice.

And then, there's the most important point: Barack Obama is the president, and he'll be the one setting the agenda. Unlike some candidates for president, his positions have been consistent and clearly stated throughout the campaign -- and with his big electoral victory, it's clear that he has a mandate to pursue his position.

As David Axelrod told Fox News last week:

There's one person who's going to set policy in this administration, and that's the president of the United States. That's true on the economy. It's true in foreign policy.

And what he wants are the people who are — who are most able to help advance that agenda. But the agenda will come from Barack Obama. He has a very clear sense where he wants to lead this country.

The people who he's recruiting for these jobs understand what that vision is. And they wouldn't be joining the administration if they're not willing to support and advance it.

And everyone who voted for Barack Obama can have great confidence that he's going to follow through on the commitments that he made.

I want President Obama to be successful. And not "successful", as in avoiding controversy and getting re-elected. I mean actually successful in achieving the progressive vision he outlined in the campaign - bringing our troops home from Iraq, universal health care, an economic strategy that values work and families, and a true commitment to energy independence and global warming.

And to do that, he's got to move fast and on multiple fronts. Keeping Bob Gates around is smart politics and the fastest way to bring our troops home from Iraq, and move on to a progressive agenda that goes beyond cleaning up after George W. Bush.

The Portland Tribune published a piece on their website a few days ago called What can you do for your country? And as soon as I read it I knew that I wanted to write about it. But there seems to be a subthread woven through it which seemed deserving of being dealt with on it's own. So inbetween all of the cooking I've done over the last several days - which I love doing - I've been mulling it. And I'm going to stick with the main theme.

Steve Novick is even willing to give up eating meat if his new president were to ask. Mind you, Novick, the Portland attorney who ran an unsuccessful campaign against Jeff Merkley for the Democratic nomination for U.S. senator, is just making a point.

Sort of. The point is, he’s inspired by President-elect Barack Obama’s victory. He wants to help. And he’s willing to sacrifice.

“I don’t consume all that much meat,” Novick says. “Let’s say Barack Obama said, ‘We’re using up a lot of natural resources to feed cows, and I ask you, just as an experiment, to get along without eating beef for the next month.’ I’d be willing to do that.

“If he asked me, for six months, don’t eat farm-raised tuna, and instead eat sardines and anchovies when I feel like fish, I’d be willing to do that.”

In short, Novick, like a lot of others in a county that delivered Obama a 77 percent to 20 percent margin over Sen. John McCain, is waiting to hear what it is he can do. And Novick, like many others in Portland – young and old, black and white – is willing to do just about anything.

So the question is simple enough: What are you willing to do for your country?

Think about it before you answer because it's easy to think of change being the undoing of the damage BushCo have created. But if nothing changes... then nothing changes.

Notice how Steve Novick's response was solely about what he could change about himself. As capable as we all know he is of pushing back against wingnuttery, ranging from the malevolent to the merely misguided, that's not what he understands this to be about. It is about self-sacrifice for the common good. And that, my friends, is the very essence of civic-mindedness, which seems to me to be what we all need now more than ever.

I'd like to suggest that the self-sacrifice need not be limited to things. It could also be ideas or concepts. The nattering nabobs are going to natter because that's what nabobs do. But I don't have to buy into it. I don't have to give it a platform by responding to it. I can choose to overlook the splinter in my neighbor's eye and focus on the log in my own. Or at least be willing to accept that my own personal sacred cows became sacred in the context of the past and perhaps are due for re-examination. Becky Miller put it this way: Stop the viral pandemic.

“So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.” – Barack Obama

Whether it be consumption patterns or thought patterns or something else, if nothing changes then nothing changes.

Being the token liberal rebel in a family cast of conservatives isn't an easy task during the holidays. There's not a whole lot of talk about politics and religion at our gatherings because the potential to introduce a legitimate knock-down, drag-out fight is real.

Its disappointing, to be honest. Politics is one of my big loves. So the small talk that comes along with having to come up with other stuff to discuss can be tedious and boring. But the risk of things devolving to talk of naked Communism is just too much.

I would love to disabuse my conservative family members of their notions about my beliefs, and about liberalism in general. They seem to have a lot of notions that with some thoughtful explanation, might be reversed.

1. I love my country. I don't hate America. I'm head over heels for the United States--and the promise that our forefathers laid down for us. The concepts of liberty and justice for ALL citizens--and the notion that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" applies to everyone is part of the lust in my heart for this nation. Our founding documents fill me with awe and a great swell of pride in the idealism they set forth.

We're not perfect as a nation because, well, we're human. We've got some warts--some of which we've worked to fix (slavery, labor laws, voting rights). But we've still got some fairly outstanding problems. Those problems often stem from human vices that are part of our nature.

The moral contract between the citizenry and the government is what drives me to push back against the war in Iraq, torture, ending habeus corpus and the host of other similar actions. They have been implemented by those in our nation who've exploited fear, avarice and other implements of human frailty, contributing to our national erosion.

Too often it seems that these frailties are overlooked and subverted for more nefarious purposes. A sugar-coat of nationalism is placed around them in order to shame those who call them out. But loving your country means staying in the fray, pushing to get us to that higher place incepted by our founders. I fight because I love.

2. The security of our nation is one of my highest priorities. It seems like this one is where we get lost in the translation of "security". Security to me means a reasonably safe food and drug supply, an earth that will remain intact and habitable by human beings, access to a solid education and job training and health care. And yes, military defense is intertwined. But its not the end-game.

3. The free market rocks. Again, this one can come down to definitions. And without the free flow of information about the market with its accompanying goods and services, consumers are unable to make appropriately informed decisions. This is where regulations often come in. The market is still free to flow with goods and services--but tempered by the open exchange of information about those goods and services. Then you start throwing in unfettered ability of workers to negotiate (to make things really free), and that's where I think most conservatives fall away from free market ideas.

4. I have deep admiration and respect for those who serve our nation in uniform. To choose to serve our country in the armed forces is a great thing--especially nowadays. I support the GI Bill and am appalled at those who don't because it might discourage reenlistment in favor of education (huh?) Many who enlist do so in order to better themselves and their lives. The least we can do for those who put their lives at risk for us is to see that they get a solid education and generous health care benefits. It infuriates me when those promises are broken. These men and women should be honored for their service, not held down so that they can pad the recruitment numbers.

5. Being well-educated is not elitist and is not a bad thing. It seems bizarre to have to pixel that sentence, but apparently its necessary. Having a college degree doesn't disqualify a person from participating in the American discourse. In fact, I submit that those more educated among us are the most qualified to often lead the discourse. That doesn't put me out of touch with the middle class because HELL..I AM the middle class. I believe that sending well-paying jobs overseas is terrible for our economy and our citizens. I believe that people losing their life savings because of a health care crisis is a problem that must be solved immediately--and those that stand in the way of that progress should be politically steamrolled. And how did we get to middle-class? Did we all start out there? Or did some pretty high falutin government programs (like Social Security, Medicare, FHA/VA loans) aid our ancestors along the way?

6. I'm a family-values woman. I believe deeply in family and the structures that go along with it. But I don't for a minute believe that there is only one way to be a family--and that's where many conservatives lose me. I've witnessed for myself the ability of several gay couples to happily live together and raise wonderful children. I've also seen hetero couples do the same. I've seen couples both gay and straight fail miserably at it. Its not about who is gay or straight or race/creed, etc. In fact its often about the other factors I've already talked about: health care, jobs, money, class, education, etc.

7. I'm not interested in taxing you out of house and home. But we live in the same country and we require government to do some things for viability and security. Those things, despite what has been inferred upon us by some, cost money. Taxes are the dues we pay for living in this free society. I believe in strong oversight of government spending and programs--especially to make them as efficient and effective as possible. But to "drown government" in the bathtub a la Norquist is the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This idea is completely irresponsible and a slap in the face to those who founded this nation.

8. Being a "godless liberal" doesn't make me immoral or amoral. And many liberals are deeply religious (I'm just not one of them) I have many things I hold deeply sacred: family, community, the Constitution, the earth and its systems, for example. I live my life accordingly. Are my conservative religious family members really and truly more *moral* than me, simply because they believe in God and go to church? Do I love and nurture my family less because I don't seek the guidance of God in my daily life? I choose to live a moral life because for me its the right thing to do--not because a higher authority tells me to do it.

9. Personal responsibility is part of my creedo. More definitions at play here, but the concept is simple: you reap what you sow. Or karma is a bitch. Pick your poison.

Our system of justice and law must absolutely follow through with that concept. Law is also about equity and basic fairness--and when it isn't, corruption soon follows.

10. I believe that the stick and the carrot have equal value. That doesn't mean I don't know how to be tough and badass when the situation merits. Its that I've read enough history and understand human nature enough to know that the positive can often outweigh the negative. And that working for understanding can solve as many (or more) problems that running roughshod with a well-equipped arsenal.

Some notes on things that you might have missed over the weekend:

• Remember that wacky story about how Congressman Peter DeFazio might be appointed to lead the FAA? Unlike we mere bloggers who delight in scuttlebutt, journalists like the O's Jeff Mapes get paid to actually find out the facts. DeFazio ain't interested.

• One of our new state legislators has changed his name. Jules Kopel-Bailey is now Jules Kopel Bailey. In other words, he'll be Representative Bailey -- much simpler, though his reasons are more personal. WW has the backstory.

• There's a whole activist subculture in politics of people who spend their days and nights worrying about voting machines -- often with very good reason. So, here in Oregon, Rep. Mitch Greenlick crafted legislation in 2007 to require county clerks to conduct a mandatory hand recount of 3 to 10% of the precincts across at least three races. If the results change by just 0.5%, a full hand recount would be ordered up.

  So, how'd this first test turn out? From the O:

  Postelection hand tallies of select ballots show that Oregon's counting machines are indeed accurate, state and county elections officials reported this week. ...

  In Clackamas County, workers retallied roughly 6,000 ballots in six precincts for president, appellate court judge and sentencing Ballot Measure 61.

  The hand recount showed judicial candidate Timothy J. Sercombe missed out on two votes that were marked too faintly for machines to pick up. Machines also marked a yes vote for Measure 61 that should have been a no vote.

  In Multnomah County, which retallied more than 8,000 ballots, results showed that John McCain got a vote he shouldn't have and that president-elect Barack Obama did not get one he should have. State treasurer candidates Ben Westlund and Allen Alley each picked up a vote. ...

• Interesting discussion over at the Portland Mercury about dogs that attack people, and what should be done about them. It seems to me, and I'm sure many of you, that whether the dogs are bred to be violent or trained to be violent, the blame lies squarely with the humans that did it to 'em.

  Seems to me that there oughta be a law. If you own a dog that has to be euthanized because it attacked a person, then you should be barred from owning dogs. What do you think?

• If Hillary is indeed appointed Secretary of State, NY Governor David Paterson has a nightmare political problem on his hands -- who to appoint to replace her? Should it be another woman? What about a person of color? Someone from New York City? Or elsewhere in the state? What about Andrew Cuomo and Robert Kennedy Jr. - both scions of prominent New York politicians? I agree with this suggestion, from the WaPo:
  If, as is expected, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes secretary of state, New York Gov. David Paterson could send her husband to the U.S. Senate. ...

  Who in his party could question so historic and dazzling a choice? In a stroke, the appointment would provide Sen. Clinton's indefatigable husband with a fitting day job, serve the interests of a state beset by a meltdown in its most vital economic sector and offer a refreshing reverse twist on a tradition whereby deceased male senators, representatives or governors are succeeded by their widows.

After a weekend spent watching college football, my deep thoughts tonight are entirely football-related.

(Based on the number of BlueOregon readers I spotted whose Facebook status was football-related, I'm guessing this post is OK. Apologies to our regular sports-hating commenters. Move along.)

• For someone who is neither a Duck nor a Beaver, the Civil War game was great fun - with over 100 total points scored and over 1100 yards of offense. Congrats to the Ducks.

• The big controversy - which we're going to hear about for years to come - is which Big 12 South team ought to be in their championship game against Missouri. After all, three teams - Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech - have only one loss each, and only to each other.

  Rather than this BCS-ranking tiebreaker silliness, I'm with the ESPN commentator who said that they should break the tie by rewarding the team with the highest graduation rate. He might have been joking, but I like it. By the way, that would send Texas Tech (79%) to the championship - not Texas (50%) or Oklahoma (46%). (Which explains why the Tech coach is pushing the idea.)

• Wacky prediction: Whichever team does NOT get to move forward to the Big 12 championship game is going to win the Heisman Trophy. Consolation prizes and all that. (Note: this is a wild-ass guess, not a scientific projection from my site StiffArmTrophy.com, where I've correctly projected the Heisman winner six years in a row.)

• Why, oh why, do we have a system in Division I-A that could produce four undefeated teams - and yet not put the top 8 or 12 teams in a playoff? I agree with President-elect Barack Obama on this. Too bad that Oregon's own Dave Frohnmayer - and a bunch of other powerful university presidents disagree:
  "We deely respect the president-elect and we are glad that he is a fan of college football," Frohnmayer said in an e-mail response to ESPN Tuesday. "We have the most compelling regular season in all of sports, and I'm sure that contributes to Senator Obama's enjoyment of our great game."

  "My colleagues and I on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee have discussed the future of postseason football on many occasions and we do not believe a playoff would be in the best interest of the sport, the student-athletes or our many other constituencies," Frohnmayer said.

  The question that Frohnmayer and the rest have failed to answer is this: If a playoff is so antithetical to academics, then why is a playoff OK for Division I-AA, II, and III, but not for Division I-A?

• We're now down to three black head coaches in Division I-A football (at the Universities of Houston, Buffalo, and Miami), out of 119 universities. If an African-American can be President of the United States, I'm sure an African-American could be a head football coach at a top-tier program. (Speaking of which, Notre Dame's Charlie Weis is living proof of the double standard.)

It's been quite some time since a Civil War game had so much at stake. In addition to "the right to live in the state", the OSU Beavers could clinch a trip to the Rose Bowl for the first time in 44 years. And the Ducks would love nothing more than to deny their rivals exactly that.

Governor Ted Kulongoski, a University of Missouri alumnus who usually stays neutral, has taken a position this year:

Gov. Ted Kulongoski tipped his hand today on which team he wants to win Saturday's "Civil War" football game between the University of Oregon Ducks and the Oregon State University Beavers. Color him black and orange.

"The Ducks won't go to the Rose Bowl if they win," the governor said. "I want the Beavers to go to the Rose Bowl."

After a year of dividing ourselves along red and blue lines, this is the day for dividing ourselves along green and orange lines. Where do you come down?

By Jesse Springer of Eugene, Oregon. Jesse is a long-time political cartoonist and illustrator. Previously, he contributed "Trick or Treat!"

The area of Jackson County that runs the I-5 Corridor showed up on Election Day for Barack Obama and Jeff Merkley, according to the Medford Mail-Tribune:
A swath of Jackson County extending from southwest Medford to the California border voted solidly for President-elect Barack Obama, a recently released precinct breakdown of the Nov. 4 election reveals.

A majority of Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Pinehurst and four precincts in Medford went for Obama, along with Applegate and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs center in White City, according to the Jackson County Elections Center.

In 2004, only nine of 52 precincts in the county went Democratic, but this election 17 precincts went blue, giving Obama a slim 47-vote edge over Sen. John McCain.

The paper also notes a surge by Merkley--led by Obama voters:

Many of the precincts that voted for Obama also generally voted for Jeff Merkley, who won the U.S. senatorial race against incumbent Gordon Smith.

Blue Oregon's own Paulie Brading is widely quoted in the piece, too:

"It sounds to me like we have a blue corridor going," said Paulie Brading, chairwoman of the Jackson County Democratic Central Committee.

She said the wins in precincts south of Medford correspond with some of the anecdotal reports received from volunteers during the campaign.

More Paulie:

Brading said the county historically has been a Republican stronghold, but she sees a change with this election.

"I think the demographics are changing a lot in the county," she said.

Discuss.

Yesterday, Governor Ted Kulongoski unveiled plans to extend health care to uninsured children throughout Oregon.

From the Statesman-Journal:

Gov. Ted Kulongoski said Tuesday he agrees with the recommendation of a seven-member board to expand health insurance coverage to most of the 116,000 Oregon children without it.

He said he will propose a small amount in his next budget, which he will unveil Monday, to begin the next steps toward providing coverage for the other 460,000 Oregonians without it, while controlling costs and improving quality of care.

But he also said Oregon cannot reach those goals without more time — and a national overhaul that President-elect Barack Obama is weighing now.

In 2007, the Governor proposed funding the healthy kids plan through a tobacco tax - which was defeated by voters after cigarette makers waged the most expensive ballot measure fight in Oregon history. How does the Governor propose we fund it this time? From the O:

The state would pay for the expansion with a broader provider tax on hospitals and insurers, raising about $700 million during the next two years and leveraging more than $1 billion more in federal matching money.

The governor said prospects are good for the expansion. "It's going to happen," he said.

The Oregon Health Fund Board, a seven-member task force the Legislature created to fix the state health care system, handed the governor a 162-page blueprint for reform, called "Aim High: Building a Healthy Oregon." The panel crafted its plan during the past year with volunteer committee help from doctors, hospitals, insurers and others in the health care industry and testimony from hundreds of Oregonians across the state.

Of course, this is far from the end of the road:

The plan warns the state must act swiftly to dramatically change its health care system or the average cost of family health insurance will equal the average family wage within five years.

"We can't continue to fund a broken system," said Eileen Brady, vice chairwoman of the board and co-owner of New Seasons Market.

Most features of the plan are devoted to transforming the state's $19 billion health care industry with the aim of containing costs, improving quality and promoting health. The state would create a nine-member Oregon Health Authority Board to oversee the overhaul.

The board would collect information on health insurance claims and hospital costs, establish best practices standards and measures for health care quality, and give consumers more information on the costs and quality of doctors and hospitals. The state would regulate doctor and hospital fees and the administrative costs of insurers.

Like the Governor, I agree that getting us to truly universal health care requires a national solution. That said, it's good to see that folks aren't just sitting around waiting for it to happen.

Today, President-elect Barack Obama made his pick for budget chief official. It's going to be Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, and a former budget director for President Clinton. If you want the baseline political story, there's plenty to read.

But here's the main thing to know: Orszag has become a major proponent of the argument that universal health care can actually SAVE taxpayers money and reduce the deficit - along with boosting our national economy.

As the Eugene Register-Guard noted today in an editorial about Senator Ron Wyden's health care plan:

After analyzing the latest revision of Wyden’s plan, Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orzag estimated that his approach would become budget-neutral after two years and “in the third year will begin lowering costs.”

After just a few years, Orzag said, Wyden’s plan would be “more than self-financing.”

Health care wonk/blogger Ezra Klein notes that Orszag has become an advocate for a major health care overhaul - not incrementalist fixes:

Orszag will be coming from the Congressional Budget Office, OMB's legislative cousin. There, he's shown an almost single-minded focus on health care reform. He's added dozens of health care analysts to the staff, reconstructed the health policy division's management structure, and is readying to release two major books on health policy options and CBO's health care scoring models that will be extremely central in how Congress looks at building a health care bill. Amidst all that, he's toured the country giving a slide show about the problems of the health care system, the overwhelming danger it poses to our fiscal condition, the incredible inefficiencies that beset the delivery, and the research that suggests reform could not only save money but also improve care. He's also acted as a powerful and credible counterweight to those who counsel incrementalism, or delay, on health reform. ...

In other words, one of Obama's top economic advisers will be an economist who has clearly stated that he thinks health care reform central to our fiscal future, who has said that he considers delay or denial a dangerous impulse, and who has proven himself willing to leverage his position and agency to argue that position. That's important, as it assures that there will be voices around Obama arguing that health care is more than simply another item on the lengthy liberal wish list.

Excellent.

In a Salem press conference today, House Speaker-Designee Dave Hunt and Majority Leader Mary Nolan rolled out the Dems initial plan for job creation and family support. The outline is brief and in some cases a little thin in specifics, but here are the high points:

*Push up the start dates for already budgeted/approved construction projects
*Increase bonding to jump start process for more projects
*Affordable housing construction program
*Apprenticeships and job training with BOLI, unions, schools, etc.
*"Modernize" Oregon's transportation system
*Create opportunites for green energy markets in-state.
*Increase the number of insured children and families
*Expand unemployment insurance
*Retrain displaced workers, veterans and single parents
*Expand access to higher education
*Renewable energy investment via biomass
*Increase Farm-to-School program
*Encourage innovation and collaboration with investment in rural communities and vocations such as forestry, fishing and manufacturing.

You can see the plan as sent out by the House Dems here.

I don't know that there's much I can add to this yet. What I've seen so far doesn't include enough meat to really understand exactly what they'd like to do. That said, it does seem like they're heading in a good direction.

Do you see some holes in the overarching plan? Are they on the right track?

Governor Kulongoski has a brilliant idea - and he's put it in writing to President-elect Obama: Rapidly fire up a stimulus package by spending money on deferred maintenance at public colleges and universities. After all, the projects are already quantified and itemized, don't require lengthy approvals (as transportation infrastructure does), and would inject money into both urban and rural places.

From the O:

Kulongoski said he plans to send a letter to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team with a proposal to direct billions in federal stimulus dollars to cover deferred maintenance at colleges in Oregon and around the nation.

If they want to do something with an immediate impact, he said, "they should poll all 50 states and say, 'We want to know what your deferred maintenance is on your university campuses.'" Oregon's backlog is about $650 million, he said. ...

Under his plan, the government would commit to starting work within six months of Obama signing the order. That would be possible, he said, because colleges have the projects lined up and ready to go. They just need the money.

Needs on Oregon campuses range from new ventilation systems to electrical wiring overhauls in aging buildings, according to a report by the Oregon University System. Oregon State University has the biggest need, with about $228 million in deferred maintenance. Next is Portland State, with $167 million in needs.

"The one thing about these kinds of projects is, we have been thinking about them, quantifying them and planning them for a long time," said George Pernsteiner, Oregon's higher education chancellor. "It's not like we have to make them up out of whole cloth."

Discuss.