Oregon’s US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR3), the author of the original rider who then lobbied Medicare to cover the service, claimed a victory with the publishing of the regulation. Republicans accuse him of trying to slip one past them. Again, we have a case of where the Republican Party wants to politicize the minutiae of every health care provision out there.

In face, I am still confused as to how allowing patients to discuss their end-of-life wishes with their doctors (and having the visit covered by insurance) constitutes a “death panel.”

Is the problem that it is uncomfortable to discuss our eventual demise? We will all die someday. I certainly want to live as long as possible, but I have no desire to be hooked up to machines for the sole purpose of keeping the fluids running through my body a little while longer. Is it not reasonable to discuss this with (and ask questions of) my doctor so that I can make a reasonable medical choice?

Or is the problem simply an objection to having the insurance plan pay for such a visit? Is that what this is all about?

In either case, where does “Obama Care” talk about a panel of people deciding our fate? Where does it talk about people making decisions as to whether we live or die? If we are talking about a question as to whether or not the insurer will pay for the procedure, then the insurance system we have now already has “death panels.” Frankly, if we object to this, we should be doing something about that situation now.

It is disingenuous to complain that the insurance plan does not cover every possible medical procedure, then to complain that a plan with such complete coverage would cost too much. And then to complain about “death panels” being formed when the reply is that we will cut costs.

Sarah Palin and her ilk are great at coming up with catchy marketing phrases to communicate their displeasure with a proposal, but are completely and thoroughly unable to formulate a reasonable proposal that would satisfy them.

Each time an issue like this comes up, it just reinforces how ill-equipped the Republican Party is to actually govern. I have to compliment them on their ability to market themselves well to the masses of people who do not follow politics closely. They send a message to those who are not paying attention, yet deserve to be treated better. Too bad their message does not accurately reflect their agenda.

Perhaps are government is not doing as well as it should. There is certainly room for improvement. Yet it would seem to be the height of foolishness to put the people in charge who are openly trying to destroy us. Why can’t the Republicans discuss the issues rationally?

Share via email

Article I, section 20.
All persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident, or the presumption great. Bail may be denied for offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence that creates a substantial likelihood of danger to the community or any persons, subject to such limitations as shall be determined by the legislature.

This measure was drafted after the shooting and killing of four Lakewood police officers by Maurice Clemons, a felon from Arkansas who had been released on bail bending a trial that would have resulted in a life prison term.  Given the initial confusion concerning this case, it is not a certainty that this measure would have resulted in Clemons being denied bail in this particular case.

I am recommending a YES vote on this measure, but I do so with reservations.  Please let me explain.

I feel that it is important that our judges have the ability to keep dangerous people off the streets in the situation really warrants that solution.  If it is perfectly clear that this is a necessary tool to keep our citizens safe.

However, I also feel that this is a tool that needs to be used very, very sparingly.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of room for abuse if we allow it to happen.  While it may be clear that a particular person, because of the specific circumstances of their crimes or the surrounding story, might be denied bail, it is also very important that this be a tool that is only used in the most clear of circumstances.

I, like a lot of people in the state, was appalled by just how difficult it is to keep criminals in jail when necessary.  On the other hand, we cannot let the image of Maurice Clemons and his grizzly crime taint the concept that all people are innocent until they are proved guilty.  There needs to be a very compelling reason to invoke this provision.  It can be a useful tool.  But we need to go out of our way to ensure that this measure is not used on a regular basis.  As much as possible, we must allow our accused citizens the opportunity to be free on bail until they are proved guilty.

On this measure, you may need to vote your vote your conscience and vote no.  I would understand if you did.  But we do need to consider that it is particularly difficult under Washington law to withhold bail if necessary to provide safety to the public in general.  I would recommend a YES vote, however I also recomend keeping tabs on how this tool is used in the future.

Share via email

One problem that has arose is that the patients themselves are required to cultivate their own crop of marijuana, or more likely, acquire it from an unapproved source.  Over time, it has become apparent that a system would be needed to grow the needed crop, without at the same time giving illicit drug providers an excuse to ply their trade.  Thus, we have a plan, with Oregon Ballot Measure 74, to establish a medical marijuana supply system to provide marijuana of a suitable quality and sufficient, consistent strength to safely do its job. The measure would allow limited selling of marijuana to these patients, if it is grown within the parameters of the law.

This seems to be a winning proposition, no matter which side of the original law you stand on.  If you support the use of medical marijuana, you will appreciate the effort to provide a safe supply of the drug to all who need it, without having to turn to a “black market” to get their supply.  If you were against the concept of legal medical marijuana, a no vote on this measure will not change anything about the current situation.  However, the measure will provide a system to contain the distribution of the marijuana.  This would help to keep the people not entitled to receive the drug from doing so, and would curb the increase in places that offer the drug to those needing it.

If you don’t like the idea of medical marijuana, passing this measure will help to control the supply of the drug.  Passing this measure will stop a problem that currently happens in California, where there are few restrictions on who can provide marijuana.

If you do use medical marijuana, or know someone who does, passing this measure will allow the patients to get a proper supply of the drug they need.  It will keep them from having to grow their own, a process that leads to unsure results.

In all, this measure is a winner for everyone.  Please join me in voting YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 74.

Share via email

In general, I am opposed to blanket laws that set a particular sentence for a crime, taking the authority away from a judge to choose the sentence that fits the needs of the particular criminal.  While it is easy to step back as a citizen and say that we should be harsher on the criminals, only the judge and those persons who worked on the case have the insight in a particular situation to make a correct decision.  Were there extenuating circumstances that make this particular case different than others?  Does the punishment fit the severity of the crime?  Would a different punishment help the offender reform and become a contributing member of society?  We do not live in a one-size-fits-all world.  The punishment must be the proper one.

In the case of Ballot Measure 73, we are taking two very different crimes and deciding what the proper punishments should be.  The measure sets a minimum sentence of 25 years for multiple sex crimes, and 90 days for third-time offenders of driving under the influence of intoxicants.  At a very basic level, I am not quite sure how a person would vote if they thought one of those two things were a good idea and the other was not.  I’m sure the drafters of this flawed measure thought the same thing, and are hoping we will just vote yes to “put the bad guys away in jail.”

Don’t get me wrong here. I believe that most sex criminals should be dealt with harshly.  Rapists should go to prison for a long time.  I also believe that DUI offenders should be dealt with harshly.  But I see no evidence presented that the  sentences prescribed in this measure are the best for each case.  Why wouldn’t a sex offender be best punished with a 20-year sentence?  Or a 40-year sentence?  Wouldn’t the age of the suspect and the particular crime committed have something to do with the appropriate sentence?

In the matter of sex crimes,  I worry about the things that may happen where this sentence does not fit the crime.  We can agree that child pornography is a bad thing.  So, if a teenager sends a naked picture of themselves to friends as a prank, and does it on multiple occasions, do they deserve to go to prison for a minimum of 25 years?  Hardly.  Does a family picture of Daddy giving baby a bath constitute child pornography?  No, however some have been accused of this crime when sending the photos to a developer.  I think we are at a loss if we do not allow the judge to insert come common sense into these situations.  If we feel the need to prescribe a sentence for these crimes, let’s do so after a public discussion of what those sentences should be, and under what circumstances.

Finally, if we are going to institute penalties that put people in prison for longer periods of time, we need to decide how we are going to tax ourselves to raise the money to do this.  We need to commit to paying for this if we pass it, without taking away from schools or police or other necessary programs.

If we want to change our sentencing structure, fine, let’s do just that.  However, this changing things one crime at a time, without appropriate debate on the matter, is simply ridiculous.  So is trying to pass off two very different measures in one ballot measure, without the option to consider one or the other separately.

For these reasons, please join me in voting NO on Oregon Ballot Measure 73.

Share via email

This measure proposes authorizing lowest-cost borrowing for the state’s real and personal property projects. Currently, the state constitution forbids lending the state’s credit or borrowing in excess of $50,000. The measure would amend the state constitution to add a new exception to allow the state to issue general obligation bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, remodeling, repair, equipping, or furnishing of state owned property.

General obligation bonds are the cheapest method of borrowing that the state may use.  This would cost less than the financing arrangements that the state currently uses.

The bonds would save about $5 million on interest costs for every $100 million worth of bonds that are issued. The measure does not actually authorize any bonds, but authorizes the Legislature to enact implementing legislation. The measure prohibits the levy of property taxes to repay the bonds and limits the amount of outstanding bonds to 1% of the real market value of property in the state.

In effect, all this measure is doing is letting the state borrow money for schools and other buildings and major projects at the lowest possible rates.  There is no added risk to the public.  There is no known organized opposition to the measure.

Share via email

Fast forward now to the 21st Century.  Our business is not now measured in annual growing seasons, it runs at the speed of light as the businesses of today are expected to be running continuously to be competitive.  In our state capitol, the governor and the courts are always operating in an effort to keep the state running.  It would only make sense that the legislative branch of the government meet on at least an annual basis.  Currently, Oregon is one of only six states where the legislature does not meet annually.

That brings us to Oregon Ballot Measure 71.  Measure 71 would allow the Oregon Senate and House of Representatives to meet every year to consider the state’s business at hand.  It would allow the legislature to discuss the needs of the state, both in terms of the budget and general law, on a timely basis.  It is about time that we allow this change to occur.

The main fear of opponents to this measure is that a full-time legislature would be on hand to actively change laws all the time.  In fact, the new measure would actually limit sessions to 160 days in the currently authorized odd-numbered years, and to only 35 days in the new even-numbered-year sessions.  That is not exactly a “full-time” legislature by any stretch.  However, it does allow our leaders to get their work done as they should.  There are provisions to extend the sessions in 5-day increments in extenuating circumstances, or to meet, if necessary, in emergency situations.

In fact, there is a subset of the legislature, the Legislative Emergency Board, that considers periodic budget adjustments and allocates needed funds to things that come up between sessions.  This measure would allow the entire legislature to consider some of these matters, rather than only a smaller number of them.  This could have the effect of promoting more accountability within the system.

I would encourage you to consider this constitutional amendment that brings Oregon’s government into the 21st Century.  Please vote YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 71.

Share via email

Ballot Measure 70 would expand the availability of home ownership loans for Oregon veterans through the Oregon War Veterans’ Fund.  A yes vote would extend the home loan program for Oregon veterans  and increases eligibility for non-combat veterans, National Guard veterans, and the veterans who served after September 11th.

The Oregon Constitution currently provides that Oregon combat veterans may receive low-interest home loans from the Oregon War Veterans’ Fund. These veterans must have received an honorable discharge and must have served for more than 210 consecutive days or been released because of injury or disability.  This measure amends the Oregon Constitution to make loans available to more
veterans, including National Guard veterans, others who have honorably served overseas and veterans who have not seen actual combat.  Many of these veterans have served our country, putting their own lives at risk for us.

However, in today’s military, we are using more of the services of national guard and reservists, who may serve over time, but not necessarily for 210 consecutive days.  This measure reflects this reality and would make the low interest home loans a lifetime benefit and would increase the number of honorably discharged veterans and surviving spouses who are eligible for the low-interest loan program.

The number of veterans who would be affected by this is likely small, but it would be an important gesture to make for them.  There is no real opposition to this measure.  It simply updates the constitution to reflect the realities of those serving in today’s military.

Please join me in voting YES on Oregon Ballot Measure 70 in the upcoming November election.

Share via email

Certainly, you are already being bombarded by political ads on television and radio, and the onslaught is just beginning. In the coming weeks, I will have discussions on what all of these measures are about for helping you decide the matters for yourself. In the meantime, here is a summary of the issues that you will be asked to become experts on:

The Washington Judge Bail Authority Amendment will give state judges the ability to deny bail whenever they deem that the public might be at risk.  It is estimated this might cover around 5,000 prisoners per year.   This was a reaction to the killer of the four Lakewood Police officers last year by a felon who was out on bail.

The Washington State Debt Limits Amendment will alter the way interest is calculated in state debt limits in the constitution to make Washington eligible for a new federal subsidy.  This is merely a housekeeping measure.

Referred Bill 52, Washington Schools Energy Efficiency Projects, will call for a $500 million bond that lawmakers estimate would create 40,000 new jobs in public school and government building renovations. The bond proceeds would be spent on replacing roofs, installing insulation, cleaning mold-infested buildings, and making energy-saving improvements. These improvements would take place on school campuses and state offices throughout the state.

Initiative 1100, the Washington Privatize State Liquor Stores Initiative
Initiative 1105, the Washington Revised State Liquor Laws Initiative
These two competing measures have many similarities and also some differences.  In the end, they are both looking to close the Washington state-owned liquor stores and allow private sellers to sell the liquor that they now sell.  It would also change the way that the state collects taxes on the liquor and the profits they make from liquor store sales. Besides, the best question might be what happens if they both pass?

Initiative 1082, the Washington Workers’ Comp Insurance Reform Initiative will try to privatize the publicly-run workers compensation system. Yes, despite what the ads will say, this is a way for corporations to save a few dollars and a new way for workers who are injured on the job to be screwed. (Did he say screwed? As a matter of fact, yes!) And, get this, isn’t it the Republican party, friends of the big corporations, that are claiming that if we save the big corporations money, that they will help the workers? Yeah, right.

Initiative 1098, the Washington State Income Tax Initiative will reduce your Washington property tax bill by 20%. It will make Washington a better place to start or operate a small business by cutting the Business & Occupation Tax on small businesses. It would generate an additional $2 billion per year to fund health care and education. It will do it by instituting a state income tax on individuals making over $200,000 per year or couples making over $400,000 per year. Opponents will tell you that rich people will flee Washington and head for one of the five remaining states without an income tax. Just like they have in 45 other states. Or not.

Initiative 1053, the Washington Tax Initiative, is the “off the wall” offering of that crazy Tim Eyman in this particular election.  He, and his financial backers, believe that certain legislative or initiative measures should not be adopted, even if a majority of Washingtonians want them to pass.  In the case of certain tax-related laws, they would not be adopted unless 2/3 of those voting voted “yes” on them.  In effect, this is a measure where we are voting to say whether the will of the people should be considered or not in certain cases.  Surprisingly, it would not require a 2/3 majority of the people voting yes for this measure to pass.  That should be telling in itself, no?  I’m comfortable with a system where the majority of the people decide on issues, thank you.

Initiative 1107, the Washington Repeal Tax Law Amendments Initiative, would reduce tax rates for certain food processors, end the sales tax on candy, and end the temporary sales tax on some bottled water and carbonated beverages. For those who are deeply concerned as to whether or not they have to pay sales tax on the purchase of that candy bar or can of soda.

As you can now see, you will have a lot of studying to do before the final exam on November 2.  As you are bombarded with ads between not and than, feel free to count how many actually make reasoned arguments for or against these measures.  It will certainly be easier than counting the ones making random, nice-sounding, but implausible (or irrelevant) statements about each issue.

Share via email

The following have qualified for the November 2010 Oregon Ballot:

Measure 70: The Oregon Veteran Home Loans Expansion.  The State of Oregon, through the Oregon War Veterans Fund, offers low-interest to war veterans from Oregon.  A quirk in the wording in the Oregon Constitution tends to disqualify many members of the military reserves who were called up and served in war zones from being eligible for this program.  This measure makes the program available to a few more worthy people.

Measure 71: The Oregon Legislature Annual Sessions Amendment.  Oregon is one of the few remaining states where the legislature still meets only every other year.  In modern times, our lawmakers need to meet every year to do the state’s business.

Measure 72: Oregon Property Projects.  The measure proposes authorizing lowest-cost borrowing for the state’s real and personal property projects.  Yes, it’s all pretty boring, but modernizes the state constitution to bring state borrowing options into the 21st century.

Measure 73: Oregon Minimum Criminal Sentence Increase.  Another of those measures that sounds good in sound bites but limits judges and prosecutors ability to give appropriate sentences to meet the needs of particular people, this one covers two very disparate subjects: Sex crimes and drunk drivers.  So, what happens if you agree with the increased penalties for one of these things and not for the other?  Stay tuned!

Measure 74: The Oregon Regulated Medical Marijuana Supply System Act.  Since we allow those people who have a medical condition that would be soothed by the use of marijuana to use it on a limited basis, it would make sense to allow people to grow it for their use. Or not, depending on how you want to vote.  It would make sense, if we are going to use this as a medicine, to research the quality standards of this medicine.

Measure 75:  The Oregon Job Growth Education And Communities Fund Act, Part II.  Don’t you just love the people who write some of these ballot measure titles who try to hide the real meaning of the measure.  Does anything in that title tell you that the point of this measure is to build exactly one privately-operated gambling casino in Multnomah County and nowhere else?  Does it mention that the supporters are the one company that would operate the casino?  And did we mention that it is unconstitutional to do this?  Thank goodness  for the ballot initiative in Oregon, where we can attempt to pass something, even if it’s illegal. Besides, you might wonder whatever happened to Part 1!)

Measure 76: The Oregon Lottery Funds for Natural Resources Amendment.  It will keep giving 15% of lottery proceeds to support development of parks, beaches, wildlife habitat, and watershed protection.  You choose.  I’ll give you both sides of the story.  But the real question is this:  What programs did we take the money from so we could fund parks and wildlife and so forth?

So there they are. Get to thinking about them. In the next few months, others will try to sway your decisions on these questions. Most will not share both sides of the story. Have fun, but beware!

Share via email

However, if we wanted to ask a question that was more to the point, just exactly why is it so bad to be a Muslim? The evidence is pretty clear that Obama, like a great number of Americans, is a Christian who goes to church on special occasions and when they feel the need. That is the same as a lot of people in this country, and it’s not necessarily bad. Likewise, why is it any better or worse to be a Christian or a Muslim or a follower of some other faith?

My question, one that no one in the media seems to be able to address right now, is just what is so wrong about being a Muslim? Some people are Christians, some are Muslim, some are Buddhists, some are Sikhs or Pagans or Jews or followers of any one of a number of other spiritual systems. The question: Since when did it become an insult to call someone a Muslim? Until we address that, we are just arguing over mindless accusations that detractors of the president seem to want to make to .

Until we can accept one another for who we are, without “hating” someone else merely because of their race or religion, then we are fairly well doomed as a society. And until we can speak of one another (as individuals in a country) without the racial or religious labels, we are truly showing our ignorance. I look at the media reports and see misinformation on both sides of this issue.

Some of these folks are seeing Christians and Muslims as an “either/or” situation. I may offend a few with this description, but not deliberately. Let me explain:

• Both Christians and Muslims believe that one God/Creator made the Earth.
• Both believe that one should worship the Creator on a regular basis.
• Both believe that regular prayer is a benefit to one’s life.
• Both believe in the words of a holy book, that in each case was written by wise men inspired by God, and at a basic level tell similar stories.
• Both holy books tell us how the world was created, how to worship and please God, and how to lead good and ethical lives.
• Both books are full of wisdom to live by.
• Both books have certain passages that could have very bad meanings, depending upon how they are interpreted.  In other words, if taken strictly and literally, and out of context, they both in places direct us to do things that are inappropriate by today’s standards.
• Both books, while for the most part directing us to do good and not to hurt others, have sections that say we might need to fight or kill people to preserve ourselves and our respective religions. In both cases, only those who already have a mind toward violence actually interpret those sections as a call to violence.
• Both religions have regular religious practice, a yearn for peace, a call to be charitable toward others, a call to be charitable toward their church, and a call to take care of ones self and others as their main focus.
• Both have lists of rules one would follow to lead a good and wholesome life.

There are a number of ways that the religions differ, of course. But if you look at those things, you will find that they are in the realm of “method of practice” than in actual dogma. Christianity is different from Islam, but not much more than the way that different sects of Christianity (Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Protestants, and so on) are different from one another.

I find that many Christians, despite claiming to love their neighbors and claiming to be tolerant toward others, will badmouth the Muslims as bad people.  On the other hand, I have found that a great many Christians will go out of their way to badmouth the practices of their fellow Christians who happen to practice in a different way in a different church.

Yes, this does oversimplify things somewhat. But in the end, in the things that matter, most of the world’s religions are truly not that different from one another. So, why are we demonizing the other religious people so much?  Aren’t we really only arguing over the method of religious practice and some minor doctrinal details, rather than in some really evil difference in what we believe?

Unless we really believe that anyone who doesn’t sit next to us on Sunday morning is the bad guy.

Anyone want to help me out on this?

Share via email