Tag Archives: oregon

by - 0 comments

Reshaping Oregon’s Kicker: If You Can’t Win the Game, Change the Rules

Like a casino that changes the Blackjack odds by shifting from one hand-held deck to multiple decks,  critics of Oregon’s kicker law are preparing for a stealth raid on your wallet.

State economist, Carl Riccadonna, hired in August by Gov. Tina Kotek, “has taken it upon himself to get the forecast more in line with reality” KGW reported in November. In other words, to try to minimize (or eliminate) it.

 “I think that the truing up of the calculation under the new chief economist is really going to be helpful to provide stability when we are trying to do budgeting every two years, ” Kotek said in November. 

The Oregon Legislature passed the “Two percent kicker” law in 1979.  It requires the state to refund surplus revenues to taxpayers when actual General Fund revenues exceed the forecast amount by more than two percent. The personal income tax kicker money comes from all state General Fund revenue sources, except for corporate tax revenues. Personal income tax is the largest contributor. In 2000, voters acting on a legislative referral put a large portion of the 2% surplus kicker statute into the state constitution (Article IX, Section 14).

In October 2023, the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) confirmed a $5.61 billion revenue surplus in the 2021-2023 biennium, triggering a tax surplus credit, or kicker, for the 2023 tax year. The surplus—the largest in state history[1]—was returned to taxpayers through a credit on their 2023 state personal income tax returns filed in 2024. 

Democrats, never at a loss for ideas on how to spend more government money, in league with unions and liberal special interest groups, are eager to see the kicker refunds throttled.

Because the kicker is in the Oregon Constitution, a ballot measure would need to be referred to the people to get them to surrender their Kicker refund, but don’t put it past the Democrat-dominated legislature to get creative to facilitate higher government spending.

“Oregon’s inaccurate revenue forecasting costs billions needed for critical public services,” said a memo Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon’s largest public-sector union, sent recently to Gov. Kotek.

SEIU research director, Daniel Morris, has complained that poor economic forecasting has resulted in too much money going out the door as kicker refunds.  “Over the last five forecasts it’s been embarrassingly bad,” he told OPB. “There are real consequences for the families of Oregon.”

Joe Baessler, interim executive director of  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 75, has lambasted the kicker as well. “They’re deciding to under-inflate our revenue,” said Baessler. “It forces budgeting that is not in line with how much revenue is coming into the state and rolls back the amount of money we have for services that Oregonians want.”

The Oregon Center for Public Policy regularly rails against the kicker too. “Oregon’s kicker is a policy that worsens income inequality, racial inequality and geographic inequality,” says the Center. 

With a new state economist committed to forecast reform, Democrats holding a supermajority in the Oregon House and Senate, Tina Kotek serving as governor, and special interest groups salivating over a bigger state budget, the generous kickers of the past are in jeopardy. Count on it. 

[1] Personal Income Kicker History

Two Percent Kicker, Biennia 1979-81 to 2021-23
BienniumTax YearSurplus/Shortfall ($ millions)PercentMean ($)
1979-811981-$141None–
1981-831983-$115None–
1983-851985$897.70%$80
1985-871987$22116.60%$190
1987-891989$1759.80%$130
1989-911991$186Suspended–
1991-931993$60None–
1993-951994/5$1636.27%$110
1995-971996/7$43214.37%$290
1997-991998/9$1674.57%$100
1999-012000/1$2546.02%$160
2001-032002/3-$1,249None–
2003-052004/5-$401None–
2005-072006/7$1,07118.60%$610
2007-092008-$1,113None–
2009-112010-$1,050None–
2011-132012$124None–
2013-152014$4025.60%$210
2015-172016$4645.60%$250
2017-192018$1,68817.17%$910
2019-212020$1,89817.34%$990
2021-232022$5,61944.28%
by - 0 comments

Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Invective Signals Trouble for Those With Temporary Protected Status

Photo: American Friends Service Committee

UPDATE 02/02/2025: The New York Times reported today that the Trump administration has ended Temporary Protected Status, or T.P.S., for more than 300,000 Venezuelans in the United States, leaving the population vulnerable to potential deportation in the coming months, according to government documents obtained by The New York Times. “The Trump administration’s attempt to undo the Biden administration’s T.P.S. extension is plainly illegal,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, who helps lead the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the U.C.L.A. School of Law. “The T.P.S. statute makes clear that terminations can only occur at the end of an extension; it does not permit do-overs.”

——————————————————-

President-elect Donald Trump has made it crystal clear. 

America’s “immigration crisis” is a “massive invasion” spreading “misery, crime, poverty, disease and destruction to communities all across our land” and the nation’s cities are being “flooded” by the “greatest invasion in history” of undesirables from “every corner of the earth, not just from South America, but from Africa, Asia, Middle East,” Trump bellowed at the Republican National Convention in July 2024.

One action Trump plans to take in response to the “invasion” is to cut back on the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. Set up in 1990, the program gave the federal government the ability to grant work permits and deferrals from deportation to nationals of any designated nation going through or recovering from natural or man-made disasters.

If you recall the uproar over unfounded claims that Haitians who live and work legally in Springfield, Ohio, were eating their neighbor’s cats and dogs, those Haitians are TPS holders. In an interview with NewsNation, Trump said the influx of migrants in Springfield “just doesn’t work” and “you have to remove the people; we cannot destroy our country.”

To say the least, the fate of those in Oregon with TPS will be precarious, too, under the upcoming Trump administration.

I asked Oregon’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement how many people in Oregon are here under the Temporary Protected Status program, but they never responded. But I located a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the TPS topic. According to the CRS, as of March 31, 2024, there were an estimated 2,705 individuals with TPS in Oregon, fewer than the 9,500 in Washington, but more than the 510 in New Mexico. The current number in many states is likely higher now because the number of TPS individuals in the United States has increased by about 150,000 since March. 

TPS offers qualifying individuals already in the U.S. work authorization and a temporary legal status to remain in the country if their home country is determined unsafe. TPS offers up to 18 months of relief to qualifying individuals based on the status of that country. For example, the TPS program is scheduled to end in March 2025 for El Salvador and in April 2025 for Sudan, Ukraine, and Venezuela. 

TPS designations can be terminated prior to expiration with 60 days notice. TPS status can also be extended by the Department of Homeland Security. For example, on Oct. 17, 2024, the department extended through Aug. 3, 2025, the validity of certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries under the designation of Haiti.

Since 1990, successive Republican and Democratic administrations have largely automatically renewed certain key TPS designations

The impact of Trump’s plans on current TPS holders could be calamitous. That’s partly because the number of people in the United States under TPS exploded under President Biden.

In 2020, TPS protected about 330,000 people from 10 countries who would otherwise be subjected to disease, violence, starvation, the aftermath of natural disasters, and other life-threatening conditions. The largest group of TPS recipients was from El Salvador (195,000 people) followed by Honduras (57,000 people) and Haiti (50,000 people).

Other countries with TPS holders included Nepal (8,950 people), Syria (7,000 people), Nicaragua (2,550 people), Yemen (1,250 people), Sudan (1,040 people), Somalia (500 people), South Sudan (84 people), Guinea (930 people), and Sierra Leone (1,180 people). 

With President Biden’s term winding down, there are now over 1 million immigrants in the United States under TPS status. Qualifying individuals include people from 16 countries, with Venezuelans, Haitians and Salvadoreans the largest groups of TPS beneficiaries.[1]

Under the Biden administration, new TPS designations have been issued for six countries (Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Myanmar [also known as Burma], Ukraine, and Venezuela), and extended for ten others (El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). The government has also granted or extended a similar protection, deferred enforced departure (DED), for people from Hong Kong and Liberia, with an estimated 3,900 and 2,800 covered respectively.

If a TPS designation ends, beneficiaries return to the immigration status that the person held prior to receiving TPS, unless that status has expired or the person has successfully acquired a new immigration status.

 If the Trump administration is aggressive in ending the TPS program, its beneficiaries in Oregon and elsewhere would return to being undocumented at the end of a TPS designation and become subject to removal. 

“It’s possible that some people in his administration will recognize that stripping employment authorization for more than a million people, many of whom have lived in this country for decades, is not good policy” and economically disastrous, Attorney Ahilan T. Arulanantham, a teacher at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, recently told PBS News. “But nothing in Trump’s history suggests that they would care about such considerations.”

[1] Countries Currently Designated for TPS. Select the country link for additional specific country information.

by - 0 comments

Portland City Council Voters: Do You Know What You Did?

All you Portland voters. Remember how you voted 58.1% to 41.9% on Measure 26-228 to switch to a ranked choice voting (RCV) system for the Portland City Council?

“In the end, we saw monumental wins that will change the landscape of our local democracy and advance opportunity for communities of color,” enthused the Coalition of Communities of Color after the vote.

“Portlanders made history by demanding a government that is effective, accountable and representative,” said Debra Porta, co-chair of the Charter Commission, which initially recommended voters consider the sweeping changes .

“The passage of Measure 26-228 is an historic step towards a democracy that truly gives all Portlanders a seat at the decision making table and a government that meets their basic needs,” said Sol Mora of the group Portland United for Change, which advocated for the measure. “This victory was powered by the people for the people.”

Well, supporters got what they wanted. But while Measure 26-228 required mote than 50% yes votes in Portland to pass, the 12 new city councilors elected under the the quirky new system didn’t need 50% to win in the 4 new districts.

This is how the RCV reform proposal described the system: 

 “If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the initial round, subsequent rounds are counted in which (i) candidates retain the number of votes counted for them in the first and any subsequent rounds that already occurred; and (ii) the candidates having the fewest votes are successively eliminated in rounds and their votes are counted as votes for the candidates who are ranked next on the ballots that had been counted for the eliminated candidates. The process of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next-ranked candidate on ballots repeats until a candidate has a majority of the vote.”

The Councilors of each district were elected using a proportional method of RCV known as “single transferable vote” (STV). In this system, voters rank the candidates and if a candidate gets more votes than needed to be elected the extra, or surplus, votes get transferred to the voter’s next choices. The charter reform proposal was so convoluted it took almost 300 words to explain how it would work (See below for complete text).

Under this system, a candidate running for a seat in a multimember district could win a position on the Council with as little as 25% of the vote, or maybe even less.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Eleven of the twelve Councilors were elected with 25% of the vote in their district. One newly-elected Councilor, Jamie Dunphy in East Portland’s District 1, was even elected with just 22.8% of the vote.

District 1’s three final winners were Candace Avalos, Loretta Smith and Dunphy. In the 1st round, Avalos was the first choice of just 19.4% of the vote, Smith was the first choice of 13.1% and Dunphy was the first choice of 11.9%.

One consequence of all this is that the newly elected Councilors may be able to remain in office by consistently satisfying just that small segment of eligible voters and ignoring those who are disenchanted with their performance because it would require 75% of voters to vote against the entrenched councilor to remove him or her.

As Tim Nesbit, a former chief of staff to former Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski and a critic of the ballot measure before its passage, wrote in the Portland Tribune, “This will be a ‘welcome to the Hotel California’ for candidates who seek office in the first council election to follow. It will be easy to check in to the council, but much harder to be forced to leave.”

Charter reform’s explanation of how “single transferable vote” (STV) would work: 

“Councilors of each district are elected using a proportional method of ranked choice voting known as single transferable vote. This method provides for the candidates to be elected on the basis of a threshold. The threshold is determined by the number of seats to be filled plus one, so that the threshold is the lowest number of votes a candidate must receive to win a seat such that no more candidates can win election than there are seats to be filled. In the initial round, the number of first rankings received by each candidate is the candidate’s vote count. Candidates whose vote counts are at least the threshold are declared elected. Votes that counted for elected candidates in excess of the threshold are called surplus. If fewer candidates are elected in the initial round than there are seats to be filled, the surplus percentage of all votes for the candidates who received a surplus are transferred to the next-highest ranked candidates in proportion to the total numbers of next-highest rankings they received on the ballots that counted for the elected candidate. If, after all surpluses have been counted in a round, no additional candidates have a vote count that is at least the threshold, the candidates with the lowest vote counts are successively eliminated in rounds and their votes are counted as votes for the candidates who are ranked next highest on the ballots that had been counted for the eliminated candidates, until another candidate has a vote count that is at least the threshold or until the number of candidates remaining equals the number of seats that have not yet been filled. The process of transferring surpluses of elected candidates and eliminating candidates continues until all positions are elected.”

by - 3 Comments

Bynum vs. Chavez-DeRemer/ Tis a Quandary

Chavez-DeRemer vs. Bynum

Republican incumbent Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Democratic challenger Janelle Bynum are at each other’s throats in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District race

At recent debates on KOIN TV in Portland and KTVZ in Bend, each candidate asserted that their opponent couldn’t be trusted. Bynum worked hard to tie Chavez-DeRemer to  Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and the conservative Republicans in the House. Chavez-DeRemer, in turn, attacked Bynum for supporting Measure 110, the drug decriminalization measure later amended by House Bill 4002 in the face of public backlash against the measure. 

No question, Bynum is a flaming liberal. In September, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries showed up in Portland to bolster her campaign. Par for the course, he accused Chavez-DeRemer of being aligned with extreme MAGA Republicans and Donald Trump., who Democrats portray as an imminent threat to democracy.

In contrast, Chavez-DeRemer works hard to portray herself as a moderate. She was ranked the 29th most bipartisan House member, and the most bipartisan Oregon member of the House, in an analysis released in May 2024 by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. But she has endorsed Trump’s return to the White House, has praised the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and has voted for a number of bills critics claim support the MAGA agenda.

The high-profile race is being run in a swing district created when the Legislature changed the district’s boundaries in 2021so it included a presumably more Democratic Bend. The race is now one of just a few that could decide who controls the U.S. House of Representatives.

So what to do if you are in the middle?

If Trump wins the White House, a vote for Chavez-DeRemer increases the likelihood that the House will stay in Republican hands. The Democrats now have a majority in the Senate but current thinking is that the Republicans have a high probability of retaking control with a net gain of two seats or by winning the presidential election along with a net gain of one seat. 

A particularly endangered Democrat is Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who trails his Republican challenger, Tim Sheehy, a wealthy Republican businessman. Polls suggest he’s toast because of the changing demographics of the state.  Republicans are also expected to flip West Virginia — where Joe Manchin is retiring- in the face of competition from Republican Governor Jim Justice . 

Of course, Democrats are still hopeful they can hold onto critical Senate seats in states like Ohio and Arizona and there are signs of weakness in Republican  Senator Ted Cruz’ s  race against Democratic challenger Colin Allred.

But if Trump wins, and the Republicans can hold on to the House and retake the Senate, that clean sweep would give Trump and his MAGA allies an opportunity to govern with impunity. If that’s not what you want, your best choice might be to vote for Bynum , even if you lean conservative, to increase the likelihood the Democrats will at least control the House and be in a position to block the more unpalatable elements of Trump’s MAGA agenda.

Tricky, isn’t it?

by - 0 comments

What’s Up with Rising CEO Pay at Northwest Natural?

Portland-based Northwest Natural is already grappling with efforts by climate activists to phase out natural gas use in Oregon homes in favor of electricity and a misguided Multnomah County lawsuit alleging the company is responsible for a ”substantial portion” of greenhouse gas pollution in Oregon. Now it has another problem –  concerns about ballooning CEO compensation.

With all the racket going on in the world and Oregon these days, it can be hard to focus on seemingly small things like this, but the soaring level of executive pay and the country’s increasing economic inequality are worth paying attention to.

Richard G. Reiten, President and Chief Operating Officer of Portland General Electric Company (PGE), was selected to run Northwest Natural In 1996.  I remember that appointment because I wrote about it as a reporter at The Oregonian. “The president of Portland General Electric is switching to gas” was the story lead on Nov. 6, 1995.

In 1997, Reiten’s first year as president and CEO of Northwest Natural, his compensation totaled $496,888 (Salary: $367,500; Bonus: $115,200; Other Compensation: $14,188).

Reiten, 63, was succeeded by Mark S. Dodson on January 1, 2003. His 2003 compensation totaled $662,396. (Salary: $390,000; Bonus: $250,000; Other Annual Compensation: $1,585; Other Compensation: $20,811).

Gregg S. Kantor succeeded Dodson as CEO on Jan. 1, 2009. His 2009 compensation leapt to $2,175,300 (Salary: $446,000; Bonus: $234,800; non-equity incentive plan: $330,200; Option Awards: $136,500; Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings: $994,400; Other compensation: $33,400).

Kantor was succeeded by David H. Anderson, who became CEO in August 2016. In 2017, his compensation totaled $3,537,654 (Salary: $641,700; Bonus: $173,300; Non-equity incentive plan: $437,700; Stock Awards: $834,900; Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings: $1,000,000; Other compensation: $58,300).

In 2023, Anderson’s compensation again totaled $3,537,654 (Salary: $830,000; Bonus: $328,145; Stock awards: $1,449,015; Non-equity incentive plan: $475,855; Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings: $404,515; All other compensation: $50,124. That’s $9692.20 a day.

All this despite the fact Northwest Natural, despite its local prominence, is actually a relatively small company, with just about 1200 employees and net income in 2023 of $93.9 million.

In May 2024, Northwest Natural announced that Anderson would retire on April 1, 2025. The Board of Directors designated Justin B. Palfreyman as the successor to Anderson. Palfreyman’s expected compensation was not disclosed. 

So how would you have done if you’d invested in Northwest Natural in 1997, when Richard Reiten became CEO?

Northwest Natural stock hit a peak price of $70.88 in 2019, but has since slipped to $38.88 on Oct. 7, 2024. If you had bought a block of shares at the start of 1997 and sold them almost 28 years later on Oct. 7, 2024, you would have realized a total gain of just $15.13 per share or 64%. 

If you invested $100 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1997 and reinvested all your dividends, you would now have about $1,173.11. This is a return on investment of 1,073.11%, or 9.40% per year. Even adjusted for inflation, the $1,173.11 nominal end value of the original $100 investment would have a real return of roughly $498.12 in 1997 dollars, or an inflation adjusted return of 498.12%.

It looks like Northwest Natural’s shareholders haven’t done quite as well as its CEO’s.

by - 0 comments

Portland’s Next Mayor? Who Cares?

Portland’s Next Mayor?

In all the turmoil and media attention focused on Portland’s new ranked choice voting election in November, much of the focus has been on the contest for mayor.[1]

Why?

The next mayor is going to be a eunuch. No, I don’t mean a castrated man. I mean the word metaphorically, in the sense an ineffectual or powerless person.

It’s the new 12-person City Council that will have the power to enact laws. The new mayor won’t even sit on the City Council or vote on council items (except to break a tie).  The mayor, and the new city administrator, who will be appointed by the mayor with council approval, will be in charge of carrying out City Council actions and crafting the city budget.

The mayor will also be tasked with appointing a city administrator, city attorney, and police chief, but that will also be only with the City Council’s approval. And to top it all off, the mayor won’t have veto power over council decisions. 

The mayor will serve more as a $175,463-a-year figurehead than a legislator, Tate White, a member of the city’s government transition team, told OPB earlier this year. “They’re going to be partnering with other jurisdictions, they’ll be standing at press conferences, they’re going to be the people meeting with representatives from sister cities when they come and visit, it will be far more ceremonial,” she said.

But don’t count on the new 12-person City Council, with three representatives per four new geographical districts and only one staff person for each City Council member, to be all that cooperative, efficient or effective. It might be more functional than New York City’s 51-member City Council, but likely not much. After all, a City Council member can be elected with as little as 25% + 1 votes, so their constituencies will be pretty damn small.[2] One consequence could be a Councilor able to remain in office by consistently satisfying just that smaller segment of eligible voters.

Jeff Jacoby, an award-winning columnist for the Boston Globe, calls the ranked choice voting process “democracy on the Rube Goldberg model”, where  ideas that supposedly simplify people’s lives wreak havoc instead.

[1] Mayoral candidates include three current members of Portland City Council: Rene Gonzalez, Mingus Mapps and Carmen Rubio. Others running are: Saadiq Ali, early childhood educator Shei’Meka As-Salaam, inventor James Atkinson IV, REAP youth advocate Durrell Kinsey Bey, financial advisor Nancy Congdon, Yao Jun He, advocate for the unhoused and community activist Michael O’Callaghan, artist and performer Liv Osthus, city hall veteran and green energy advocate Marshall Runkel, owner and president of TITAN Freight Systems Keith Wilson and maintenance supervisor Dustin Witherspoon. 

[2] Charter reform’s explanation of how “single transferable vote” (STV) will work: 

“Councilors of each district are elected using a proportional method of ranked choice voting known as single transferable vote. This method provides for the candidates to be elected on the basis of a threshold. The threshold is determined by the number of seats to be filled plus one, so that the threshold is the lowest number of votes a candidate must receive to win a seat such that no more candidates can win election than there are seats to be filled. In the initial round, the number of first rankings received by each candidate is the candidate’s vote count. Candidates whose vote counts are at least the threshold are declared elected. Votes that counted for elected candidates in excess of the threshold are called surplus. If fewer candidates are elected in the initial round than there are seats to be filled, the surplus percentage of all votes for the candidates who received a surplus are transferred to the next-highest ranked candidates in proportion to the total numbers of next-highest rankings they received on the ballots that counted for the elected candidate. If, after all surpluses have been counted in a round, no additional candidates have a vote count that is at least the threshold, the candidates with the lowest vote counts are successively eliminated in rounds and their votes are counted as votes for the candidates who are ranked next highest on the ballots that had been counted for the eliminated candidates, until another candidate has a vote count that is at least the threshold or until the number of candidates remaining equals the number of seats that have not yet been filled. The process of transferring surpluses of elected candidates and eliminating candidates continues until all positions are elected.”

by - 1 Comment

Don’t Let Janelle Bynum Recast Herself as a Law-and-Order Candidate

Democrat Janelle Bynum, who is running against Rep. Lori Chavez-Deremer (R-OR) in the 5th Congressional District, knows the tide has turned so she’s trying to reposition herself as a law-and-order conservative. Don’t let her do it.

In a previous post, I wrote of how Bynum has the gall to say in her latest TV ad , “In Salem, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to re-criminalize fentanyl and other hard drugs. In Congress I’ll work with local law enforcement to get the officers and resources Oregon needs.”

She neglects to mention she supported decriminalization in Measure 110 before she opposed it. 

Specifically, she supported Measure 110, the 2020 ballot measure that decriminalized drugs.

That’s not all.

She says in her ad, “I won’t rest until our communities are safe”.  She undermined that pledge in 2017 when she voted to reduce voter-approved sentencings for ID Theft and Property Crimes in (HB 3078).  On the same day, she allowed car thieves to have short sentences and supported reduced sentencing for drug possession, cutting off court-ordered drug treatment for 2,500 addicts a year (HB 2355). 

As a Feb. 2024 report by the Oregon Criminal Justice System said, HB 3078 was enacted, primarily to reduce the number of persons incarcerated in Oregon’s prison system due to property offenses and identity theft. 

Section 5 of the bill changed sentences for Identity Theft and Theft in the First Degree for sentences imposed on or after January 1, 2018. These offenses were essentially removed from the sentencing structure created through the adoption of Measure 57 by Oregon voters in 2008 (creating statutory minimum sentences for certain property crimes). 

It worked.” “…prison usage remains at a lower trajectory than before, thanks in part to HB 3078,” the report said. 

 The Oregonian reported in 2018 the Dept. of Corrections was patting itself on the back for having 2500 less people in the system because of HB 3078. But some critics contended that meant cutting 2500 people a year on average from state sponsored treatment, and that spurred more homelessness and crime. 

Moreover, when crimes went from a felony to a misdemeanor and then in Measure 110 to a class E violation, all those with addictions were no longer precluded from gun ownership.

 On June 29, 2017, Steve Doell with Crime Victims United wrote in a guest column in The Oregonian that the bill “exemplifies the willingness of the legislature to sacrifice safety for savings.” 

In 2019, Bynum further muddied the waters when she voted to pass SB 1008, overturning much of voter-approved Measure 11, that required minimum-mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes and mandated that cases involving juveniles 15 years and older, accused of specific violent crimes, were to be to be handled in public in adult court. SB 1008 allowed a judge to see them in juvenile court in a non-public setting.

“Enough extremism” says one of Bynum’s ads. She should have thought that before she jumped on the social justice bandwagon.

by - 0 comments

Talk About a Flip-Flop: Janelle Bynum and Measure 110

Janelle Bynum, meet John Kerry.

Back in 2004, Sen.  John Kerry was the subject of a lot of ribbing when he said, in response to a question about his vote against an $87 billion supplemental appropriation for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” The George W. Bush campaign seized on the comment, using the footage in television ads to illustrate its charge that Kerry flip-flopped on issues, particularly the war in Iraq

Democrat Janelle Bynum, who is running against Rep. Lori Chavez-Deremer (R-OR) in the 5th Congressional District, has a lot in common with Kerry.

Sounding like a law-and order Republican, Bynum has the gall to say in her latest TV ad , “In Salem, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to re-criminalize fentanyl and other hard drugs. In Congress I’ll work with local law enforcement to get the officers and resources Oregon needs.”

She neglects to mention she voted for decriminalization before she voted against it.

Specifically, she supported Measure 110, the 2020 ballot measure that decriminalized drugs.

“It tells us a couple of things. No. 1, Oregonians are compassionate people,” Bynum said in response to a question about Measure 110 in a November 2023 interview. “Number two, it also tells the legislature that the people were hungry for a certain approach. And it’s not the legislature’s job to question the people; it’s the legislature’s job to implement the will of the people.”

On April 1, in response to a public outcry, Governor Tina Kotek signed HB 4002, recriminalizing hard drugs and rolling back some parts of measure 110. It was all so predictable.

Take responsibility, Janelle. You were one of the people who made that necessary.

by - 0 comments

The Oregon People’s Rebate: Another Misguided Idea from Wealthy California Progressives

It wasn’t Oregonians who financed the campaign for the ill-advised Measure 110. 

Out-of-state money financed the 2020 campaign for the measure that rashly decriminalized drug possession in the state. Of the nearly $6 million in cash and in-kind contributions received by the ballot measure committees, the New York City-based Drug Policy Alliance contributed over $5 million, one-third of its total revenue in 2020 according to its filing with the IRS.

Out-of-state money is also behind Initiative Petition 17, a 2024 ballot measure in support of a universal basic income (UBI) that would feature a $750 payment to every Oregonian, regardless of their income, every year, paid for by an increase in the minimum tax rate for high earning Oregon businesses.

The measure, called the Oregon People’s Rebate, would increase the tax on corporations making more than $25 million a year in revenue (not profit) in Oregon, increasing their minimum tax rate from less than 1% to 3%. According to the measure’s backers, the increase would generate about $3 billion a year. Oregon’s current population is 4,237,256. A $750 payment to each resident would total $3,177,942,000

“So your favorite local business won’t feel a thing,…other than every single one of their local customers, and employees, having an extra $750,” the backers say. “It’s that simple”.

‘Fact: The largest corporations pay less than 1% in Oregon tax,” the Oregon People’s website asserts. “We all pay between 5-10% in Oregon tax. Is that right? No! So we start to fix that.”

Oregon People’s Rebate was formed in Sept. 2022. It has received $425,696.50 in contributions to date in 2024, according to the Oregon Secretary of State. 

Following a long tradition Hollywood and Silicon Valley political activism, the biggest 2024 contributors are affiliated with investor and universal basic income proselytizer, Josh Jones of Los Angeles, CA. An early adopter of cryptocurrency, Jones says on his LinkedIn site, “I’m a programmer/entrepreneur/investor/retiree who likes Universal Basic Income, National Popular Vote, Groo the Wanderer, (aerial) Gondolas, basketball, lunch, programming, the internet, robots, space, movies, and starting up stuff!”

Jones Holding LLC, a corporation based in Los Angeles, has donated $425,000 in 2024 and Jones Parking Inc. has contributed nearly $95,000. The next largest 2024 contributors are the foundation (Gerald Huff Fund for Humanity) and the mother of Gerald Huff, a former software engineer from California who was an ardent proponent of Universal Basic Income before  he died in 2018. They have contributed a total of $90,000.

Calling the initiative a rebate is, of course, the first deception. Corporate taxes would cover the cost and the recipients of the largesse would be everyday Oregonians.

The assertion that Oregon corporations pay less than 1% in Oregon tax is dubious as well. According to the Tax Foundation,  Oregon C corporations face a 7.6 percent corporate income tax and a 0.57 percent gross receipts tax, and if they’re in the Portland area, they are subject to a 2.6 percent business license tax, a 2 percent business income tax, a 1 percent Supportive Housing Services Tax, and a 1 percent Clean Energy Surcharge, all of which are additional taxes on net income. 

The $750 payment might sound good,” the Tax Foundation says, “but if it raises the cost of goods, drives jobs and economic activity out of state, and puts Oregon-based businesses at a massive disadvantage with their out-of-state competitors, it’s likely to be an awful deal for Oregonians.”

Universal Basic Income is also far from a proven concept in addressing society’s ills.

“A UBI looks alluringly simple on the surface, since it provides cash unconditionally and with no targeting involved,” says a recent study by the staff of The World Bank.” But its implications are complex and largely unknown…It may affect, for instance, several labor market issues such as unemployment insurance, severance pay, unionization, contributory pensions, and minimum wages.”

“…hopes around a UBI as a societal revolution may be tempered by prosaic forces. After all, the ultimate generators of inequities may lie elsewhere, for example, in uneven access to education and health systems, low-paying and low-productivity jobs, poorly functioning markets, corruption, regressive tax codes, unequal pay, and social discrimination, among others.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently wrote a scathing critique of West Coast ideologues driving social policy. “…my take is that the West Coast’s central problem is not so much that it’s unserious as that it’s infected with an ideological purity that is focused more on intentions than on oversight and outcomes,” he wrote. It shows “indifference to the laws of economics.”

Oregonians would be wise to firmly reject the ham-fisted efforts of wealthy Californians to mess with our economy.  

by - 0 comments

Street of Dreams Rolls Over Neighbors

The NW Natural Street of Dreams has long been a showcase for over-the-top homes in the Portland area. Thousands of curious visitors descend on the sites to explore unique residences during the event and nearby homeowners and local media have generally enthusiastically welcome them. 

This year may be different as hordes of looky-loos descend on surprised nearby residents. 

Produced by the Home Building Association of Greater Portland, the 2024  NW Natural Street of Dreams will feature  more than 12 builders and 18  custom homes, luxury remodels, condominiums, and apartments scattered in and surrounding the Portland area, including including Portland itself, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, and more. A ticket will provide entrance to all the locations to visit any time during the show hours.

The event, which will run from August 1 to August 18, 2024, will be open extended weekends only, Thursdays through Sundays, with varying hours and different open weekends.

Likely anticipating nearby homeowners and renters will be less than pleased with an invasion of their neighborhoods, the addresses for all homes on the tour are going to be a closely held secret until the eve of the event. They won’t be disclosed until emails are sent out the week before the show to all ticket holders.

Nan Binkley and Alec Holser of Lake Oswego have already sounded the alarm.

Four of the tour’s homes will be in established residential neighborhoods in Lake Oswego, they say, including one right next to their home. “We are sure our neighbors know next to nothing about this upcoming event,” they wrote in a June 19, 2024, Letter to the Editor published in the Lake Oswego Review. “Since when is it okay to let a commercial venture operate at such a large scale in small neighborhoods?” they wrote. “…it feels like the Home Builders Association is waiting until the last minute to apply for an event permit for something that will need shuttles, blocked roads and police oversight.”

Whose idea was this anyway? NW Natural and the Home Building Association of Greater Portland clearly didn’t think this through. As a result, they are likely in for a very public shellacking.