The fundamental conflict in Oregon politics isn’t between Republicans
and Democrats. It’s between Progressives and Conservative Populists.
(For a great development of this thesis, buy the book …)
Put another way, Oregon politics is the endless internal struggle of
voters who love progressive ideals, but hate paying taxes to support
them. Historically, this means we chronically underfund education and
law enforcement.
Our schools do well for what we give them, but we don’t give them
much. One influential ranking of the top 100 high schools in the US
listed 5 from a single Maryland county with one of the highest per
capita student spending, while listing none in Oregon. On the law
enforcement side, we can’t keep troopers on the highways 24/7, and,
despite the howls of many good old fashioned liberals about the
“draconian” Measure 11, rapists, robbers and burglars do less time in
prison here than in almost anywhere else in the country. By and
large, we’d love to educate our kids and to lock criminals up, but
we’re just too damn cheap.
The November election presents the classic “rob Peter to pay Paul”
scenario. Kevin Mannix has gathered enough signatures to qualify his
tough-on-crime Measure 40 for the ballot. The Oregon District
Attorney’s Association introduced a competing bill, SB 1057, to refer
a different approach to the ballot. I won’t belabor the details,
which are available at The Statesman Journal.
However, briefly, the main differences are - 1) Measure 40 has
mandatory prison time for some first time felony offenders, while SB
1087 only does so for repeat offenders; 2) SB 1087 significantly
increases funding for drug treatment programs, while Measure 40
provides none; and 3) Measure 40 will cost $250-$400 million per two
year budget cycle, while SB 1087 would only cost $140 million. If
both pass, as seems probable, the one with more votes will take
effect. Without additional revenue, both will significantly siphon
off the funds available for education.
So, what’s a good law-and-order, progressive Democrat to do? Fixing
the criminal justice system to either put crooks in prison or finally
fund some rehab programs sounds great, but gutting the education
system to do so seems, well, “self-perpetuating” seems like a good way
to put it. Estimates of the cost to provide full day kindergarten for
every child in Oregon come in well below either of these price tags.
Ah, to be back in the days of Guv Kitz, who would have just said that
he’d push new taxes through if either passed. The great benefit of
having a doctor as governor was that the loss of the government
paycheck by losing an election actually would have meant a pay
increase.
Instead, we’re left with damage control. In the grand scheme of
things, SB 1087 concedes the popularity of anti-crime measures and
seeks to limit the fiscal damage that Measure 40 would cause. It
reinforces Oregon’s rehabilitative philosophy, popular among
progressives for its emphasis on second chances and among conservative
populists for it low price tag, makes it more honest by actually
funding rehab, and puts some steel in the spine by providing prison
time for more repeat offenders. In my 10 years of experience, this is
pretty reasonable approach. Most of the crimes in question have at
least a 75% correlation with drug abuse. In the case of identity
theft, I have yet to see a single case that did not have an aspect of
drug abuse. So, rehab seems reasonable. However, the opportunity for
rehab means very little without some consequence for failing to follow
through. The increased penalties for repeat offenders provide that
level of accountability. The lack of a funding mechanism is
troubling, but what do you expect out of a low paid, part-time
Legislature - the political courage to pay as they go without gutting
education? No, that would be too much to ask, wouldn’t it?
