Oregon Special Session—Week 2:
Representative Democracy At Work

Week two of the Oregon 2008 Special Session is now concluded. The floor debates have been civil, informative, and, in the case of House Joint Resolution 100, determined by strict party-line voting. Contrasting the genesis of last session’s bipartisan Senate Bill 329 with this Special Session’s politically charged HJR 100 provides an informative glimpse into the tension between good policy and partisan politics.

House Joint Resolution 100 vs. Senate Bill 329. Last session the Legislature passed Senate Bill 329. SB 329 created the Oregon Health Fund Board (OHFB), and gave it the mission to develop “…a comprehensive plan to ensure access to health care for all Oregonians, contain health care costs, and address issues of quality in health care.” SB 329 was a quintessential example of how the legislative process is supposed to work.

Before the 2007 Session began, thorough research was conducted by a “blue ribbon” Interim Senate Health Committee under the leadership of Co-Chair Senators, Alan Bates and Ben Westlund. I made several trips to Portland as an ad-hoc member of this Senate committee. We met with experienced health care experts and advocates and held in-depth discussions on the current status of Oregon’s health care system. During the 2007 Legislative Session, I served as part of a joint Senate-House committee that held months of public hearings and gave everyone having an opinion on the Oregon health care system the opportunity to express it. Experts, advocates and patients testified on what is good and what is bad about the Oregon system. Research was conducted on alternative health care systems and reform models of other states and nations. Nearly 30 amendments were considered and adopted before the final bill was debated by Senate and House Democrats and Republicans on the joint committee. The final version of SB 329 eventually was debated and passed by both Chambers with large, bipartisan majorities. SB 329 is a good example of how representative-democracy is supposed to work. Oregon’s legislative process is labor intensive and time consuming, and, if done correctly, will build bipartisan coalitions and promote policy over politics.

As a result of SB 329, a seven member Oregon Health Fund Board has been selected, multiple subcommittees have been organized, and numerous Board and subcommittee meetings have been held. By October or November of this year the OHFB will have received and evaluated sub-committee reports, analyzed the data, and will make final recommendations for health care reform legislation. Those recommendations will be carefully considered by the Legislature in the 2009-11 regular session. No one knows whether this top-to-bottom evaluation of Oregon’s health delivery system and recommendations will result in workable and affordable reforms, acceptable to Oregon voters, but the efforts expended toward that worthwhile goal are following the path of “representative-democracy” that makes our system such a rational way to govern a freedom loving people.

Last week I described House Joint Resolution 100, which is a reintroduction of the “Hope Amendment” and last session’s HJR 18. This week it was debated on the House Floor and passed by a strict party-line vote of 31 Democrats to 29 Republicans. The proposed amendment is short. It is worded as follows:

Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 46:
The people of Oregon find that health care is an essential safeguard to human life and dignity and that access to health care is a fundamental right. In order to implement that right, the Legislative Assembly shall establish by law a plan for a system designed to provide to every legal resident of the state access to effective and affordable health care on a regular basis.

Although universal, government guaranteed health care sounds good (31 Democrats voted for it), the devil is in the details—and no details will be given until after the voters have voted. Before amending our Constitution a number of Legislators (29 Republicans who voted against HJR 100), believe voters deserve answers to the following crucial questions:

(1.) In a health care system dominated by federal programs and money, how will Oregon implement single-state socialized medicine?
(2.) What health benefits will be given to the 600,000 Oregonians currently uninsured?
(3.) What will prevent Oregon from becoming a magnet for sick people from other states who will move to Oregon to become eligible for Oregon’s universal health care benefits?
(4.) How much will it cost the Oregon taxpayers to offer such coverage? (600,000 x $4,500-4,800 in average annual medical costs is $3 Billion per year.)
(5.) Who will pay the extra $3 Billion or more for such medical coverage every year? ($6 Billion biennially, and increasing at 7-10% compounding annually.)
(6.) If Oregon taxpayers reject tax increases to pay the $6 Billion biennial health care budget increase (remember Measures 28 and 30), what “non-fundamental” programs—education, public safety, seniors and children, etc.—will have their budgets cut to pay for the new constitutionally preferred universal health care?

In my opinion, if HJR 100 were to pass, it would eviscerate our system of representative-democracy and nullify the progress being made by the Oregon Health Fund Board, under the purview of SB 329. I explained my arguments in the House Floor Debate conducted February 13th, which can be seen on You-Tube by Clicking Here.

HJR 100 now goes to the Senate for more thoughtful consideration.

HB 3618-A is another attempt to clarify estate taxation for farmers, ranchers, foresters and commercial fishers. It is a response to last legislative session’s HB 3201. Although 2007’s HB 3201 intended to give some estate tax relief to owners of natural resource businesses, it was flawed in several respects. It failed to include the value of trees on timberlands; it failed to include the value of tractors, combines and other rolling stock for farmers; and it failed to include working capital for any of the businesses. This session’s HB 3618-A fixes those flaws. Unfortunately, HB 3618-A is a complex tax bill and may well create negative consequences, the results of which cannot all be foreseen. Nevertheless, since HB 3618-A benefits many farmers and ranchers, and since it was endorsed by the Oregon Cattlemen’s Assn., the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Assn of Nurseries and the Oregon Wine Assn. I voted for it. Hopefully, any flaws it has will be discovered and corrected when the Senate considers it next week.

HB 3613 passed the House and will establish a “Committee on Performance Excellence.” With bipartisan cooperation, the House Government Accountability and Information Technology Committee, of which I am Vice-Chair, unanimously approved HB 3613 to help state agencies improve government performance. After a more aggressive version of this bill was passed with only one dissenting vote in both Chambers, the Governor vetoed it. Rather than embarrass the Governor by over-riding his veto, it was decided to work with his office for mutually acceptable amendments that would still provide a Performance Excellence Committee to promote more effective and efficient agency practices. HB 3613 is a compromise bill that is a small step for man and a rather small step for mankind too. But, it is a step in the right direction, and sometimes that is all that is possible—especially in such a short special session. Politics IS the art of the “doable.” The House bill contains amendments previously approved by the Senate and now goes to the Senate for final consideration.

House Bill 3630 protects Oregonian homeowners from deceitful practices by certain “foreclosure avoidance companies.” Although Oregon has far fewer foreclosures than most states, the number of foreclosures in Oregon has increased by 50%. For Oregonians with sub-prime mortgages, foreclosures have increased by 95%. Many homeowners who have sub-prime loans in foreclosure have become prey to predatory practices by companies offering counseling and assistance, then take advantage of the homeowner’s ignorance and vulnerability. One practice is to offer the homeowner foreclosure avoidance assistance, supposedly to protect their credit rating by helping to sell their homes before the foreclosure occurs. Unsuspecting homeowners transfer ownership of their home with a deed to the company. This is to enable the foreclosure avoidance company to assist in selling the home. Unfortunately for the homeowner, soon after the deed has been signed, the homeowner receives a notice of eviction. The homeowner had assumed the company would market the home in good faith and the homeowner’s family would be able to live in the home until it sold. The homeowner also hoped to receive from the sale some small amount of equity that could help give a fresh start. Instead the company “buys” the home itself for the amount of the outstanding debt, evicts the debtor and attempts to “flip” the home with a quick sale for a quick profit. HB 3630 will protect homeowners from such deceptive practices by requiring foreclosure avoidance companies to provide the following:

• Homeowners will receive Written Contracts printed in plain language, provided to homeowners at least 24 hours before signing, written in at least 12 point type—therefore, no “fine print” trickery;
• Homeowners must be provided Full Disclosure of the terms for any “equity purchase;”
• Homeowners will have three days to revoke the agreement after signing; and
• Homeowners will have a private cause of action for damages under “unlawful trade practices” statutes against companies or individuals that violate these provisions.

Senate Bill 1080-A passed the House and Senate. SB 1080 is the bill discussed in last week’s newsletter. It requires the DMV to verify both an individual’s social security number and proof of Oregon residency before the applicant will be given a driver’s license or identity card. If the applicant is in Oregon on a temporary permit or visa, the license or identification card will expire when the applicant’s legal right to be here ends.

Oregon will join 44 other states that require proof of legal presence to qualify for driver’s licenses. The bill now goes to the Governor, who is expected to sign it without delay. Once SB 1080-A becomes law, Oregon will no longer be a first stop for “illegals” who want an official form of identification to use here and elsewhere in America.

House Bill 3632 is a bill to protect volunteers who serve on ski patrols from being liable for unemployment taxes. Due to a recent court decision, certain volunteers could be taxed for the minor perks received—such as a ski pass given to those who volunteer for ski patrol. Once again, no good deed goes unpunished. Although not a far-reaching bill, it protects ski patrol volunteers who are given ski passes from incurring tax liabilities. HB 3632 easily passed the House and now goes to the Senate.

That’s the news from the second week of the 2008 Special Session. All-in-all, it was a fairly tame week. Nevertheless, we should always remember, “we may not care much for politics, but politics cares about us.” Stay tuned for next week’s edition.

Sincerely,

Dennis Richardson
State Representative

© 2008 Oregon Magazine