Isaac Laquedem

You can say "Merry Christmas," but your front door can't

Mrs. Laquedem and I put up a wreath on our front door, but this story from the New York Times makes me wonder if I should take it down.  The Times reports that a resident of the Loma Linda subdivision in Pagosa Springs, Colorado put up a Christmas wreath with a peace sign.  Other residents complained that the wreath was an anti-war protest or a symbol of Satan.  The president of the homeowners' association asked the architectural control committee to order her to take it down, and when the committee declined to act, he fired the committee and wrote the homeowner that she faces a fine of $25 a day until she takes it down.

A panhandler satirizes real estate marketing

New real estate projects are sometimes promoted with a billboard nearby that reads "If you lived at Acme Towers, you'd be home already."  I saw a street mendicant today who was poking some sly fun at this traditional advertisement.  His sign read, "If you lived like me, you'd be home already."

Who gets the credit for the Democrats retaking Congress?

There's an old story to the effect that a French general of a bygone day, not known for his intellect when he was at the war college, won an important battle.  Some time later, he and his cronies were gathered around the fireplace talking about the battle and arguing about why the enemy lost the battle.  One said that it was the failure of the opposing general to do such-and-such at a critical moment.  Another said that it was the lack of supplies to the opposing army.  No one credited the general.   At last someone asked the general of the battle why he thought the French army won the battle.  He puffed on his pipe and replied stoically, "I don't know who should get the credit for winning the battle, but I know who would have been blamed if we had lost the battle."

The Democrats won control of both houses of Congress yesterday.  As the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard "Primal Scream" Dean, would have been roundly excoriated if the Republicans had kept control of both houses, it's only fair to give him and his "50-state strategy" the credit for the Democrats winning both houses. 

At least 14% of the voters didn't understand Measures 46 and 47

The voters of Oregon have left me with one puzzle tonight, relating to the campaign spending initiatives.  Measure 46 would amend the constitution to allow the voters to adopt campaign spending initiatives.  Measure 47 would adopt a complicated Rube Goldberg-like system of spending limits based on forcing contributors to register ("we register guns, don't we?"). Because Measure 47 violates the Oregon constitution as currently interpreted by the state supreme court, Measure 47 can take effect only if Measure 46 passes.  It follows that a voter can logically be for 46 and 47, or for 46 but against 47 (as I am), meaning that the voter likes the idea of spending limits but doesn't think that 47 is a good way to go about it, or against 46 and 47.  However, anyone who supports 47 should support 46, because 47 is useless without 46.

The secretary of state's current (12:35 a.m.) tally (if you click later, you'll see a different tally) shows Measure 46 failing with a 60% no vote, and Measure 47 passing with a 54% yes vote.  So at least 14% of the voters voted for Measure 47 (the specific mechanism) but against Measure 46 (without which Measure 47 doesn't go into effect).  I haven't thought of a logical reason why someone would vote for 47 and against 46.  It would be interesting to look at the county-by-county results for these two measures to see where our educational system has failed us.

Another election question: What if Multnomah County didn't vote?

Another question of punditry occurred to me as I read Chris Piekarski's comment on my previous post.  Imagine that Multnomah County casts no votes this year.  Which ballot measures would have their results reversed?  I think that Measures 43, 45, and 48 will fail statewide, but that the margin of failure will be less than the margin of failure in Multnomah County; that is, if Multnomah County didn't vote, those three measures would pass.

Anyone else willing to step out on a limb?

Isaac's election predictions: please join in!

Here are my election-night predictions (not endorsements) for what we'll see as the votes are counted.  Some of these are different from the ones I sent to Kari Chisholm's contest (now closed) at MandateMedia. 

Governor:   Ted Kulongoski wins re-election but with less than 50% of the vote.

Supreme Court:  Virginia Linder defeats Jack Roberts, 58-42.

U.S. House:  All five representatives are re-elected.  Of the incumbents, Earl Blumenauer receives the highest percentage and David Wu receives the lowest.

Ballot measures:  Measures 39 (anti-condemnation), 41 (income tax deduction), 42 (credit scores for insurance), and 44 (low-income drug program) pass.  The others fail.

Multnomah County Commission:  Jeff Cogen defeats Lew Frederick, 54-46.

Clackamas County Commission:  Division of votes among the challengers lets Larry Sowa win re-election in a squeaker.

Multnomah County Court:  Judith Matarazzo wins in the crowded field to succeed the late Judge Freeman.  Leslie Roberts wins unopposed for the seat formerly held by Youlee You, but 28% of the voters write in Charles Henderson and a lot of people abstain.

Karen Minnis's race goes down to the wire and she wins, 51-49.

Your predictions?

ODOT's TripCheck service

One of the little services provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation is its TripCheck website, which I hope will survive the next round of budget cuts.  (Here's the starting page for the Portland area.)  TripCheck shows road conditions and links to road cameras, weather stations, construction alerts, and other up-to-the-minute highway-related information.  For example, if you should wonder how today's rainstorm is treating the Oregon coast, you could go to the site and click on the icon for the camera along Highway 101, just to the south of Seaside. This is what you would have seen a few minutes ago: not pretty.  The highway's closed to low-profile vehicles here, and closed altogether near Tillamook.  Click on the photo for a full-size view of the flood.

The rest of the measures: 44 through 48

Measure 44 will allow uninsured Oregonians to participate in the Oregon Prescription Drug Program, at no cost to the state.  It seems reasonable to me (in fact, why not let everyone participate?).  Vote "yes" on 44.

Measure 45 would impose term limits on state legislators: a person could serve up to 6 years as a representative, 8 years as a senator, and 14 years total.  The point of term limits is not to oust the fine, upstanding legislators elected from our own districts, but to kick out the bozos whom the voters in the next district unaccountably keep electing.  Each district should take responsibility for its own bozos.  (This thought applies to elected representatives in a collected body, such as a state senate or panel.  It's appropriate to have term limits for single offices, such as governor or president.)  The proponents nobly but erroneously say that the measure will reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the legislature.  They have it backward: a state senator who's re-elected over and over again has less need for the favors of any particular lobbyist through the name familiarity built up from repeatedly appearing on the ballot.  More turnover in the legislature means that the lobbyists, who are not subject to term limits, become the institutional memory of the place and become more important in the electoral fundraising season.  Vote "no" on Measure 45.

Measure 46 if adopted would allow the legislature to pass campaign fundraising and spending limits by a 3/4 vote, or the people to adopt limits by initiative.  At present the Oregon Constitution prohibits laws that restrict political contributions and spending.  This is based on the supreme court's interpretation that political contributions and expenditures are protected free speech.  (And if they are protected free speech, then we should be able to contribute anonymously, as anonymous political speech has a long tradition in America.)

I don't think political contributions are what the framers had in mind as free speech.  I'm less certain about political expenditures, but I'm willing to try out limits on both.  I am voting "yes" on Measure 46.

Measure 47, the companion to Measure 46, will take effect only if Measure 46 passes.  It sets out specific limits on contributions and expenditures.  I read the damned thing through five times and I still don't understand it.  I refuse to vote for a measure that I can't understand, and I'm voting "no" on Measure 47.

Measure 48 is the so-called Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, slangily called "TABOR," and would limit the increase in state spending from biennium to biennium to a percentage equal to the state's population growth plus inflation.  The state could spend more only if 2/3 of the legislature approves, and then the voters also approve by referendum.  It's an outwardly rational idea: as long as the state doesn't take on any new responsibilities, its budget shouldn't need to grow by more than the rate of growth in inflation (because the cost of things goes up) and population (because more people are receiving services). 

The backers have missed the math problem, which is that it imposes a "low water" mark on government spending.  Let's say that the budget for the current biennium, not including amounts exempt from Measure 48, is $5 billion, and that inflation and population are growing at a combined rate of 10% per biennium.  Then in the next biennium the state could budget $5.5 billion, in the one after that $6.05 billion, and so on.

Interpose into that happy thought a recession.  The state has to cut out $1 billion from its budget because tax revenues plummet.  Out comes the axe (whether wielded by Mr. Kulongoski or Mr. Saxton, the effect is the same, because the state can't print money) and the budget is now $4 billion instead of $5 billion.  That makes the budget for the next biennium $4.4 billion and for the one after that, $4.84 billion.  The recession years (and we've had a few recently) control overall spending, and the emergency budget cuts become permanent, unless referred to the voters by 2/3 of the legislature.  And when has 2/3 of the legislature agreed on anything lately?  I see this measure as the kickoff for a string of program cuts that can never, practically speaking, be reversed.  I am voting "no" on Measure 48.

More ballot measures (well, fewer measures; I'm opposed to 42 and 43)

I used to look for a way to vote "yes" on most ballot measures, as I figured that they represented a safety valve for the public, a way in which the electorate reins in a wayward or inattentive legislature.  No longer; they're now mostly part of larger programs, often imported from other states, and I'm more likely to vote "no" instead.  Measures 42 and 43 are two more clunkers.

Measure 42 would prohibit insurance companies from using consumer credit scores to set insurance rates.  At present, insurance companies can use credit scores to determine whether to offer insurance to a particular applicant only if they combine scores with other underwriting factors.  For example, an auto insurer can't turn you down just because your FICO score is less than 530, but it can turn you down if your FICO score is less than 530 and you're a rotten driver.  Insurance companies can use scores to determine your initial rates for a new policy (e.g., you might pay more if your FICO score is below 530).  Insurance companies that use credit scores have to disclose their model to the state insurance commissioner.

As far as I can tell, this is a measure being pushed by people who don't know the difference between being poor and having bad credit, and who think that insurance companies discriminate against the poor by charging higher rates to people with bad credit.  (See Bill Sizemore's argument on page 55 of the Voter's Pamphlet for an example of this faulty understanding.)  Being poor means not having much money.  Having bad credit is not the result of being poor but of promising to pay money and then not paying it on time.  The way not to have bad credit, and thus not to be dinged on your insurance rates, is to pay your bills on time.  This "problem" doesn't need an initiative measure to solve.  I am voting "no" on Measure 42.

Measure 43, relating to abortion, is a tougher call.  It seems very reasonable when I read it: an unemancipated minor who is 15 or older cannot obtain an abortion until the abortion provider notifies one of her parents or until she obtains an order from the Department of Human Services that authorizes the provider to proceed without notifying the minor's parent.  (The provider can apparently choose which parent to notify.)  The measure makes this a fast process: DHS must act on a petition within 10 days, and the court (if the minor appeals) must act within two business days.  Current law allows the provider to notify the minor's parents, but does not require it.

I read through the arguments in the Voter's Pamphlet, and I boiled them down to this.  The parents of some pregnant girls should be notified before their daughters have an abortion, because they will provide help and support for their daughters.  The parents of other pregnant girls shouldn't be notified, because they will be abusive or worse when they get the news.  At present the girl and the doctor make that decision, and for better or worse they're the people most likely to get it right.  This measure would have an administrative law judge make the decision as a rush decision on a limited record.  I don't think the administrative law judge is as likely to make the best decision (whether or not to notify the girl's parents) as are the girl and her doctor.  I'm voting "no" on Measure 43.