A couple of weeks ago we posted this letter from Senator Jeff Kruse.  The letter was insightful, and more straightfoward than we’re used to hearing from Salem.  Today, Senator Kruse followed up with this:

I received some very interesting responses to the last letter I sent out and some of them deserve a response.  First if it sounded like I was complaining, I was.  But I do this from the perspective of the fact the Democrats won the majority in both Houses and have therefore earned the right to run their own agenda.  I just don’t happen to agree with much of what they are doing.  After the Governor was re-elected he reorganized his staff.  His new chief of staff was the lobbyist for the teacher’s union and his assistant chief of staff was the head of the AFL-CIO which coordinates the other public employee unions.  So it is not surprising to see such a pro union agenda.  A union’s main purpose is to grow and sustain itself.  In the case of public employee unions this can only be achieved by growing government.  This mission runs contrary to the agenda of someone like me who would like to see more efficiency in government.  A prime example of the direction we should be going was uncovered by the Oregonian newspaper last fall.  Their research showed Oregon to have a significantly higher number average of mid management staff in the Department of Human Resources.  In fact, their report showed if we reduced staff to just the national average we could save 200 million dollars a year.  This savings level could fully fund our mental health delivery system and yet we will see no action as it would eliminate government jobs. 

In my last letter I expressed frustration with the new version of the bottle bill.  My opinion is we should not be dumping more of the waste stream on grocery stores and should be looking more towards a real recycling system.  There has been a new development on this front.  After the bill (SB 707) passed the Senate the grocery industry came forward with both a proposal for a comprehensive recycling system and a 60 million dollar commitment to get it started.  This is exactly the direction I think we should be going.  For reasons I can’t understand the leadership of the Legislature has rejected the offer.  I guess redeeming water bottles is more important than establishing a real program. 

We have also spent a great deal of time discussing Measure 37 or land use reform.  In the opinion of the Governor and Legislative leadership the people of Oregon did not know what they were voting for when they passed the measure.  To this end they have proposed sending a measure out to the ballot which would basically overturn Measure 37.  At this point this effort has been stalled because they don’t want it to appear to be partisan, but no Republicans will support it.  They are now trying to just pass a law repealing Measure 37 without going to the people, but even some of the Democrats cannot support this plan.  I hope it fails as I do believe Oregonians knew exactly what they were voting for. 

The last issue I want to bring up in this letter is gay rights (SB 2 and HB 2007).  I do not believe in discrimination and I also believe what people do in their private lives is none of government’s business.  But I opposed both measures and I want you to know why.  My main objections to SB 2 were the fact it gives protected class status to people based on behavior and puts religious and fraternal organizations at risk of a law suit for simply following their beliefs.  Dr. Martin Luther King’s widow was quoted saying “I know many people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”  I think this sums up the purpose for a protected class designation and with this bill we are going a step too far.  The bill also has the potential of requiring the teaching of alternative lifestyles in our public schools.  HB 2007 deals with legal rights and might have been a good bill if it also talked about legal rights for all rather than just homosexual couples.   

But the core issue here goes beyond these two bills. It is the fact we are moving farther away from a society based on moral principles to a society based on “social relativism”.  When no one is responsible or accountable for their actions we are in jeopardy as a country.  The result of this shift can be seen in an increase in teen pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse, teen violence, increased divorce rates, and most other social problems facing our society.  In my opinion strong families and strong communities can go along way towards solving most of the social problems facing us.  I also believe without a strong moral foundation neither of these can exist.  I choose to take a stand for American values and against the progressive movement.  In many ways our future is at stake. 

Sincerely, 

Senator Jeff Kruse 

“Are you ready to pay a regional gas tax, motor vehicle registration fee or property tax to ease traffic congestion in the Portland area?” asks the Gresham Outlook.  Here’s a emphatic “NO!” from this voter. 

Metro, our tri-county government will likely ask voters to approve new taxes in November of 2008.  Anyone else opposed to adding an extra buck-per-fill-up? 

Certainly, traffic congestion is only going to get worse in the Portland-Metro area.  The Reason Foundation estimates that by 2030, Portland will have worse congestion than Boston or New York (we’ll be doing better than Seattle though). 

I’m sure we could all agree that we want to reduce congestion.  But, I’m not sure why we have to have another tax to do it.

According to a Chicago Sun-Times article, the Massachusetts legislature is considering a new bill that would add short and fat people to discrimination statutes. 

All people should be treated with respect as human beings.  But, speaking as a member of one of these classes, come on!  If this type of legislation keeps up, companies will have to hire new employees by picking a name out of a hat - if they learn too much and then don’t hire someone, they’ll probably be sued.

In World Net Daily article posted today, Dr. James Dobson announced that, as a private citizen, he will not vote for Rudy Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee for the 2008 election.  

Dobson and Giuliani part ways on several issues held dear to religious conservatives.  Last week Giuliani affirmed his support for abortion on demand, and is opposed to a federal marriage amendment (though he supports traditional marriage).  Dobson also cited Giuliani’s three marriages as a concern.  Quoting Harry S Truman, he asked “How can I trust a man if his wife can’t?”

Read Dobson’s article here.  Do you think this will have an impact on the Giuliani campaign either way?

I, for one, am glad that Giuliani and Dobson have both made their views clear.

Recently Michael Moore challenged former US Senator Fred Thompson to a debate.  At issue is Thompson’s criticism of Moore’s recent trip to Cuba.  Skim Michael Moore’s challenge to Thompson here, and then watch the hilarious 30 second response.

Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of World Magazine wrote a provocative essay on Christians and global warming policy this week.  Here are a few excerpts:

Remember Psalm 24? Verse 1: The eart this the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein. Verse 2: The godly who dwell therein should embrace a global-warming pollution tax and acap-and-trade approach designed to reduce CO2 emissions by over 50 percent. Verse 3: The Panama Canal is America’s, for America founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.

I’ve made up verses two and three to suggest that both the left and right have problems when they argue that all evangelicals should support the specific policy prescriptions that their leaders think are best.

It’s … a large leap to go from the general principle of stewardship to specificity about particular emission controls. Pastors, called to preach and teach what the Bible proclaims, rarely have the expertise to announce with authority which solutions to particular environmental problems are best.

I mention all this because leaders of the mellifluously named Evangelical Climate Initiative are now looking for evangelical leaders to sign a new statement calling for mandatory, federally imposed targets and timetables aimed at bring about specific reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Isn’t it time to agree not to underuse or overuse the Bible to fit partiuclar policy agendas? Ofthen the bible is clear: It’s fine, combining “you shall not murder” and “you knitted me together in my mother’s womb,” to preach against abortion - but even then pastors should not be proclaiming which set of pro-life tactics will be the most effective. It’s not fine to combine Psalm 24 and … nothing, so as to demand that all Christians support specific environmental or foreign policy proposals.

“It is shocking to me to see how outraged some politicians and the media are about the possibility a government agency might violate someone’s civil rights by listening in on a private phone conversation (in the course of protecting national security), while those same people seem to have no concern whatsoever when government violates property rights, our most basic civil rights, by imposing land use reglations that literally ’steal’ the use and value of private property to provide benefits to the public such as opensace and wildlife habitat.

While certainly protection for rights to privacy in phone conversations is important, the protection of property rights (rights to one’s property) is just as or even mor important.

Property rights are the cornerstone of our entire economic system, and without them our other civil rights could not survive.”

-Bill Moshofsky, President, Oregonians in Action

With two months left in the 2007 Legislative Session it is time to take a look back at what has been accomplished so far.  The first major thing we did was to create a “rainy day fund”.  We did this by stealing part of the kicker refund and we called the action historic.  It seems we had forgotten the rainy day fund for education we had created in 2003 which currently has a value three times as great as the new one.  As this new fund is actually a state savings account I argued we should create it the way most people and businesses do by not spending all of our income and putting some aside. With 2.5 billion more dollars to spend this would seem like a reasonable approach, but it was not to be.  Next we created a state health insurance pool for teachers.  Every school in my Senate District told me this would actually cost them more money, but the bill moved through the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.  The reason being this was the teachers union’s number one priority and political payback was due.  We asked for the ability to get an independent analysis of the actual cost or savings and were denied the opportunity. Next was the renewable energy bill.  This had the potential to be a great piece of legislation, but ended up falling short.  First Oregon will be the only state in the nation not to count hydro power as renewable.  Additionally any renewable energy facility sited before 1996 also would not count.  Thirdly the bill drives too much towards wind power which is not dependable as the wind does not always blow.  There are some exciting alternative energy sources out there such as wave energy and methane conversion, but the technology is several years away.  This bill assumes policy can drive technology, which is a flawed concept and will end up costing all of us more on our electric bills. 

Next was the update of the bottle bill.  We will now be including water bottles and all carbonated drink bottles in what can be redeemed at the grocery store.  This is considered a victory for recycling.  In reality we are impacting 1% of the waste stream and 3% of the litter stream and putting more of a burden on the private sector.  I have argued for the creation of a real recycling program so we could recover all glass, plastic and metal from the waste stream.  If we truly want recycling we should take a comprehensive approach and not just nibble around the edges. There are several other bills I could mention, but to save space I will stop here for now.  All of the issues listed above have merit and are issues I would have liked to have been able to support.  Unfortunately the agenda seems to be driven by politics, sound bites and head lines.  All of these issues have been put on the fast track without much opportunity to fully explore the underlying policy implications.  It is the job of the Legislature to make sound decisions on public policy.  We have fallen short of that objective.  I find it very frustrating to have to oppose issues I would like to support simply because the legislation is poorly written creating serious unintended consequences.  The people of Oregon deserve more from the people they elect to serve them.  I will continue to work hard to try and find common ground solutions on the issues yet to be resolved.   

Sincerely, 

Senator Jeff Kruse    

Throughout his presidency, George W. has remained staunchly pro-life.  His May 3 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi lets the Democratically controlled congress know that he will veto any bills that threaten life.
 
I am concerned that his year the Congress may consider legislation that could substantially change Federal policies and laws on abortion, and allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life
 
As you know, current law prohibits Federal funding for abortion, both domestically and internationally, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is endangered.  Recent legislative practice has ensured that taxpayer funds do not underwrite organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.  Current U.S. law protects human embryos.
 
I urge that these and other existing, important protections be respected and continued.  I believe it is the most basic duty of Government to guard the innocent.  With that in mind, I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.
 
These are just a couple of highlights. Read the whole letter here.

A bill which would have required 65% of teachers at charter schools be state certified appears to be dead.  Sponsor Sen. Vicki Walker (D-Eugene) pulled SB 621 from the Senate floor because it did not have the votes to pass.
 
Originally, the bill would have required that all teachers at charter schools be certified, instead of the current 50%. 
 
There is little correlation between teacher certification and student achievement, as most private and home schools prove year after year. 
 
There are 70 publicly funded charter schools in the state.  They operate independently and are providing a valuable education alternative for Oregon families.
 
This regulation was unnecessary, and intrusive, and I’m pleased that even in the heavily democrat Senate, the bill didn’t have the votes to pass.
 
Read more in the Oregonian or the Statesman Journal.