Lars Larson: Kitzhaber as Governor

Let’s talk a little about what John Kitzhaber would do if he was returned as Governor of Oregon.

Governor John Kitzhaber was bad for Oregon. I think I can show that statistically. The man came into office. He grew government.

Back in 2001 he grew government by 17%. Did your paycheck go up 17% in 2001? The Governor also voted in favor of tons and tons of new taxes. He worked in favor of the environmentalists, the hard core ones that want to lock you out of the forest, and he worked against the rights of private property owners.

I think John Kitzhaber was bad for Oregon.

He favored doctor assisted suicide and so did the public. Maybe that’s okay. But, this guy also fought against individual property rights. He didn’t favor Ballot Measure 7 or 37. He fought against them and I think he even played dirty pool.

Now he wants another term as Governor. I think he’d be just as bad the second time””maybe worse””than he was the first time.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 23 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Marth

    I think John is just the man Oregon needs right now to snap out of the doldrums. If the people want to kill their loved ones, (young or old) who is he to stand in the way? Taxes help fuel the economy as so many more people get state jobs. Private property is an old notion that really doesn’t fit in today’s redistribution of wealth mentality. Remember, Obama has a mandate.

    Our forests need protection. If John would not protect them, who would? This man stands tall and brave in the way he thinks and acts. The state will benefit from his return to Salem. I know I will vote for him and visit all my neighbors and “get in their faces” if they don’t like him. I will man the phone banks for this man. I will send money (not much, as I am unemployed) to his campaign. I will put a lawn sign out front. I will put a bumper sticker on my Volvo. I will do what it takes to save Oregon.

    • Shawna

      Taxes…apparently, you’re not working so perhaps you’re not being overwhelmed by them by your beloved Governor?

      I and my family work hard for what we have, I’m not willing to “spread the wealth” so as morons will spend or throw away my hard earned money on programs I am absolotely against. The more handouts people receive, the lazier they become.

      I highly suggest reasearching the topic of protecting our forests. It is very unhealthy to be informed primairliy by the media. A very infomative read is “Set Up & Sold Out” by Holly Swanson. I come from many generations of loggers, and understand the difference between clear-cutting (which I am against) to forest management, or select cutting.

      Tall & brave? Then why has he hardly made an appearance up until recently at the Capital? Hmmm, maybe it’s to show his face and start campaigning for yet another horrible term.

      Oregonians deserve so much better than Kitzhaber. Personally, I’m hoping someone like Bruce Hanna will decide to run.

    • John

      “Private property is an old notion that really doesn’t fit in today’s redistribution of wealth mentality”.

      You go right ahead and give up your private property because you want to know who will end up with it? It will be the government and/or the wealthy. There is no such thing as spreading the wealth. The rich don’t spread their wealth, if they did, they wouldn’t be wealthy.

    • Harry

      I love Marth!!

      Are you a writer? I forgot, is it sarcasm? or irony? or are they basically the same thing?

      And it seems most bit on your hook… good job!

      Keep writing your stuff!! Most libruls will be sitting there saying, “Yep, Yep! What Marth said!! Yep, Yep!!” right up until you hit them with the Volvo line!

      • Martha

        There is no need to make fun of my vehicle choice. And, I bought it before Ford owned them, too.
        It is a very safe, if albeit plain-looking and somewhat underpowered car.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t you just love it. All for the dems and they are the reasone you are unemployed.

  • John

    Haven’t we Oregonians suffered enough.

  • devietro

    In all honesty the end of Kitzhabers term was really when I first started to become politically active, so I dont really remember a lot of the fine details but I do know that he is a liberal I know what liberals have done to Oregon. On that basis alone I say hell no. HOWEVER I fully support him running because I think we can beat him.

    Also the earlier critiques of him due to his Hayduke lives sticker is a little unfair. Lots of us have stickers on our cars that if extrapolated could be taken to an extreme. I have a “Terrorist hunting permit” sticker on my car but don’t feel the need to become a vigilante. I also collect Russian military rifles but don’t have communist tendencies.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Just to clue you in Kitzhaber came up with one good idea – The Oregon Health plan. Its what he is most known for.

      It was a really good compromise, balancing the needs of the uninsured and the fetishists who feel a need to insure them with the needs of working people to actually keep some of what they earn through work.

      It did this in an ingenious way.

      Kitzhaber and crew made a list of every medical procedure and arraigned them with the procedures that were lowest cost greatest benefit at the top, the procedures with highest cost lowest benefit at the bottom.

      In other words – vaccinating for the flu ( cheap, saves a lot of lives ) was probably near the top, breast implants for teens ( more expensive, doesn’t save a lot of lives ) would be further down.

      The genius of this plan was it was supposedly going to be cost neutral. If more people signed up for the plan, the expensive low efficacy procedures would be dropped from the bottom of the plan. This would provide a way of keeping the costs of giving away free care down.

      Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? I mean you have to give the guy credit, not only did he talk about containing costs, he actually put in a mechanism for doing so. Frankly Id prefer government to get out of health care al together, but if they have to be involved, this seemed like a pretty reasonable way.

      Well, guess what, that’s not how it all worked out. Turns out a whole bunch of people signed up for the plan started suing for sex change surgery, acne treatment and the like and basically it didn’t do jack. As I recall a few years back there was even some guy in prison who got a sex change surgery, while at the same time a teen girl couldn’t get a heart lung transplant because that was considered experimental. I think the guy who runs Shilo Inns paid for her surgery. I’m sure one of our Google bots will look it up.

      Anyway – The Oregon health care plan was supposed to ensure all Oregonians would have some form of health insurance. It didn’t.

      The reason why it didn’t is for too reasons:

      1 – The plan was not fully funded. But then again, those making this argument can never name a plan other than national defense that is ever fully funded.
      2 – George Bush is stupid.

      Is Kitzhaber a bad man? Not really. He was certainly a little bit sharper than Ted and had far less of the union sleaze factor. The seat is pretty much his for the asking so long as he doesn’t switch parties. Its kind of a stay the course vote. More big spending in Salem, more whining about government not having enough money, more taxes, more initiatives to get them thrown out. Kitzhaber spent big and raised taxes. Big whoop, that’s not a surprise, Republicans were put on this earth to cut taxes, Democrats to raise them.

      Statewide politics in Oregon is pretty much like shampoo

      Circulate money until a rich lather forms
      Rinse money out and down the drain
      Pass tax increase to pour more money in
      get it rejected
      Whine and repeat

      • Anonymous

        “The seat is pretty much his for the asking so long as he doesn’t switch parties. Its kind of a stay the course vote.”

        Stay the course is a sure fire loser. People really do want change. Many thought they were getting it with Obama and are now disillusioned. Many others wanted – and still want – change to the right: they didn’t fully support McCain because he was just another squishy moderate-liberal.

        A fiscal conservative, limited government candidate can do well in Oregon in 2010 or nationally in 2012. The secret to winning Oregon will be remaining fiscally conservative and supporting limited government without kowtowing to the religious right on abortion or gay marriage. This does NOT mean “supporting abortion and gay marriage.” That would result in another Al Mobely. But I mean NOT making abortion and gay marriage a central part of the campaign. It adds nothing, while pushing away the middle.

        Fact 1: abortion is a federal issue. A winning conservative candidate will be the one who articulates this, educating voters to understand that, at the state level, there will be no banning abortion. However, the candidate should be willing to say that, given a bill by the legislature to restrict late term abortion, require limited parental notification, etc., he will sign it. Keep the right from bailing, but at the same time keep the left from using the dead-teenages-getting-back-alley-abortions inflamatory language. Most people oppose abortion, but most people also want it to be legal. It is a paradox. Moving too far in either direction is political suicide for a conservative.

        Fact 2: the people voted on gay marriage. It is a winning issue, but only IF you frame the debate as “the people had their say.” You can say you personally think consenting adults should be free to form personal unions – but the people voted against gay marriage and it would be your job as governor to uphold that law. LEAVE IT AT THAT. Say you support changing that law, and here comes the Constitution Party to take 10% of your vote. But, say you are opposed to gays having their relationships, and the left will succeed in turning you into a gay-bashing vampire.

        So stick with money and freedom – and walk a fine line with delicate steps on the two big social issues.

  • v person

    “Back in 2001 he grew government by 17%.”

    Weren’t both the Oregon House adn Senate controlled by Republicans in 2001? How did Kitzhaber manage to “grow government” without them?

    “Did your paycheck go up 17% in 2001?”

    What in the world does this have to do with anything? A relavant question is whether the gross product of the state went up by that much given population and economic growth.

    “Governor also *voted* in favor of tons and tons of new taxes. ”

    Tons and tons sounds like a lot. But under our system of Government, the governor does not actually get a vote. He has signing and veto powers. The legislature or the people can vote for new taxes, not the governor.

    “He worked in favor of the environmentalists, the hard core ones that want to lock you out of the forest”

    He fended off endangered species listings for salmon, an action that was opposed by environmentalists. He did nothing to reduce logging in Oregon. That was a federal decision for federal lands.

    “I think John Kitzhaber was bad for Oregon”

    Well if your thinking is based on your false assumptions, then what good is it?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Weren’t both the Oregon House adn Senate controlled by Republicans in 2001? How did Kitzhaber manage to “grow government” without them?

      Snicker – Thanks teeing that up Dean.

      Seriously, its like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to your absurd partisanship.

      OK – so here we go –

      Hey, so Dean, if Kitzhaber doesn’t get the blame because Republicans were in the House and Senate Then that pretty much means that Clinton doesn’t get the credit for the supposedly balanced budget either. I mean after all, Republicans did control then and as we all know, Clinton sent up budgets showing deficits of $300B as far as the eye could see in 1994. Clinton didn’t give a rip about cutting the budget, Republicans had to hold his feet to the fire on that one.

      Sorry, couldn’t resist. This one was just way too easy Dean.

      • v person

        Rupert…grand master of subject changing.

        Credit schmedit. Clinton is the only president over the past 40 years who ran balanced budgets. Yes, Republicans in the House and Senate at that time can claim a share of the credit. But the same Republicans served under Bush, and the balanced budget went bye bye in favor of tax cuts not balanced by spending cuts. it was party time.

        I know you can’t accept this, but Democratic presidents have consistently been more conservative fiscal managers than have Republicans since 1960. The national debt relative to GDP *decreased* under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton (and Nixon to give credit where it is due). It *increased* under Ford, Reagan and both Bushs. Facts are facts.

        Clintons budget projections in 94 were based on lower growth assumptions than what turned out. After his tax raise, growth was faster than had been anticipated, and along with spending constraint, the budget eventually came into balance and then some.

        Now back to Kitzhaber. If Lars is right and he “grew government” by 17% in 2001, do the Republicans in the legislature get a share of the credit for that or no? And at what point will you give up the myth that Republicans are conservative fiscal managers? They aren’t, and the record is clear. Its all just rhetoric and you buy it again and again. When are you going to wise up? After Palin is elected and really breaks the bank?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Rupert…grand master of subject changing.

          Not really. You were excusing Kitzhaber for the same thing which you always have insisted sole credit was due to Clinton. Facts is facts Dean and the fact here is you are such a partisan you get caught in these inconsistencies all the time and I just love pointing them out..

          It’s fun, but not exactly new. We know when it comes to you its Democrats always good, Republicans always bad.

          As I said, and you always confirm, liberals are the most partisan of animals. You prove it every day with your comments here.

          I wouldn’t go bragging about the deficit too much. Your boy BO has just blown that little argument out of the water.

          Keep on trying though!

          • v person

            Giving Clinton credit for what he accomplished is not the same as giving him “sole” credit. You added that modifyer, not me. There is no inconsistancy because I did not say what you say I said. Your “fun” comes from putting words in my mouth and then arguing with yourself pretending it is me. I could have lots of fun going out to the barn and beating up the scarecrow we made a few years ago. But that would be weird, and I would be concerned about myself if that is what I needed to do for amusement .

            Republicans are not always bad. Tom McCall was a great governor, and Vic Atiyeh was ok. Hatfield was a mostly good Senator and quite a gentleman. Olympia Snow seems thoughtful and pragmatic. McCain used to be ok before his party drove him off the rails. Chuck Hagel is a guy I respect on foreign policy. Same for Richard Lugar.

            On the deficit, Obama has been in office 8 months, and has submitted one budget. We are in the worst recession since the 1930s, so high deficits are not only to be expected, they are the only way we are going to avoid 20% or more unemployment. (Even the Wall Street Journal now says the stimulus has added 2-3 points to GDP). Let’s see where the economy is a year from now, and where the budget is 7 or 8 years from now. I expect Obama’s record will be closer to Clinton than it will be to Bush or Reagan, which will be a good thing. But balancing the budget now would be repeating Hoover’s mistake. Roosevelt is a better model for the times we are in.

            If you dare Rupert, read the link below that summarizes the economic record of all presidents since 1960. Read it and weep that is.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html

  • The Final Blow

    Klodhopper will be the one that delivers the final blow in a full government takeover of the state. It will finally become a state park for the rich and eco nazis.

    All of it’s citizens will either work for the union run government or be on welfare. The only industry able to operate will be government run restaurants and government run hospitals.

    It is time for a through house cleaning people! Let us get rid of all of the career politician millionaires and useless unions.

    If the government can take over the health care industry and rebuild it in their image, we can take over the government industry and make it in ours.

    We really do have the power we just don’t know it. All we need is a hand full of dedicated leaders to rally us. Before you know it we have something to be proud of. It does belong to us, why should we not run it?

    The next time you are in front of that ballot remember to think of this idea. Do not put the elite class back in power. Take back what is yours. Forget party lines as they are all corrupt.

    Force politicians as citizenry to sign a contract that only allows them to vote and legislate following the constitution(s). If they stray they are fired. If they get morally bankrupt they are gone.

    Take back our right to the initiative process without government intervention. Make a non political panel from our honored senior citizens to vet the legality and financial impact. Make our wishes unimpeachable from the politicians and lawyers by virtue of law.

    Make our needed services non profit and competitive otherwise it will run away with costs and bureaucracy.

    We are sick and tired of the out of control masters we call government, let us fix it.

  • Oregometry

    Lars says Kitzhaber played “dirty pool” in fighting Measures 7/37….um, where’s your warrant?

    I hope people aren’t really buying into this drivel that has no factual evidence behind, let alone even faulty evidence presented. That’s just lazy, Lars.

  • Bob Clark

    Kitzhaber stinks big time. His Oregon Health Plan was a wreck financially, and services had to be drastically cut only a year or two after being put in place. The Democrat legislature this last session said in effect the Oregon Health Plan isn’t a big enough failure yet and decided instead to grow it by taxing folks who actually purchase health insurance with their own monies. Do “gooders” do no good for Oregon because people who actually pay for the system find ways to not be the chumps anymore supporting the deadbeats the do gooders fien wanting to help. Oregon is headed to a California-like financial armagedon, and “tax-and-spend” Kitzhaber will only speed this event.

  • abc123

    Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all grew government. So, were they bad for America?

    Through 2006, median family income in the U.S. was lower than 2000, Clinton’s last year. In 2007 it *finally* crept above the 2000 level. Yet Republican apologists want to blame Democratic control of Congress for our financial problems, even though the G.O.P. controlled both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

    Oh, for you conservative fundamentalists, the economic growth of the Clinton era occurred *after* tax increases were passed in his first year, and the economic problems in the first two years of the Bush era occurred after tax cuts were passed in his first year.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah vd,
    “Let’s see where the economy is a year from now, and where the budget is 7 or 8 years from now.”

    And no matter how long it takes it will be obama who pulled us out of Bush’s economy.

    And here in Oregon Roberts, Kitzahber and Kulongoski have all been swell.

    • Martha

      Agreed. O is the man!

  • Anonymous

    People wanted – and still want – change. Even Kitzhaber has said this. But what change does he represent? What will he do differently? Will he lower, rather than raise, our taxes? Will he reduce, rather than increase, government spending? Will he cut, rather than create, government red tape?

    The one thing people seem to agree that Kitzhaber actually accomplished was creating the Oregon Health Plan. This session, the Legislature passed HB 2009 and HB 2116, creating the Oregon Health Authority (that Kitzhaber helped to shape) and the Healty Kids plan (that Kitzhaber helped write back in 2007). The Legislature – and our current Governor – told us these bills would solve all our health care problems in Oregon. So, what, exactly, does Kitzhaber bring to the table, if his one big positive quality has been made irrelevant? If we still “need” to fix Oregon health care, then it means Kitzhaber is part of the problem. If we really did fix it already, he becomes redundant.

    Yeah. Bring him on. This will be fun to watch.

  • Anonymous

    Kitzhaber is not green, $ave for when it renders down to his PAC’d house minions, who’res given to brown nose every prostitutional tea bagging left bling sunzabitches connected to a Gnu Whorld Order.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)