Here is the latest television spot for Yes on Measure 104 by the official campaign. The Measure 104 TV ad is very good and shows what is at stake.
This is no joke. For instance, the politicians created HB 2006 in 2017 which rolled back the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction for homeowners by introducing new income limits and tough rules on which homes qualify. The tax was labeled Not-a-Tax (despite raising a $100 million) and was allowed to bypass the Constitution’s 3/5 rule.
The politicians also created HB 2060 in 2017 which voided the Small Business Tax Cut for any businesses that didn’t hire new employees. The tax was deemed Not-a-Tax (despite it raises a ¼ billion) and was allowed to bypass the Constitution’s 3/5 rule.
These are real tax raising tax bills being sold as non-tax budget tweaks. Don’t buy the lie – Vote Yes on Measure 104!
Nearly 75% of the public has not voted. Please get your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers to turn in their ballots and Vote Yes on Measure 104.
We need to honor the will of the voters.
In 1996, Oregon Voters approved a Constitutional amendment requiring all taxes and fees to require a 3/5th majority of votes.
This higher 3/5 vote (60%) threshold in the Constitution has stopped a flood of tax increases from being passed over the past 20 years.
Now, the politicians have found a way around it.
By changing who qualifies for tax credits and deductions, the politicians can raise billions in new taxes without it ever being considered a tax increase.
This is why we need Measure 104!
— Was this article helpful? Enjoy lower taxes? Support the Taxpayer Association with a small donation here[2]. Tax credit and tax deductible options.
The private lot near Multnomah Falls plans to charge[4] $5 to $20 to park near the number one tourist destination in Oregon. The $20 will be for during the highest point in the season — a new trend called peak pricing or surge pricing.
You may soon see this elsewhere in Oregon.
Oregon is trying to push highway tolling at 8 locations in the greater Portland Metro area where the tolls would charge different prices during the day as a way to pressure people to to stop driving.
Just this year, Wendy’s considered changing menu prices during the time of day based on high traffic times.
— Was this helpful? If so, Contribute online at OregonWatchdog.com[5] (learn about a Charitable Tax Deduction[5] or Political Tax Credit[5] options to promote liberty).
The Supreme Court must strike down rules that forbid cities from acting against homeless who set up camp on public property.
First, drug and alcohol addiction causes nearly all homelessness.
Do you want proof of that? Homeless shelters offer “low barrier” rules: translation, you can keep right on drinking and drugging and still get in.
So the laws tell cities to let the addicts know nothing is expected of them, and they may keep on doing the very thing that put them on the streets in the first place.
The obnoxious and often criminal behavior of “concrete campers” has worn out their welcome. Any of us who fell on hard times would first turn to family and friends for help. When those folks now refuse to take you in, you’re allowed to impose your antisocial behavior on the rest of your community.
The current court decision…which i hope the supreme court overturns…forbid cities and counties to threaten jail or criminal penalties for living on the streets
The courts tell us we have an obligation to house, feed, and care for people who created their own Hellish conditions, and they can’t be forced to change.
Try telling law-abiding Americans about “obligation”…in a country where cities feel no obligation to quickly answer your 9-1-1 call. Where Joe Biden shows no obligation to stop a dangerous invasion.
Prosecutors who refuse to prosecute.
Schools that refuse to educate.
Tell those folks about their obligation to addicts who owe them nothing in return.
Beware: squatters not as easy to get rid of as you would think
I received an email last week from a property owner with a question about squatters and a link to a recent article about the growing nationwide problem with squatters[8]. Squatters are people who move into homes without invitation from the property owner and refuse to leave when discovered.
The email question was how are squatters treated under Oregon law? The short answer is getting rid of a squatter isn’t as easy as it should be.
A squatter is a trespasser.
Trespassing is a crime under Oregon law. If you combine Oregon law with common sense, you’d think it would be easy to get rid of a squatter. If you discover a squatter on your property, just call the local police and they’ll get rid of the trespasser. Right? Well maybe.
There is no requirement that police intervene and enforce trespassing law, and if the situation isn’t clear, the squatters don’t appear to be dangerous and are claiming that they have the right to be on the property, it can very easily become a “civil matter,” meaning the police are going to ask the property owner to take care of the problem. So, what does the property owner do?
To be clear – a squatter is not a tenant.
In order to be considered a “tenant” under Oregon law, there has to be a “rental agreement” between the landlord and the person claiming to be the tenant. If a trespasser takes control of a home on your property without your permission (oral or written), they are not a “tenant,” and they are not entitled to protection under Oregon residential tenant law.
The fact that the squatter is not a “tenant” is both good and bad. The good news is that Oregon law makes it really difficult to evict “tenants”, which is one of the reasons that there is a shortage of rental units in most communities. Why become a landlord in Oregon when the state makes it really hard on you?
The bad news is that the legislature has an expedited legal process for resolving landlord/tenant disputes that is only available to those parties. The lawsuit is known as a “forcible entry and detainer” action (FED), and it’s used by both landlords and tenants to resolve disputes between them. The legislature has created a greatly expedited process for FED lawsuits to make sure property disputes are resolved quickly.
Unfortunately, the only way a property owner can use a FED lawsuit against a squatter is if the squatter made “forcible entry” onto the property. What does that mean?
There isn’t a definition of “forcible entry” in Oregon law, and there is very little guidance from Oregon courts on what it means for a squatter to enter property by force. What guidance exists suggests that for a squatter to make a forcible entry onto property, there must be some kind of illegal activity. For example, a break-in of the home, a physical threat to the property owner, or something of that nature.
If the squatter has made a “forcible entry” onto property in Oregon, the property owner can use a FED lawsuit to remove them from the property. But if the squatter fights the lawsuit, the property owner will be required to prove the facts that created the “forcible entry”.
Oregon law allows for “ejectment” of squatters.
So what happens if the squatter refuses to leave and there’s no “forcible entry”? The property owner can’t use the FED and has to use a different lawsuit. The typical claim is a claim for “ejectment” of the squatter.
There’s nothing wrong with an ejectment action, but there’s no expedited court process for ejectment actions, and if the squatter wants to fight, it can take a very long time before the court finally gets to the case and makes a decision. The property owner can recover damages from the squatter, but a typical squatter doesn’t have any money anyway – if they did, they wouldn’t be a squatter. So the damage award is a hollow victory.
So what does a property owner do when they find that their home has been taken over by a squatter? The best hope is that the police can get the squatter to leave. Problem solved. If that doesn’t work, the property owner has to consider their options. They can file a lawsuit (either an FED or ejectment action) – if the squatter doesn’t fight, the property owner can get a judgment in a couple of months. A lawsuit can be expensive, however.
There’s also self-help…
Since the squatter is a trespasser and has no legal right to the property (assuming the property owner hasn’t made them a tenant, which would be a really bad idea) there is nothing that prevents you from retaking your property when the squatter leaves. In other words, if the property owner temporarily vacates the property, you can reoccupy it. If the squatter comes back, call the police and demand that they remove the squatter. After all, it’s your property. At that point, the police should intervene and make the squatter leave.
The danger to self-help is obvious. A squatter is very likely not a functioning member of society, and by definition is a criminal. Self-help is dangerous and risky.
The last option is to attempt to make a deal with the squatter. Negotiate, get them to leave the property once and for all, and then immediately make repairs and change locks to secure the home. In some cases, that may be the cheapest solution.
OPOA is considering legislation during the upcoming 2025 session to make it easier for property owners to get rid of squatters. If you’re interested in this issue, let us know, and we’ll keep you updated on our efforts.
The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.
Just type the word “meme” into the Oregon Catalyst Search Bar on the right hand margin and see the site’s extensive library of memes and other visual messages.
Why memes? There is only so many breaking news stories of Oregon’s apocalypse we can broadcast on this website before the viewers start descending into chronic depression.
President Biden’s 2023 budget called for raising the top marginal income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%. Combined with Oregon’s 9.9% top rate, that is almost half of one’s income.
Once Oregonians become that successful, local liberal groups will call them greedy, protest outside their businesses and demand they pay more taxes or give all their wealth away to charity to atone for their sins.
Don’t forget, Biden blamed high meat prices on ranchers and not inflation. Biden blamed high gas prices on greedy oil companies and not inflation, nor the war in Ukraine. Earlier this year, Biden blamed shrinking product portions on greedy companies and not inflation and people’s shrinking purchasing power. Last year, Biden blamed high store prices on cargo companies and not on inflation.
Because of Kotek and her liberal allies …
… Oregon is becoming a place where success is demonized and capitalism is vilified.
A Portland environmental student rally shows one student with a sign saying that CAPITALISM KILLS PEOPLE.
.
.
The Taxpayers Association of Oregon documented[9] a 1,000 person Portland rally for socialism where they chanted “Take back the wealth!”
Portland has been tagged by radical Leftists with anti-Capitalism graffiti.
.
.
And messages to KILL THE RICH.
.
— Was this helpful? If so, Contribute online at OregonWatchdog.com[5] (learn about a Charitable Tax Deduction[5] or Political Tax Credit[5] options to promote liberty).
(Sources: CNBC 2/9/23, 9.9% applies to those over $250,000)
TAO, 40 conservative groups rally to oppose Speaker takeover
This weekend there was an effort by some members of Congress to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The last time the Speaker was vacated (mere months ago) the entire House agenda was shut down for nearly a month, nothing was being done, a clown-car array of replacements were floated and shot down in vain, liberals used the circus for a fundraising and media bonanza to bash the party in power driving voter disgust to high levels. Our priority should be to get as much done as possible in the few remaining months left of 2024 by building upon the successes that Speaker Johnson has achieved.
Below is the information on what conservative groups rallied behind:
A coalition of more than 40 conservative movement leaders released a today urging the House to oppose a vote on the motion to vacate the chair or any effort in which Republican lawmakers would vote with Democrats to remove Speaker Johnson.
We the undersigned conservative organizations and individuals write to oppose a vote on the motion to vacate the chair or any effort in which Republican lawmakers would vote with Democrats to remove Speaker Johnson.
Maintaining the Republican House majority is vital to any organization or individual focused on advancing conservative policy priorities and delivering wins on the Reagan-Trump agenda. We are just one House seat away from united Democrat rule in Washington and an unchecked return to the disastrous policies of the Biden administration. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Vacating a Republican Speaker distracts and undermines all progress on conservative issues while weakening the Republican majority in the House.
We therefore urge you to reject any vote on a motion to vacate the chair.
Onwards,
Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Newt Gingrich
Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
Bob McEwen
Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
Marty Connors
Meeting Chair, Alabama Center-Right Coalition
Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment
Thomas Pyle
President, American Energy Alliance
Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, American Legislative Exchange Council
John Mize
CEO, American’s United for Life
Ryan Ellis
President, Center for a Free Economy
Star Parker
President, Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
Sandra Hagee Parker
Chairwoman, Christians United for Israel Action Fund
Penny Nance,
President/CEO, Concerned Women for America LAC
Hon. Ken Blackwell
Chairman, Council for National Policy Action
Nathan Leamer
Executive Director, Digital First Project
James Erwin
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
Kris Ullman
President, Eagle Forum
Cleta Mitchell
Founder, Election Integrity Network
Ralph Reed
Founder/Chairman, Faith & Freedom Coalition
Tony Perkins
President, Family Research Council
Jody Hice,
President, Family Research Council Action
George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom
Ray Chadwick
Chairman, Granite State Taxpayers
Daniel Perrin
President, HSA Coalition
Heather Higgins
CEO, Independent Women’s Voice
John Dodd
President Emeritus, Jesse Helms Center Foundation
Ginni Thomas
President, Liberty Consulting
Aidan Chao
Los Angeles Taxpayers Association
Gene Mills
President, Louisiana Family Forum
L. Brent Bozell III
Founder and President, Media Research Center
Dan Schneider
Vice President for Free Speech, Media Research Center
Tim Jones
Chairman, Missouri Center-Right Coalition
Doug Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform
Tom Hebert
Executive Director, Open Competition Center
Matt Brooks
CEO, Republican Jewish Coalition
Kerri Tolockzo
Meeting Chair, South West Florida Center-Right Coalition
Kristan Hawkins
President, Students for Life of America
Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, SBA Pro-Life America
Jason Williams
Director, Taxpayer Association of Oregon
Kevin Riffe
Chairman, West Virginia Center-Right Coalition
James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, 60 Plus Association
The prudent person principle should be applied to all publicly funded projects
Earlier this month, Cascade Policy Institute provided suggestions[12] to the Board of Portland Public Schools to reduce costs on the Jefferson High School modernization project. The project is paused due to the budget ballooning from $311 million (approved by voters in a 2020 bond issue) to $491 million.
Cascade’s primary advice for the PPS Board can be applied to all publicly funded projects: practice common sense prudence.
The prudent person principle provides perspective on three cost-prohibitive aspects of public projects:
Building above code requirements;
Energy efficiency expenditures with payback periods exceeding 20 years;
Overbuilding
To meet building code requirements for seismic resilience, Jefferson must be designed as a risk category III structure. Current plans call for building to the costly and unnecessary standard of risk category IV.
The state mandates 1.5% of most public buildings’ budgets be allocated to green energy technology. Agency managers of four other Oregon school districts have refused to comply due to the excessive length of the pay-back period.
Finally, building realistically sized projects is key. Jefferson’s current enrollment is below 500 students yet the rebuild is planned for 1,700, a flagrantly excessive size in a school district with declining enrollment.
The areas of excess in the Jefferson High School re-build are common in public projects. A prudent person would rein in this spending.
Karen Rue is Executive Assistant at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Independent journalist and homeless advocate Kevin Dahlgren shows what it is like to go under a Portland underpass where homeless have taken over. It is unreal.
I walked through the sketchiest pedestrian underpass I have ever seen. Every inch of the ground was covered in broken tile or trash. In the middle was a man talking to himself. pic.twitter.com/7myn7wmj6L[15]
— Kevin Dahlgren 🥾 🥾 (@kevinvdahlgren) April 17, 2024[16]
— Was this helpful? If so, Contribute online at OregonWatchdog.com[5] (learn about a Charitable Tax Deduction[5] or Political Tax Credit[5] options to promote liberty).
U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR, is thrilled with President Biden’s actions cancelling student loan debt. She shouldn’t be.
Even though she has a bachelor’s degree and a law degree from the University of Oregon, it’s clear she’s no economist. And even though she’s a member of the House Progressive Caucus, her support for student loan forgiveness suggests she’s no friend of working families either.
That’s because, for one, the billions in student debt aren’t, in fact, being cancelled. The loans will still be paid off. The issue is by whom?
“The idea that the government is footing the bill for this policy is a bit misleading,” the American Institute for Economic Research[18] points out. “The cost of the program does not fall on the government. It falls on those who miss out on expenditures that would have otherwise occurred, those who pay higher taxes as a result of the program, those who pay higher interest rates or are crowded out due to additional government borrowing, or those who see the purchasing power of their dollars reduced more than usual.”
Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in 2022 when it announced that it would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans, Biden has since been rolling out a series of debt forgiveness alternatives using a variety of executive actions.
Biden’s ingenuity in coming up with more loan repayment exceptions seems to have no bounds.
On April 8, 2024, the White House announced an initiative that would:
forgive interest balances built up to date for 25 million borrowers, with 23 million likely to have all of their balance growth forgiven.
automatically cancel debt for borrowers eligible for loan forgiveness under several loan programs.
cancel student debt for borrowers who entered repayment over 20 years ago.
cancel student debt for loans associated with institutions or programs that lost their eligibility to participate in the Federal student aid program or were denied recertification because they cheated or took advantage of students.
cancel student debt for borrowers experiencing hardship paying back their loans.
While there’s no question student debt has become a burden for many Americans,Biden’s escalating efforts to relieve borrowers of obligations to repay student loans will add to the government’s annual deficits and the national debt. In other words, current student loan holders may escape repayment, but future taxpayers will have to pay the bill since Biden isn’t proposing any new revenue collections to cover the cost.
On April 11, the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model[19] estimated that Biden’s April 8 plans, if they are implemented, will cost the government $84 billion, in addition to the $475 billion that Penn Wharton previously estimated for Biden’s plans.
Rep. Bonamici must not care about that.
Biden’s student debt forgiveness policies also raise serious questions about fairness. For example, according to Penn Wharton, eliminating student debt for borrowers in repayment for more than 20 years (or for more than 25 years with graduate debt) will provide debt relief for about 750,000 individuals residing in households that, on average, earn $312,977 in annual household income.
There’s also inequity in Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in interest for borrowers who have accrued or capitalized interest on their loans since entering repayment. Low and middle-income borrowers enrolled in the SAVE Plan or other income-driven repayment (IDR) plans would be eligible for their entire interest balance since entering repayment to be cancelled if they make:
$120,000 or less per year individually or as married filing separately
$180,000 or less per year as a head of household, or
$240,000 or less per year as married borrowers who file joint taxes.
Real median personal income in the United States was only $40,480 andthe national median household income was just $74,580 in 2022. In other words, many college educated borrowers in Bonamici’s district who are eligible for relief under Biden’s plan are hardly struggling. And despite her assertion that she’s “standing up for working families,” many of her constituents with much lower incomes will end up covering the bills of their better-off neighbors.
Then, of course, a lot of Bonamici’s responsible working family constituents have probably made sacrifices to pay down their student loans, foregoing vacations, nice cars and restaurant meals. They will get no benefits at all from Bonamici’s generosity.
Tough beans for them, I guess.
Advertisements
Oregon’s top firms, Nike and Intel in mass layoffs
NIKE is cutting 2% of its worldwide workforce. At home, 740 employees at their headquarters are being laid off.
As for Intel, they laid of 7,000 employees nationwide last year, and just announced a new round of layoffs this April. Intel is one of Oregon’s largest private employers.
This is troubling news for some of our State’s most flagship businesses.
At this juncture, the recent policy of higher taxes, higher fees and more regulations that Oregon has been on may prove to be damaging to the health of businesses already under siege from bad economic conditions. Now would be a good time to cut taxes, cut fees and reduce regulations.
3 new Ukraine developments make case for YES to aid vote
By Jason Williams Williams is a researcher, writer and founder of the Taxpayers Association of Oregon.
Speaker Mike Johnson is bringing a Ukraine funding bill before Congress. This should be a YES vote.
Here are three new reasons why:
— Helping Ukraine helps Trump help Ukraine: Trump cannot make a grand deal, for which he promised, if he is dealing with a collapsed Ukraine at the time he is inaugurated. If Trump is elected this November, his ability to end the war depends on the strength of Ukraine he inherits. The stronger Ukraine is in 2025 the more and better choices the new President has. Biden on the other hand, if elected would watch all the gains be lost in epic fashion. Biden has done next to nothing to communicate the war to the public nor work with both parties on solutions. The Biden policy is simply, throw out a funding number and tell everyone that they have blood on their hands if they don’t fund it.
— Russia has called up an extra 100,000 troops[20] this year. Russia suffered a staggering 87% causality rate with some 315,000 soldiers so far (includes mercenaries). The latest call-up is a extremely risky and unpopular move for Putin. He is risking it all which means he is closer to turning the tide of the entire war or losing it all. Retreating from Ukraine at this crossroads would be foolish.
— Ukraine is limiting ammunition. Right now, frontline soldiers are limiting their ability to fire back due to an ammunition shortage. Supplying something as essential, transparent, trackable and financially low-cost (by comparison) as ammunition is common sense. The United States is now, not even doing the bare minimum of restocking ammunition to help an important democratic ally that we have supplied for two years against one of our deadliest adversaries. There are not realistically other democratic nations that can provide the volume or ramp-up in ammunition production like the United States is able to do. Ammunition is our strength and Ukraine’s vulnerability at the moment.
House and Senate Republican Women Send Letter to OSAA Calling for Immediate Protection of Girls in High School Sports BY Oregon Senate GOP & House GOP Caucus,
SALEM, Ore – The women of the House and Senate Republican Caucuses sent a letter to OSAA Executive Director Peter Weber urging the OSAA Board of Directors to take immediate action to protect equal rights of women in high school sports by only allowing biological women to competing in girls’ sports. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Weber,
We write to you today as women who have had the honor of making significant achievements in our respective lives and who use those achievements to serve the people of Oregon. We have worked to live up to the examples of the women who came before, and we strive to be an example to the young girls who will be here after us.
It is in this context that we bring to your attention the unfortunate situation that transpired at McDaniel High School in Sherwood this past weekend. Ayden Gallagher, a male student, competed in the Sherwood Need for Speed Classic in the girls’ division, placing top ten in three competitions.
Policy 38, “Gender Identity Participation” (Page 80) of the 2023-2024 OSAA Handbook says that your gender identity rule “promotes harmony and fair competition among member schools”.
Sadly, this policy has precisely the opposite of its stated effect. Instead of promoting harmony, it has sparked outrage. Instead of ensuring fair competition, a biological male has found a place in the female sports record books. Any girls’ title held by a male is not a girls’ title at all.
This policy leads us to conclude that the OSAA and the State of Oregon do not deem girls and girls’ sports worthy of protecting and that the records they set are not meaningful. Additionally, this policy creates opportunities for male students who are unable to compete at the highest levels against their male peers to compete instead in female sports and break records that are rightfully held by girls.
We hope that you can provide a solution to the families seeking answers about why the OSAA doesn’t feel girls’ sports should be a safe space for biological females to compete and succeed.
In the meantime, we are left with no choice but to pursue the following actions:
1. Seek a statutory change via legislation in the 2025 Session to remove all records set by male students allowed to compete in girls’ sports and award those achievements to the biological female student(s) who should have received the record or award. This will include a special report OSAA will be required to issue recognizing these corrected achievements.
2. Encourage parents and girls in Oregon to stand up to your miscarriage of duty by withdrawing from competitions in which male athletes are allowed to participate until such time as the OSAA rescinds its unfair “gender identity” policy.
It brings us significant pain to see girls’ achievements go unrecognized because of your policy. We hope that you will not only join us in finding a solution to this matter, but also see the need to protect girls’ spaces and accomplishments.
Signers included:
Senator Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer)
Senator Suzanne Weber (R-Tillamook)
Representative Christine Goodwin (R-Canyonville)
Representative Anna Scharf (R-Amity)
Representative Bobby Levy (R-Echo)
Representative Emily McIntire (R-Eagle Point)
Representative Kim Wallan (R-Medford)
Representative Lucetta Elmer (R-McMinnville)
Representative Jami Cate (R-Lebanon)
Representative Shelly Boshart Davis (R-Albany)
Representative Tracy Cramer (R-Gervais)
Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson (R-Prineville)
Some examples of inner-conflict within the Oregon Democratic Party.
— The biggest Oregon Democratic fundraiser of the year, the Wayne Morse Gala, in Portland was met with 50 angry anti-Israel protesters who demanded yanking U.S. support for Israel and for an extended cease fire. Protesters agitated both entrances so no one could escape according to FB News (4/15/24). This Oregon example is similar to when President Biden was interrupted by the same pro-Hamas protestors in North Carolina[29] and in New York[30] during the glitzy fundraiser with Obama and Clinton. It is all building up in intensity before the Chicago convention.
— This week it was discovered that former Oregon State Representative Brian Clem has raised[31] $1 million in a Political Action Committee called Oregonians are Ready which is dedicated to electing moderate Democrats to Oregon’s State Legislature.
— Possible target races for the new Brian Clem PAC are 6 contested State Representative Democrat Primary battles this election (District #8, #16, #33, #35, #37, #46).
— The Oregonian has endorsed[32] former City Councilor Jeff Gudman over former State Senator Elizabeth Steiner and for Congress District #3 sided with lawmaker Maxine Dexter over the more radical Multnomah former chair Susheela Jayapal. These picks reveal big tensions between two entrenched sides within the Oregon Democratic Party.
Portland has been suffering from street takeovers where mobs of people show up in the middle of the street to watch vehicle stunts.
Portland Police reports[33], “Officers spent hours each night disrupting street takeover events in all corners of the city. The mission resulted in 12 arrests and numerous citations. Additionally, one firearm was recovered and 33 vehicles were towed. Six of those vehicles were forfeited as a result of the passing of Oregon Senate Bill 615.”
I like accounts of a President long before he ran for office. Once in office, partisan bias can become too great to expect candid assessments. That’s why I like Richard Holbrooke’s take on Joe Biden almost thirty years ago. It’s preserved in George Packer’s Our Man[34], a biography of the late foreign policy hand.
This book draws on Holbrooke’s diary, personal letters, and other papers, often quoting them in full. Holbrooke’s diary entry covering his confirmation hearing to become the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a timeless observation of then Senator Joe Biden:
YESTERDAY I HAD confirmation hearings in front of Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, which lasted an hour and were rather pleasant, the senators both being very complimentary. Biden, however, sought to portray me as being in opposition to Christopher and the administration on Bosnia and predicted that I would come to blows with them over the policy. I tried to suggest that I was comfortable with the policy, although in fact Biden knew that he was right. Earlier, I had met with Biden privately in an attempt to create an intellectual and moral base. This meeting took place in the vice president’s beautiful and ornate office off the Senate floor during the health debate and was preceded by brief chats with about ten or fifteen senators, most of whom were old friends like Sam Nunn, John Danforth, and Paul Simon. My private conversation with Biden was difficult. His ego and the difficulty he has in listening to other people made it uncomfortable, but useful.
If this were written today, it would have less sting, but this account, from a partisan Democrat, was written in 1994.
Taxpayer conservatives hold very diverse views on how to support Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The worst way to address the impasse is to lump everything together into one massive bill as Democratic Senate President Chuck Schumer has been doing for many years.
The newly elected House Speaker, Mike Johnson has made good on a top conservative demand that such critical funding issues be held separately. And Speaker Johnson is also answering another conservative principle by allowing more space between when the bill is introduced and when it is voted upon (a classic Schumer, Pelosi and sometimes Mconnell tactic as he recently tried to speed the failed border bill through).
We need to have a separate public debate on each funding measure.
Let each side make their case.
Let the public make their case to their local Member of Congress.
Let each bill rise or fall or be amended based on the merits.
Government never met a computer project it couldn’t completely screw up.
Examples fill Oregon history.
A 300-million dollar Obamacare “coverup Oregon” that literally NEVER worked.
But the latest problems with Oregon’s employment system take the cake.
And it’s not like two different Governors didn’t know about the problem nor have the money and a dozen years to fix it.
Kate Brown, as Secretary of State, did an audit almost a decade before the pandemic that predicted a silicon meltdown if the employment computers ever got stressed.
Brown became the “accidental” Governor.
Yet even with 100-million bucks from the Congress to fix the problem, just ignored her responsibility.
And then covid arrived.
4 years later the Employment division launched a shiny new computer system with a cute name, “Francis”.
To hear Oregon’s recently unemployed tell the tale, six weeks into the newer, better system, Francis is all franked-up.
KOIN tv news tells the story of Gregory Smith: lost a great job at Intel, burned his savings while waiting the last six weeks and still doesn’t have his first check.
Now, he stands to lose his house.
Can we just put the employment division in the private sector where we have actual accountability…instead of more PERS worker FUBAR?
— That’s the Rose City Rap. Join me at noon on KXL for 4 hours of Honestly provocative talk. I’m Lars Larson
Over the past few weeks, we have received a number of emails from supporters with a link to this viral YouTube video[37] regarding regulations impacting Oregon’s small dairy farmers. While this issue isn’t necessarily a land use issue, we wanted to help explain what is actually going on with Oregon’s controversial “CAFO” regulations.
As we’ve documented many times on the blog, being a family farmer in Oregon is no easy feat. Whether your operation is big or small, farming in Oregon means navigating a complex web of regulatory requirements from multiple state agencies. For a small family business, it’s hard enough earning a living in this economy, let alone staying in compliance with the barrage of regulations that are constantly changing.
If you raise and sell livestock (or any other animal product) you’re even more likely to be under the thumb of bureaucrats – especially if you run a Confined Animal Feeding Operation, also known as a “CAFO”. Oregon’s regulatory requirements for CAFOs are intense, and it is one of the few “farm uses” in Oregon farm zones that require extensive permitting and a Land Use Compatibility Statement to be legal.
The reason for the heightened scrutiny around CAFOs has to do with state and federal water quality laws. In general, a CAFO permit is intended to protect surface and ground water by limiting the amount of manure, wastewater, and nutrients that can be applied to fields as fertilizer.
In short, operations that qualify as a “CAFO” under Oregon Department of Agriculture rules must apply for a permit that dictates not only the construction of the “facility”, but how manure, wastewater, and nutrients can be applied to land as fertilizer, etc.
ODA targets small farms with new policy.
When the general public thinks of a CAFO they think about a large “mega-dairy” or chicken farm with thousands of animals in confined spaces, and large amounts of animal waste to deal with. Unfortunately, ODA’s definition of “CAFO” reaches farm operations that are much smaller than what a reasonable person would consider a true CAFO.
As background, last year ODA became concerned that some raw milk producers were not registering[38] as CAFOs, which the agency said created environmental concerns and allegedly caused other dairies to complain about “unfair competition”. In response, ODA released a number of “white papers” that essentially established a legal policy making clear that the definition of a CAFO includes even the smallest dairy farms.
Under OAR 603-074-0010(3), ODA defines a CAFO in part as:
(a) The concentrated confined feeding or holding of animals or poultry, including but not limited to horse, cattle, sheep, or swine feeding areas, dairy confinement areas, slaughterhouse or shipping terminal holding pens, poultry and egg production facilities and fur farms;
(A) In buildings or in pens or lots where the surface has been prepared with concrete, rock or fibrous material to support animals in wet weather; or
(B) That have wastewater treatment works; or
(C) That discharge any wastes into waters of the state.
On its face, this definition is extremely broad. One could interpret this definition to read that you are a CAFO if you milk a single goat for 20 minutes in a stall on a concrete slab in your horse barn. That’s a far cry from a “mega-dairy” milking thousands of head of cattle for international sale.
As far as is known, raw milk dairies will generally be considered small CAFOs, defined as having fewer than 200 mature dairy cows and fewer than 3,000 milking goats or sheep (OAR 603-074-0010). The confinement of animals is highly variable among operations, but all animals are technically confined during the milking process, whether in pens, lots, or buildings.
In short, according to ODA, if you’re milking an animal in a building or pen that has really anything but grass underneath, you’re operating a CAFO and are subject to the same regulatory requirements as a farm with hundreds or thousands of animals.
Raw milk producers push back with lawsuit.
As you can imagine, this policy from ODA sparked a firestorm of concern from small dairy farmers, most of whom produce raw milk. As well it should, as this interpretation is nuts.
In response, a group of small raw milk producers filed a federal lawsuit against ODA[39] for this new interpretation. According to the lawsuit, obtaining and complying with the CAFO regulations will be extremely burdensome for these very small micro-operations.
As an example, Plaintiff Sarah King of Godspeed Hollow Farm only has three dairy cows. She runs a unique raw milk dairy operation, where local patrons can buy “shares” of her cows to receive fresh raw milk on a regular basis.
King’s operation is simple and similar to most small dairies. King leads her cows from pasture into the barn or “milking parlor” to a milking stanchion where the cows are milked. The floor of the stanchion is rubber mats on top of gravel. When the cows are done being milked, they are let back out to pasture. The entire process takes about 15-20 minutes from start to finish.
Under ODA’s policy, Godspeed Hallow Farm is a CAFO. According to King, she will now have to “comply with expensive and elaborate infrastructure requirements that are an affront to her farming philosophy and disregard its sustainability practices” and potentially incur up to $100,000 in costs. She will have to track her cow’s manure output, and comply with the same regulatory requirements as a farm with a hundred head of cattle.
ODA temporarily pulls back enforcement.
ODA’s new policy was supposed to come into effect on April 1, 2024. However, after the lawsuit was filed, ODA apparently decided it was rescinding the new CAFO policy[40]and publicly stated it would not be enforcing the policy.
Regardless of ODA’s change of heart, the administrative definition of CAFO still remains. This means that it is unclear what size or type of operation needs a CAFO permit, and which ones don’t. Moreover, the lawsuit filed by King and the other raw milk producers is still moving forward. Although the Oregon legislature could step in and fix this mess, there’s no indication they will do so. As of now, Oregon’s small animal producers have to operate in regulatory limbo.
OPOA will be keeping track of this issue as it progresses, and will continue to advocate for the rights of farmers of all sizes to use their land in the ways that work best for them.
The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.
