Governor’s Speech Reviewed

Visiting the first day of Legislative Session was nice. The Governor’s state of the state speech was a big improvement from his 2005 speech where he undermined measures voters have approved. His speech still had many horrible components. Here are some exerpts:

SPEECH: “There is nothing wrong with setting limits”.

Did he mean spending limits? term limits? regulatory limits? No, the governor was talking about limits on our environmental impact and more government involvement. Setting limits was the exact opposite of his speech as the governor called for more government at every turn.

SPEECH: “Government has an important role to play in my vision of shared responsibility. For Oregonians who simply cannot care for themselves, the only morally acceptable choice is for government to lend a helping hand.”

Shared responsibility was a main theme. Shared responsibility does not include government. If it did, the governor would be calling on his agencies to become more efficient and effective at delivering human services so service could improve without more taxes or regulations. The only “shared responsibility” government has is to expand to fit new wishes and for taxpayers to pick-up the tab. Notice how Kulongoski says for those in trouble that the “ONLY morally acceptable choice” is government. What ever happened to private charities? I am not nit-picking, but rather revealing a flawed “government first” philosophy. In reality, it should be families, churches and charities to be the first to help people in trouble. If they can’t do it — government is a valuable back-up. When government barges in with help it often does so with benefits that lack the accountability, responsiveness and compassion that private charities better provide.

SPEECH: What is the business community’s shared responsibility to make the most of this moment of opportunity for Oregon? I have traveled across this state calling for Oregon business leaders to be the strongest advocates for raising the corporate minimum tax and placing the corporate kicker in a reserve fund.

Shared responsibility? Business is being asked to bear 100% of the responsibility by paying twice in more taxes. Government is asked to sacrifice nothing! If government had waste limits or took responsibility to become more effective it would have more money and ability to implement the things he is asking businesses to pay.

SPEECH: The same is true for health care. Every Oregon child — up to age 19 — needs, deserves, and must have health insurance. On this issue, the age-old questions still apply: If not now, when? And if not us, who? Insuring all children is the beginning, not the end, of our health care challenge.

Kulongoski’s repeated call for universal free health care for all kids comes without a single solitary constructive idea on how to get there without the predictable avalanche of new taxes and bureaucracy. Why not improve the system we have now, instead of placing more broken promises upon a broken system.

On the bright side, Kulongoski’s speech was a big improvement. His historical references and salute to our troops was moving. Yet his calls for limits and shared responsibility gave government a free pass while asking taxpayers to do all the heavy work.

  • Chris McMullen

    “Shared responsibility? Business is being asked to bear 100% of the responsibility by paying twice in more taxes. Government is asked to sacrifice nothing…”

    This sums up our liberal Oregon government perfectly, Jason. Kulongoski wants everyone but his PEU lobbyists and constituents to “share responsibility.”

    As far as universal Health care for kids, I’d say it might be more cost effective for the government to cover children up to the age of 13. Kids under 14 practically have no costly health issues. However, the way Oregon gummint works, it would just turn into another wasteful bureaucracy.

    Does Teddy know about all the major injuries kids get between the ages of 14 and 19? Universal health care for this age group will bankrupt the state.

    Is there such a thing as a filibuster in Oregon’s congress? I’ll donate my time if they need someone at 3:00 in the morning. 🙂

  • Pepe

    Here we go again…whatever happened to personal responsiblility rather than government being the only remedy for social issues? Why in hell should the Oregon taxpayers be the first and, apparently, only source of a bailout for the state? Government should be our LAST resource. Private and individual resources should be the first to resolve social issues, after the person or persons directly responsible. Universal health care is a bailout for irresponsibility on the part of families. First, get a job, then provide your own damed health care.

    As for businesses paying much more than their share – why? If we are truely a capitalistic society, business should be enshrined as our best hope for a stable financial future. “Business” provides jobs and benefits which takes care of many of the issues Sleepy Ted put forth in his address today.

    Today I visited with a family that is moving from Oregon – essentially because of the failure of the liberal Oregon goverment to protect his business and his personal interests. What a shame Oregon has arrived at this point.

    Last, but certainly not least, if we didn’t have so many illegals living in our state, the bite would certainly be much more manageable, but until Teddy (and the DMV, for starters) are willing to clean up their act, we’re stuck with working to elect more honest conservatives.

  • Jerry

    This guy is a loser – plain and simple.