The good thing about Oregon’s double-majority law is that it encourages people to vote.
The bad thing about the law is that it also discourages people from voting.
We think the latter factor outweighs the former, which is why we urge voters to approve Measure 56 on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Measure 56 would partially overturn the double-majority law that’s been in effect since voters approved it in 1996.
Here’s the situation now: Except during general elections in
even-numbered years, any measure that would raise property taxes —
whether statewide or in an individual city, county, school district or
special district — can’t pass unless two things happen (hence “double
majority”): half of the eligible voters cast a ballot, and at least
half of those who do so vote yes.
Measure 56 would eliminate the double-majority rule for all property
tax-raising measures on ballots in May or November. Double-majority
would still apply to tax measures that go before voters in other months.
The $700 billion bailout bill Congress is debating is the legislative equivalent of an inoculation.
It hurts, but it’s necessary.
Congress should pass the bill because the consequences, should lawmakers dawdle, could be disastrous.
That said, the public must demand that Congress tailor this bailout so
that, to the fullest extent possible, the people being bailed out are
those who didn’t contribute to the financial morass in which America’s
economy, and much of the rest of the world’s, has gotten mired.
The reality, of course, is that many people who are partly responsible will benefit from Congress’ intervention.
People who signed mortgages they couldn’t afford — a fact which anyone
with the math skills of a second-grader could have calculated.
If you live in Baker City, almost every day dangerous substances pass within a couple miles of your home.
And considerably closer than that, if your address is near the freeway or the railroad tracks.
But we never see the toxic chemicals or other similarly hazardous stuff that rolls through on the road or the rails.
At least we hope we don’t.
A famous visitor walked into my office the other day and he came right over and licked my hand.
I have so few famous visitors, and no previous one had ever licked me,
and so this incident, despite the saliva, made a routine day mildly
interesting for me.
My guest was Buster. He is the most heavily publicized English bulldog I know.
He’s also the only English bulldog I know.
This is not of course any fault of Buster’s, and I don’t believe my
inability to get acquainted with multiple bulldogs ought to diminish
Buster, as you might recall, was the subject of several headlines around here during late May and early June of 2007.
Buster’s owner, Forrest Keller of Vashon Island, Wash., rode to Baker City during a Memorial Day weekend motorcycle tour.
Unlike most motorcyclists, Keller doesn’t mind riding with a bulldog strapped on the gas tank.
Baker City Resolution 3407 states in admirably blunt language how city councilors are supposed to behave during their meetings.
Based on what transpired during the Council’s Sept. 9 meeting, it
seems to us that some councilors ought to re-read that resolution.
Section 5(a) of the resolution includes this sentence: “All members
of the Council shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to city
employees, and to public members appearing before the Council and shall
refrain at all times from rude and derogatory remarks, reflections as
to integrity, abusive comments, and statements as to motives and
Section 7 of the resolution reads “A member shall confine discussion
to the question under debate, avoid personalities, and refrain from
impugning the motives of any other member’s argument or vote.”
Compare those sentences with what Councilor Terry Schumacher said near the end of the Sept. 9 meeting.
|<< Start < Previous page 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Next page > End >>|