Salem Political Snark

Debt ceiling fight shows how dangerous Republicans are

Just when I thought the dysfunction in Congress couldn't get any worse, it has. And not by a little, by a lot. What's grabbed the part of my brain that is prone to panic is another fight over raising the debt ceiling.

That's the ridiculous century-old law that requires Congress to vote on paying for the federal debt that already has been incurred. The usual way of describing it is agreeing to pay for the credit card charges you've already made.

For almost all people, that's a non-choice. Of course, we pay for what's already been put on our credit card. If we don't, the credit card company will come after us and our credit rating will take a nosedive.

A New York Times piece, "How the Debt Ceiling Came to Be a Political Cudgel," describes how raising the debt ceiling used to be a routine exercise, but became politicized by both Republicans and Democrats starting in 2006. Even so, we've never defaulted on the national debt, though our nation has come scarily close when brinksmanship gets too close to the default cliff.

Raising the limit used to be a bipartisan nonevent. But, like everything else in Washington over the last 15 years, it has been sucked into the tornado of no-holds-barred politics. In 2006, the Democrats, including then-Senator Joe Biden, refused to support a debt-limit increase by the George W. Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress, as a protest over the Iraq war and tax cuts. In 2011 and again two years later, the Republicans tried to use their potential support as a bargaining chip, to force the Democrats and Barack Obama to concede on spending cuts.

Each time, columnists and Treasury officials warned about the consequences of default, should the limit not be raised. And each time, in the end, Republicans and Democrats reached a deal, and the crisis was averted.

Things feel different this time, though — not because we’re at any more risk of default, but because of what the details of the fight show about the danger of government dysfunction.

Now we're creeping up to that cliff again. Today Treasury secretary Janet Yellen warned of dire consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised by October 18 to account for bills racked up by both the Trump and Biden administrations. 

Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned lawmakers on Tuesday of “catastrophic” consequences if Congress failed to raise or suspend the statutory debt limit in less than three weeks, saying inaction could lead to a self-inflicted economic recession and a financial crisis.

The stock market already is warning of such a crisis. Today the Dow dropped 1.6%, the NASDAQ was down 2.8%, and the S&P 500 declined 2.0%. 

Much worse will happen if our country actually does default on its debt, even if only for a few days or weeks.

Buyers of Treasury bonds, both foreign and domestic, will demand higher interest rates because of the risk of owning federal debt. So a failure to raise the debt ceiling will make it much more costly to finance additional debt. What's deeply worrisome is that this once unthinkable prospect might be thought of fondly by Senate Republicans. 

The New York Times piece explains why.

But there’s something else about the current debt-limit fight that bodes ill for the future. Much of the scare-quote commentary about the possibility of default assumes that it would come about as a result of a miscalculation. But what if it’s intentional? What if one party comes to believe that forcing a default would sink the other, politically, and decides to prioritize its short-term political fortunes over the country’s long-term economic health?

Of course, that "one party" currently is the Republican Party. And probably always will be, because Democrats aren't nearly as nasty and cutthroat when it comes to politics. 

Currently Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't making any demands in exchange for Republicans agreeing to supply the ten votes needed to break the filibuster that occurred in the Senate today when Democrats tried to raise the debt ceiling.

McConnell keeps saying that because Democrats control both houses of Congress and the presidency, it's up to them to raise the debt ceiling on their own. OK, that argument would make at least a bit of sense if Republicans allowed a debt ceiling bill to pass in the Senate with 51 Democratic votes, Vice-President Harris being the 51st.

But since Republicans are using the filibuster to stop this from happening, the only options left to Senate Democrats are (1) do away with the filibuster for the purpose of raising the debt ceiling, or (2) include a debt ceiling increase, or better, abolition of the law that requires this to occur, in the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill that would only need 51 votes to pass.

That second tweet is something that hadn't occurred to me. I'd been thinking that McConnell was making a political mistake by forcing Democrats to use the reconciliation bill (which may end up under $3.5 trillion) to increase the debt limit, given the resistance Manchin and Sinema are raising to that bill in the Senate.

I figured that since financial and fiscal disaster would ensue if the debt limit isn't raised by mid-October, this would be a big incentive to get Manchin and Sinema on board with voting for the reconciliation bill -- given that this would be the only way to raise the debt limit, given the resistance of those senators and Biden to doing away with the filibuster.

But the tweet has me worried that since Manchin and Sinema often are willing to play nice with Republicans, even when it's clear that Republicans are trying to destroy the Democratic agenda, one or both of them might be fine with letting the United States default on its debt.

After all, they haven't shown much interest in the reconciliation bill, Sinema more so than Manchin, who at least has put forward his concerns with the bill, while Sinema is just being a roadblock.

If the debt limit can't be raised via the reconciliation bill, and if Manchin and/or Sinema remain opposed to doing away with the filibuster for any purpose, thereby taking away the possibility of raising the debt limit in a standalone bill with 51 Democratic votes, the end result can only be that...

Our country is headed for disaster. 

On that cheery note, I'll end this blog post. Hopefully my fear won't come to pass. It's just going to be a scary few weeks as the Republicans, Manchin, and Sinema play "chicken" with our nation's financial security.

One way out of this is if our country's business leaders make it crystal clear that failing to raise the debt limit isn't an option, and if Republicans allow this to happen, they'll pay for it at the ballot box and in much reduced corporate political contributions.

Setback for Salem mental health crisis response team

Led by Vanessa Nordyke, last June the Salem City Council appropriated $135,000 for a mental health crisis response team similar to the CAHOOTS program that has been a big success in Eugene -- where a medic and crisis worker handle about 17% of the police department's call volume, saving about $12 million a year at a cost of about $2.1 million a year.

But now the Salem project is on life support, according to a Salem Reporter story, "Salem, United Way halt plans for mental health crisis responder program." 

The city of Salem paused its plans to start a program where mental health workers respond to some crisis calls, rather than police.

The program was intended to run through United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley and received broad support from Salem residents who testified as the city was planning its budget for the coming year.

But city plans hinged on receiving state money that’s no longer directly available to them.

The House Behavioral Health Committee in January voted unanimously in favor of HB 2417, which would provide matching funds to cities for mobile response units through a competitive grant process.

Salem city councilor Vanessa Nordyke said a change in the bill during the legislative process required counties - no longer cities - to request a piece of the $10 million the state allocated for crisis stabilization services, and cities could in turn ask for money from their respective counties. 

“As I understand it, there is no such interest from the Marion County commissioners,” Nordyke said. 

This is unfortunate, yet sadly predictable. 

It seems clear that City of Salem officials are much less fond of the crisis team proposal than Nordyke and the progressive members of the City Council are. City Manager Steve Powers didn't include any money for this in his draft recommended budget. It got added in by the Budget Committee after citizens expressed strong support for the crisis program.

The Police Department budget is about $49 million. So the $135,000 set aside for a mental health crisis team is insultingly pitiful.

Insulting, that is, to the homeless people, suicidal people, and others in Salem who need a caring, compassionate, competent response to their distress that a medic and mental health worker would provide, rather than sending police officers out who aren't trained to deal with those sorts of crises and often make them worse rather than better.

Now, I understand that Nordyke and others pushing for a Salem version of the CAHOOTS program had to accept whatever pittances they could get out of the $146 million City of Salem General Fund budget. 

It's just irritating that chances for the program to get off the ground now rest on the three Republican members of the Marion County Board of Commissioners deigning to send Salem the county's share of the $10 million in state funds for crisis stabilization services.

Almost certainly that will happen, like, never. 

Councilor Nordyke is a persuasive advocate for a Salem crisis response team. But she's a progressive trying to get money from the very conservative Board of Commissioners, who undoubtedly view this proposal as a way to undercut traditional law enforcement.

Which, in a way, it is. And that's a good thing. 

This isn't an attempt to totally defund the police. It's a small, but important, step toward redefining what the Salem Police Department should be doing. Or rather, not doing. As noted above, in 2017 Eugene's CAHOOTS program was able to deal with 17% of the Police Department's call volume.

The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques.

CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.

There's simply no reason to have police officers dealing with problems that can be handled more competently and less expensively by a crisis response team. However, likely the Marion County commissioners never will admit this, so funds for a Salem program need to be sought elsewhere.

Oh, here's an idea! How about we look in the $49 million budget for the Salem Police Department and find a few hundred thousand dollars by, say, leaving a few police officer positions vacant for the next year or so.

Jim Scheppke, citizen activist and retired librarian who knows how to research things like this, recently sent me a spreadsheet showing Salem crime statistics for the first seven months of 2020 and 2021, using Oregon State Police data.

Reported offenses are down 9%. One reason is that Drug/Narcotic offenses are down 68%, probably mostly or entirely because Oregon has decriminalized possession of all but large amounts of drugs.

This points to something obvious, but frequently forgotten: crime isn't like gravity, an immutable law of nature. It's a social construct. Redefine what "crime" means and you change the role of police departments.

Likewise, a mental health crisis doesn't need to be handled by a police officer.

This is just something our society has gotten used to. Since it doesn't make sense for this to happen, Salem should unapologetically say, "Police Department, we still need you to deal with serious crimes, but not for handling problems that don't require a police officer response."

Here's how I put it in a June 2020 post, "City Council should cut budget of Salem Police Department." 

Most people, including me, who favor "Defund the police" aren't calling for no police at all. We just believe there is plenty of room to reduce the amount of taxpayer money that is going into the budgets of police departments.

The first step toward doing this is getting away from the indefensible notion that police are so special, taking a close look at what they do and how they do it shouldn't happen.

Actually, and obviously, police officers are just people.

Their job can be difficult. So are almost all jobs. Their job can be dangerous. So are lots of other jobs. There's no reason to morally elevate police over other professions that also are important to society just because they generally carry a gun in this country.

With that first step out of the way, we can move toward considering the "why" and "how" questions that are basic to budgetary decisions in both the public and private sectors. 

Why is this program or policy important? Why is it valued? How are those goals best achieved? How could things be done more effectively and efficiently? 

350 Salem OR’s TOP TEN Climate Action Strategies

Nicely done, Salem branch of the 350 climate action organization that advocates for reducing carbon pollution as much and as rapidly as possible.

Below are the top ten climate action strategies that 350 Salem OR submitted to the City Council as a public comment in advance of last Monday's work session on the Salem Climate Action Plan. This is how their web site introduced the strategies.

To meet the Salem City Council’s goal of a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2035 it is critical that the City focus on the most effective reduction strategies immediately, particularly related to transportation emissions. The science has spoken—business as usual is not an option. This memo focuses on these strategies. Many of our priority strategies have long lead times and must be implemented immediately, while other reduction strategies can be adopted over time as funding becomes available. 

I've highlighted in red the strategies that are the most bold, and hence likely the most controversial. You can read the rationale for each strategy on the 350 Salem OR web site.

Transportation
(1) No more widening (or adding lanes to) existing roadways. No new freeways or parkways. Invest instead in pedestrian and biking network/safety to transit network, schools and major employers.
(2) Charge for city-controlled parking in and near downtown.
(3) Mandate that major employers implement sustainable transportation for employees.
(4) Lobby/support intercity transit and rail at the state level.
(5) Improve pedestrian safety at crossings.

Electric vehicles
(6) Require EV charging stations at new (and later at existing) multifamily residences.

Solid Waste
(7) Send all of Salem’s mixed trash to the Coffin Butte landfill. Adopt a comprehensive municipal waste program to reduce methane emissions. 

Development
(8) Ban new fossil gas residential and commercial hookups.
(9) Exempt System Development Charges within ¼ mile of the core transit network.

Administration
(10) Hire a city staff person to implement CAP [Climate Action Plan].

All of the strategies make a lot of sense. I like how 350 Salem OR speaks of the "most effective" greenhouse gas reduction strategies rather than the "most cost-effective."

City staff and the consultants hired to prepare the Salem Climate Action Plan have chosen some piddling actions that they view as the most cost-effective. I haven't checked how cost-effective is defined, mostly because I don't believe the whole notion of cost-effectiveness has much of a place in discussions of how to reduce greenhouse gases.

How do you place a cost on saving our planet for human civilization as we know it? How would future generations look on our failure to deal with the damage global warming is causing because politicians felt effective climate action strategies cost too much, so we went with less costly ineffective strategies? 

Plus, the direct cost of implementing the four bold strategies in red will be minimal. 

Not widening streets or adding lanes while putting that money into non-vehicular improvements should either be a wash or a net saving, since road construction is much more expensive than building bike/walking paths. The cost of downtown parking meters would be much less than the revenue generated by them. My understanding is that sending Salem's trash to the garbage burner is more expensive than sending it to a landfill would be. Banning new natural gas/fossil gas hookups would cost nothing.

Naturally people would have to change some habits if these strategies are implemented, as they should be.

For example, it might take a bit longer to drive from here to there. No big deal. I'd happily leave home five or ten minutes earlier to get somewhere if it meant Salem was doing its part to combat global warming by putting a freeze on street widening/construction. 

Again, given the existential threat to humanity posed by climate change, I don't see that the City Council should fail to make the most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategies a top priority just because those actions will irritate some people and lower the profits of companies like Northwest Natural.

(Which has taken "Gas" out of its name, probably to look more, well, natural. Note: coal and oil also are natural. And also dangerous for the environment.)

There's no time to waste when it comes to combatting global warming. The signs of impending doom are all around us -- which means "impending doom" should be changed to simply... doom.

GOP state legislature walkout over redistricting likely tomorrow

Oregon Republicans absolutely love to walk out of the state legislature to deny a quorum when they're unable to get their way. Which is often, since this is a blue state with Democrats firmly in control.

The current GOP hissy-fit is about House Speaker Tina Kotek changing the agreement she made with Republicans to have a 3-3 Democrat-Republican split on the House Redistricting Committee.

That deal gave Republicans veto power over maps to redistrict both legislative and congressional seats following the 2020 census. At the time I thought what Kotek did was a bad idea.

Recently I wrote a post, "Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map," expressing hope that Oregon Dems would stick with a plan that could give Democrats five of Oregon's six congressional seats. (We added one due to population growth.)

Today the state Senate approved the Democratic redistricting maps, sending them to the state House. There, Kotek undid the deal she'd made with Republicans. Good for her. 

When Republicans play fair across the nation, so should Democrats.

But red states are hard at work gerrymandering their way into what they expect will be a takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms. It makes no sense for Oregon Democrats to unilaterally disarm when it comes to redistricting, since control of the House could rest on the outcome of a few races -- like here in Oregon.

What Kotek did is described in a Statesman Journal story.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, reneged on a deal Monday that gave House Republicans equal representation on the chamber's redistricting committee in an attempt to pass new congressional district maps which would likely give Democrats disproportionate representation in the state's congressional delegation.

Instead of one evenly split six-member committee that has been working on redistricting since the spring, there will be two House committees for the special legislative session which started Monday: one handling the state legislative maps and the other the congressional map.

The new legislative maps committee has eight members and is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The second new committee, handling congressional maps, has only three members — two Democrats and one Republican.

Naturally Democrats are trying to put a positive spin on this, claiming that Republicans violated the spirit of the original committee power-sharing agreement by not acting in good faith in coming up with new maps.

I'm inclined to a more cynical view, which usually is more accurate when it comes to figuring out why politicians act as they do.

Many progressives were furious with Kotek for agreeing to an even D-R split on the House Redistricting Committee. Kotek is running for Governor. Winning the Democratic primary would be tougher for Kotek if she was saddled with a soft on Republicans when it came to redistricting.

So acting tough in this special session should help redeem her reputation among the progressives who she needs to vote for her in the Democratic primary for governor.

Sure, now Republicans are threatening a walkout, which could happen tomorrow. But Kotek has given them quite a bit to ponder, walkout-wise. If they walk out, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, would approve legislative maps, while the congressional map would be fashioned by a panel of judges.

The current legislative map is fairly favorable to Republicans.

Thus a walkout could lead to Fagan drawing maps for the state Senate and House that lead to Democrats increasing their majorities in both chambers. On the plus side for Republicans, the panel of judges probably would draw a congressional map more favorable to the GOP.

I think it's more likely than not that a walkout will happen. This would please the Republican base, though it could irritate independents who think GOP legislators should do their job rather than heading for Idaho when they're about to lose a vote.

As I said in my previous post, a walkout always was possible, given Oregon's crazy requirement that two-thirds of each chamber be present for a quorum. Kotek got some concessions in the last regular legislative session when she agreed to evenly split the seats on the House Redistricting Committee between D's and R's.

On the whole, Kotek has played this political game quite well.

If Republicans show up for tomorrow's special session in the House, she'll look even better. It's possible that GOP House members won't walk out, figuring they can always file a lawsuit against the congressional redistricting map, which would land it in the courts, where it would go whether or not a walkout occurs.

That could be the closest thing to a win-win for both sides. Republicans can play the Victim of Kotek game, and Democrats will be pleased that their congressional map was passed by the legislature -- even if a court later deemed it unlawful.

City Council needs to strengthen Climate Action Plan

I admire how the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger told it like it is in a recent post about the Salem Climate Action Plan that's up for discussion by the City Council on Monday.

This is a devastating criticism from someone who knows what he's talking about. The Breakfast on Bikes blogger has followed progress on the Climate Action Plan much more closely than I have, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been a longtime crusade for him.

So when he says it's a dud, the City Council needs to wake up and pay attention. There's still time to alter the plan to be a non-dud. But only if the blogger's critique is taken seriously. I urge you to read the entire blog post. Here's some excerpts.

If the plan is going to be at all serious, more than a Potemkin plan for show, it's clear that Council needs to stage an intervention and redirect the planning process to ensure the plan is reasonably likely to meet the goals.

Principals and an Enthusiasm Gap?

One of the biggest problems with the Climate Action Plan process has been demonstrated recently. The principal City planners don't appear to believe in it. When Staff have been given the opportunity to lean into the plan, they leaned away. They may say "climate matters," but their actions show they may not actually believe this.

In one case, when City Staff had a direct opportunity to coordinate and integrate climate planning with other formal planning activities, they not only passed on that, they acted as if climate didn't matter and even hindered other, more important activities.

...Separately, in a Salem Reporter article on climate, the other principal City planner had every opportunity to say, "here are the most important things we can do to reduce emissions," and instead they said we "need to build more resiliency." We need to endure and adapt to the climate emergency, not prevent its worst excesses, they appear to think.

...Nowhere Near a Plan for 50% Reduction by 2035

So as we near the end of this process for a Climate Action Plan, it turns out we are far from a plan. We have wishes and hopes only.

...Council should step in and give stronger direction so that we have a plan with reasonable expectations for success.

On Monday City Councilors should grill staff and consultants about why the Climate Action Plan doesn't come close to meeting the greenhouse gas emission goals set by the council, and why there's an undue emphasis on resiliency as global warming ravages the planet, rather than on reducing Salem's contributions to global warming.

Here's how I put it in a December 2020 blog post, "Salem Climate Action Plan is going in wrong direction." Sadly, there hasn't been a change in direction. 

Very disappointing. But not surprising.

City of Salem staff have a long history of ignoring what the City Council and citizens want, instead substituting their own bad ideas for good ones.

So here we go again...

The City Council wants a Salem Climate Action Plan to specify how we're doing to do our part in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions that are literally cooking our planet. Recently these goals were approved by the council.

By 2035, Salem’s greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced to 50% of the citywide greenhouse gas emissions for the baseline year of 2016, and by 2050, Salem should be carbon neutral.

OK. One would think that the Climate Action Plan process would be focused on how these goals are to be achieved.

But whoever the proverbial "One" is, they will be shocked to find that so far, what's being talked about is how Salem should deal with the nasty effects of climate change, not how the city's carbon footprint can be reduced.

I don't know who is responsible for this fiasco, but the Climate Action Plan needs to get back on track as soon as possible. It's astounding that the current "envisioning" exercise is for people to say how Salem can be resilient by 2050, not how Salem can be carbon neutral by 2050.

This is a major test for the 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council.

It's one thing for them to let city staff have their way on less important issues. It's a whole other thing if the six progressives allow the Climate Action Plan to fail at achieving the greenhouse gas emission goals set by the Council. 

Because, you know, it's just the fate of human civilization that's at stake here.

Otherwise, I guess, no big deal if city staff and the hired consultants want to foist a "business as usual" Climate Action Plan onto the citizenry, assuming an acquiescent City Council will go along with it. Hopefully this won't happen at Monday's work session.

Planned Parenthood doesn't want counter-protests or protests at its health centers

Here in Salem, the so-called "The Church at Planned Parenthood - Salem OR" has been holding anti-abortion protests (which they call services) at the Planned Parenthood health center on Wolverine Street NE. 

I said so-called because Awakening Ministries is the group behind The Church at Planned Parenthood -- which basically is a national group that local churches can become a franchise of.

I'm an atheist who supports a woman's right to choose an abortion. So I strongly oppose what The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP) is trying to accomplish through its services/protests. 

However, that group has a right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, counter-protesters showed up at a TCAPP service where Proud Boys were present. Predictably, fights broke out between the Proud Boys and counter-protesters. 

I've been arguing on Facebook that counter-protesters should stay away from any gathering featuring the Proud Boys.

The Proud Boys enjoy fighting with liberal counter-protesters or antifa. So it makes no sense for counter-protesters to give the Proud Boys what they want by arming themselves with paint ball guns, baseball bats, spears, and other weapons also used by the Proud Boys. 

By and large I'm against counter-protests in general. Protesting should be positive. If a Salem group wants to protest anti-abortion laws in other states, great. Organize a protest. But don't give The Church at Planned Parenthood more publicity and exposure by counter-protesting.

This happens to be what Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette, the region that includes Salem's clinic, wants: no counter-protests. In fact, Planned Parenthood doesn't even want any supportive protests at their health centers. See:

So hopefully people in Salem who want to support Planned Parenthood will do as Planned Parenthood asks and not engage in any additional protests or counter-protests at the local health center. 

It's bad enough when people using the health center have to make their way past a protest. It's worse when there's a battle going on between protesters and counter-protesters. 

Salem City Manager Steve Powers spoke about this in a memo that was shared on Facebook today. Powers said: 

The TCAPP group typically does not block sidewalks and remains peaceful. No reports have been received of persons being unable to access services at Planned Parenthood. Various groups have peacefully protested or gathered without permits near Planned Parenthood for years without the need for Salem Police involvement. The protests have escalated when large numbers of people join in support or to counter protest. The demonstrations become problematic when persons intent on harm join the crowd.

Quiz: see which party you'd belong to if America had six

If you'd like to know where you'd find a political home if the United States had six political parties, take the 20-question quiz in a New York Times opinion piece, "Quiz: If America Had Six Parties, Which Would You Belong To?"

I ended up in the New Liberal Party.

Based on a survey of 5,000 voters who answered the same 20 questions, here's the estimate of where the American electorate would end up if we had these six parties. The first three are left-leaning. The next three are right-leaning.

Progressive Party -- 14%
New Liberal Party -- 26%
American Labor Party -- 12%

Growth and Opportunity Party -- 14%
Patriot Party -- 14%
Christian Conservative Party -- 20%

The three left-leaning parties total 52% of the electorate and the three right-leaning parties total 48% of the electorate. That comes close to what polls and national election results generally show the balance of American voters to be.

I like how the quiz shows me as almost equidistant between the three left-leaning parties, though I'm closest to the New Liberal Party. 

Here's the description of the New Liberal Party. 

The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.

Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 26 percent of the electorate.

The polar opposites are the Progressive Party and the Patriot Party. Here's their descriptions. It's interesting that each is estimated to attract 14% of the electorate.

The Progressive Party is focused on equity and racial justice, with a strong vision of inclusive social democracy. Its strongest support comes from politically engaged, highly educated younger people, especially women.

Its potential leaders include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren or Julián Castro. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 14 percent of the electorate.

The Patriot Party is the party of Donald Trump’s 2016 primary campaign: the coalition of the small town, white working-class Americans who feel left behind by globalism and condescended to by cosmopolitanism. It is economically populist and strongly anti-immigration. Its strongest support among lower-income conservatives comes from exurban America.

Its potential leaders include Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 14 percent of the electorate.

The opinion piece describes how six parties could come to be. It would require much larger proportional multimember congressional districts where voters would use ranked-choice voting to choose who represents them.

The result would be something much closer to a parliamentary system than our decidedly dysfunctional two-party system. Coalition building would be encouraged with six parties, sort of akin to how our current parties used to operate when there were a bunch of conservative Democrats in Congress and a bunch of liberal Republicans. 

Those days are long gone, obviously. 

Even if this six-party system never comes to pass, it's great that the idea has been put forward. The quiz reminds us that the labels of Democrat and Republican are too simplistic. Only 28% of the electorate identifies with the extremes of the Progressive Party and Patriot Party -- exemplified by Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. 

On 9/11, let's remember the 659,556 Covid deaths

This isn't exactly a politically correct sentiment, but it's how I feel. There should be a statute of limitations on mourning the 2,996 people who died in the 9/11 attack twenty years ago.

I say this because our country has a nasty habit of getting all emotional about the wrong things. Or to put it differently, not getting all emotional about the right things. 

Yes, it was a tragedy that so many people died and suffered as a result of the 9/11 attack. But the current number of Covid deaths in the United States is 659,556 -- 220 times the number who died on 9/11. Repeat: 220 times. 

Currently Covid is killing people in the United States at the rate of a 9/11 every two days.

Where is the outrage at this? Where is the determination to hunt down those responsible for this carnage and stop them from killing so many Americans? Where are the voices demanding we put aside political differences and fight the killers with a united front?

Yes, the Covid deaths are caused by a virus, not humans. And plenty of people -- epidemiologists, health care workers, so many others -- have been treating the pandemic as the dangerous enemy that it is.

However, too many Americans, notably those Republicans/conservatives who love to wrap themselves in the flag when it comes to 9/11, have been acting like traitors when it comes to combatting Covid. They side with the viral enemy when they scoff at public health measures: vaccination, wearing a mask, social distancing, testing.

The root cause of 9/11 was a malevolent religious ideology, radical Islam. The root cause of our nation's flawed response to the pandemic is a malevolent political ideology, Trumpism.

Let's not be fooled by the 9/11 attackers being people, and the Covid attackers being viruses. Most of the United States Covid deaths could have been prevented if Trump and his enablers hadn't failed to do what urgently needed to be done to save lives. 

A Lancet Commission report says 40% of U.S. Covid deaths could have been prevented. Deborah Birx, Trump's White House Covid coordinator, says hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. A Brookings Institution conference said it was possible to avoid 400,000 deaths. 

So I'm unapologetic about caring more about the unnecessary loss of  hundreds of thousands of American lives during the pandemic, a toll that continues to increase by many thousands each week, than by less than 3,000 Americans dying on 9/11 twenty years ago.

I once worked as a health policy analyst.

My experience with bioethics made me well aware of how the dramatic, like a young child needing a liver transplant, captures the public's attention while much greater human suffering results from medical conditions that don't make the front pages of newspapers.

Our nation's obsession with 9/11 strikes me as similar.

The images of the planes hitting the twin towers is fresh in our minds, while we pay much less attention to the 9/11 happening every couple of days in hospitals, homes, and health care settings across the nation. If we truly care about human life, we should be focused on saving lives now, not mourning those who died in 2001.

It's as if our never-ending grief over 9/11 gives us permission to not feel as deeply as we should about the largely preventable misery of the Covid pandemic. By placing a hand over our heart as the national anthem plays at a sporting event on 9/11, the heartlessness of our country's botched response to Covid fades into the background of our supposed compassion.

Today I ignored all the talk about 9/11 on the airwaves and social media. I refuse to feel more badly about a tragedy that's long gone, than a much worse tragedy still ongoing. 

Can anyone defend the Texas "bounty" anti-abortion law?

I've got a question for anyone who favors the recently-enacted Texas law that allows private citizens to seek $10,000 in civil court from anyone who provides an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, aids someone in getting an abortion, or even intends to seek an abortion.

Why do you think this law is a good idea? Before you answer, "Because it bans almost all abortions in Texas," consider the implications of what you're saying.

There's no doubt that the law is unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal in all 50 states until a fetus can survive outside the womb. That's long after six weeks. 

Thus the Texas law basically sets a bounty on people who engage in a constitutionally protected behavior.

Because private citizens are enforcing the law, not government officials, so far it hasn't been possible to challenge the law in court. Who is the subject of a lawsuit, given that anyone can potentially file a suit against an abortion provider or someone aiding, abetting, or intending an abortion?

Those who oppose abortion are pleased with the law. After all, that's been their goal ever since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. To ban abortion. The Texas law is the most extreme of any law restricting abortion. 

Since an abortion provider is put out of business after a single infraction under the law, almost all abortion clinics in Texas aren't providing abortions any longer. So for now abortion essentially is prohibited in Texas, even though abortions are still constitutionally protected. 

Is this the sort of country you want to live in, supporters of the Texas law? Are you OK with the approach used by the law being exported to other states? Do you think private citizens should be able to earn a lot of money by suing people for engaging in a constitutionally protected act?

An example that's been brought up frequently is a blue state like New York passing a law that forbids ownership of a certain type of gun, like a handgun. 

To make it difficult to challenge the law in court, private citizens in New York are authorized to sue anyone they suspect of owning a handgun. If they win the suit, the handgun owner has to pay them $10,000 plus attorney fees. If they lose the suit, the handgun owner can't make them pay their attorney fees. 

So everything favors the person bringing a lawsuit against a handgun owner. Sure, the Supreme Court has said that handgun ownership is protected under the constitution. But since it isn't government enforcing the New York law, but private citizens, it's very tough for anyone to challenge the handgun ban.

Are you fine with this happening, anti-abortion advocates? If you're  fine with the Texas law, you must be. A Los Angeles Times opinion piece raises other possibilities.

This [Texas] strategy has provided a road map for other states, not just to undermine abortion rights, but to endanger other constitutional rights as well.

For instance, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the constitutionally protected right to marry, a state following the Texas blueprint could outlaw same-sex marriage and then allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs a same-sex wedding for money damages.

A state could ban handguns (even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to possess and own them) and authorize citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who has a handgun. In fact, a state could adopt a law banning criticism of the governor and then allow any private person to sue the critic for money.

So beware of praising the Texas abortion law too highly, anti-abortion folks. You just might find that your own constitutional rights are at risk by your own state using the Texas approach to forbid constitutionally protected behavior.

 

Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map

There are times to play nice, and there are times to play tough.

When it comes to drawing a new map of Oregon's six congressional districts following the 2020 census -- we get an additional seat due to population growth -- it's definitely a time for Democrats to play tough. 

After all, in states where they're in control of redistricting, Republicans are going all-out to draw maps that are gerrymandered to ensure that GOP candidates win as many seats as possible. Republican politicians even have said that redistricting alone is going to guarantee a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 2022.  

It's great that Democrats are more fair-minded than Republicans. A number of blue states have independent redistricting commissions. If every state had such a commission, that'd be wonderful.

But Oregon Democrats shouldn't give up their political power. In this state, the legislature tries to draw a congressional redistricting map. If the legislature can't agree, then the state Supreme Court takes over. 

Unfortunately, a Democratic leader has already surrendered much of the power her party had over congressional redistricting. This struck me as a really bad idea at the time. Now that we know Oregon has earned a sixth seat in the House of Representatives, it was a really really bad idea. 

As part of a deal to avoid Republican delay tactics in this year’s legislative session, House Speaker Tina Kotek agreed to give GOP members an equal say on the House Redistricting Committee. Without at least one Republican vote in that committee, no map can pass.

Still, Oregon Democrats should do their best to get the map they've released approved by the legislature. Or at least, a map close to their proposed map. If Republicans want to take a chance at whatever the Supreme Court comes up with in the event of a legislative stalemate, fine.

I just don't think Democrats should bend very much on trying to get five congressional seats that are safe D or lean D. Speaker Kotek made a mistake in giving Republicans a veto over what the House Redistricting Committee comes up with.

It was crazy to give up the opportunity to do unto Republicans in Oregon what Republicans are doing to Democrats in states under their control: gerrymander Dems into as few congressional seats as possible.

UPDATE: Came across this tweet that makes my point. 

(All I can think of is maybe Kotek figured that Republicans would stage a legislative walkout over a Dem-friendly map, so that's why she made the deal, figuring that if the Supreme Court was going to draw the congressional map anyway, she might as well get a concession from Republicans to stop slowing down the 2021 legislative session.)

By comparison, this map released by Oregon Democrats seems quite fair by comparison, though not surprisingly it does tilt in favor of Democratic candidates.

Here's an excerpt from the OPB story.

Of special interest this year is how Oregon creates a brand new congressional district, splitting the state into six parts instead of the current five. With Democrats currently controlling the U.S. House by a slim margin, how Oregon proceeds could have implications in Washington, D.C.

Democrats’ proposal would center the new Congressional district in two areas that have seen some of the fastest population growth in the last decade: Washington County and the Salem region. The proposal would expand Congressional District 3, currently held by Portland Democratic U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, far to the east and south to encompass Hood River, Wasco, and Jefferson counties, and snatch up a portion of fast-growing Bend. It would send Congressional District 5, held by Democrat Kurt Schrader, deeper into the Portland area, and farther south while divorcing it from the coast.

And according to one analysis, the plan would be biased heavily in Democrats’ favor. A tool created by the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center to identify bias in political maps based on four measures suggests the proposal favors Democrats on all four measures, though it suggests such ratings might be skewed in a state with fewer than seven districts. The analysis suggests it could lead to a congressional split of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican, a breakdown that is far out-of-step with the partisan split in statewide races. The website Fivethirtyeight concurred with that analysis.