Hello friend,
I'm astounded.
When I asked for your advice last week, I expected a good
number of well-thought-out responses from my friends and constituents.
But I never saw this coming. Over 400 people have
participated in the dialogue so far - an enormous number by any standard. All told, your comments total 56,294 words. If I printed them out - don't worry, I won't! - they would take up hundreds of pages.
But it's the depth and quality of your thoughts that impresses me the most. While there are some clear trends in your responses to the questions asked, I heard compelling arguments from all sides of the issue.
I am still sifting through your responses - and if it isn't obvious by now, I won't be able to respond to every dialogue in a timely
manner. But I want to let you know what I'm hearing, and how your thoughts are shaping our ongoing dialogue.
Of course, if you're looking for quicker follow up, you can
always call our office, email me, or come to one of my district events:
my Hollywood Town Hall is coming up this Saturday at 10 am.
What follows is a summary of what I learned.
While over 86% of you
believe that the State has an important or very important role to play in turning our economy around, you expressed a diversity of opinions about the
best way to do so.
Lisa was undecided on whether the State should have a role
in funding direct stimulus measures, but felt that we should "help target federal efforts and make sure in-state work is
coordinated to make the most of whatever federal help we can get."
Another respondent suggested that state government could
speed the recovery by cutting taxes, reducing regulation, and holding the line
on new state spending - if we do so "faster than other states, business and
individuals will move here, and further expand our state's economy, as well as
increase state revenues."
Levin
pointed out that the way we spend
stimulus money - state or federal - matters for the long term: "If local projects are chosen wisely, we can transform
our infrastructure, to create a low carbon future, with a healthy economy
grounded in local resilience."
Another respondant argued that while "state government should
not be in the business of providing large tax breaks or economic incentives
that take money away from other areas" we should look to investments in
infrastructure and, where possible, spend money to pursue federal matching
funds (extending health insurance coverage for children as one example).
I saw similar trends
in your response to my question about whether Oregon should pursue innovative, first-in-the-nation
approaches to problems: more than 4 out of 5 of you think doing so is important
or very important.
Jenny isn't convinced that being first in the nation is all that important: "We
shouldn't be national leaders for the sake of being national leaders. We should focus on whatever is most important
for our state whether it makes us leaders or not."
Another
respondent took a similar tack: "I don't care if
Oregon is
seen as a national leader. I do care
that our state and it's residents continue to feel comfortable and confident
looking for conflict resolutions 'outside the box.'"
Mike advises us to "look at examples of ways other states are doing things to
inform your decision process but do not adopt their positions or programs for
the sake of harmonization.
Jeremy points out that innovation, if done right, "attracts attention which attracts
workers and companies."
A majority of you
(about 60%) reject the principle that legislators should avoid amending
voter-approved law, and you offered a range of ideas on when doing so would be
appropriate.
One
respondent views elections as "snapshots of a
time and place," and that "it is the legislator's job to add wisdom and
perspective to the process."
David argues that "the role
of legislators is to lead, not follow their constituencies. Refinements, adjustments are necessary all
the time as we determine what works and does not work."
Another respondent disagrees: "I believe that if it is
something that has become law after the voters approved the initiative, then
the legislators should refrain from making changes. If it needs to be changed it should go back
to the people."
Jennifer
believes that when voters approve an initiative, the decision speaks for itself.
However, she argues, that "when intiatives that are voter approved turn out to
have unforeseen consequences, that modifications should be considered."
Finally, on the
question of conflict and consensus in the legislature, you - like me - were of
two minds, but leaning towards consensus. About half of you think it's
important, a third don't, and the rest of you aren't sure.
Debra
argues that while consensus is not
always successful, and should not be seen as an end unto itself, "actually putting in the effort to reach a consensus is
a necessary part of the process. It is
what makes us a civil society."
Sherry is skeptical of legislators reaching consensus without conflict: "Some
conflict is healthy. If most bills pass routinely, then where is the second
opinion? . . . How can consensus be so easily acquired, unless many voices are
not heard?"
Eileen
sees consensus building as a way to
create new opportunities for the state: "if we
bridged the gap and built trust between urban and rural peoples we would have
access to more talent and better ideas for our future."
Scott
warns against seeking consensus "when one side supports irrational
positions." Doing so "can move the whole discussion in a mistaken way toward
fundamentally bad policy."
Seeing your issue
priorities was extremely informative - Health Care and Education were the two
highest rated.
What I've Learned So Far
I draw several conclusions based on what I have learned from you about the big picture.
The first is that while I will not agree with all of you on every issue, listening to you helps sharpen my thinking. As a whole, you are extraordinarily well-informed, fair, and articulate.
The second is that collectively, you believe Oregon's leaders should act boldly to address challenges facing our state, from the economy to the environment. As Nancy put it, "This is a time in Oregon's history for leadership; if not from our elected officials, then from whom?" You want leaders who are courageous, even if they do not succeed.
Let's Continue the Dialogue
This dialogue was only the first of several that I will begin this session. Others will focus on a single issue area, including budget and revenue, education, transporation, and the environment. But because I serve on the House's Committee on Health Care, I want to hear your thoughts on upcoming health care legislation and priorities as soon as possible.
We'll be unveiling the dialogue early next week, so keep an
eye on your inbox. Given the time-sensitive nature of the issue, I want to give
you the opportunity to respond as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time, and stay in touch.
P.S. I am always looking for more input from constituents as I go about my job here in Salem, and encourage you to tell your friends about my online dialogues. You can send them this link: http://www.repbencannon.com/2009_dialogue_1__the_big_picture
State Representative Ben Cannon
900 Court St NE
Salem, OR 97301
rep.bencannon@state.or.us
http://www.repbencannon.com
(503)986-1446
Past Newsletters
