Why I'm voting NO on measure 50
I have been unimpressed with some of the comments on a thread over at Blue Oregon about Measure 50 (also known as the Health Kids Initiative) which will be voted on in the upcoming special election on November 6th. Apparently, it's not cool to be on the wrong side of the "progressive" movement on one issue (as I also found with my anti-Hillary rants when I stated I wouldn't vote for her even in the general election), least you will get attacked for having your own opinion.
Personally I have stated I have two reasons I oppose the measure 1) The measure being a constitutional amendment; 2) The fact that raising the tobacco tax to pay for it is a bad idea in general.
The disclaimers (so read carefully): First, I am not a smoker and in fact my father died because of smoking. Second, I agree with most that the anti-Measure 50 ads are terribly misleading.
My general feeling is that even though Democrats in the Oregon Legislature, even though they have a slim majority and needed 36 votes to pass any tax increase, should have tried harder to come up with other funding sources for the Healthy Kids initiative (which I would support given another funding source). Where that revenue would have come from I don't know.
I understand why it the measure was referred as a constitutional amendment, but that does not make me any less opposed to it. As I said in a post over at BO, adding a constitutional amendment (no matter who puts it on the ballot) should be done only when absolutely necessary. In my opinion, funding for a state program doesn't belong in the constitution.
The Legislature referred it to the people of Oregon in which each one of us has a vote. Regardless of what others feel, I have a right to MY opinion, to state my opinion and to vote. Until you come over and try to tell me otherwise in person, you'd better just deal with it!
3 comments:
I'd argue that opponents have a responsibility to answer a few questions:
* Do you think these children deserve health care right now?
* If so, what's your alternative funding plan and how would you have passed it in a 31-29 legislature? (36 votes required for a statutory tax increase.)
* How long are you willing to wait for children's health are in order to build support for your alternative plan?
Kari,
As I stated, I do believe there should be help for children who don't have health care.
The alternative, I don't have one as I've stated at BO and here on my own blog. Again, I believe Democrats should have done a better job reaching across the aisle to the Republicans on this one. That is why the measure will go down in flames on election day.
My answer to the last question would be, I would rather see things done in a way that does not simply look for the easiest way out to pass legislation. My guess is that some changes could have been made to persude a few key Republicans to join the Democrats.
To simply say, "well we don't have the votes, so we're going to take the easy way out," is a copout.
Yes, funding for healthcare is important. But given the slim majority Democrats had to work with, I think this was as bad idea.
Post a Comment