Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
It didn't take long for the communication to break down between Republicans and Democrats in Salem over the budget. Actually, they haven't even gotten to spending yet; the early argument is over how much they have to spend.
Democrats should concede now on one of the sticking points: the governor's proposal for a surcharge on automobile insurance earmarked for state police.
It isn't clear how much this new fee would take annually from the pockets of Oregonians who own cars. However, voters made it awfully clear last year they weren't interested in paying more taxes at this time. Most won't differentiate between such a fee and taxes.
When lawmakers have vowed they will follow the wishes of voters and not raise taxes, it is disingenuous to turn around and jack up fees.
We understand the use of fees, and agree it's usually reasonable to charge those using a public service more for its costs than those who don't.
It's also clear that state funding for state police has fallen to an uncomfortable level. It doesn't make sense for the number of officers on the highways to decline while the state population increases.
However, while lawmakers are giving speeches about restoring credibility in the Legislature, the governor is scrambling about trying to coax extra dollars out of residents in other ways.
First, he encouraged the Oregon Lottery Commission to add slot-machine style games to video poker offerings and earmark the extra money for state police.
When legislators said they would rather use that money for education, the idea of fees on car insurance to pay for state police moved to the front of the table.
Certainly when the state is fighting a budget mess, it needs to first cover the most important issues of education, vital services to the elderly and poor, and public safety.
Sticking to priorities is necessary when voters limit property tax increases and give a resounding "no" to income tax surcharges.
However, slapping a fee on auto insurance rates will hurt people who are having trouble getting by now.
It's obvious that many of them will simply cut back on their coverage. A preliminary proposal calls for the fee to be applied only on insurance purchased that goes over the state-mandated minimum coverage. Reducing coverage is dangerous for those drivers and could put them afoot or facing large medical bills if they have an accident.
An even worse scenario is the prospect of more people dropping their auto insurance altogether. Already too many uninsured drivers are on Oregon's roads. That's dangerous for all of us.
We understand it's a tough struggle trying to write a budget to cover expenses that Oregonians want but don't seem to want to pay for.
Slapping a fee on auto insurance, however, isn't the solution.
Democrats should concede now on one of the sticking points: the governor's proposal for a surcharge on automobile insurance earmarked for state police.
It isn't clear how much this new fee would take annually from the pockets of Oregonians who own cars. However, voters made it awfully clear last year they weren't interested in paying more taxes at this time. Most won't differentiate between such a fee and taxes.
When lawmakers have vowed they will follow the wishes of voters and not raise taxes, it is disingenuous to turn around and jack up fees.
We understand the use of fees, and agree it's usually reasonable to charge those using a public service more for its costs than those who don't.
It's also clear that state funding for state police has fallen to an uncomfortable level. It doesn't make sense for the number of officers on the highways to decline while the state population increases.
However, while lawmakers are giving speeches about restoring credibility in the Legislature, the governor is scrambling about trying to coax extra dollars out of residents in other ways.
First, he encouraged the Oregon Lottery Commission to add slot-machine style games to video poker offerings and earmark the extra money for state police.
When legislators said they would rather use that money for education, the idea of fees on car insurance to pay for state police moved to the front of the table.
Certainly when the state is fighting a budget mess, it needs to first cover the most important issues of education, vital services to the elderly and poor, and public safety.
Sticking to priorities is necessary when voters limit property tax increases and give a resounding "no" to income tax surcharges.
However, slapping a fee on auto insurance rates will hurt people who are having trouble getting by now.
It's obvious that many of them will simply cut back on their coverage. A preliminary proposal calls for the fee to be applied only on insurance purchased that goes over the state-mandated minimum coverage. Reducing coverage is dangerous for those drivers and could put them afoot or facing large medical bills if they have an accident.
An even worse scenario is the prospect of more people dropping their auto insurance altogether. Already too many uninsured drivers are on Oregon's roads. That's dangerous for all of us.
We understand it's a tough struggle trying to write a budget to cover expenses that Oregonians want but don't seem to want to pay for.
Slapping a fee on auto insurance, however, isn't the solution.
