One person’s view on the Media’s influence on today’s people .

From infants to eighties people are being bombarded with twisted views made by a minority of people called Media. The Media presents various messages tuned to each stage of life. Messages such as drinking, sex and drugs are normal for teenagers to do. Parents should tell their kids what to do and not to do, but then they say children have individual minds and that they shouldn’t be told what to do because it might “hinder their creativity”. Messages such as “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” only tells people that it is ok to lie and not tell people who you really are. It only encourages people to do what is wrong.

The messages that are portrayed on “reality TV” are just despicable, in my view. Sex, backstabbing, lying, stealing and cheating are just the tip of the iceberg. They say that it is real life. Chances are most people don’t really live a life like that and don’t think that it is right. But the more we see of this so called ‘reality TV’ the more we think it is normal. Like Husbands cheating on their wives, friends backstabbing their friends and more. We are quickly becoming desensitized to things that once were, and still should be, looked down on upon. Teens having sex is the main theme of many TV shows. What is worse, it is shown as normal. Do we really want our lives to be as hectic as those shows?

News programs are just as bad although rarely seen as so. They focus on the bad things as much as they can. They try to make it seem like the world is a horrible place. I know that there are evil and bad things in the world, but I would like to see some more good stories shown on news programs. How about showing more on the clean up after disasters and people helping others. Try a study: wake up every day for a week and watch or read half and hour of bad unhappy things. How is your mood through out the day? Then try for a week reading or watching good stories about happy things and people helping people, for half an hour in the morning. How is your mood now?  There is a big difference, which will affect all of our lives.

TV Ads; who really thinks a lot of them? But those quick flashes of info get burned into our heads. Think of young children watching TV with you in the afternoon. How many times does the message ’skinny people get all the good things in life’ appear in half an hour? Or how many scary movie ads do you see? Its mind boggling what can be absorbed into one’s mind in half an hour of TV! And children are getting those messages every day over and over again!

Today’s music is full of violence, sex, gangs, drugs and theft. Music will influence many. People think that if they only listen to bad music once and a while it is ok. But you walk into a mall with rap music on and that song will be in your brain till you die. You brain is a sponge that you can’t wring out. You have to guard yourself and your families. And what you hear will affect how you think when making decisions even if you are careful. You can be influenced into drifting with the flow.  It is hard to find music that has a good message in it. But there are good bands out there in the world; you just need to look harder and the media needs to present more of them.

Magazines for teens! A couple of months ago I picked up a magazine called YM. It is a teen girls magazine and inside there was a section all about the best contraceptives. About a year ago I got a Cosmo Girl Magazine and inside they have a sex-pert page and a regular section called “Naked college guy” All of these Teen girl magazines show sex and drugs as normal. They discourage drugs of course. But you don’t see them discouraging sex. Why is that? Abortion is also written about frequently. I feel that is morally wrong. That is a human being even when in the womb. If you can’t raise a child then you shouldn’t have sex. But the Media doesn’t see it as so. There are many married couples ready to be parents who would readily adopt, and then there are other women who just say yes to abortion! It is a baby! Yet the media and the liberals say it is just a fetus. Does it make sense that you can’t hit a dog but you can kill an unborn child?

Diets are the biggest thing in teen girl magazines. ‘Easiest Diet Ever’ ‘Ten Top Dieting Tips Guaranteed to Make You Lose 10 Pounds in a Month’ Why the emphasis on looks? Yes being overweight is unhealthy but to constantly bombard teens with it, Only sends the message that life is only skin deep. Make up for every age of people. They now have make up for ten year olds, 50 year olds and guys! What is wrong with natural beauty? So people age, they deserve to. So a child can’t wear make up. Certain things should be based on maturity and age. You don’t let a 3 year old walk across a busy street alone. Why let a teen wear a mini skirt and belly shirt and stay at a party till 1am? Sure, you trust your kids, but there are limits to when things should be allowed. But with media saying ‘every thing is ok’ and “do what feels good’ and my personal favorite is ‘but every one is doing it! Don’t you want to be ‘in’? ‘ The Media is sending out a harmful message to all!

Magazines for adults (like Time and Money) emphasis on money being every thing and life will be better with this gizmo or gadget, ‘true happiness awaits the people who buy this boat’  How about a article about being happy with what you have?  Life isn’t about what you have it is about who you have, friends and family.

The Internet is a tool that can be more dangerous than a bomb. You can find almost anything online and that is not always a good thing. The Media plays into what online is. Online is a place where people can be anything and any where. That is not good. People can deceive others, gossip, stalk and see things that should not be seen. It is too easy to find personal information on others and see pictures that are very indecent. It is also a way to get into money trouble, with gambling sites where you can get hooked on gambling and spend real money! You don’t see all the money that gets thrown away because it is so easy to spend with out realizing it.

In summary, with all the negative focus being force fed to us how are we supposed to flourish in the world? Negativity causes stress which decreases production, which means more time in our life to succeed. That makes us unhappy. Life is too short to be unhappy all of the time. With the focus on good things we become happier. So our coworkers become happy and it actually helps the world. We become more productive and friendly and that spreads far.

People, we need to encourage the media to start putting more positive messages, for ourselves, our children, our families and our world.

Molly Germond, age 16
Roseburg, OR

The River District – A Good Idea, Treated Badly

Julie Rubenstein

The Grants Pass River District plan and its recent fate – shelved for a later date is a dream that’s been harbored by the City for decades in long range plans – call them wish lists – duly filed at City Hall. There’s only so much a city can do to encourage certain kinds of development without the enthusiastic participation of property owners in the affected district.

The synergy wasn’t there until recently, when it got jump-started by the ambitious vision promoted by Brady Adams and Evergreen Bank back in 2006/07. Brady, with his charismatic leadership and the bank’s dollars to back up any local idea, got people talking excitedly again about a civic improvement of major magnitude, celebrating and thematically enhancing that physical feature which unites the whole community.

At first it looked like a sure winner, until people got into the nitty gritty details and realized the City would have to put up some cash, too, for the right of way improvements. Some Grants Pass residents don’t like the whole idea of the change, but there are always people who resist or distrust change, or private enterprise in general. They appear to be in the minority. Others who do support the concept object to a new and somewhat costly city program of improvements without having a chance to approve the expenditure in advance through an up-or-down vote. By the time the citizens’ initiative qualified for the ballot, the controversy and hysteria had grown to a fever pitch. From a public relations standpoint, the City had blown it.

Had Council members sensed the rising indignation of activist citizens, already wary of what’s perceived as a sometimes too-cozy relationship between development interests and the Council, they would have referred the measure to the ballot themselves. This would have done two things for them: first, to reassure voters that the Council IS responsive to the majority will of its constituents, and it would have avoided a citizen-driven initiative, which always stirs up dormant mistrust of City Hall anyway. The mood of voters who see their peers forcing City Hall to do what’s right, as opposed to responding to a call from City Hall for their voices to be heard, makes a world of difference in the outcome of a measure such as this. I think the measure had a good chance of passing had the City referred it to the ballot.

Instead, we see a cautionary tale of what happens to even the best intentions, even when you seem to have the all-important synergy and cooperation between the public and private sectors. Things can still go sideways through the unpredictable and chaotic political process. Things like arrogance (on both sides of the issue), personality conflicts, taking too much for granted, letting anger interfere with good decision-making, all can get in the way. Nothing is a done deal until it’s really done. Let’s hope the vision itself doesn’t die, and can be brought back one day in an orderly, good-government sort of way that values all points of view while still enjoying the visionary leadership generated by Adams et al.

Hi, my name is Jaynee Germond and I am running for US Congress, OR District 4 because I cannot continue to sit by idly, watching our economy and our rights spiraling downward. Our representatives in Congress are not helping; rather they are the ones causing the deterioration of the economy and the destruction of our constitutionally protected rights.

We the People, are struggling to make ends meet with the money that our government allows us to keep, while our paid officials- our hired employees- are squandering our hard-earned money.

Our country has been consumed by party politics, and we need to get beyond the 2-party system, which has blurred so much that it is now unrecognizable, and look at being Americans. The 2-party system has gotten us where we are today, with the ‘good of the party’ taking a back seat only to “what will get me elected next time”.

I want to bring back a Congress that wants what is best for America first and foremost. Term limits would help that to become a reality. If term limits were at 3 terms for the House and 1- 6 year term for the Senate, we would be much more productive in DC. There wouldn’t be the impetus to worry about your own election as much.

I belong to the Constitution Party of Oregon. Although, some may consider me Conservative, I am actually a Constitutionalist. This means that even though I have personal beliefs about some issues, the Constitution is specific about how and by whom those issues should be handled. One of those issues is abortion. I am personally pro-life and would love to see it all banned. However, it and all healthcare, is not an issue with which the Constitution empowers Congress. These are powers that are remanded to the states. In that vein, Roe vs. Wade needs to be repealed and the power to legislate abortion left to the states. Marriage -gay and otherwise- is the same situation.

When it comes to my political stand on these types of issues, some may call me liberal because I don’t call for an outright federal ban of either practice. The logical question to ask here is, “Can you separate your personal views from your duties as a Congressman?” Yes, I can.

When I take the oath of office next January, I will swear “that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

An oath is not to be taken lightly and I stand by that. Though a Christian, I am not running as a Christian, but as an American. A Christian’s guidebook is the Bible; an American’s guidebook is the Constitution.

In the past, a Constitution party member had little chance of winning an election. I think this is going to be an exciting year, because change is in the air. People are tired of “business as usual”. People realize that all of our so-called representatives in DC are failing us. The buzzword this election season is ‘change’ and people of all socio-economic and political backgrounds want it- badly! This year, there are no Republicans running, which makes this a 2 way race for the seat. Anything can happen.

While I agree that Mr. DeFazio has done some things right (such as voting against the Patriot Act and against the FISA Amendment Act of 2008) and has done some good for our state and our country, he is part of the problem. Mr. DeFazio voted for the Government Family Medical Leave Act on in June, which takes money out of our pockets and pays for 8 of the 12 weeks of FMLA time for government employees. Now, why should our paid public servants have better benefits than we do?

Mr. DeFazio co-sponsored a bill (H.R.2634) providing for debt relief for impoverished nations, ignoring the fact that “We the People” are being impoverished by our own government taking our money to fund these foreign nations. Mr. DeFazio cosponsored H.R. 5501, a bill to provide healthcare assistance for foreign countries. Again, why is it that “We the People” are being forced, by our legislators to pay for other countries when we are struggling to pay our own healthcare issues.

If we simply kept our money to take care of our citizens and did not support the citizens of other countries (i.e. Illegal Immigrants and aid to foreign countries), our economy would improve tremendously. We do not ‘owe’ food, housing and healthcare to noncitizens. We cannot continue Robin Hood taxation to take care of the world. Charity belongs in the private sector. By definition, you cannot be charitable with someone else’s money, but that is exactly what our current government is doing.

As a ‘common citizen’ who has lived in the real world all of my life rather than in politics, I have had to budget. I had to determine what our wants and our needs were. Sometimes, I had to prioritize our needs because I couldn’t afford them all. This is what we need in DC now; some common sense application of monetary responsibility. We the people can’t live forever on debt; neither can the government.

Furthermore, all of us, elected officials and citizens alike, need to understand that the government has no money. The money belongs to the people. The government simply takes it from us in the form of taxes (visible and hidden) to pay for services and social programs.

Second, we need to re-evaluate legislation already in place and start repealing that which is unconstitutional. If we returned to the Constitutional foundations on which this great country was founded, we would have none of the problems we have today. An example of this is our economy. Article 4, section 8 of the Constitution puts the responsibility for money squarely in the lap of Congress, yet in 1913 they delegated it to a private company, the Federal Reserve. “Federal” Reserve is no more accurate of a name than “Federal” Express is.

In fact, Article 4, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress. Article 9, paraphrased, says, “Just because we may have forgotten to mention something, doesn’t mean we don’t have that right. ” The Constitution goes on to say in the 10^th Amendment (the last part of the Bill of Rights) that any powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the states or to the people.

The rights of the people need to be restored. In recent years, our rights have been systematically destroyed with acceleration of that since September 11^th. Benjamin Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” By passing the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 on June 19th, Congress effectively removed our rights of Habeas Corpus. The ACLU defines it as this: Habeas Corpus is not a fancy legal term; it’s the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally with no help and no end in sight. With the passing of the Homegrown Violent Radicalization Act, we all become subject to the label of potential terrorist based on our psychological makeup. In fact, by voicing discontent with the current administration, we can be targeted for ‘surveillance’ by our government.

Now, the bill does say that these certain ‘risk factors’ when coupled with violence indicate terrorist tendencies, but what is violence? When I was a child, calling names was no big deal. You know, “sticks and stones…” Now, though, if I call someone is called a ‘mean’ name, I can be brought up on hate crime charges. We have really gone overboard.

The healthcare system is broken. We do not have a ‘right’ to healthcare, but the federal government can make healthcare available for all Citizens by giving a tax credit for individuals and families so that they have a direct write-off of all insurance costs. At this time, we cannot buy insurance across state lines. Health insurance costs vary widely from one state to the next for exact same coverage. With a free market for health insurance, prices would drop and services would improve. That is what happens with competition.

Likewise, patients and only patients should decide what provider to use. We should be able to choose between a medical doctor, an osteopath, an herbalist, an acupuncturist or chiropractor or any other healthcare practitioner. It should be the patient’s decision only.

Insurance companies have no business rationing our healthcare. People with cancer on Oregon Healthplan are denied coverage for chemotherapy, but are allowed palliative care including euthanasia (euphemistically referred to as ‘assisted suicide’). Is this what we want? In Germany, the ‘elderly’ are given a little pill to take so they ‘go to sleep’ and never wake up. Is this what we want? It is cheaper to let people die (or help them to die) than it is to treat them. This is what Socialized Medicine (a.k.a. Universal Healthcare) is. I grew up in a border city with Canada, which has socialized medicine. Canadians cross the border in droves to pay cash for medical care for life-threatening health issues. Even for elective surgeries, they come to America. Why? Because the waiting list is several years long. They are hoping you die first. It’s cheaper that way. Is this what we want? When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor, one of the doctors was on FOX who agreed that if we had the healthcare program that Ted Kennedy is promoting, he would have died. He would not have had a choice in hospitals, doctors or in treatments. Socialized medicine does not allow cash deals. This is essentially where we are with HMOs now.

I cannot talk about healthcare, however, without talking about our vets. This is the one and only place where I believe healthcare should be provided by our taxpayers. All Americans owe our vets for the sacrifices they made for our freedoms (which Congress is systematically taking away). These men and women have put their lives on hold; they risked their lives for our country. We owe it to them to make sure that their needs, healthcare and otherwise, are met.

I also think that they should be able to use the health care providers and facilities of their choice at taxpayer expense. Often, vets need to travel many, many miles to see VA doctors and go to VA hospitals which is inconvenient for them and is a costly waste of fuel. These proposed veteran Government paid healthcare benefits do not extend to government employees unless, of course, they are also veterans.

Other than that, I feel that the 111^th Congress needs to start with the most recent unconstitutional legislation and work backwards repealing all programs and bills that are unconstitutional.

As I said earlier in this interview, Defazio has done some good for this state. I acknowledge that publically and in private correspondence with him. On the other hand he has been in office for 22 years and is a career politician. He can’t relate to his constituents. He does not know what it is like to struggle to pay bills, to put gas in the car and food on the table.

Besides these things, our founding fathers did not intend this position being a full time, career. The idea was to go to congress for a session, deal with the issues that the enumerated powers gave you to deal with (again, Article 4, section 8) and go home to your ‘real’ job. Mr. DeFazio is a career politician having been in Congress for 22 years, County Commissioner for 4 years and legislative aide for 5 years.

I was in healthcare for 25 years in various capacities, was a teacher for 3 years (1 in a private school and 2 in government schools), have homeschooled for 10 years. In addition, I was a single parent for 10 years. I am married to a Vietnam veteran. I have had and do have a ‘real life’ allowing me to be a true representative of the people.

Our timber industry, our state economy has been all but destroyed by the federal government, yet Mr. DeFazio, along with Mr. Blumenauer (D3) wants to give more of our land to the feds. If we were to remove the federal land from Oregonian land mass, we would be one of the smallest states in the republic. And Mr. DeFazio wants it to be smaller.

As an aside, according to the Constitution in Article 4, Section 8, the federal government is to own no more than 10 square miles to be used for the seat of government containing the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the White House.

Mr. DeFazio has argued for the continuance of the timber ‘safety net’, that is true, but more than the money, we need the jobs that a thriving timber industry provides. When our county land was taken over by the feds, the contract stated that the land would be logged with the counties receiving 75% of the revenue. The land is not being logged; therefore the contract is null and void. The federal government has defaulted on the contract and should return the land to the counties (not the state) where it belongs.

The county then determines whether to log the land or sell it off to private buyers, returning it to the tax rolls. Bureau of Land Management is a redundant agency and can be absorbed by the Forest services. All of this costs the federal government (the taxpayers) nothing, and Oregon gets a giant boost to the economy.

There are too many issues to cover here, but I welcome the chance to speak, in person, to groups small and large, organized or not. Personal contact with people is the best way to have effective communication, as questions can be asked and answered. I urge people to check my website (http://germond4congress.com) and contact me by email (germond4congress@gmail.com) or by phone (541.515.9690).

If you would like to support my campaign financially, donations can be given through the website, or you can send a check to:

Germond for Congress

7298 Lookingglass Rd

Roseburg, OR 97470

FEC regulations require that we ask for occupation and employer in addition to Name, address, and phone number.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jaynee Germond
August 6, 2008 (541)679-6694 (541)515-9690
Crossing Party Lines to Support Constitutional Candidates

Roseburg, OR – In an unprecedented move, 3 parties have come together to support 2 candidates in Oregon. Delia Lopez (R), running for US Congress in Oregon District 3 against Earl Blumenauer (D) won the Republican primary.

Since then, she was told that the Libertarians will not run anyone against her. Mike Marsh, the Constitution Party candidate who has promoted her on his CCTV-Salem television show, has stepped down from the race to promote Delia. “The parties realize that we can’t continue to divide the vote and hope to get someone into office. We need to ‘Take Back our Country’.” says Dee. Mrs.Lopez will be at the Clackamas County Fair August 12-17th.

Jaynee Germond, (CP), is running for US Congress in Oregon District 4 against Peter DeFazio. The Republican Party is promoting her as their choice for the office. She spoke at the Republican Congressional District 4 convention, and has been participating in their fair booths across the state. The Libertarians have also said they will not run anyone against her.

Jaynee says, “My campaign team is made up of all parties; Constitution, Republican, Libertarian, Independents and a few Democrats. We are coming together as Americans to restore a Constitutional Government. With a 14% Congressional approval rating, Americans want to ‘Clean House’.”

Mrs. Germond will be at the Lane County Fair on Tuesday – Thursday and the Josephine County Fair on Friday and Saturday next week. For further information on the candidates go to http://www.dlopezforcongress.com and http://germond4congress.com.
-#-
Germond for Congress
7298 Lookingglass Rd, Roseburg, OR 97471
http://germond4congress.com, germond4congress@gmail.com
Phone: 541-679-6694 or 541-515-9690

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:  Michael Gay

August 5, 2008 503.986.1950

503.781.8559

Atkinson resting comfortably after surgery

Medford, OR – Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Central Point) is recovering at Medford Providence Medical Center after undergoing surgery Monday to set a broken femur bone in his right leg.  Atkinson was accidentally shot in the right leg last week while fixing a friend’s bicycle.

“Jason is doing well, excited to be over this hurdle and on the road to getting healthy again,” said Stephanie Atkinson, Jason’s wife.  “The skill and care of the doctors, nurses and support staff here has given my family and I great confidence and peace of mind.”

Stephanie constructed a tourniquet from a rubber bicycle tube to stem the flow of blood coming from a severed artery in the leg immediately after the accident.  Atkinson credits the doctor’s skill and his wife’s quick action at the scene with saving his life.  Monday’s surgery placed two metal plates in Atkinson’s right light to brace the femur while it heals.

“Thank you to everyone who has supported us with your thoughts and prayers, and to the medical staff for their expertise and team approach,” said Stephanie.  “We have felt your care and concern, and it has helped Jason maintain his sense of humor and positive perspective through everything.”

Atkinson will remain in the hospital until released by doctors.

Friday, August 1, 2008

For Immediate Release

Contact: Andrew Whelan

Phone: (202) 226-7338

* * * ADVISORY * * *

Walden press conference call on county payments, energy bill

ATTACHED DOCUMENTS:

1. Letter signed by 64 bipartisan Oregon county commissioners endorsing the SEA Act
2. FAQs regarding the SEA Act and offshore energy production

Walden introduces legislation to open access to America’s great energy reserves

Measure would pay for county payments, PILT, substantial renewable energy production, conservation initiatives

Bill supported by bipartisan list of county commissioners throughout Oregon

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) today led a group of 35 lawmakers to introduce a bill to provide a stable and legal long-term funding source for county payments and significantly invest in renewable energy production over the next decade.

The Security and Energy for America Act (SEA Act, H.R. 6779) has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of 64 commissioners from 26 Oregon counties. The bill, which would fund county payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) for five years, has also been endorsed by the Western Counties Alliance.

“The SEA Act provides the first real long-term funding solution to pay for the county payments program,” Congressman Walden said. “If passed into law this year, the counties and schools could expect to receive their much-needed funding as soon as this fall. But this is much more than just a county payments bill. The SEA Act would finally put some walk behind all the talk about energy independence by committing a 10-year funding stream to the kind of renewable energy production that will comprise America’s smarter energy future.”

The SEA Act also will allow access to America’s great energy reserves beyond 75 miles from the coastline in the deep ocean to address the staggeringly high cost of oil and natural gas. The United States imports over 60 percent of its oil, sending over $1.6 billion out of the country every day (about $160 million every day goes to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela alone). More energy resources are available in the areas of America’s Outer Continental Shelf that are closed off than all the energy that’s been produced domestically offshore, including the Gulf of Mexico, during the last 60 years combined.

“Everywhere I go in the Second District, Oregonians tell me how fed up they are with the cost of fuel and the fact that we are dependant on foreign oil,” Congressman Walden said. “America’s Outer Continental Shelf contains enough oil to power 60 million cars for the next 60 years, yet more than 85 percent of the area off the continental United States cannot be accessed because of federal law. The SEA Act will finally allow American companies to access American energy so we can stop writing billion dollar checks to foreign cartels and governments that don’t like us very much.”

What’s in the bill

• Five-year commitment to county payments and PILT, starting this coming fall
• 10-year revenue stream for production of geothermal, wave, wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and cellulosic energy production
• Heating assistance for low-income Americans
• Program to convert three million gas guzzlers to efficient natural gas or gas-electric hybrid vehicles
• Investments in high schools, career technology programs, community colleges, universities, and job training programs
• On- and offshore fish and wildlife habitat enhancement
• Unconventional energy production research
• Reduction of the national budget deficit

Expanding state control over the coastline

The SEA Act would also expand coastal state authority over ocean resources. Currently, most states control all the resources out to just three miles off their shoreline – the SEA Act would extend that control to 12 miles to include complete control over sand, wave energy, and viewshed resources. Additionally, states would control all decisions over energy production on the first 75 miles off their coastlines.

The SEA Act would share significant portions of the federal revenue from new offshore leases – up to 50 percent – with states (and their coastal county governments) that decide to allow production. For example, if Oregon decided to produce energy off its coast, it could expect to receive half of the royalties – worth millions of dollars – and then share significant portions with counties like Josephine and Jackson counties.

Beyond 75 miles, the federal government would sell leases for new energy production. All offshore energy production must adhere to all nine applicable environmental laws:

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

2. Clean Water Act

3. Clean Air Act

4. Coastal Zone Management Act

5. Endangered Species Act

6. Marine Mammal Protection Act

7. Fishery Conservation & Management Act

8. National Historic Preservation Act

9. Oil Pollution Act

For more detailed answers to frequently asked questions about the SEA Act and offshore energy production, please refer to the attached document.

Congressman Greg Walden represents Oregon’s Second Congressional District, which is comprised of 20 counties in eastern, southern, and central Oregon. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and a member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

OREGON HOUSE REPUBLICANS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 22, 2008
Contact: Nick Smith
503-986-1351

HOUSE REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PLAN TO PROVIDE TAX FAIRNESS,
HELP WORKING FAMILIES WITH RISING COSTS
Plan Protects Lower Income Workers from Higher Tax Brackets

SALEM-House Republicans today announced their support for a plan to provide tax fairness to working families. The plan, proposed by Sen. Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) and other Senate Republicans, would reform the state’s tax brackets and enable working families to pay less tax on their personal income. “Families are struggling to keep up with Oregon’s rising fuel and food costs,” said Rep. Vicki Berger (R-Salem), Vice Chair of the House Revenue Committee. “By reforming the state’s tax brackets, we can allow Oregonians to keep more of what they earn. The Republican plan will save families hundreds of dollars every year, and pump millions of dollars into our stagnating economy.”

Under Oregon’s marginal tax rate structure, a worker making $10 an hour pays the same tax rate as an Oregonian making $80 an hour. The Republican plan provides greater fairness by doubling the size of Oregon’s 5 percent, 7 percent and 9 percent tax brackets. “Our current tax system fails to protect lower-income workers from higher tax brackets,” said Rep. Scott Bruun (R-West Linn), a House Revenue Committee member. “As a result, lower-income Oregonians must first give a larger share of their income to the state, before meeting their most basic needs.”

Nearly 2 million Oregonians would benefit from tax relief, with the greatest tax relief going to families earning less than $30,000. According to the Legislative Revenue Office (LRO), these taxpayers would experience tax relief of 22 percent, while taxpayers with income over $100,000 would receive an average tax reduction of just under three percent. With more dollars flowing into Oregon’s stagnating economy, LRO estimates the plan could create over 19,900 new jobs.

The plan is expected to cost $360 million, a small share of a state budget that is expected to increase by nearly 21 percent in 2009-11. “In 2009, House Republicans will work to give tax relief to working families and increase accountability for their tax dollars,” said Rep. Kevin Cameron (R-Salem), who will co-sponsor the plan in the House. “Providing tax relief and fairness is a key component of our agenda for the upcoming session.”

The proposal is part of the House Republicans’ 2009 agenda, Building a Better Oregon.

Rep. Richardson’s Newsletter
July 18, 2008

“Tax For A Tax” – Making It Happen

The “Tax For A Tax” concept (which I introduced in the May 18, 2007 newsletter by that name), would exempt the vast majority of Oregonians from paying real property taxes in exchange for a retail sales tax. This retail sales tax would be instituted by Oregon voters, protected by the Oregon Constitution, and could not be raised by the Legislature. In fact, a Tax For A Tax could not be altered without a majority vote by Oregon citizens.

Drafting A Tax For A Tax will not be easy. It will require working together to craft a Referral to the Voters that is so clear, tightly-worded, and iron-clad that a majority of Oregon voters would feel secure in voting for it. Is this possible? Maybe. It will take uncommon amounts of vision, honesty, cooperation and mutual respect from both sides of the aisle–Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives.

Revenue measures, such as the Tax For A Tax, originate in the House of Representatives. The expected huge turn-over in leadership after the November election will present an opportunity for a more bipartisan and cooperative approach to solving key policy issues-issues like tax reform. The 2009 Legislature could change the adversarial way the Oregon Legislature does business. I feel hopeful.

Assuming the House Democrats and Republicans decide to work together to draft A Tax For A Tax and send it to the voters for approval, I would suggest the following factors be considered:

* A Tax For A Tax would exempt property owners from paying taxes on the first $10 million of assessed property value as of a certain date (perhaps July 1, 2008?). The exemption amount is negotiable, but it must be high enough to exempt Oregon homes, small business and small family farms and ranches. Any attempt to make the exemption too low would not only violate the spirit of the Tax For A Tax concept, but likely result in a rejection by Oregon voters. For the Tax For A Tax to become Oregon law it must be good for Oregon and not be perceived as a political ploy to get more money from Oregon taxpayers.

* The Tax For A Tax would have a constitutionally limited 5% retail sales tax. For a complex Referral such as the Tax For A Tax to take place, a 2/3 majority vote is required of both the Oregon House and Senate before it could be sent to Oregon voters. The wording of the Referral should have both the exemption of the property taxes and the beginning of the retail sales tax occurring on the same date (January 1, 2012?).

* The 5% retail sales tax of a Tax For A Tax must be sacred. The Legislature must not be able to increase it without a vote of the people-which is why the Referral must have constitutional protection. Provisions should also be made to prevent local governments, districts, etc., from peeling off fundamental government services and funding them with “multiple additional piecemeal levies.” This would circumvent the Tax For A Tax contract with Oregon taxpayers. One proposal to protect exempted property owners would be to require a double majority for any such future levy to be assessed on real property after the Tax For A Tax is implemented. Another potential strategy would be to include a provision applying the real property tax exemption from a Tax For A Tax to any future levies passed by the electorate. The challenge will be to prevent the “multiple additional piecemeal levies” of fundamental government services while allowing a jurisdiction to fund a park or an airport, which is a local decision by local taxpaying voters.

* The Tax For A Tax should include a formula for tax money distribution. This formula for Oregon’s 36 counties would meet current local bonding and district commitments and incorporate the following: 1. Adequate base-costs for running each county-which would not be determined by current tax levies (this would especially help O & C and rural cities and counties), and 2. Population and amounts of revenues collected (this would especially help the urban cities and counties). Without such provisions the rich counties would merely get richer and the poor counties would stay poor. 3. The revenue formula determined for local government should be indexed for CPI and should ensure the counties benefit from future increases in retail spending-such as by having a dedicated percentage of Citizen Tax revenues collected.

* The Tax For A Tax should not create a “tax cliff.” This would occur when a person or company owning property assessed at a value just above the exemption would be required to pay all real property taxes, plus the new 5% sales tax. To avoid such a “tax cliff,” there could be a structured or phase-in provision. One example would be to require those with real property assessed at $10,000,001 – 11 million to pay 10% of their assessed property tax, those with assessed values of $11,000,001 – $12 million to pay 20% of the assessed property tax, and so forth in ever increasing 10% increments until 100% of the real property tax assessment is being collected. In any event the 5% sales tax would apply to every one.

* The Tax For A Tax should include a broad based retail sales tax provision. Experience in other states indicates the wisdom of having the Tax For A Tax be a “broad based” retail sales tax that essentially includes all retail products and services ( including food products, except for items requiring home preparation), excepting gasoline and diesel. Here is where political pressures will be felt the strongest. Since a broad-based retail sales tax is inherently regressive, provisions should be made to protect poor seniors on fixed incomes and other poor individuals and families (those at or below the Federal Poverty Level). With current technology, new ideas could be considered, such as providing a “sales tax exemption card” for those Oregonians who file tax returns, signed under penalties of perjury, evidencing their low income qualifications (such a requirement would preclude those illegally in Oregon from avoiding the Sales Tax.) Alternative consideration could be given to a system where a qualifying poor person/family could be reimbursed for sales taxes paid by having those taxes reallocated onto an Oregon Trail Card on a monthly basis. In short, we should take advantage of the technology currently in play and the reality that most purchases now are made (or can be made) electronically via credit card technology.

* Care must be used not to grant exceptions to the new sales tax. Although compassionate pleas will be made to exclude classifications of products or services, if tax exceptions are made, it will open the door for every special interest advocate and lobbyist in Oregon to work to get his/her client’s product or service excepted; drafting should avoid opening this Pandora’s box (if politically possible).

* Sales Tax Administration Costs Should Be Kept Low. With current technology and no previous sales tax bureaucracy in Oregon, careful thought should be given by the drafters on how best to implement the sales tax, and collect and remit the sales tax revenues. Although such details may or may not be included in this bill, Oregon must avoid creating an expensive sales tax collection process. A brand new sales tax system should be based on state of the art technology and on-line reporting and transfer capabilities for retailers.

In conclusion, the Tax For A Tax recommendations are my own. Politically, it is risky for me to make them, but I’m trying to create a better place for our citizens and our children. I am trying to be a statesman, not merely another politician more worried about re-election than about solving Oregon’s problems. You may see major flaws or have important suggestions that would help the Tax For A Tax become a standard of fairness for the nation. If so, I would like to hear them.

I have proposed the Tax For A Tax concept because Oregon needs substantive tax reform. If you have suggestions to make the Tax For A Tax plan better, please email them to me. If you have a better idea, please share it with me and with other Oregon Legislators. It is time for us, as citizens of the great state of Oregon, to stand up, step forward and be part of the solutions that will make Oregon economically strong, environmentally sound and educationally superior. Let’s start by reforming the Oregon tax system and implementing a Tax For A Tax.

Sincerely,

Dennis Richardson
State Representative

Thursday, July 10, 2008

For Immediate Release

Contact: Andrew Whelan

Phone: (202) 226-7338

Resolution honors Oregon National Guard Youth Program

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), Darlene Hooley (D-Ore), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore), and David Wu (D-Ore) introduced a resolution, H.Res.1321, honoring the Oregon National Guard Youth Leadership Challenge Program. For almost 15 years, this program has worked to promote self-confidence and fellowship among at-risk youth. It has been awarded the United Service Organizations’ award for “Best Overall Program” three times in the past six years.

“I am truly impressed with the efforts of the Oregon Youth Challenge Program in providing our state’s at-risk youth with the discipline, skills and opportunities they need to lead positive, healthy lives,” Rep. Walden said. “Since 2001, the program has received numerous national awards for the outstanding work of its cadre and staff.  Although it serves all of Oregon, I’m proud to honor a program that calls the high desert of the Second District home.”

More than 3,500 Oregon teens likely to drop out of high school or engage in destructive behavior have entered the Oregon National Guard Youth Leadership Challenge Program, which is both free and voluntary.

“I am proud to honor this outstanding organization,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “Since 1994 it has impacted the lives of thousands of Oregonians who were likely to drop out of high school. Most of these kids went on to earn a high school degree or its equivalent.  This is another example of Oregon leading the way with a program that truly makes a difference in the lives of our youth.”

“Oregon Youth Challenge is the best in the nation, period,” Rep. Hooley said. “For the past decade, OYC has set the pace for the national programming, leading the nation each year in awards that are a tribute to the fine young men and women who participate.  And no mention of Oregon Youth Challenge should go without echoing the name of Brigadier General Michael Caldwell: Oregon Youth Challenge would not be there if not for him.  His tenacity helped overcome the many challenges in building a program that nobody had heard of or understood. Budgetary threats nearly closed it several times, but Mike always found ways and means to keep it alive.”

“I am proud that the Oregon National Guard Youth Leadership Challenge Program is being recognized for its tremendous success in helping at-risk kids,” Rep. DeFazio said.  “For the last 15 years they have been proving that kids who struggle in school or act out are not a lost cause. They have a remarkable record of helping young Oregonians get back on track. I have been inspired by the stories of participants about the impact the program has had on their lives and I hope the example they have set will be emulated around the nation.”

“This program provides new hope to young people who were struggling to complete high school,” Rep. Wu said. ”I have met some of the bright kids who are turning their lives around thanks to this innovative program. I am confident that, with the skills that they learned from the National Guard, they and the other program graduates will create bright futures for themselves.”

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

For Immediate Release

Contact: Andrew Whelan

Phone: (202) 226-7338

Click on the image above to watch Congressman Walden’s

floor statement on the bill

House passes Walden-backed wildfire fund bill

Walden Calls for Expanded Treatment Authority

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House of Representatives today passed legislation that will create a separate fund for catastrophic, emergency wildfire costs. The measure would allow the agency to better fulfill their other forest-related missions. The bill, called the FLAME Act (H.R. 5541), was cosponsored by Congressman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and passed by voice vote. Following the vote, Congressman Walden released the following statement.

“Too often during fire season the Forest Service has to stop work on fuel reduction projects and take funds from other efforts because it needs the money to pay for fire fighting. That means too often we fall behind in efforts to bring the forests back into balance with nature and reduce the overgrown stands. Setting up a separate fire fighting account will solve this problem. Our federal forests are going up in smoke at historic levels each summer. Today, 47 percent of the U.S. Forest Service budget is spent fighting fire. Fires in the United States release an average of 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is equivalent to 4 to 6 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. This bill is a step toward addressing the serious budget issues resulting form battling huge catastrophic wildfires every summer.

“That said, this bill treats only the symptom, not the cause, of catastrophic wildfire. Congress still needs to address the main issue leading to catastrophic wildfire every summer – the egregious amount of fuel built up on our federal lands. That’s why I am leading a legislative effort that would allow federal forest managers to use the tools given to them in the bipartisan and successful Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) on a wider, landscape scale. We know how well the collaborative HFRA process has worked to reduce fuel loads and wildfire around our communities, now we need to let our professional foresters use these same tools out where most of the fires originate.

“Forest managers tell me that where they’ve been able to utilize HFRA, it has been effective in reducing fuel and protecting homes and habitat. But since HFRA passed, 40 million acres of federal land have burned. That’s an area larger than the state of North Dakota. Simply put, we have a lot of work left to do and it’s time for Congress to take meaningful action, again.”

The FLAME Act would establish a fire-fighting account that would be funded based on the average costs incurred fighting fires over the last 10 years. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.

Congressman Walden represents the people of Oregon’s Second District, which is comprised of 20 counties in eastern, southern, and central Oregon. He is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.