Measure 48 is a constitutional amendment which will severely limit increases in state spending.  Oregon does its budgeting in two-year cycles.  Currently, the budget for the upcoming two-year period is limited to 8% of the projected personal income in the state over that period.  This measure would cap the increase in spending from one biennium to the next, to the sum of inflation plus the increase in state population over the last biennium.

The worst thing about this measure, in my opinion, is the way proponents are cheerfully describing it as the "Rainy Day Amendment".  The amendment does not stop the state from collecting 8% of projected personal income, it merely prevents the state from spending it.  The excess would, supposedly, go into a "rainy day fund".

Can you imagine anything more stupid than having the state collect money that it is constitutionally prevented from spending?

The biggest problem is that the limited increase is simply not enough to fund the services that Oregonians demand.  If this measure passes, the state would have to eliminate $2.2 billion in spending by June of 2007, and almost $5 billion from the 2007-2009 biennium.  We simply cannot afford that.  Key public services will have to be shut down.  Similar measures have crippled other states.

Please, people.  Do not let yourself be soothed by the deceitful and cheery ads for the "Rainy Day Amendment."  READ the measure, READ the financial impact statement, READ the arguments.  Then, vote NO on Measure 48.

Measure 47 is the second of two measures on the ballot this fall designed to limit campaign contributions.  This is an act, not a constitutional amendment, and so has to measure up to a lower bar.

However, there is a problem here.  As written, this measure is unconstitutional.  It violates Oregon's free speech guarantees, which are among the strongest such guarantees in the nation.  The authors of the measure know this.  That's why they have also proffered Measure 46, which is a constitutional amendment to curtail free speech rights regarding campaign contributions.

The big problem here is that no one knows quite what will happen if 46 fails and 47 passes.  In that case, the state Supreme Court will strike down several sections of Measure 47, and the sections which are left will have consequences that cannot be foreseen at this time. That's foolhardy and dangerous.

Indeed, at least one of the authors of Measure 47 has realized the danger and is now campaigning against the measure.  His is one of the paid arguments against in the voter's pamphlet.

No unintended consequences.  Vote no on Measure 47.

Measure 46 is one of two measures on the ballot this fall intended to limit campaign contributions.  This one is a constitutional amendment, and as I have said in the past, proposed amendments need to meet a very high bar. This one does not do so.

Personally, I haven't made up my own mind on whether campaign contributions need more limitations than they currently have.  I hate the rash of negative advertising, but limiting contributions just means that only the rich could afford to run.

The key problem with this proposed amendment is that it is way too broad. It authorizes the legislature to enact laws prohibiting contributions and expenditures of ANY TYPE OR DESCRIPTION intended to influence the outcome of ANY election.  That doesn't mention money.  This could very easily be used, for example, to prohibit candidate endorsements in newspaper editorials.  It could easily be used to prohibit me from making these very blog postings.

No.  Constitutional amendments must be specific, carefully worded, and clearly beneficial to the state as a whole.  This one is NOT.

Vote no on Measure 46.

Measure 45 would institute term limits for state legislators.  Representatives would be limited to six years, senators would be limited to eight years, and no one could serve a combined total of more than 14 years.

I don't know who came up with the bright idea that fresh faces make better legislation, but it is patently false.  Oregon had a term limit law in the 1990s until the state Supreme Court invalidated it, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Politics is not a game where you bring in a new shooter to try his hand at manipulating the lives of millions.  Politics is a job, and it's a job where you get better at it as time goes on.  I want someone who has had the time to observe the workings of the legislature, and knows how to wrangle a compromise to get something done.  Bulls in China shops don't do that.

This is a Bad Idea.  Vote NO on Measure 45.

Now HERE is the one great idea in this year's batch of initiative measures.

Oregon has a prescription drug program which allows participants in the Oregon medical program (usually low income folks) to get prescription drugs at a significant discount. The discount comes by having the state do the purchasing in bulk; pharmacies are always willing to give a discount to group buyers.

Measure 44 would open this opportunity up to any Oregonian without medical insurance. There is no cost to the state, no bureaucratic impact, no additional employees. More people means more buying power, which means more opportunities for discount. It is a win-win like we don't usually see on election day.

Vote YES on Measure 44.

Measure 43 would require that a medical provider give 48-hour written notice to the parents of a 15- to 17-year-old before performing an abortion. Violations would be punishable by discipline or lawsuit.

This is one of the most controversial measures on our ballot. I am against this proposal. Proponents make heart-string-tugging arguments about how no minor should be alone when making the decision to have an abortion, and how parents have a right to know.

However, they make those arguments as if 15-to-17-year-olds were somehow PREVENTED from contacting their parents in this situation right now. That's just not true. I would be surprised if abortion providers did not ask "have you talked with your parents about this?" If the girl is consciously going through such an important procedure without the advice of her parent, then it's quite likely that she has very good reasons to exclude them. I don't see that it is the state's responsibility to second guess this, and possibly make an already bad situation even worse.

Let us make no mistake about it. This is not about protecting kids. This is just the pro-lifers pushing the envelope one more step towards a total ban on abortions. Eat it away a little bit at a time until we don't realize that the right has been completely eliminated.

No on measure 43.

Measure 42 would prohibit insurance companies from using your credit score as a criterion in determining your premiums.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the consumer in me sees it an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, I can see why the insurance companies do this; there is a certain intuitive sense in asserting that people with good credit ratings tend to be better insurance risks. The whole point of insurance is that people who are higher risk pay a higher premium.

There are already certain protections in place in Oregon. The insurance company must tell you that they are going to get a credit score, and there are strong restrictions on what they can do with that information.

Based on that, this measure does not pass my "really good idea" criterion. No on measure 42.

Measure 41 would change the way personal tax exemptions are handled on Oregon's income tax form. Today, you get a fixed tax credit per dependent. With Measure 41, we would take a deduction equal to the Federal tax deduction.

This is nothing but pure greed. It's just a way to give the state less money to do the things we expect it to do. Our individual state tax bills would be less, but our Federal tax would go up because of it.

There is just no good reason for this. No on measure 41.

Measure 40 would change the way Oregon elects its Supreme Court and Court of Appeals justices. Today, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court positions are elected statewide. If 40 passes, these positions would be elected on a district basis, and there would be a residency requirements to run in a specific district.

The theory, apparently, is that the current system ends up electing judges mostly from the most populous (and hence urban) parts of the state, in the Willamette Valley, and folks in the rural areas are supposed to be upset about it. Frankly, I find that argument insulting. Unlike legislators, judges are supposed to be basing their opinions on the law, not on what "the folks back home" talk about over eggs and bacon down at the diner. Theoretically, a judge from Lakeview would make the same basic decisions as a judge from Eugene.

Why should it be a surprise that most judges come from the most populous areas? Statistically speaking, that is exactly what you would expect. Further, most judges are lawyers, and most attorney jobs are going to be in the urban areas.

By enforcing these district restrictions, we are effectively saying that we don't want the best candidates for these positions if they happen to live in the wrong spot. This is a Bad Idea.

No on measure 40.

Measure 39 would prohibit a public body from condemning private property if it intends to convey all or part of the land to a private party.

On the face of it, this seems like a good thing. However, this is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. Unlike the east coast, where a certain amount of corruption is accepted as a part of life, even the proponents of Measure 39 have not been able to identify a single instance of abuse of condemnation in Oregon that this measure would have prevented. The Oregon constitution already requires fair compensation to landowners when land is condemned, and this process has worked for us.

Further, as it is written, this measure could make it more difficult and more expensive for cities and counties to acquire land for their normal business activities.

Those unintended consequences are a danger in any measure like this, which is one reason why I say that a measure must pass a rather high standard. This measure does not pass that standard.

No on measure 39.

Oregonians have 10 statewide initiative measures on their ballot this fall, almost all of which should be allowed to slink back into obscurity.

Initiative measures should need to pass a high standard in order to be enacted by the populace. A measure needs to be more than just a fairly good idea. It needs to be a REALLY good idea. Constitutional amendments need to pass an even higher standard; the constitution is the fundamental document that governs the way our lives are run in this state.

After reading through the statewide measures, the Committee for Rational Thinking urges a "no" vote across the board, except for the prescription drug plan, Measure 44. Over the next few days, I hope to write essays documenting my objections to each measure one by one.

I especially despise the advertisements in which slick marketing campaigns to try to convince you that the measure is something it is not, in order to sway those voters who do not pay attention. The worst of the crowd this time is Measure 48, the State Financial Straightjacket amendment, which proponents are cheerfully casting as the "Rainy Day Amendment". The only reason that name is applicable is because of the rain of tears that will fall because of the severe cutbacks that will be required should this amendment pass, but I'll get to that later.

It also frustrates me that every non-incumbent wants to elect them so they can "turn things around" and "enact REAL change" and "combat politics as usual". Those sound like wonderful catchphrases, but is that what we really want? Personally, I think Oregon works pretty well now. Yes, there are some things we need to tweak, and some adjustments we need to make in several key areas, but I'm not sure I want "REAL change". Further, politics is a game of compromise. The only way to get anything done in legislature is to learn how to compromise -- how to play the game of politics. When we elect someone who wants to "combat politics as usual", what we're really electing is someone who doesn't understand how the game is played. That, in turn, means that they won't be able to get anything done.

What I'm asking is that each Oregon really use their heads to understand the issues -- to look through the slogans and catchphrases and find out what each decision really means.