Posts published in “Oregon”

In the year-plus of the second Trump administration, no Cabinet member — despite a year-long gusher of toxic headlines relating to many of that group — has yet resigned or been fired.

Speculation for months has centered on more than a dozen names, at various times and degrees of seriousness, about who will be first to leave.

Today, there’s some basis for looking at the only Oregonian in the group, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.

That’s not exactly a consensus view. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been mentioned often, as have Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others. Loud campaigns calling for the resignation of each have surfaced for months.

Chavez-DeRemer, a former one-term U.S. representative from Oregon, has not been as high-profile as any of them, and the toxic elements of her story could be considered less important from a governing or policy view than those of some of the others.

Still, the betting platform Polymarket pegged her prospect of being the first cabinet departure at 27.3% in mid-January.

What’s the case for an early departure for the former Oregon member of Congress?

They seem not to reach into her past. She had served without significant controversy on the Happy Valley City Council and through two terms as mayor, and she ran competitively twice for the state Legislature.

A Republican, in 2022 she won a U.S. House seat in a district specifically designed to elect a Democrat. When she lost the seat in 2024, the reasons mainly reflected the gap between the slightly Democratic-leaning district and national Republicans, more than with any concerns specific to Chavez-DeRemer.

The current problems developed, or at least went public, after she joined the Trump administration. Some relate to her job execution and policies. A group of Democratic senators (including Ron Wyden of Oregon) this month sent a letter to the department complaining of the secretary’s actions “rolling back safety regulations and systemically reducing enforcement efforts at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.” None of that was likely to hurt her standing with the president, however.

But that followed complaints about her management, involving staff incidents and styles that drew inquiries from the department’s inspector general. One report, for example, said that during a formal work trip back to Oregon, she took staffers to a Portland strip club. Another said she required assistants to undertake personal errands for her. She was accused last month of drinking alcohol in the workplace and having an extramarital affair with a subordinate. Through an attorney, Chavez-DeRemer strongly denied any claims of wrongdoing.

But then came more recent headlines about her husband, Shawn DeRemer. The New York Times reported that he has been barred from entering the Department of Labor headquarters building after a Jan. 24 report by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department about what was described as “forced sexual contact” in the department’s offices. Federal prosecutors, in the U.S. attorney’s office led by Jeanine Pirro, opted not to file charges.

The Times concluded in another article, “Morale is low among both political appointees and veteran staff members, some of whom said Ms. Chavez-DeRemer was rarely present at the department and seemed largely interested in her future political aspirations.”

The accumulation of incidents and optics have reached a level that would have resulted in an automatic ouster in most presidential administrations. The Trump administration, of course, is different. But there is reason to think Chavez-DeRemer might be a little more vulnerable to external pressure than some of the other Cabinet secretaries.

First, she is not personally or professionally especially close to Trump. She has been a loyal member of the administration, defending Trump on several fronts, but she’s not part of the inner circle the way Hegseth and Bondi seem to be.

She also doesn’t have a large national platform or support group. Kennedy, for example, had a significant personal constituency based on his activism on health and other issues; Chavez-DeRemer has a lower national profile, and so a smaller personal support base.

And the consequences of cutting her loose with the potential of Trump-damaging headlines as a result do not seem large.

So far, like all other members of the Cabinet, she has lasted for more than a year. Maybe she will stay in place for some time to come. Unlike in his first term, Trump seems reluctant to let Cabinet members go.

In the meantime, keep a watch on the betting markets.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

The federal government and the state of Oregon have a disconnect these days on everything from health care to energy policy to, obviously, immigration.

But it boils down to specifics in the case of Oregon Senate Bill 1507, which concerns income taxes, and that requires some explanation — not to mention swift consideration, this being the income tax-paying part of the year.

Where you land on this bill probably relates almost exactly to what you thought of the “big beautiful bill” (House Resolution 1) passed last year by the Republican-majority Congress, and backed by President Donald Trump.

But details matter. Even in Oregon, there’ll be no absolute linking or disconnect; more likely, Oregon will choose among the federal provisions to accept or reject. That calls for some study, rather than a binary selection of which team to support.

Most years, states that impose an income tax match the rules concerning the federal income tax closely with their own. This usually makes tax preparation and business planning easier. Some states, including Oregon, have a default rule that the state follows the federal model unless the Legislature decides otherwise. The Legislature has done that in the past, as in 2018.

Idaho is one of the states running the other way: There, conformance with the federal rules needs specific legislative approval, which ordinarily is given. This year, that approval is roaring along in that state’s legislature, partly because the conformance aligns the Idaho Legislature with national Republican policy.

The states split widely (mainly along red and blue divider lines) on how they’re responding to the income tax issue and Oregon, naturally, has a story of its own.

The recent federal tax law is viewed overall negatively in Oregon, but that’s not universal. A Senate Finance and Revenue Committee hearing on Feb. 4 exploring “decoupling” the state from many (not all) of the federal provisions, drew an array of opinions within 495 submitted opinions. A slight majority of them opposed the bill — that is, favored keeping last year’s congressional tax bill as a model for Oregon’s state income tax rules.

Those critics included some who seemed not to understand the bill; some said they opposed imposition of a sales tax, which isn’t what the bill is about. Others simply proclaimed themselves in opposition to taxes.

But some critics were more specific. An example came from Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin: “Since the passage of H.R. 1 by Congress in July of 2025, Oregonians have been experiencing the benefits from this economic stimulus program. No longer being taxed on tips, overtime or interest on car loans is a great relief for many Oregonians — especially those finding it difficult to make ends meet. Moreover, H.R. 1’s bonus and R&D same-year expensing/depreciation is an incredibly helpful incentive for businesses to invest both their people and their capital in Oregon. Disconnecting from such important parts of the federal tax code would put Oregon at a serious disadvantage compared to other states.”

The counterargument starts with the loss of state revenue under the new federal provisions. The exact number remains uncertain, but it seems likely to be significant.

Still, not all of the federal bill is being targeted for decoupling. The battle ahead lies within the details: Where tax levels or deductions or other rules should be set, for different types of income.

The federal bill, for example, generally offers a new tax exemption for tip income, and whether you can qualify for it appears to depend on whether you fit into one of 68 (that number may be in flux) “treasury tipped occupation codes.” The categories set in 2024 include unexpected categories such as self-enrichment teachers, pet caretakers and club dancers, though there’s been talk of creative redefinition of “tipping” that could add some higher-income occupations too. Regardless, the tip rule change hasn’t drawn a lot of opposition.

The core of the pro-1507 argument is laid out by the Oregon Center for Public Policy, which contended the federal law “has left Oregon’s financial future on the brink, all to give tax breaks disproportionately to the richest households.” It specified three targets for decoupling.

One is the qualified small business stock exclusion, which the OCPP described as “giving early investors, notably venture capitalists, special tax breaks on their shares of certain corporations.” It’s aimed at higher-income investors, not a broad spectrum of Oregon taxpayers.

Then there’s the bonus depreciation, “a windfall for corporations, subsidizing investments they would likely do anyway. Businesses typically depreciate their purchases over time, reflecting the loss of value due to wear and tear, but bonus depreciation allows them to do it right away, creating greater opportunities for corporate tax avoidance.” The Oregon Legislature might have some incentive to go along with this if the investments were Oregon-specific, but they aren’t.

A third is the Auto Loan Interest Deduction, which does help with the price of buying a car — but only a new car, since less-expensive used cars aren’t covered.

There’s a good chance the OCPP will get a good deal of what it is seeking. But keep watch on the details, not an imagined bottom line of whether Oregon disconnects or not. It’s not all or nothing; it’s pick and choose.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

The plain meaning of Article II, Section 2 in the Oregon state constitution seems to be eluding a lot of people in high office in the state.

And that’s a little puzzling because the words seem basic: “Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution.” It does go on to restrict voting by residency and registration, and allow the Legislature to impose limitations on some financial ballot issues to taxpayers. But the rule is that in elections held by and paid for by the public, every qualified voter gets to vote.

Except that this isn’t true, in a meaningful way, in primary elections, the next of which arrives in May. There, if you’re not registered with the Democratic or Republican party (as a vast number of Oregon voters are not), you’re shut out from most of what’s on the ballot. That includes voting at a critical stage (often, in these hyper-partisan times, the only meaningful stage) for top elective offices.

Democrats and Republicans between them have an effective monopoly on most of Oregon’s top elective offices, but the theory is that those parties are private organizations that should be able to control participation in their activities (“freedom of association”). This leads to the perverse result of private benefit conferred by a government intended to operate for and by the people more broadly.

Two recent and separate legal challenges to this are underway.

One is a frontal constitutional legal argument. The group Our Primary Voice and plaintiff Mark Porter, a retired attorney, last summer sued the state in Marion County court to challenge the restrictive nature of Oregon’s primaries. They noted the state constitution language on voter access and said the primaries aren’t a special carve-out.

On Jan. 30, Judge Natasha Zimmerman rejected the challenge. There’s no written transcript or decision yet, and her reasoning wasn’t entirely clear. A message from Porter indicated she seemed to hold that primary elections aren’t covered under the constitutional provision. But Porter also said she acknowledged the state of Oregon didn’t make that argument.

An appeal is expected, so we’ll have to wait for the next round of legal filings for further analysis — probably long after this year’s primary election.

The second of the recent actions concern two proposed ballot initiatives (currently numbered 55 for a constitutional change and 56 for statutory changes to go along with it). They are intended to accomplish much the same thing as the Marion County lawsuit — to open primary elections — but in this case do it through a vote at the next general election. That effort has been driven by a bipartisan group including former Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

The proposed constitutional amendment says, “In primary elections, all candidates shall be listed on a single ballot, regardless of their party affiliations, allowing all eligible voters to vote for the candidates of their choice for: United States senator, representative in Congress, Governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, state senator and state representative and any other public office so designated by law.”

The debate now is the title (or caption) for the initiatives, written by the attorney general’s office. The certified version for each of them says, “Changes primary election processes for most partisan offices: single primary ballot, top two candidates advance.”

That may be accurate, but it sounds little like a clear description of what the planned ballot issues would, if passed, actually do. Nor does it sound neutral: It refers to a major election change, but not the nature of the change. By law, titles are supposed to be succinct, but they’re also supposed to be reasonably clear.

The initiative advocates have sued the state, at the Supreme Court, to change the language. They have offered a number of options.

A letter attached to the complaints and signed by four previous secretaries of state (Barbara Roberts, Phil Keisling, Kate Brown and Jeanne Atkins) concluded with this: “Enabling non-affiliated voters to have a say in selecting those candidates, a right which is denied to them currently, is the subject of these initiatives and will be their intended effect if approved by the Oregon electorate. Voters deserve to be informed of the subject and effect of this ‘main thing’ first and foremost.”

Very likely this year’s primary election, set for May 19, will come and go before these cases get resolved in court.

Along the way, and as voters consider who and what to support in the elections the state will have, they may want to think hard about which decisions they’re being allowed to make, and which not. That could become a consideration, owing to outside impacts from Washington, in the general election. But it might be a cause for concern in the primary too.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

One of Oregon’s biggest needs, as the Legislature is about to consider in the short session that starts Monday, is financing maintenance and improvements of its transportation system.

In most times, that would be a no-brainer, right?

But over the last year, it has become a mind-bending puzzle with elements of three-dimensional chess and a Rubik’s cube.

For many years, the formula was simple: Gas taxes, with some related fees, along with federal grants and a few other sources, were enough to take care of the basic work.

In recent years, though, electric vehicles and better gas efficiency have cut into the revenue stream, and the cost of road work — a complex subject by itself — has shot through the roof. The system the state has relied on no longer meets the state’s needs.

This much is more or less indisputable. Few Oregonians argue those basics.

The problem has been apparent for a few years, but because any solution would involve either raising taxes or fees on one hand, or letting roads and bridges deteriorate (alongside mass layoffs at the Department of Transportation) on the other, there’s political pain in grappling with any answer.

So let’s review quickly our transportation funding quagmire over the last year.

During the 2025 regular session, legislators talked for months about transportation funding, although until its end not always in a wide-open fashion. Democrats argued that $14.6 billion (over 10 years) was needed, but couldn’t get the votes; then cut that down to $11.7 billion (over 10 years) which also couldn’t get the votes.

Republicans, who were barely brought into the process, agreed (in general) to oppose almost any Democratic transportation proposal. The session ended with no additional funding and the impending layoffs of hundreds of ODOT workers.

Gov. Tina Kotek understandably wasn’t satisfied, and called a special session, to pass a proposal finally priced at $4.3 billion — down more than two-thirds from the original stated need only months before.

That one — decried by Republican legislators as a tax increase of historic proportions — finally passed by a single vote only after a super-extended special session ended when a single member was able to return to duty after medical issues. Kotek waited until Nov. 7 to sign the revenue bill into law, which had the practical effect of shortening about as much as possible the amount of time opponents would have to get petition signatures so voters could opt to vote against it a year hence.

But surprise (or probably not): Within a few weeks before the end of the year, well within the deadline, a quarter-million Oregonians signed petitions to put the referendum on the ballot, an indicator of massive opposition to the transportation package.

Next, the Democrats said they would try to repeal the bill in the upcoming special session to head off the referendum.

Then, Republicans (and legal analysis) said it was too late for that — the referendum was going to the ballot regardless. That analysis seemed to hold up.

Next, Democrats said they would move the referendum vote to the May primary election, presumably with the hope of taking the issue off the table during the general election campaign. The (inevitable) legal challenges on that aren’t all in yet.

And then, the Republican field for governor (which office is on the ballot this year) grew in January to include state Rep. Ed Diehl of Scio, who was a leader of the referendum effort and strongly indicated he planned to make it a centerpiece of his campaign.

That may have had the effect of scrambling a Republican nomination race that had seemed all but in the bag for 2022 nominee Christine Drazan. But within days the race was scrambled again by the entry of 2010 gubernatorial nominee Chris Dudley, whose views on transportation funding (and much else) seem … unformed.

So, as the special session is about to start: Does anyone remember that Oregon still has, you know, a problem with fixing its roads and paying for it? Work that apparently lots of Oregonians do understand needs to be done?

This funding battle has evolved into an infernal knot. As the new legislative session and election cycle bears down, it’s worth asking if there’s any way out.

Maybe.

We could start by going back to basics. We could ask Oregonians if they do in fact recognize the need and, if they do, if they’re willing to in some form fork over the bucks to deal with it.

It could help to pose the question most directly, and unavoidably, to Republican legislators: What sort of an actual solution would you support? And ask Democrats: This time, are you willing to work more equitably with the Republicans?

A batch of town hall meetings around the state dedicated to the issue actually might help, and could focus people’s thinking.

The clock is ticking. As in hours more than days, days more than weeks.

Bet you couldn’t come up with a controversial topic which finds President Donald Trump and Oregon’s Democratic U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley on the same side. Well, more or less.

And not only one, but one with implications for the Oregon Legislature.

But here we are: Concern about mass big-money purchases of residential property.

President Trump on Jan. 7 said something widely unexpected (in itself not a rarity): He would support a ban on big institutional investors buying single-family houses, as an approach to apply downward pressure on housing prices. His proposal was not much more specific than that. It has not been followed up since, and the administration has been mostly silent about it.

Some members of Congress said they were interested. At least one Republican senator, Bernie Moreno of Ohio, said he would propose legislation in the area. But more Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said they have been pushing for limitations on big-money buys of housing stock for some years, often meeting Republican resistance.

The senator most identified with the issue, though, is Merkley of Oregon, who for several years has focused especially on mass buys of real estate by hedge funds.

In October 2024, he offered a proposal that “bans hedge funds from owning single-family homes and forces hedge funds and other large private investors to sell their inventory of single-family homes to families who don’t currently own a home. If the hedge funds don’t, they are required to pay a substantial tax penalty that funds a down payment assistance program.”

How much impact corporate, institutional and wealthy buyers are having on the cost of housing has been hotly debated. Institutional investors (including hedge funds) may account for less than 5% of purchases according to some studies, but investors of other kinds may represent a quarter or more of all house buyers in expanding markets. Some studies in places like Atlanta have put the number as high as a third.

Of course, many people who live in the houses they buy also own them in part as a long-term investment, but that’s a different category and tends to have less effect on raising prices.

The effect of corporate and other big-money buying comes not just from adding to competition for houses, but more from driving up prices, since such investors could afford much higher prices — almost the sky’s the limit in some cases — than average home buyers could manage.

Only a small percentage of middle class home buyers can afford house prices a half-million dollars or more, but those sales points have held in place, and in some active markets continue to rise. Wealthy investors and institutional buyers are among the few market segments that can afford them; absent them, some of those higher prices might drop.

Members of Congress like Merkley and Warren have been interested in the subject for a while, but it is not the only place action could take place. It can happen, and might even be more locally effective, at the state level.

Housing prices last year became a hot campaign topic in one of Oregon’s border states, Nevada. It might yet find its way across the border.

In Nevada, a Democratic legislature has proposed a string of ideas aimed at limiting housing costs, several of which were vetoed by the Republican governor. The subject has become a centerpiece in the 2026 gubernatorial campaign there.

Late last year, Nevada legislators proposed Senate Bill 10 which was intended to set a ceiling on all corporate purchases of homes in the state to no more than 1,000 total. Advocates noted recent studies showing connections between high number of investor purchases of homes and rising home prices.

The bill failed by a single vote, but the idea is sure to return before long.

The same concept could be picked up in Oregon, as early as this year’s short session. Odds are that no such complex legislation would make its way through to passage so quickly, but it would be put on the table, for review over the year (and in campaign season) and teed up for more thorough action in 2027.

Such measures would not not be a complete fix for the problem, of course. The sheer amount of residential housing in Oregon needs to be increased (something the state has been working on), and that’s an essential element to providing more affordable housing for more people.

But houses are unlikely to become more affordable if big-money buyers with few limits on price keep putting higher floors under housing prices. It’ll be up to the legislature to do something about that.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.