GOP members walk out over a Lie!
An esoteric lie with real world consequences.
The real reason these "representatives" refuse to do their job, is that they buy into the lie that Taxes fund Spending. They cleave to this lie because is it easy for the uneducated, and uneducable to fall back into the concrete operational style of thinking that toddlers develop and is so very prevalent amongst young grade school students.
The core of the problem is "classical" economics doesn't do well at describing Reality. Even though they refuse to abandon the language of classical economics, Stephanie Kelton and Robert Reich are the best economists at describing this aspect of Reality.
This came through my email today: 09 March 2020:
This is in Oregon:
The members of both the GOP House and Senate walked out two weeks ago because they didn’t like SB1530, the bill that would have set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, utility and manufacturing sectors. It would have lowered allowed emissions from 55 million tons to 26 million tons by 2035 and 9 million tons by 2050.
This is the fourth walk-out by the GOP in the past year over climate change legislation. After disappearing in the middle of last year’s session, they agreed to return if the climate change bill and a bill addressing gun safety were
dropped. They also agreed not to walk out again but it anyway.
This year’s walkout left the legislature without a quorum, and all work came to a stop. In addition to the cap-and-trade bill, dozens of other bills and millions of dollars in funding for services died without a vote. Those bills included:
-- An affirmation of the historic agreement between timber companies and environmentalists, and a $25 million plan to reduce wildfire risk.
-- A bipartisan bill to provide $45 million to open homeless shelters.
-- A bill to expand community treatment for those with mental illness.
-- A bill requiring out-of—state facilities to meet our state’s standards before an Oregon foster child could be sent to live there.
-- A bill that would have required schools to offer free breakfasts to more than
100,000 additional children.
-- A bill that would have provided $50 million to fast-track affordable housing.
-- A bill that would have phased out and banned the pesticide chlorpyrifos.
-- A bill to regulate the drug kratom and ban sales to minors under 21.
-- A bill authorizing nearly $300 million in borrowing to help update and expand
buildings on a half-dozen public university campuses (including $785,000 for
the remodel of an engineering center at Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls).
-- A $2 million grant for Medford’s Kid Time Children’s Museum that the non-profit needs to move into its new downtown location, the old Carnegie Library.
Oregon republicans insist that we can't afford to spend tax dollars for any of the above or any other of societies needs. Crushing the lie would help in the effort to get back on track …
RIP
Comments
Actually on state level, taxes do control spending
States, unlike the USG cannot print money or even do cryptocurrency as "miners". Of course they can receive grants, Federal and otherwise. But when states have budget deficits, they really do have deficits--ones they cannot print their way out from.
That is almost true
Depending upon the details (you know as the devil is in …) some jurisdictions have arranged to loan themselves money for projects backed by future earnings, but tis but a trivial matter.
Some situations precipitate the creation of vouchers for various specific goods and services. But it ain't counterfeiting if you don't call it money.
The point is: The notion that money must flow is a myth. Those that insist upon a balanced budget, do so for arbitrary, and capricious reasons. When it suits them they ignore this profound principle as if it were but fairy dust in the wind.
But, you are correct! We live in a sovereign nation not a sovereign state. The Greeks didn't understand that fact and as a result the EU played hob with their economy. So, yea, we have constraints at "lower levels" of the system, but in a just society the system would provide the necessaries. But, as we know we don't live in a just society.
RIP
Not a just society, a functional society
We have gone from a false understanding of governmental - social - spending to a punitive - genocidal - definition of spending. You are essentially right; in a just society spending would be determined by need and taxes would be assessed accordingly, but we are not a just society. Spending is based on what our powerful are willing to allow themselves to be taxed, and what they are willing to force us to pay taxes for.
On to Biden since 1973
Most can, however, issue bonds.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Geeze...
RIP, I call BS (again).
So, NO Republican legislator is prepared to vote for any of the measures that you list? For ANY of society's needs?
Give me a break (and/or produce some evidence for that ridiculous claim).
Try taking a deep breath and a walk around the block or something.
And consider that the Republican legislators (at least some of them) may just have a different philosophy than you do and are acting out of what they view as legitimate concern for how the cap and trade legislation would affect their constituents. My own senator is one of those who walked and as far as I'm concerned he is representing me just fine in doing so.
Brian Boquist (R - Dallas) is kind of a loon IMO, but his constituents (see vid) don't seem to have a problem about it either - nor about his warning that he would defend himself in the event an attempt was made to arrest him for walking out.
And there are legitimate objections to the bill (and the whole concept of carbon trade-offs) from non-astroturf tree-huggers as well - such as those laid out here.
Just to be clear:
You are an Oregon republican and you are just fine with the walkout.
Question: Would it be legitimate for Kate to issue a few executive orders? Inquiring minds want to know.
RIP
Executive orders
to do what?
I'm not clear on exactly what the governor's authority is or is limited to WRT executive orders.
I'm pretty sure though that it doesn't extend to sending SWAT teams to Idaho to abduct absent legislators. Nor to firing them, if that's what you had in mind.
Update -
Oh, I see she has announced that EO's will be forthcoming. Guess the courts will be dealing with that. The governor should have broad authority over the operation of state government, so if she wants to junk all the state's internal combustion vehicles and switch to ox carts i suppose she could.
Sounds like she is talking about something much broader, though.
I call B.S.
You are suggesting the republicans would prefer something more aggressive than what???
Cap and Trade, Carbon Trade-Offs, or what ever you may want to call them represent too little too late. Are you really suggesting that motivated the republicans to walkout?
RIP
First of all
Less emphasis on "aggressive" and more on what is effective, necessary, equitable, workable, and such would be a more effective in actually solving problems.
Beyond that, I'm sure that not all the motives of all the senators that boycotted were pure - but, hysterical virtue-signalling aside - I'm not sure the Democrats are any nobler.
A lot of the Republicans, as far as I can tell, sincerely believe the legislation would harm their constituents unduly and they don't all buy into the Algore/Thunberg orthodoxy that if we don't reduce carbon emissions by 57% in the next two weeks and establish a multi-trillion dollar bureaucracy to accomplish that that WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
However.. some, if not all, don't want to trash the planet and would actually like to reduce dependency on fossil carbon and I do see some overlap in their concerns and those of the OPAL treehuggers whom I cited.
Not that there aren't many points of disagreement, but I think most Republicans could agree with OPAL that:
At the hearings:
Your characterization:
does not capture the tone of the "opposition's" objections to this bill. On all counts save one we could have had a constructive discussion toward strengthening the bill. But the bulk of "the opposition" was focused on the single point of "equitable" and as that was grounded in "An esoteric lie with real world consequences.", consequently the opposition was intractable and intransigent.
The opposition kept using the term, "fiduciary duty" as their mantra. The opposition never signaled a desire to strengthen the bill. The opposition's only goal was to kill the bill. The opposition has no interest in taking climate change seriously, and I think you know that. So once again I call B.S.
RIP
They ll walked out, thereby preventing any action whatsoever
on all of those items. Saying "I don't necessarily oppose those things but will block any action on them" is not credible; by their actions shall you know them.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Actually,
they did *not* prevent action on those bills, but specifically stated they would act on them if HB2020 was withdrawn.
The Dem leadership's intransigence is what prevented action on those measures. If those bills were so important (I agree some were/are) the what possible excuse can the Democrat leadership have for withdrawing HB2020 and *then* terminating the session ahead of schedule when the Republicans had indicated they were prepared to come back and vote on them?
That and the fact that they refused to submit HB2020 to a vote of the people would blow their credibility with me - if I thought they had any to begin with.
link
Blue Republic
(by self statement) was not at the hearings with respect to HB2020. 's response fails to capture the true nature of the interactions with those that oppose HB2020.
For more insight, and information I would suggest interested parties talk to actual legislators and/or their staff in Salem (and ignore people like me, and ).
RIP