State Sen. Ben Westlund, a Republican who turned independent to run for governor, will join the Democrats who control the Oregon Senate, Majority Leader Kate Brown said Tuesday.

Brown issued a statement quoting Westlund as saying that he was changing his registration to Democrat. He said he was prompted by the results of the last election and found himself rooting for Democrats on issues of health care, education and renewable energy.

"I think it's time to get off the sidelines and stand with them," the statement read.

Until he abandoned the race in August, Westlund was the third candidate in a campaign that also featured Republican challenger Ron Saxton and incumbent Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who won.

In his six-month candidacy, Westlund sought to appeal to disaffected Democrats and Republicans. He touted a record of working on both sides of the aisle, saying that he was "pro-gay and pro-guns."

But Westlund, from the Central Oregon town of Tumalo, said it became evident he couldn't win, and he didn't want to be a spoiler candidate.

Brown said Westlund's conversion would give Democrats an 18-12 edge in the chamber, which they controlled in the last session.

In the November election, Democrats also won control of the state House.

This is hardly a surprise.

Mr. Westlund has a reputation for voting like a democrat.

I say good riddance.

Herb

Who was it recently who had the idea that, on one particular day, tons of people should resign from both parties to show our disgust with business as usual in DC? Was it Lou Dobbs? Did someone else see this item?

Ross Perot tried bringing people together under an Independent type group like that.

It merely split the vote and allowed Mr. Clinton to win.

If the left wants to do that, I'm all for it. Otherwise, it's simply likely to produce the same result.

Herb

Clinton would have won anyway in 1992, Herb. The Perot voters in exit polls said they split pretty evenly from potential Clinton and Bush voters.

Westlund is a good guy. I was at a reading at Powell's a few months back (Thom Hartmann of KPOJ was there for his new book), and Westlund sat in the middle of the crowd. After it broke up and people were getting their books signs, Westlund was sitting there all by himself. This was just after he dropped out of the race for governor. People would come over and say hi to him one at a time. So after a while I did, too, and chatted with him for about 15 minutes. He's a very no-BS kind of guy.

I wonder if he'll run for governor in 2010 as a Democrat now? Smart move changing parties now if so - that will give him time to establish himself in the party and get support. And now his friend John Kitzhaber can support him openly without having to defy the party. I'd love to see someone like Westlund get elected as governor, but it wasn't going to happen in 2006.

Andrew

He'll fit well into Oregon politics. This is a democrat state.

Herb

I wanted to vote for this guy. I was sad he dropped out.

Herb, isn't it funny how before the 2004 election Oregon was a Republic state with a Republic-controlled state house and senate? I guess you're really eating your words about how the Democratic party will be a minority party for decades, huh? Looks like you are really out of step with the voters here and all across America.

Andrew

I have FAR more in common with voters in the midwest than any liberal democrat here in Oregon.That's also why all those jobs are leaving the state. Oregon is hostile to business.

It's also hostile to families and taxpayers. You like the horrific traffic here? Vote democrat. You like the outrageous taxes here? Keep voting democrat. You want to pay a toll here? Vote democrat. You like a tram that has become a joke nationwide? Keep voting democrat.

I thought it was all about diverrrrrsity? Guess that applies to the left EXCEPT when it comes to political thought.

Look at all the states that voted for family values. Pro-marriage ballots passed in almost every single state in the nation.

It's the left, and Oregon, that is out of synch.

Herb

Herb-

Here's a story for your thinking cap:

A new study revealed that countries with higher taxes are happier, healthier, benefit from more research and development, and a higher GDP rate per person, meaning they are making more money overall.

The study, by Neil Brooks and Thaddeus Hwong at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, compares high-tax Nordic countries and low-tax Anglo-American countries on 50 social and economic measures and finds the high-tax Nordic countries score better in 42 categories than Canada. The US fared even worse.

The more heavily taxed Nordic countries have:

* lower rates of poverty, more equal income distribution, and more economic security for their workers;
* a higher GDP per capita;
* higher rates of household saving and net national saving;
* greater innovation, including a higher percentage of GDP spent on research and development;
* a higher ranking on their growth competitiveness by the World Economic Forum;
* higher rates of secondary school and university completion; and
* less drug use, more leisure time, and higher life satisfaction.

The U.S. falls near the bottom of the 21 industrialized countries in a strikingly large number of social indicators.

In contrast, Finland ranks near the top of the industrialized world in most of the social indicators and has been named the most competitive country in the world by the World Economic Forum four years in a row.

“The tax cut lobby has it backwards,” says Hwong. “Not only do government social programs create a healthier society, they also create the conditions for a vibrant—and competitive—economy.”

“By cutting taxes, the Conservative government in Canada is headed in the wrong direction,” says Brooks. “It wants to make Canada more like the United States, yet our findings show that Americans bear severe social costs for living in one of the lowest taxed countries in the world.”

Herb you're not in Kansas anymore....but from your post you might want to move so us Oregonians don't piss you off anymore than we already have.

Along with plenty of other reasons, the Nordic countries are far more homogeneous.

The comparison is not apt.

Herb

Chris, Oregon must not be the happiest state in the union, because our taxes are below the median of the 50 states. I think we're ranked about 36th out of 50 for overall tax burden. After all, we have no sales tax. When the average person blows $20,000 for a new car, in every other state they're going to pay 5% to 7% sales tax on that transaction alone. You have to figure the total picture, not just the income tax rate.

Speaking of sales tax, that's one of Westlund's key issues: tax reform for Oregon. Except if you call it a "sales tax" he'll slap your hand (well, that's what he did to me when I asked him about it). I think "value-added tax" is more appropriate term or something.

No one likes paying taxes, certainly not me. The question is, what do you WANT? Do you support the Iraq war? Then you should not blanche about paying taxes to support it. Of course, the likes of Herb think it's better just to keep borrowing every time there's a new appropriation requested for Iraq so our grandkids can pay for it, not him.

Andrew

Listen.

You can pay for the war over THERE.

Or wait until the war is HERE.

You might be able to get Trixter to buy what you're selling, but to imply that our nation's defense should be done on the cheap doesn't work on Republicans.

Herb

So slippery, Herb - just like Slick Willie! You and Clinton might have more and common than you think!

Instead of trying to change the subject again, please answer this question: directly, if you are able: do you prefer to pay for the War in Iraq by borrowing (as Bush and the Republican Congress have done) so our grandchildren will pay for it or do you prefer to pay for it NOW by raising our taxes or cutting some other spending? (And if you say, "cut," what would you cut? Hint: welfare isn't anything close to paying for even part of the expenditures in Iraq.)

Andrew

CUT.

Cut ALL federal and state money to planned parenthood.

Cut ALL federal and state money on trams and similar little-used 'transportation.' It should support itself.

Cut welfare to the able-bodied.

Deport all illegal felons.

Make domestic felons partially repay taxpayers toward their own rehabilitation.

Strike an agreement with the Iraqi government to repay our taxpayers via oil revenues for some of our hard costs, IF they want us to stay there longer.

Pull our troops out of Germany.

Privatize, privatize, privatize. THIS INCLUDES EDUCATION. A COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM WILL SAVE BILLIONS. PERS IS ONE EXAMPLE.
VOUCHERS ARE ANOTHER. IT IS FAR CHEAPER, AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEFT WILL TELL YOU, [WHILE THEY HAVE THEIR HAND IN YOUR POCKET], THE RESULTS FOR VOUCHERS ARE BETTER...EVEN FOR SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS.

Don't require union contracts for government bids.

I don't expect liberals to like any of this.
I don't care.
I'm not a liberal.

Herb

Actually the Tram thing I agree with.

I did voice work for Planned Parenthood back when I was a teenager in high school. I wouldn't cut it. It's needed. Having a sister who works in social services has given me some better insight. Also it's not always an issue of abortion with PP.

The hard thing with the able-bodied welfare cut, is how do you determine who is able-bodied. I see discrimination problems with that cut, however the idea is not a totally bad one.

Domestic felons repay taxpayers: Again a nice idea but how do you find the resources to regulate it and is it truly necessary in the larger scheme?

I see any agreement with whatever Iraqi government is formed, as pretty low on their priority list. However this war ends or however the US involvement ends the last thing the Iraqi government will probably want to do is settle up accounts with the US. Waste of time and energy when other things seem far more important.

On getting our troops out of Germany: Herb educate me here because maybe I am ignorant on what's going on. Give me your assessment on that one.

"I don't care". Yeah Herb I know you don't. And that bothers me more than any of your CUTS. When you can't come to a compromise or to some give and take...for sure just "don't care" because I'm glad I'm not a liberal. To me that's the most dangerous kind of thinking.

Germany is now strong. We needed to be there before. Unless intel suggests that Russia is going to act up, Germany, France and the rest of Europe can carry the ball there now. It's been half a century.

Japan should also carry more weight in their defense situation. They, along with South Korea and our other Asian friends, need to help us keep North Korea from nuking its neighbors.

I'd agree to give planned parenthood money...IF they don't do any abortions. But that's where they get a great deal of their funding.

Herb

herb sez: "Or wait until the war is HERE."

Exactly how is this "war" gonna get HERE? Do "they", whoever they are, have ships to send troops over? Or planes to fly them over? If they did have them, how are they gonna get by our stateside defenses? (Never mind the 100 million armed americans at home). Me thinks you're a bit fearful over a handful of loudtalking terrorists.

ps: the reason things in Oregon are the way they are now is the result of years of free election results. I see no reason why should we go against the will of the people and make the changes on your list. Changes should come at the ballot box. The ballot box rules.

Herb, we'll save your side discussions about the effectiveness of welfare, public education et al for some other thread. Let's stay on topic for a change. I'm going to call you on your math: the cuts you suggest don't nearly cover the cost of Iraq. What else do you want to cut? Health care for the elderly (Medicare)? Because our major federal budget outlays go: Medicare, the military (not including Iraq), and interest on our existing national debt.

So then what? Besides cutting poor kids off of public education and onto the streets to help pay for Bush's Iraq war, do you want to pay more in taxes now or borrow more so our grandkids can pay for it?

Andrew

Education and PERS. Fix those and you're well on your way to solving our state's financial problems. Nationally, there are plenty of other programs to fix. But here, privatize schools and go with vouchers.

Then eliminate the situation where teachers make more retired than when they were working.

This isn't and shouldn't be a welfare state. Most people DON'T get a pension. If they earned one, fine. But the COLAs are a joke.

Herb

OK, Herb, I guess you will not answer my question, because your math does not add up. You can't pay for Iraq by privatizing schools and cutting some minor spending programs. I'll assume you prefer to borrow the money for Iraq and let our grandkids pay the interest (FOREVER) instead of paying a little more in taxes now for Iraq.


Andrew

>>Education and PERS. Fix those

Admittedly, PERS was mis-managed, and people were given too much out of the fund on the assumption the "dot com bubble" would never burst and the big bucks would just keep rolling in.

However, the PERS situation has already gone through the courts and has been dealt with, regardless of phony campaign promises from Ron Saxon to the contrary. Each side won some and lost some in the trial. Those who retired during a particular time period are now in essence paying back money the system previously gave them. Many recent retirees (last 3 years) were encouraged to retire early only to find they would get way less than they were told, and it turns out they should have stayed on the job a few more years to earn a more livable pension.

>>Then eliminate the situation where teachers make more retired than when they were working.

It was only true in a few cases then, it's no longer true today. The system has been dealt with to the full extent of the law. Legally, the state can only go so far in breaking contracts.

Also, PERS isn't just teachers, it's police, firefighters, janitors, maintenance workers, etc.

Hey Herb--
The list in your 9:22 PM post looks like something out of the Voters' Pamphlet. Why don't you get involved in politics and run for office yourself? Other than your support for the Iraq war, your other views sound like they would mesh quite well with the Constitution Party. I'm not being facetious.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Internet discussion boards and newsgroups prove one thing to me over and over: It is much, much easier to sit at a computer keyboard and pontificate on how one would solve the world's problems instead of actually trying to do the proposed work to solve them.

No, Herb wouldn't quite fit into the Constitution Party. They want us out of Iraq, NOW, and you certainly won't hear Herb saying that.

Andrew

"It is much, much easier to sit at a computer keyboard and pontificate on how one would solve the world's problems instead of actually trying to do the proposed work to solve them."

As long as we have our elected officials taking bribes and trips and money and stuff from lobbyists and special interest groups to push forth THEIR agenda instead of doing what THEY feel is right, doing what the voters EXPECT them to do and do what they were elected to do, we won't have anyone doing the proposed work to solve problems.

Herb is personally a bit right for my liking. That said, I would have MUCH more respect for him if he got elected on the platform he laid out above, and worked diligently sticking to that platform, than if he got elected and just started taking in all this extra money from, say tobacco and timber interests, to do THEIR agenda, ignoring his own.

"It is much, much easier to sit at a computer keyboard and pontificate.."

Hey.

I was asked a question and asked to be specific. Were I to not respond, I would have been called evasive.

Don't want my response? Don't ask me questions.

Herb

Herb, why not privatize police and fire and pay them minimum wage and not let them retire until they are at least 65?

Teachers could go back to just receiving chickens and a ham or veggies from their students.

All other government workers could just receive Social Security and a minimum wage.

Oh, wait a minute, this is America, where the majority of voters obviously support the folks who work for us.

Herb, you might want to move to some play like Eastern Europe or Indonesia, or even Mexico, where you can trod on anyone you want to.

Who's trodding on whom?

Listen.

The tax burden is now close to the breaking point for many Americans. We're carrying a lot more than in decades past.

You seem to think that throwing money around will fix things. As witnessed by the 'great society' tain't necessarily so.

Take incentive away and money will move offshore, too.

You wanna live in a fantasy world? Go right ahead. Just don't spend my money to do it.

Herb

Herb, we notice that you didn't really answer my question. Your proposed "cuts" wouldn't nearly cover the cost of Iraq. You won't answer whether you want to borrow on our grandchildrens' credit card or pay more taxes now to pay for Iraq, because there isn't much other choice unless you can propose more cuts such as Medicare. Cutting public education and welfare recipients won't cover it.

Andrew

I say the changes I mentioned, if actually implemented, would more than make up the majority of costs for the Iraq war.

Assuming you don't agree, then we make an agreement with Iraq, Kuwait and the Saudi Arabian government.

We could play hardball and say 'Either pay us in oil, or we go home.' That's not what I prefer, however, because we are at war. This is different than a peace-time economy.

Don't think FDR balanced everything, either. He didn't.

Wartime is not the same as enjoying peace dividends. Your argument does not face this reality.

Herb

Herb writes:
I say the changes I mentioned, if actually implemented, would more than make up the majority of costs for the Iraq war.

Assuming you don't agree, then we make an agreement with Iraq, Kuwait and the Saudi Arabian government.

Well, Bush obviously isn't doing that - he's borrowing the money on our grandchildrens' credit card. Just what kind of agreement do you want the Sunni nations of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to make with the likely Shiite country of Iran, that could be hostile toward them?

Don't think FDR balanced everything, either. He didn't.

FDR RAISED TAXES to help pay for World War II. George W. Bush CUT TAXES ON THE WEALTHY during the Iraq war, so that our grandchildren will have to pay for more of the war instead of today's millionaires. Is that a policy you support from your beloved president? Because cutting taxes on the Paris Hiltons of the world is Bush's real agenda, if you haven't figured that out yet - grandchildren be damned.

George W. Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes during wartime! Let the red ink roll in - who cares, let the grandkids pay for it, right Herb?

Andrew

Herb, we finally agree on something. I want the Middle Eastern countries to pay us for defending them, starting with Iraq and Kuwait's oil.

And we no longer need a major force in Germany or Japan.

I don't suppose the Saudis or the Kuwaitis would simply raise the price of oil a tad more to pay for their US defense fees, now, would they? Then it's just like a tax to the American consumer - except that it's a FLAT tax, paid by drivers. I guess Republicans love the flat tax...

Those troops in Europe and Asia are not necessarily for defense of Germany and Japan - they are regional displays of US strength in areas where our national interests lie. And given how thinly our military is now stretched, it does not seem wise to reduce our troop strength. I don't think it would save tons of money simply bringing them back to the US.

Andrew

"The tax burden is now close to the breaking point for many Americans."

how does one determine a "breaking point" and whose's "breaking point"? and haven't the rich ALWAYS been complaining about a "breaking point"? if there is any "breaking point" being reached these days, its the direct result of the behavior of one george w bush

Here's a thought: has it ever occurred to anybody that it's not that social programs don't work, but rather that social programs don't work after they've been hacked and slashed in order to compromise with "the opposition"?

Hey guys-

If you don't think you're paying enough in taxes, then send more in to the government.

If you don't, then stop harping about those of us who don't want to, either.

Herb

I would send in more to the government if I could in return not have to pay as many taxes later in the form of interest payments on my share of the debt. Silly me for not wanting the government to continue going into greater and greater debt so Paris Hilton can have a bigger tax cut - but I guess fiscal responsibility paints me as a bleading-heart liberal instead of one of those borrow-and-spend Republicans...

Andrew

That's the way I see it.

Wars are costly. There is no reason to short change ordinary people for this war. If it's that worth it, the tax cuts are not necessary.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

"There is no reason to short change ordinary people for this war."

What a bizarre statement.

Because of our president's war on terror and the brave troops executing it, it's the ordinary people who are protected during this war.

It's the ordinary people who can fly without concerns of another 9/11.

It's the ordinary people who can freely worship without sharia law.

I suppose you would have opposed our fighting Hitler and Tojo since it may have inconveeeeenienced you during WWII.

This war takes the battle to the enemy. Got that?

Get a grip.

Herb

I really don't get it, and this is why:

-I've not seen convincing evidence that our actions in Iraq are actually making the world a safer place,

-we have always been able to freely worship.

I'm all for fighting terror. Brutally, if we have to. But, Iraq is not that at all. It's a war on oil and a war for political manupulation.

Iraq has cost us, in terms of world reputation and respect, HUGE! The dollars spent don't help either.

Looking around, I see ordinary people like myself, having to foot a big bill. Ordinary people are not seeing the return necessary for this bill to be just, and the less than ordinary people are getting huge breaks to boot.

The last round of elections, clearly shows ordinary people like me, see it more my way than yours Herb.

Your intentions are good, but reality is not in sync.

Only a fool would fly today thinking another 9/11 couldn't happen - it would be surprisingly easy to pull off, given our current security situation. Only if you want an airport security system like Israel has can we reduce the risk of another 9/11 to be very small. (I've flown out of Israel before - you should expect to spend an hour or more in line, being interviewed by agents about your purpose in visiting Israel, what business you were conducting, etc., etc.). Most Americans would never want to put up with it.

Anyway, we are talking about the insurgency in Iraq, not the fight against al Qaeda ("War on Terror."). They are not the same thing. Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites targeting Americans are not the same as al Qaeda going after Americans.

Andrew

I've said it before, but once more for posterity...
9/11 was a one-shot-deal. It could NOT happen again. Not because of anything the government has done to make it look like they are doing something to make us safer. Here's why:

For decades, people worldwide were conditioned to believe that every hijacking would end peacefully if we gave the hijackers what they wanted (money, passage to Cuba, etc).

As soon as it became apparent that this was no longer the case, the passengers and crew would no longer standby hoping for a peaceful resolution. This change happened the very same day, as soon as the word got out(witness Flight 93).

When and if "they" try that again (and I believe they never will, for the reasons above), most or all of the aircraft will end up in a field like 93 and will not strike their intended targets.

There is ZERO accountability for the money we are spending in/on Iraq. History will prove that much of it was stolen outright, and most of the rest was wasted.

Yeah, if any kind of "hijacking" ever occurs again, you're gonna see the pilots take things into their own hands -- perhaps fly the plane upsidedown for a while and decompress the atmposphere in the cabin long before they let the second axe strike hit the door.