|
The
Oregon Legislative Assembly maintained a modicum of equality in political power
during the years between the 2010 and the 2014 general elections. During all
four of those years, our bipartisan Senate coalition maintained a 15-member
voting block that prevented most of the more onerous anti-business bills from
being enacted.
The
House of Representatives was also equally divided for two years, from 2011 to
2013, with Co-Speakers and Co-Chairs of all House committees. Each committee
had the same number of Democrat and Republican members. This equal
representation also greatly aided in quashing anti-business legislation.
That
political balance ended with the Democrat domination of the 2012 and 2014
elections. Oregon voters gave Democrats an 18 to 12 majority in the Senate and
a 35 to 25 majority in the House following the 2014 general election. Laws
enacted and legislation planned since that election have been nightmarish for
Oregon’s business community.
Many
of the worst anti-business bills that we had prevented were reintroduced and
passed during the early part of the 2015 Legislative Assembly. Because we no
longer had the votes to stop them, the bills made it through both the House and
Senate with little public testimony or debate and were signed into law by
Governor Brown.
Not all of those laws have taken full effect.
Some are still in the rulemaking phase, while others are months away from
actually being implemented.
Among
those is Senate
Bill 454, which mandates employer-paid sick leave. The Bureau
of Labor and Industry’s complex and convoluted rulemaking is due to be
implemented within the next five months. Nine
counties are suing the state, claiming the law represents an unfunded
mandate. Private employers appear to have no alternative to obeying the job-busting
law.
House
Bill 2960 establishes the framework to require private
employers to establish government-sanctioned retirement plans for their
employees. Retirement contributions are not required by employers and are
voluntary for employees, as they are allowed to opt-out of participation. The
law will not be implemented until next year, when rulemaking is completed.
I
would submit that many eventual mandates tend to have similar “voluntary” origins.
It is much easier to make “voluntary” programs mandatory once they are written
into statute by making simple language changes in subsequent legislation with
little public testimony or debate.
Trial
lawyers who traditionally donates heavily to Democratic legislators and
candidates seemingly experienced a return on those investments during the 2015
session. Enactment of the Personal
Injury Protection (PIP) and Cy
Pres
mandates on insurance companies will enhance the bottom line of many law firms
while driving up costs for both businesses and consumers.
The
extremely controversial Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) enacted by SB
324
is arguably the most egregious of all the anti-business and anti-consumer laws
passed in 2015. The “carbon intensity” for every phase of fossil fuel’s life
cycle, from extraction through storage, shipping and eventual use, is
quantified under the guise of saving the environment. Offsets can be purchased
from producers of so-called “green energy,” virtually all of which are located
out of the state.
This
law serves to raise the costs of energy for businesses and families, while
making no measurable impact on global carbon emissions and failing to provide a
single penny for much-needed road infrastructure improvements anywhere in Oregon.
The only beneficiaries will be many of the out-of-state green energy
corporations who helped sponsor the bill.
As
SB 324 was racing toward passage, I had a representative of the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) in my Senate office. He was explaining that the transportation
sector is responsible for one-third of Oregon’s total carbon output.
At
the time, multiple catastrophic wildfires were burning throughout the district
I represent and in other rural parts of the state. We asked the DEQ
representative how much of Oregon’s carbon output results from such fires. His
reply that it is not counted at all was mind-numbing! The public health impacts
of such fires are severe and readily apparent. But measuring them does not appear
to meet the social engineering goal of “market transformation” espoused by
proponents of LCFS.
The
2016 session saw more of the same anti-business rhetoric and legislation. A three-tiered
minimum wage law was enacted that is now less than two
months from implementation. Ironically, many legislators who frequently
complain about “income inequality” voted for this bill which codifies income
inequality into law based on geography.
Another
legislative priority for majority Democrats in the 2016 session was the passage
of a "Coal
to Clean" mandate. The law will, once again, drive
up the costs of electricity for businesses and families while providing little
tangible benefit for the environment.
It
will double the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard over time, and will not
cause the closure of a single coal-fired generation plant anywhere, while
continuing to not count our abundant hydroelectricity resources. The new law will
not measurably reduce Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions, but it will force
Oregonians to subsidize “green energy” projects in other states through
increases in their monthly utility bills.
In
the November general election, voters will decide on other matters that will
have a direct impact on employers’ bottom lines. Perhaps the most significant
is Initiative
Petition 28, a $6 billion tax on businesses and their
customers brought forth by public employee unions. Signatures
for IP 28 have been validated by the Secretary of State's Office, meaning
that the measure will appear on the ballot for the November general election.
Governor
Kate Brown, who is standing for election in November to fill out the rest of
former Governor John Kitzhaber’s term, has yet to officially take a position on
the measure. But that does not appear to be dissuading her from making
specific plans on how to spend the money it is expected to
generate.
The
Secretary of State’s Office will also be up for grabs this November. That
position was held by Brown, who vacated it to become governor following
Kitzhaber’s resignation. Brown’s appointed successor does not plan to seek a
full term in office, leaving it as an open seat for the election.
Duties
of the Secretary of State’s Office include overseeing its corporate division. The
Democratic nominee for that position is our current Labor Commissioner. If
elected, he has promised
to extend its duties to include auditing Oregon corporations and clamping down
on business polluters. This curious approach has been criticized
in multiple editorials
published by The Oregonian newspaper.
All
of this comes on top of Brown’s directive to DEQ to conduct
surprise inspections of businesses throughout the state in
response to that agency’s apparent failure to adequately monitor alleged air pollution
in Southeast Portland. She has directed the agency to make unannounced visits
to these major companies throughout Oregon, regardless of any history of
previous air quality violations of any kind.
Fortunately,
not all of the anti-business bills that were proposed during the 2016 session
were passed into law. Senate Republicans were able to use parliamentary
procedures to slow down the 35-day lawmaking process.
But
I anticipate the Democrat majority will reintroduce many of the bills that
failed during the upcoming 2017 regular session. No amount of parliamentary
procedures can forestall their passage during the long session. Three of the
more business unfriendly bills will include Clean Diesel mandates, a carbon
“cap and trade” plan to tax fossil fuels and state-mandated work scheduling in
the private workplace.
A
work group was formed to discuss potential paths forward for the state-mandated
work scheduling scheme. Those collaborative efforts appear to have faltered. Last
week, several of the industry associations who were included in the work group sent
this letter to legislators announcing their
withdrawal from it. “It was clear from the first work group discussion that
this group will not provide a constructive forum to discuss whether a statewide
mandated scheduling law is right for Oregon,” the letter states. “Advocates
preferred broad generalized attacks on Oregon employers, rather than a
reasonable discussion based on facts and circumstances unique to the reality
Oregon’s employers are facing and existing employer-employee contracts.” Those
organizations withdrawing from the work group include Associated Oregon
Industries, the Northwest Grocery Association, Oregon Restaurant and Lodging
Association, Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Trucking Association and the Portland
Business Alliance.
The
letter from this coalition of organizations that represent Oregon businesses points
out that employers in this state are months away from implementing several of
the aforementioned mandates. It also mentions IP 28, characterizing it as a “possible
$6 billion tax, which will largely fall on the very same retailers and
wholesalers this work group is targeting.”
In
response, one of the Legislators heading up the work group wrote
an e-mail stating that the industry associations’ withdrawal
was a “very unfortunate decision on their part.” “Despite missing important
organizational voices to help us understand the technical challenges that
employers face, we believe that we will be able to find ways to get at that
information in other ways,” he wrote. He announced his own decision to continue
the work group without their input.
The
foregoing rhetoric epitomizes the larger struggle our job creators face in
dealing with those who would wish to tax and regulate them out of business. Far
too often, politicians and bureaucrats who have little or no experience running
a business decide they know what’s best for the business community, regardless
of all the enumerated potential consequences. Business owners then face the
choice of navigating through another maze of red tape and mandates, laying off
employees to cover the costs of compliance, closing their doors permanently or
moving to a more business friendly state.
Oregon’s
future is dependent upon a vibrant, thriving private sector that provides
opportunities for workers and a tax base to fund critical government functions.
The key to a prosperous, growing private sector is the financial health of it
small businesses. More than half of all new jobs are created by new and growing
small businesses.
For
the past several years, Oregon government has enacted myriad mandates, laws,
regulations and rules that collectively make the creation and growth of small
businesses difficult, if not impossible. In fact, for the first time since
records have been kept, business deaths are exceeding business births. Given
some of the known plans for the 2017 Legislative Assembly, it is hard to
justify why any entrepreneur should attempt to start or grow a business in
Oregon.
Please remember--if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
Best Regards,
Doug
Senate District 28
Email: Sen.DougWhitsett@state.or.us I Phone: 503-986-1728
Address: 900 Court St NE, S-311, Salem, OR 97301
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsett
| 
