[PLUG] The house bill, a possible problem...

[Steven A. Adams]

> Calling it 'spin', as Ken did, puts a negative connotation to it. I wouldn't 
> have said 'spin'- to me that's calling shit chocolate pudding. What Ken and 
> Cooper have done is present the issue in a way that's meaningful to the 
> people they're talking to. There's no deception there. The folks behind this 
> bill have done an amazing job. They deserve thanks and praise- not put-downs.

Well Carla, I'm not going to get into this full-blown rant again. All I
will say is that these folks have dedicated a lot of time and energy
into this and I, for one, highly respect their effort and tenacity.
However, to use a phrase that we have heard a lot of lately, "The
Reality of the Situation is" that passing legislation to mandate
something, anything, that is already adopted by government rule, and is
already being practiced by government agencies, will only grow more
government, add more process and slow production. Would you, with clear
conscious, advocate that Oregon add more government for no other reason
but to mandate that government continues to do what government already
does?

In a nutshell, I have to agree with the opposition (as much as that
hurts me personally) when they say that the Bill is not needed. My
"lighten up" comments were just that, light hearted and not intended to
pick on Ken or anyone. Ken and I have gone a few rounds in the past but
we're both adults and in the end we do possess the ability disagree
peacefully.