PORTLAND, Ore. - One of the more controversial issues on the Oregon midterm election ballot is Measure 73. It's a "tough on crime" initiative to increase mandatory sentences for people convicted of repeat drunk driving, and for some felony sex offenses. Opponents say cash-strapped Oregon can't afford to be quite this tough.

If anyone would want to be tougher on sex offenders, you would think it would be victims of domestic and sexual violence. However, Terrie Quinteros, who heads the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, says the measure has a big price tag, with no guarantee of greater public safety.

"We lock people up; they get few or no rehabilitative services. We're often not the better for it, because the services weren't necessarily there for the survivor, and nothing has changed for the person who served time in prison."

Quinteros points out that Oregon already has tough laws against sexual predators: The average felony sentence for a sex crime is 15 to 17 years, and making it 25 years would cost the state more. The Secretary of State's office estimates Measure 73 would increase prison costs by $20 million to $30 million a year.

The Coalition urges that the state's limited funds be better spent on domestic violence prevention and services, such as emergency shelters and rape crisis counseling. These types of programs are already under-funded, says Quinteros.

"Any time we're adding mandatory measures such as this one, that's going to force the state to pull from the very little bit of funding that sexual violence programs get, around the state, for services."

Last year, she adds, more than 19,000 requests for emergency shelter and services could not be met by shelters in Oregon for lack of resources. While backers of Measure 73 say it would increase public safety, Quinteros sees it as evidence that public safety spending is out of balance.



get more stories like this via email

The long-delayed Farm Bill could benefit Virginia farmers by renewing funding for climate-smart investments, but it's been held up for months in Congress.

Some lawmakers want this bill to expand funding for such programs as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, which gives financial and technical help to farmers and ranchers to make conservation a priority. About $250 million was allocated for the program, but more than 9,000 applications were submitted, bringing it to $475 million.

Gabrielle Walton, federal campaign associate with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said these programs' popularity proves their necessity.

"This money allows them not only to practice more efficiently - and to preserve the environment that they love so much and they're so attached to - but it also saves them money that they can devote to other concerns," she said, "and provides them stability for their pocketbooks going forward."

One issue with the new Farm Bill is a proposed increase in so-called "reference pricing," which critics have said only benefits large farming operations and would come at the expense of more widely used social and climate-smart programs.

Walton said she thinks political divisiveness and competing priorities have held up the new Farm Bill.

The previous Farm Bill was extended to this September, but lawmakers have said they aim to have a bill ready by Memorial Day. Along with climate-smart investments, the Farm Bill also funds social safety-net programs.

Geoff Horsfield, a policy director at the Environmental Working Group, said people don't always know how helpful nutrition programs are to families.

"There's a misconception that things like SNAP only benefit urban communities," he said, "and we just know that that's not true - that folks in all counties rely on nutrition assistance programs, some of these social programs, to be able to make ends meet."

SNAP and other nutrition programs received 75% of funding in the 2018 Farm Bill. More than 876,000 Virginians use SNAP and EBT benefits, since food insecurity has been a longstanding issue in the state.

Today, groups working with lower-income families in Connecticut are raising awareness about the state's "benefits cliff" with a day of action.

The benefits cliff is when a person might get a raise, have a kid with a part-time job, or some other income increase which then makes them ineligible for certain benefits. The changes can have severe impacts on communities and disproportionately affect families with children.

Stephen Monroe Tomczak, professor of social work at Southern Connecticut State University, said it is part of a larger workforce problem.

"People, particularly people of low income, are in a sense disincentivized to participate in the labor force and denied adequate jobs and income when they try to do that," Tomczak explained.

Several General Assembly budget bills could have dealt with the issue but most failed, which inspired today's action, a mock funeral procession to the governor's office to eulogize the bills, including the refundable Child Tax Credit, a housing voucher funding boost bill, and a bill eliminating the asset limit on the HUSKY C medical insurance program.

Social service advocates know the bills will resurface in next year's budget process.

Rose Ferraro, program lead of health justice policy advocacy for the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, said people are taking alternate steps like going to food banks or avoiding medical care to cover lost benefits.

"Folks will lose their rental assistance and then, they will sort of have to make some tough decisions," Ferraro noted. "'Do I put food on my table or do I make sure to pay rent?' And, so it becomes a sort of untenable position."

Ferraro added interwoven state and federal funding makes it hard to reach the core of the issues leading to benefits cliffs. One eulogized bill would have established a benefits cliff pilot program. For two years, it would have provided subsistence for people who've reached the benefits cliff.

New York towns are reaping many benefits since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed.

Along with funds for larger clean energy projects, the state was awarded $158 million for the IRA's Home Energy Rebates program.

Smaller towns and villages use these grants to implement their climate action plans.

Brighton Town Councilmember Robin Wilt said an IRA grant they applied for will help upgrade the town's HVAC system.

"We will be implementing geothermal and then use a solar array to make the system close to net zero, not quite," said Wilt. "I think we'll get 55% of our energy back with the solar panels."

The bureaucratic process to access the funding was challenging, but some groups are working with the Department of Energy to improve it.

Wilt said feedback on the clean energy projects has been positive. Future projects using IRA funding include increasing walkability and sustainable redevelopment.

Critics have said the IRA includes multiple provisions to increase fossil fuel production.

Towns nationwide are using IRA grants to bolster clean energy projects.

Joel Hicks is a council member for the Borough of Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

They've just applied for a grant to work on energy efficiency and solar projects with Harrisburg. He said this will have positive impacts beyond establishing clean energy.

"We were really excited at this potential," said Hicks, "because we saw that the cost savings we would have for putting in substantial solar projects on our public property would actually fund many of our other public municipal goals."

These include purchasing an electric vehicle fleet and having more efficient solid waste programs.

One thing Hicks said he wants to see in future is state and local governments helping small towns and municipalities with putting together their IRA grant proposals.