portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

economic justice | government a21 bush protests

City of Portland should not pay for Bush's Aug 21 visit!

CAN WE AFFORD TO PAY FOR A VISIT FROM THE PRESIDENT ON AUGUST 21? We should stir things up about our already bankrupted city having to foot the security bill for Bush visit that is strictly for campaign fundraising. Write the Mayor; Write letters to the editors; tell your friends to just say no!
Can we afford a visit from the President?

Portland should decline the presidential visit on August 21 because we cannot afford to provide security. We need to save our taxpayer-funded security dollars for emergencies or official state business. Bush Regional Chairwoman, Molly Bordonaro, states the purpose of the visit to be "there will be a fund-raising component. Beyond that, it hasn't been determined."

When President Bush came to Portland to fundraise for Republican Senator Gordon Smith and raised over $1,000,000 for a lunch, the security costs to our city and county exceeded $200,000 - at a time when we were discussing which schools to close.

It is unconscionable for the republican re-elect campaign to insist that our bankrupted city foot the bill for the president or any other candidate to raise money for their campaigns and party.

It should not be overlooked that the leader of the free world scheduled a fundraising visit to Portland without having an official purpose under the color of his office for which to justify the trip. Is it reasonable to believe that an official purpose will materialize for this trip? Or will Ms. Bardonaro to come up with one eventually? The Republican Party should pay for this strictly campaign-related visit or our bankrupted city should decline the visit. (Campaign contributors can simply mail their checks to Mr. Bush).

Is this what my 2003 property tax increase is going to be used for? When I voted YES for the increase, I believed it was to help make up for federal funding that was slashed because of federal tax cuts to the top 1% (who will no doubt be contributing to Mr. Bush's campaign). The journey of taxpayer money is becoming more circular all the time.

***NOTE: this is my LTE to the Oregonian; I hope they print it!

UNITE RESIST 29.Jul.2003 12:35

JIglily

hey hey ho ho
p-resedent bu$h has got to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unite! resist!
unite! resist!
unite!!
resist!!
the people are pissed...

Thanks! 29.Jul.2003 12:49

anne frank

great letter. Bring 'em on!

Oh yeah, we will afford it 29.Jul.2003 12:59

Foo

See what prudence your police budget has brought forth.

"We gotta have one of these."

See  link to www.oregonlive.com
_____________________________________________________

Portland police shop on salaries saved 07/28/03

MAXINE BERNSTEIN - The Oregonian

The Portland Police Bureau will draw from salary savings in the 2002-03 fiscal year to buy 14 new BMW motorcycles, and use grants, drug forfeiture and surplus money to purchase an armored vehicle, bomb squad robot, plane imaging radar and other new equipment.

The bureau is projected to end fiscal 2002-03 with a $1.7 million balance out of a $127 million budget, most from salary savings from unfilled police positions and attrition, said Jane Braaten, manager of the bureau's planning and support division.

With Mayor Vera Katz's approval, the bureau is moving $100,000 of that surplus back into its vehicle replacement fund toward the purchase of the motorcycles at a cost of roughly $250,000. The BMWs will replace Kawasaki bikes. The bureau also will use about $150,000 left in its material services budget to help buy a $194,000 armored vehicle for the Special Emergency Reaction Team.

The rest of the savings will return to the city's general fund.

Chief Mark Kroeker, in a videotaped address this month to officers and staff, praised the bureau's year-end balance, and alerted officers they will be benefiting from new technology and equipment.

"We are going to get quite a few more things that help us to be more safe," Kroeker told the force.

Traffic Cmdr. Mike Garvey said the division tested Harley-Davidsons, Kawasakis and BMW motorcycles and found the BMWs have a better braking system, get better mileage than the Kawasakis and offer better control in inclement weather.

They cost $16,500 to $17,500 each, about $4,000 more than a Kawasaki, Garvey said. But they probably will last longer, and their resale value will be greater, he said. Despite some support from police motorcyclists for Harleys, Garvey said, they aren't as safe as BMWs.

"The safety issues far outweigh the upfront cost," Garvey said, adding that Christopher Guzman, a Portland motorcycle officer who was nearly killed while on duty in January 2002, might have avoided his accident if he had been riding a different bike.

The traffic division has 34 motorcycles. Guzman's motorcycle, which was a total loss, and 13 others will be replaced initially. The rest of the motorcycle fleet will be replaced with BMWs in groups of 10.

The other purchases approved include: The armored vehicle, called the BEAR truck, for the tactical response team. It will replace the SERT "Peacekeeper" vehicle that is about 20 years old.

"We gotta have one of these," Tactical Operations Division Cmdr. Dave Benson said. "Our current one breaks down a lot." A $213,570 infrared imaging radar for the bureau's plane will be funded by federal homeland security grant money. A $160,000 robot for the Explosives Disposal Unit will replace one that is about a decade old, Benson said. About 114 Kevlar helmets, face shields and helmet-carrying bags for officers at a cost of $30,000, and about $25,000 for motorcycle helmets. Some of the cost will be paid with drug forfeiture funds and federal block grant money, Braaten said.

The bureau has had to take an estimated $2.3 million cut in spending for fiscal 2003-04 and keep 46 officer positions vacant in a budget of $125 million. To meet the reduction, the bureau has halted recruitment and eliminated its director of services position.

The bureau's budget advisory committee, made up of volunteers, criticized those moves, saying not filling police positions will hurt community policing, and the lack of a director of services will reduce oversight of police spending.

Maxine Bernstein: 503-221-8212;  maxinebernstein@news.oregonian.com

who rides........ 29.Jul.2003 13:16

quizar

a mercedes benz bicycle anyway? none other than our lovely wannabe bike cops. those things are $4,000

Police expenditures 29.Jul.2003 19:28

kudoos

I seldom find ANY reason whats so ever to give praise to the PDX para military police force. But the recent article in the Oregonian concerning new equipment the the force has justified spending our tax dolars on caught my attention. Especially the quote by Tactical Operations Commander David Benson on why they need a new tactical reponse vechile, "The Bear". "We have got to have one of these, our old one breaks down a lot"

So may my highest of compliments be passed along to the mechanic who has infiltrated the force. Maybe the motorcylce cops will soon be experiencing overheating bikes, the Sert trucks will have running boards falling to the pavement, and the delivery truck with the mounted speakers to announce that the street has been closed by order of the City of PDX Police will blow up with a click of the PA system. RESIST and UNITE. We may have finally have a friend in the ranks.

I wonder if I could volunteer... 29.Jul.2003 22:56

alex

I wonder if I could volunteer to help with security. Since a few thousand good citizens will be taking the day off from work to greet Bush, we ought to volunteer to protect him from, like, terrorists and stuff. Then the cops won't need to be on overtime and Bush is as safe as he could possibly be; surrounded by thousands of freedom loving Americans.

Congratulations, Sue 30.Jul.2003 21:34

sigh

Congratulations, Sue, you have achieved perfect prole-hood (as described in Orwell's 1984.)

Be fair 10.Aug.2003 13:32

Patriot Actor

First of all, when a sitting president visits a city, the city reaps more benefits than the cost of providing security. No honest city official will tell you otherwise.

Second of all, who should pay for security detail? In a perfect world, it would be you. Not because you're any sort of threat, but because you are there and regardless whether you are threat, someone has to watch you. (And when a police officer, secret service agent, or a military official tells you do to do something - like move or disperse - they have a reason for doing it, so do it. You may not know or even understand the reason, but there is one. If you don't do what they say, you can't whine about being pepper sprayed. No one will take you seriously.)

Third of all, the city just coughed up the money for Senator Clinton's book-signing visit. Now, THAT is outrageous. I can't remember the last time a senator from New York did anything for me, this city, or this state. I've found no mention of that travesty on this site.

You all have some good points and valid arguments. You'd have a lot more credibility if you weren't so politically bigoted and intellectually dishonest.

Good luck. You're going to have plenty more opportunities in the next 6 years to "chase" President Bush. Being the vocal minority is fun and noble and all, but a minority you are. Bring 50,000 people - you are still in the minority. (Of course in the Portland-Seattle-Eugene corridor, you all have that false sense that the majority the state and the country actually march in lock step with you.)

I'll be fair if you'll be more educated 10.Aug.2003 13:54

true patriot

"the city reaps more benefits than the cost of providing security"
Care to name a benefit that would justify spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars so that Bush can raise a few more million. Face it, in a fair world if Bush wants to raise money for his campaign he should use his *own* money to do so. And you won't find anyone here claiming that any politician should be exempt from that, regardless of their party affiliation.

"they have a reason for doing it"
Yeah, there reasons last year were that the rich bigwigs with Bush were uncomfortable seeing the size of the protests from the hotel. But it sounds like you haven't actually witnessed the protests. You should, hopefully indymedia will get the video online so you can educate yourself by watching the police not give orders and just pepper spray people, and then continue pepper spraying them as they walked away. I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of it, but at least you'll know that the police are going to do what they want, and they are not going to respect people's constitutional right to protest.

"but a minority you are"
You think so? The first thing one learns in social psychology is that everyone thinks that the majority agrees with their views. The fact that millions of people have been protesting Bush should give you an indication on how much he is disliked. Do you remember Clinton having tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people protest him? Do you remember the last president that couldn't go anywhere (except military bases) without encountering protests? Face it, Bush is going to lose by a landslide in the next election unless the republicans can rig the election or stage another coup. But it'll be much riskier this time around.

I've traveled and lived all over the country, and I can tell you that people everywhere are unhappy with Bush's policies. Most of them will not come out to a protest, but the numbers of people who do protest gives people some indication of just how many people are unsatisfied, and angry to watch their country fall apart.

Oh, I see. 10.Aug.2003 15:16

Patriot Actor

It's the "rich bigwigs" and they're out to get you.

1) You and your ilk get more exposure than you could ever muster on your own. Of course the city should pay for it - it's a priveledge to have the leader of the free world using your city as a backdrop for a day or two. And unlike previous administrations, the president is giving unprecedented notice. Presumably so you all can have ample time to prepare your protests?

2) Comfort is security. You do not have the right to a private audience with the president. You have the right to protest. But you must do what those in charge tell you do when they tell you to do it. You saw what you saw, but you can't be sure you saw everything. One idiot can ruin things for everyone.

3) Yeah, okay. You're right. Whoever the Dem's throw up there will win in a landslide. I wish I knew you well enough to wager. And stop with the "coup" talk already. That is absurd. The only entity EVER to have claimed Al Gore won in Florida was CNN et. al. on election night. No count or recount has ever - EVER - suggested otherwise.

I am educated, by the way. And you have yet to be fair - you neither justified nor condemned Portland's paying for Hilary Clinton's security last week.

selective reading? 10.Aug.2003 15:49

true patriot

Since you're unwilling to read what I wrote, or too wrapped up in your assumptions I'll reiterate: "And you won't find anyone here claiming that any politician should be exempt from that, regardless of their party affiliation." That means I condemn the city paying for Clinton just as I condemn the city paying for Bush. Is that more clear now? What's odd is, of course, that you accuse people here of being unfair, and yet it is you who are upset about money going to Clinton but you're just fine with much more money going to Bush. So who is really biased in this case?

"president is giving unprecedented notice"
No, the president in the past has given much more notice than a month. But it's necessary for him to get his donors to show up, so he has little choice, as opposed to Ashcroft who could announce a couple days ahead of time (of course, that did not stop the protests).

You still haven't answered my question about how the city benefits from Bush's visit. Bush certainly benefits; he'll walk away a few million richer. But throwing out meaningless rhetoric about how "it's a priveledge [sic]" just isn't an argument. Please, try again to show how spending hundreds of thousands of dollars so that Bush can make a few million dollars is a good use of tax dollars.

You also seem to forget that Katherine Harris admitted in court that more than 90,000 voters were illegally removed from the voter rolls. And that neglects that the voting machines in predominantly black counties were set to not notify voters of errors on the ballots as they were in predominantly white counties. That's why as many as 1 in 8 votes in black counties were not counted. As for recounts, the data is available, download it yourself. What you'll find is that you can construct numerous scenarios where Gore would win and numerous scenarios where Bush would win. In the palm beach post report, Gore would have won under 6 of 7 scenarios.  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/gore_winner.html

For more information on the other tactics employed in the coup, I'm sure you'll find the information quite enlightening:
 http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=51
 link to gregpalast.com

You can learn all about ChoicePoint DBT, which Forbes named the winner of the war on terrorism because of all the contracts they've been awarded. And to think, all they had to do is violate the principles of democracy to be rewarded so kindly by this administration.

But I am happy to hear that Bush supporters are still so unwilling to see the discontent that surrounds them. With a failing economy, a foreign policy that is quickly growing unpopular, the biggest deficits in the history of the country, rapidly raising unemployment, assaults on the constitution, protection of corporate thievery, and rest of the Bush agenda, you'd think that they might be a little concerned. But hey, if you want to live in your ignorance, well, that is your choice, and it benefits your opponents tremendously. So, good luck, and don't lose your faith.

Blah, blah, blah 10.Aug.2003 23:19

Patriot Actor

Your "coup" argument is still intellectually dishonest. Mathematically dishonest, too.
 http://erazo.org/forum/marginoferror.htm

I do appreciate your response, though. We disagree. Diametrically. But this kind of argument is what makes this country great. And sometimes I think your crew forgets how great this country is. But so do some people on the right.

Good luck (and I mean it). Just don't break or destroy public/private property. That's when it gets personal.

Leader of the Free World 11.Aug.2003 05:43

Viva La France

"1) You and your ilk get more exposure than you could ever muster on your own. Of course the city should pay for it - it's a priveledge to have the leader of the free world using your city as a backdrop for a day or two."

What? Is Jacque Chirac visiting Portland? Woo-hoo. More FRENCH FRIES and FRENCH TOAST for everyone!

One more thing, true patriot 11.Aug.2003 18:22

Patriot Actor

" What's odd is, of course, that you accuse people here of being unfair, and yet it is you who are upset about money going to Clinton but you're just fine with much more money going to Bush. So who is really biased in this case? "

What's even more odd is that you aren't reading what I wrote. I'm not biased but I am just as consistent as you've been. Yes, I am upset by the city paying for Hilary's security. She is not the President of the United States and she was here on personal business. Even if she was here on official business, she'd be working on behalf of New York, not Porland. What the President does while he's here, whether it be campaigning or hiding for 24 hours in a dark hotel room, doesn't matter. He IS the president, we are at war, and he will be doing presidential duties while he's in Portland, whether you see them or not. Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is any parallel between President Bush and Senator Clinton??

And as for your other question, I sure would hate for my tax money to be paying for security in EVERY city he visits, which is what you suggest, I think (that federal $ should pick up the tab?). You don't seriously think it should come out of his own pocket, do you?

Again, best of luck.

regurgitating rhetoric doesn't impress me 11.Aug.2003 20:14

true patriot

You say that I'm being intellectually dishonest and then you post a link that contains no sources. I don't know where they got the 1000 votes in dispute number since there 175,000 votes that weren't counted. I told you, you can download the data yourself here:  http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/ and run through the scenarios yourself. Just remember that the bulk of the uncounted votes came from predominantly black counties, and not, as Ted Koppel and Jeb Bush implied, because blacks were too stupid to vote right, but because the machines in those counties were not set to notify voters of errors (such as stray marks) as opposed to predominantly white counties where the machines were set to notify voters of errors. Again, this doesn't include the 90,000 voters illegally purged from the rolls that Katherine Harris admitted to, under oath, in a court of law. She also defended herself by saying she was just following orders, and, obviously, her boss was Jeb Bush. But hey, if you want to continue to overlook voter fraud go right ahead, it sounds like it has been working well for you so far.

You know what also made this country great, revolutionary change, that often included property destruction and theft. Or don't you consider the Boston Tea Party and the Underground Railroad among things that made this country great?

Bush is here on personal business, raising money for his campaign. Don't you read the papers? Despite 2 wars Bush is on vacation this whole month to make money for his campaign (not that it will help him). I would most certainly consider that personal business and as such I would expect him to pay for it, especially since he'll making 10-100 times (or more) what it costs for security, so I think he can afford the tab pretty easily. Not that I would expect someone as reprehensible as Bush or his followers to understand that. Bush and his cohorts are just looters, and they'll keep stealing until they are stopped. If you stand to benefit from their theft then more power to you trying to keep him in office and the trying to keep the economy from tanking any further.

An American Patriot is an American Fascist 12.Aug.2003 00:25

ACT UP

Watching you two American "patriots" have a snit fit over who is more patriotic is like watching two Nazis debate who was more patriotic to the "greatness" of Nazi Germany.

America is great alright--great in terms of its wickedness, its evil, and its wars of aggression against the world.

You patriotic clowns are too busy congratulating yourself on the "greatness"of your evil Empire, and never question the moral and poltiical bankruptcy of your America itself. Whether it be Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, there is no difference at all.

Your ACT is tired 12.Aug.2003 09:16

Patriot Actor

Obviously, in your idea of a fascist and nazi world, everyone can go to website like this and voice his or her opinion without fear of retribution.

You may not like the way we do things, but don't start throwing terms like "nazi" and "fascist" around when describing this country. We're not nazi's and we're not fascist's - you know that, I know that, and anyone who knows the definitions of those two words knows it.

Fascism in Red, White, and Blue 12.Aug.2003 23:29

ACT UP

"You may not like the way we do things, but don't start throwing terms like "nazi" and "fascist" around when describing this country. We're not nazi's and we're not fascist's - you know that, I know that, and anyone who knows the definitions of those two words knows it. "

Fascism describes your America to a T. IF the shoe fit, you had better were it. Like Mussolini's Italy, your America is based upon the unity of Right Wing nationalism, militarism, and the corporate state.

Moreover, it is hilarious that American "patriots" whine and cry about "not throwing terms like nazi and fascist" around--given the fact that is what Americans of your ilk do all the time in order to demonize smear the leader of which ever country America is preparing to attack.

Remember all the propaganda rhetoric about Saddam Hussein as the "next Hitler." Or Slobodan Milosevic as... the "next Hitler." Or Mummar Khadaffi as.. the "next Hitler." Or Manuel Noriega as--you guessed it--the "next Hitler."

Maybe it is about time that so-called American "patriots" start waking up and realizing the "Next Hitler" is in Washington DC.

bush visit 19.Aug.2003 17:39

park neighbor

I would like to know if Bush will actually be at Columbia Park this Thursday, or just the protestors?