Get ready for “unintended consequences” of 2025 legislative session

When Democrats act surprised that priority legislation failed to deliver intended results, it usually means they ignored warning signs

The Oregon State Capitol Building in Salem

Oregon’s legislative session ended on a high note for those who favor responsible spending and responsive government. A massive transportation bill, with an original proposed cost of $15 billion, failed even after being trimmed down.

The bill purported to be an effort to better maintain roads, but in reality was loaded with optional projects and as much as anything was an effort to maintain staffing levels at one of the state’s most problem-plagued agencies, the Department of Transportation. Maybe, just maybe, its failure and the grassroots lobbying that helped defeat it are a sign that Oregon has reached a tipping point on taxation that even the Democrat-controlled legislature cannot ignore.

But the legislature is really good at ignoring warning signs, so who knows. We’ll try to help them by drawing attention to some warning signs that are flashing now that the session has ended. Before preceding, let me offer three definitions for terms that frequently are used to describe legislation and its consequences.

Warning signs: Data presented by the opposition party before legislation is passed to show that there are potential consequences for the actions being taken. For example, Republicans and economists of all stripes warned that over-aggressive rent-control efforts could lead to reduced construction of new housing units.

Unintended consequences: The description applied to these consequences by the party that championed the legislation when the warnings actually prove to be true, as happened with housing construction.

Unforeseen circumstances: Events that truly cannot be predicted in advance. Covid is the pre-eminent example of our lifetime.

The terms unintended consequences and unforeseen circumstances get thrown around way more than they should. When policy-makers invoke “unintended consequences” and “unforeseen circumstances” what they’re usually are saying is they hoped for a different set of circumstances and results. Rarely does it mean they never considered that these things could happen.

So, what are some consequences and circumstances that we should watch for in the wake of the 2025 Oregon legislative session? Here’s a look at two high-profile bills that almost certainly will have consequences - and no matter how proponents label those consequences they will happen because Democrats ignored warning signs.

Senate Bill 916 (Unemployment benefits for striking workers)

I refer to this bill as the Strike Enabilization Act. Oregon became the first state to pass a law allowing public workers to draw unemployment benefits while on strike. New York and New Jersey allow employees of private companies to draw unemployment and Washington will join them next year after passing a law in this year’s legislative session.

Here’s an important life lesson that Oregon Democrats still haven’t learned. When no one else has done something, it usually isn’t because they are stupid and you are a genius. It’s because there are good reasons not to do it.

Proponents of the bill said it was needed to “even the playing field between wealthy corporations and workers.” But wealthy corporations don’t pay public workers. Taxpayers do. And the playing field already is tilted in favor of the workers, because public workforce negotiations are strongly influenced by what best can be described as legal bribery. Public employee unions are the biggest donors to Democratic campaigns. In return they expect the support of legislative Democrats when budgets (and indirectly wages) are determined. Every recent contract negotiation, state budget and teacher strike is a warning sign.

There was a small victory for Oregon residents. In order to get it passed, proponents of the bill had to agree to a 10-week cap on unemployment benefits for those on strike. But a 10-week strike still covers one-fourth of a school year. I doubt many parents would consider that a victory.

When there are more and longer strikes, don’t let anyone tell you it was an unforeseen circumstance or even an unintended consequence. It’s impossible not to see where we are headed with this law.

Senate Bill 951 (Healthcare ownership)

The components of this bill are somewhat technical, strengthening an existing statue that requires that doctors own at least 51 percent of medical practices. Some out-of-state companies had dodged the rule by by employing their own doctors listing them as owners. The goal of the bill is to ensure that 51 percent of ownership really is comprised of doctors living in Oregon and to limit the influence of out-of-state companies on Oregon healthcare.

As often is the case with Oregon legislation, the goals are not the main problem - though not all out-of-state owners are bad and not all local owners are good. The problem is the bill tinkers with the law of supply and demand - and government remains winless when trying to fight the immutable forces of supply and demand.

If you reduce the number of potential medical-practice owners, you almost certainly will get fewer medical practices. Beyond the laws of economics, there are specific warning signs that apply to Oregon. The big one: We do a poor job of training medical professionals, especially nurses. A 2023 study from the Oregon Longitudinal Data Collaborative showed that Oregon ranked last in nursing graduates from public institutions and third worst in nursing graduates from all institutions and in the bottom 10 for non-nursing healthcare graduates.

Another warning sign: High-income individuals are fleeing Oregon, driven in large part by the state’s taxes. Doctors and nurses generally earn high incomes. So at a time when we are bad at training health-care professionals and having trouble retaining high-income residents, the legislature passed a law that limits the possible supply of high-end health care professionals. When you have trouble getting an appointment with a doctor in three years (the law is gradually phased in) don’t let anyone tell you this was an unforeseen circumstance.

I could go through this exercise for a dozen more bills, but these two are among the most likely to be in the news after they take effect. The biggest question is how much damage will be done.