We are stuck between a rock and a very hard place. We acknowledge that today’s system does not work – not for providers, payers, patients or taxpayers. Yet, when new ideas are proposed, we hold on tight to the way things are, saying ‘yes we know things are bad, but don’t change things where I live or where I work or go to school.’

Oregon faces a staggering budget shortfall, and all publicly-funded services are facing service cuts, and some programs may be eliminated altogether (which translates into more people without jobs). No one likes the options in front of them; the complexity and the interconnectedness of the problems we face are just too daunting.

In response, we move into campaign mode. I am getting emails about the local school bond measure; supporting the rights of public workers and their unions, saving services for seniors and people with disabilities; avoiding cuts to public safety, housing, mental health services, libraries and more. I support public education, public employees, the Oregon Health Plan, services for kids, public safety, mental health and addiction services, housing, transportation, libraries and more. I believe in our responsibility to each other in a civil society. Yet, I also know that things are broken and can’t continue the way they are. So what do we do?

In a recent editorial, David Brooks commented on Irving Kristo’s 1974 essay “Republican Virtue vs. Servile Institutions:”

As Kristol points out in the essay, the meaning of the phrase “public spiritedness” has flipped since the 18th century. Now we think a public-spirited person is somebody with passionate opinions about public matters, one who signs petitions and becomes an activist for a cause.

In its original sense, it meant the opposite. As Kristol wrote, it meant “curbing one’s passions and moderating one’s opinions in order to achieve a large consensus that will ensure domestic tranquility.” Instead of self-expression, it meant self-restraint.

When the economy goes south, people lose jobs, risk losing their homes, are more at risk for bankruptcy, illness, and they (we) turn to public programs to get through those tough times. So we face a dilemma – increased demand on public programs at the same time that there are fewer funds to pay for public programs. It seems that we cycle around a difficult question:

When money is scarce, how do Oregonians want to prioritize the use of public dollars? (And that begs the question, “Do Oregonians even know what our tax dollars support?”)

Oregonians expect services from cities, counties and the state. The infrastructure (things we all use and we all pay for) is literally all around us – from the roads we drive on, the street lights we stop at, the libraries, police stations, court houses, and parks, and the water coming through our faucets.

I want to believe that bridges are checked and monitored for safety; that my kids can still get a good education in public schools; that when I call 911, someone will send help; and that if my neighbor needs care after a broken hip, there are services to help her in stay in her home. There are some things we should be able to depend on and pay for in common, and others that we can make individual decisions about.

How much is too much or too little for us to support in common? Is Oregon still a place where we can talk about this, or are we dependent on political sound bites to answer every question? What would we propose to do differently? And can we make those proposals from a thoughtful, informed and civic perspective? It won’t be a poll, or anything else with a near-instantaneous answer, but we will at least identify what we value in common. It’s time. It’s our responsibility to do better.