“Upcoming password expiry”, the subject line read. I had less than 24 hours to change my password to avoid being locked out of this organization’s email account.

Not because my password had been leaked, or due to suspicious activity. Rather, an arbitrary number of days had passed since I last changed it.

I stared at the message and, chronic procrastinator that I am, failed to act on it. When I pulled out my computer the next afternoon, I was locked out of not only my email account but also the organization’s Wi-Fi network.

I had to use my phone’s hotspot feature to connect to the internet so I could change my password.

As I gazed upon the password reset screen, I pondered all the ways people usually deal with these annoyances. Many people take their current password and add a symbol or change a number, then try to remember it for three months until the next forced reset.

This isn’t good practice, but it is predictable human behavior. Most of us get these expiration messages and don’t think twice. We increase the number in our password by one, or add an additional exclamation mark.

It’s a small, annoying disruption.

But the reality is that these types of password policies are unnecessary. They don’t just inconvenience people, they quietly train us to behave in ways that make our passwords more predictable, not less.

How We Got Stuck With These Rules

On the surface, password policies like forced resets and complexity requirements make sense. Making passwords more complicated feels like a logical way to make everything safer.

And twenty years ago, that logic wasn’t completely wrong. Most of us had only a handful of digital accounts at that time: work and personal email accounts, online banking, and our Netflix DVD queue.

Security systems were built for a world where remembering a few complex passwords felt manageable, and the internet wasn’t the central nervous system of your life.

But the world has changed, and password policies largely haven’t. Today, many of us manage dozens or even hundreds of accounts, including:

• Work systems

• School portals

• Government logins

• Medical records

• Online shopping

• Social media

• Smart home devices

• Streaming sites

Passwords used to be an occasional inconvenience. Now, they are part of the infrastructure of modern existence. Yet many organizations still treat authentication as if users only need to juggle a few secret codes in their head.

From an institutional perspective, these rules may “look” good. Complexity requirements feel measurable, expiration policies look proactive, and they’re both easy to explain to auditors and leadership.

But what this approach misunderstands is that security isn’t just a technology problem: it’s a human behavior problem. Forcing changes and having arbitrary complexity requirements inevitably pushes people toward predictable shortcuts and workarounds.

The Workarounds We All Use

When security rules ignore how people actually behave, folks don’t suddenly become more disciplined; they become more strategic.

That’s how password workarounds were born.

Complexity requirements don’t create stronger passwords, they create predictable ones. Many people use a capital letter at the beginning and a number and exclamation mark at the end. When forced to do a periodic reset, that password becomes part of a series:

Password1! ➡️ Password2! ➡️ Password3!

The next big issue with this is password reuse. When you manage dozens or potentially hundreds of accounts, remembering unique complex passwords for all of those without assistance is unrealistic.

So people reuse their passwords. Or create predictable variations. Or write them down on sticky notes.

Studies consistently show that around 70% of people reuse passwords, often across both personal and professional accounts.1 Even more concerning, 80% of data breaches involve stolen or weak passwords.2

Attackers don’t guess passwords one-by-one, of course. They use massive breach databases and automated tools to try leaked credentials everywhere. Reuse can easily turn one breach into a dozen.

This isn’t a story about people failing at security, it’s a story about security policies failing people. When rules create too much friction, they don’t produce safer behavior. They produce predictable behavior… and that predictability is exactly what attackers rely on.

The New Best Practices for Password Security

Here’s the part that surprises most people: the cybersecurity world has largely admitted that it got the old password model wrong.

Major organizations have completely rewritten their guidance because the research is clear: forcing people into complexity rules and constant resets doesn’t make systems safer.3 It mostly just annoys everyone.

The biggest shift came from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a U.S. government agency that sets baseline rules for modern authentication standards that are followed by other government agencies and contractors.

In 2017, NIST updated their guidance to explicitly recommend against routine password expiration and special character requirements.4

Instead, they tell organizations to let people use long, memorable passphrases, like “banana window river cotton.” These are easier to recall and much harder for attackers to crack.

NIST also recommends screening new passwords against breach databases. If attackers already have it, IT systems shouldn’t allow it.

This one change does more for security than decades of adding “!” to the end of passwords has ever done. Pair these policies with multi-factor authentication and you have the most effective cyber defense available.

Why Institutions Haven’t Caught Up

If cybersecurity experts have moved on, why are so many workplaces still stuck with password rules from when George W. Bush was president?

In addition to institutional momentum, old policies persist largely because leaders worry that “loosening” password rules will look like decreasing security, and IT teams hesitate to challenge longstanding standards because, if something goes wrong, nobody wants to be the person that “weakened” protection.

Some auditors and regulatory agencies also still favor expiration despite the evidence, ironically making the entities they oversee less secure. So the outdated policies remain in effect, not because they work, but because they’re familiar.

However, even if the institutions around us move slowly, regular people don’t have to stay stuck. You can do a few things to make your accounts more secure, even in environments with outdated rules:

• Switch to passphrases where possible.

• Use a password manager to safely store unique passwords for all of your accounts. Some will even alert you if your passwords or email address turn up in a leak.

• Turn on multi-factor authentication on every account.

You could even try forwarding this article to your IT department, but I can’t guarantee they’ll take it to heart (for what it’s worth, I’m not just a random guy on the internet… I’m a random guy on the internet with a CompTIA Security+ cybersecurity certification5).

Ultimately, if we want real security, we have to design systems around human behavior, not against it. There’s no need to change a password that hasn’t been compromised in a breach, and requiring us to do so makes it harder for everyone and, ultimately, easier to undermine.

In response to the worsening crisis and mounting public pressure, Eugene passed landmark renter protections in 2022 and 2023 aimed at leveling the playing field. These efforts built on Oregon’s 2019 rent stabilization law, which limits annual rent increases and bans some no-cause evictions after the first year of tenancy.2 But even the most modest efforts to rein in landlord abuses sparked fierce legal pushback, raising a key question: How important are local renter protections, and how much power do cities really have to enforce them?

Eugene’s Push for Fairer Housing

With widespread frustration over landlord practices and increasing homelessness, Eugene’s leaders took action in 2022 and 2023 by passing a slate of bold renter protection ordinances. The most notable provisions capped rental application fees at $10, limited security deposits to no more than twice the monthly rent, and expanded requirements for landlord-paid relocation assistance.3

Landlord groups quickly sued, arguing the city had overstepped its authority under Oregon law. Enforcement of the application fee cap was paused for years as the court battle unfolded. But earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to take up the case, and the city began officially enforcing the $10 cap in March.4

Subscribe now

Why Renter Rights Depend on Your ZIP Code

While Eugene’s ordinances are among the most robust in Oregon and notable among mid-sized cities, they sit somewhere in the middle of renter protections nationally. In cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and New York, tenant protections go further, including rent control, legal assistance for renters facing eviction, and stricter limits on move-in fees and deposits. Seattle even prohibits most evictions during the winter months.5

At the other end of the spectrum are cities and states with virtually no tenant protections, where landlords can charge steep fees, evict tenants with little notice, and reject applicants without explanation. In Arkansas, where I grew up, tenants can face eviction for being just a day late on rent, and landlords aren’t legally required to provide safe and habitable living conditions.6 Eugene’s middle-of-the-road approach offers a promising model for other mid-sized cities, but also reveals just how fragmented and uneven renter protections remain across the country.

Cities Can Lead, But They Can’t Do It Alone

So how important are local renter protections like those in Eugene, and how much power do cities really have to enforce them? Eugene’s experience shows both the potential and the limitations of local action. Tenant-friendly ordinances have made a real difference by capping application fees and offering renters a bit more stability in a competitive market.

But as the legal battle over the $10 application fee limit made clear, even modest reforms can be delayed for years by landlord lawsuits or blocked by state law. Florida, for example, passed a preemption law in 2023 that blocks local governments from enforcing renter protections, including limits on fees and eviction protections.7 This fragmentation leaves renters at the mercy of state politics or geography, and puts enormous pressure on cities like Eugene to take the lead in a fight they can’t win on their own.

For renter protections to be effective and enforceable, states need to do more than just step out of the way: they need to set strong standards and give cities the legal room and resources to go further when needed.

Local Action is a Step Forward

Eugene’s renter protections certainly didn’t end the housing crisis, but they demonstrated something that feels increasingly rare: a government willing to act. In a nation and system where a renter’s rights can vary widely from one city to the next, even modest protections can make the difference between stability and displacement. If fair housing is the goal, then cities need room to lead, and support from states that are ready to back them up.

By the turn of the millennium, Oregon’s developmental disability services system was in disarray. Fairview finally closed in 2000, ending nearly a century of institutionalization.2 A year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision had sent shockwaves through disability services nationwide, ruling that unjustified segregation violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Oregon, that ruling helped lay the legal groundwork for two transformative lawsuits, Staley v. Kitzhaber and Lane v. Brown, that would force the state to fundamentally reform how it supports people with developmental disabilities.

Laying the Legal Foundation: Olmstead v. L.C.

The Olmstead decision was a watershed moment in disability rights. Two Georgia women, Lois Curtis (L.C.) and Elaine Wilson, sued the state, arguing that their continued confinement in a state psychiatric hospital violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits public entities from discriminating against people with disabilities. Though cleared by medical professionals to transition to community-based care, Curtis and Wilson remained institutionalized for years.

In siding with them in the 1999 case, the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide services “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”3 This meant states were now required to develop community-based alternatives to segregated settings like institutions and sheltered workshops, which could no longer be the default. Olmstead didn’t dictate exactly how states should reform their systems, but it gave disability rights advocates across the country a powerful legal foundation to challenge policies that kept people isolated.

In Oregon, those challenges came quickly. The reshaping of the state’s entire developmental disability service system had begun.

The Rise of Brokerages: Staley v. Kitzhaber

About a year after the Olmstead ruling, five Oregonians with developmental disabilities—James Staley, Helen Healy, Tara Peters, John Duffield, and Molly Drummond—filed a lawsuit against the state. Their case argued that Oregon was failing to comply with Olmstead by leaving thousands of eligible individuals on waitlists with little to no support. The suit quickly became a class action representing over 3,000 people, and ultimately led to a historic settlement in 2000.

At the time, Oregon offered very little in terms of community-based services for people with developmental disabilities. Individuals were often assessed and found eligible, but could remain on waitlists for years. To address this, the settlement mandated that Oregon create Support Service Brokerages—nonprofit organizations that would provide case management and coordinate person-centered services based on each individual’s needs and preferences.4 These brokerages emphasized local control, flexibility, and consumer choice. Brokerages are required to include individuals with developmental disabilities and their families on their boards, giving people a direct voice in how services are delivered.

Though imperfect, the model was a breakthrough. Challenges include inconsistent service quality across brokerages, a shortage of qualified workers, and limited access for people with more complex needs. Still, the creation of brokerages enabled Oregon to become one of the first states to roll out a self-directed developmental disability support system at scale.

Working for Less than Minimum Wage: Lane v. Brown

A decade after Staley, advocates began eyeing Oregon’s reliance on sheltered workshops as the next area ripe for reform. These were segregated settings where people with developmental disabilities often performed repetitive tasks, like folding napkins or assembling small products, frequently for less than minimum wage. Framed as a supportive alternative to competitive employment, these programs instead created a parallel system of low-wage workplaces that offered little opportunity for advancement or skill development.

In 2012, a coalition including Disability Rights Oregon, the U.S. Department of Justice, and private law firms filed Lane v. Brown. They argued that Oregon was violating the Olmstead decision and the Americans with Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating people into sheltered workshops rather than supporting them in competitive, integrated employment, where they would work alongside non-disabled peers for equal pay. In 2015, the state agreed to a landmark settlement that phased out sheltered workshops entirely by 2020, becoming the first in the nation to do so.5 The settlement also required Oregon to adopt an “Employment First” policy, prioritizing integrated employment as the preferred outcome for all working-age adults with developmental disabilities.

This monumental shift came with challenges. While many individuals were able to transition into meaningful employment, those with higher support needs found far fewer options. Service provider agencies struggled to build inclusive job pipelines, and staffing shortages limited the availability of job coaches. Still, Lane v. Brown set a national precedent and forced Oregon to align its employment services with Olmstead’s promise of community inclusion, dignity, and real opportunity.

Up Next: Housing Reform?

The transformation of Oregon’s developmental disability services didn’t begin with bold leadership from the governor or legislature—it began in court. Through these two cases, Oregon was forced to confront the ways it had excluded people with developmental disabilities from living meaningful lives in their communities. These legal victories profoundly reshaped the system, bringing self-directed services and integrated employment to the forefront. But the work isn’t finished. Today, the biggest barriers to inclusion may no longer be primarily found in institutions or workshops, but in the lack of affordable, accessible housing. A future How Important article will explore how Oregon is, or isn’t, living up to Olmstead’s promise when it comes to where people with developmental disabilities can call home.

Related articles: A Look at Homelessness Among Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, Healthcare Access for Homeless Individuals with Developmental Disabilities

When we last checked in on the fetus of monarchy, it had become a young child testing limits as Honest Abe pushed the boundaries of executive power by calling up troops, suspending habeas corpus, and freeing slaves in the south with the Emancipation Proclamation. After the war and Abe’s ill-fated trip to see the play “Our American Cousin”, the growth of executive power mostly continued; however, there were a few notable efforts by Congress and the courts to rein in the president’s power during this period.

The Childhood of Monarchy: Andrew Johnson Gets Put in Time-Out by Congress

After Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson ascended to the presidency. Commonly voted by historians as one of the worst American presidents, Johnson was a Southern Democrat who joined Abe, a Republican, under the banner of the National Union Party ticket. Lincoln was trying to project an image of national unity by reaching across the aisle to work with a pro-Union southerner, but once Johnson became president he positioned himself as an obstacle to Reconstruction and the advancement of civil rights among the newly freed African Americans in the south.

Johnson began making heavy use of the veto, rejecting key pieces of legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, and the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. He ended up issuing a record-breaking 29 vetoes. But congressional Republicans were ready to assert their authority: Congress overrode Johnson on those three bills as well as 12 more, making him the recipient of the most veto overrides in history.

Congress wasn’t done with punishing him for trying to assert too much presidential authority, however: Johnson’s attempted firing of pro-Reconstruction Secretary of War Edwin Stanton led to his impeachment under the newly passed Tenure of Office Act, which sought to limit the power of presidents to fire certain appointees. Johnson remained president after avoiding conviction by one vote in his Senate trial, but he was severely weakened politically and was unsuccessful at securing his party’s nomination for re-election.

Ulysses S. Grant Says Hold My Sippy Cup: The President Reasserts Power Over Domestic Affairs

Congress found some success in curbing the ever-expanding powers of the presidency during the Johnson administration, but war hero Ulysses S. Grant set the new high-water mark for veto usage by issuing 93 vetoes, more than 3 times as many as Johnson, with only four overrides. In other major areas, though, he worked with Congress to expand the powers of the federal government as a whole, particularly when it came to enforcing Reconstruction.

In the early 1870s, Congress passed a series of laws known as the Enforcement Acts that attempted to address widespread voter suppression and violence in the south by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Southern state governments were either unwilling or unable to stop the violence, so Congress authorized the federal government to intervene. Grant wasted no time using his newly authorized powers to their full extent, deploying federal troops and suspending habeas corpus in areas with aggressive Klan activity.

While Lincoln suspended habeas corpus under his own authority, Grant had the explicit authorization of the Congress to do so: the legislative and executive branches worked together in this instance to enable greater federal government control over what would’ve previously been considered state affairs. Grant’s aggressive use of military force solidified the role of the president as the primary enforcer of federal law.

Coming Soon in The Fetus of Monarchy series: Executive Power During the Gilded Age

Please consider subscribing to support my independent research and journalism. Public interest stories will always be free, but paid subscribers will get access to occasional articles on gaming and technology as well as personal essays.

Subscribe now

(I will henceforth spell the term “fetus”, because we defeated Britain so we get to spell it our way now.)

Randolph wasn’t the only one concerned with the Constitution’s guardrails against authoritarianism: Patrick Henry, prominent Founding Father and coiner of the term “Give me liberty or give me death”, stated that “your president may easily become king.”

It’s been 235 years since the Constitution was ratified over the concerns of Randolph, Henry, and the Anti-Federalists, and things are going… not great? The growth of executive power since the War on Terror has been difficult to ignore. So I thought it would be a great time to check in on how the “fetus of monarchy” has grown over time—has executive power evolved beyond the founders’ intentions? Or are we simply seeing the presidency adapt to the needs of an increasingly complex modern America? This is the first in a series of articles following the expansion of executive authority from the ratification of the Constitution through today.

The Fetus is Conceived: Let’s Talk About Article II

Article II of the United States Constitution outlines the presidency:

• The president must faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress.

• The president will serve as the commander-in-chief of any armed forces.

• The president can appoint judges, ambassadors, and other high-ranking officials, including “officers of the United States.”

• The president can receive ambassadors from other countries and is responsible for negotiating treaties.

• The president can pardon people for federal offenses.

That’s basically it for Article II, but the president also has some other powers outlined elsewhere in the Constitution such as the ability to veto legislation. There are checks on many of these powers: the Senate must confirm appointments and treaties, and Congress is given the authority to declare war. But there are plenty of ambiguities here: if the president is the commander-in-chief, does he always need a congressional war declaration to use force? And does “faithful” execution of the laws really imply an ability to issue executive orders and take emergency actions?

These ambiguities represent the conception of the “fetus of monarchy” that some founders and the Anti-Federalists worried about. In the ensuing two centuries, Congress and the courts have allowed the fetus to grow by gradually conceding more and more authority to the president, broadening the powers enumerated in the Constitution and expanding the executive branch’s reach far beyond what was originally envisioned.

The Infancy of Monarchy: Thomas Jefferson Learns to Crawl (1803)

The Fetus of Monarchy may have been born during the events of 1803, when President Thomas Jefferson arranged for the “purchase” of the Louisiana Territory from France (National Constitution Center). Never mind the fact that France controlled only a small portion of the territory, which was mostly inhabited by Native Americans—essentially, the United States purchased the right to acquire the territory by treaty or conquest (Journal of American History).

(Spoiler alert: they mostly chose conquest.)

Jefferson himself questioned the constitutionality of the arrangement, stating “[The Constitution] has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.”

Notably, he was totally fine with moving forward and just hoped the country would grant him the power after the fact: “In the meantime we must ratify and pay our money, as we have treated, for a thing beyond the Constitution, and rely on the nation to sanction an act done for its great good, without its previous authority.”

The Senate approved the treaty including the Louisiana Purchase despite constitutional concerns, effectively endorsing the president’s pushing of constitutional boundaries in foreign policy.

The Toddlerdom of Monarchy: Andrew Jackson’s First Word Was “No” (1829-1837)

The first words of Article I of the Constitution state “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” But later in the article, it gives the president the ability to essentially exercise legislative power through the veto. Andrew Jackson was the first president to wield this power effectively, marking the start of the stubborn toddler years.

Before Jackson, vetoes were basically only used when a president considered something unconstitutional. Jackson began using them to dispose of legislation he simply disagreed with. In perhaps his most famous veto, he rejected legislation that would have rechartered the Second Bank of the United States, stating that it benefited the wealthy at the expense of commoners. While this was likely true, it set a precedent for the wider use of vetoes by future presidents. Congress did not act to override any vetoes until 1845, when it overrode an equally veto-happy president, John Tyler.

The Early Childhood of Monarchy: Honest Abe Tests His Limits (1860s)

Few presidents did more to expand executive power than old Penny-Face himself, Abraham Lincoln. When faced with an unprecedented crisis of southern states seceding and taking up arms against the United States, he tested the limits of presidential power by calling up 75,000 militia troops without a formal war declaration from Congress in order to suppress the rebellion. His swift action just months after assuming office prioritized preserving the union over strict adherence to the Constitution.

He later suspended the writ of habeas corpus, allowing for individuals to be arrested and detained without a trial. He justified this extraordinary move as essential to maintain public order during the war, and stated that it was preferable to letting the entire union collapse. The Constitution does allow for habeas corpus to be suspended during invasion or rebellion, but it does not specify which branch of government has that authority. The specific clause appears in Article I Section 9, potentially implying that it was meant to be a legislative power, but Lincoln assertively suspended it on his own authority.

Another power Lincoln wielded without clear constitutional permission was his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Through executive order he declared that all enslaved people in the territory calling itself the Confederate States of America would be “forever free.” Lincoln justified this move as a war measure under his authority as Commander-in-Chief: he argued that freeing slaves would undermine the Confederacy’s labor force, ultimately helping the Union war effort. At the end of the war the 13th Amendment was ratified, ending slavery in the south as well as in Union states not in “active rebellion” including New Jersey and Delaware.

Of course, the Emancipation Proclamation was a morally justified move that might have encountered resistance in Congress. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it was a unilateral action that set a precedent for future presidents to act similarly during crises.

Next Week: Executive Power During Reconstruction

Subscribe to How Important to catch future installments in this series about the expanding power of the presidency.

Subscribe now

Certainly, most Americans agree that our government should be making more of an effort to address stagnating wages1, surging homelessness2, skyrocketing housing costs3, and numerous other economic woes4. And UBI could definitely help - at least it seemed to improve things for many low-income families when the federal government ran several temporary UBI programs in the form of COVID-19 stimulus checks, expanded Unemployment Insurance, and the expanded Child Tax Credit. The checks and unemployment benefits kept more than 13 million Americans out of poverty, according to Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy.

Measure 118 is one of the most important economic ballot measures that has come before voters in the United States in recent years, and it has the potential to make a meaningful difference in the lives of low-income individuals. It isn’t a perfect proposal, but it is a bold response to years of legislative inaction on economic inequality.

How does Measure 118 work?

Measure 118 would put a 3% gross receipts tax on Oregon sales exceeding $25 million, dramatically increasing the existing corporate minimum tax rate for large corporations. While the current corporate minimum tax paid by these corporations goes into the general fund, revenue from the increased minimum tax would specifically go toward the rebate. This money would be evenly distributed to eligible Oregonians, defined as those residing in the state for at least 200 days in a calendar year. This includes children, making Measure 118 especially helpful for struggling families. If individuals decline or fail to claim their share of the rebate, the money would be directed to “services for senior citizens, health care, public early childhood education and public kindergarten through grade 12 education” (Full text of the ballot measure from the Oregon Secretary of State [PDF]).

The funds would be available most easily as a tax rebate, though the measure also provides a process allowing individuals to request the payment at any time. The ballot measure also states that the payments are not taxable income and should not affect public benefits, and backs this up with a requirement that individuals be reimbursed if their benefits are reduced or eliminated due to the rebate.

How much would each person get?

The home page of Oregon Rebate states that their measure would pay “$1,600 for every Oregonian, every year.” However, the actual amount it could pay out is complicated primarily by the measure’s Hold Harmless provision, which states that Measure 118 rebate payments should not reduce or disqualify individuals from need-based benefit programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. The measure directs the Oregon Department of Human Services to seek out waivers from the federal government where necessary to make this happen, but this approval is uncertain. If individual benefits are reduced or eliminated due to the rebate, the measure requires twice-a-year payments to replace the lost benefits. While this would be relatively straightforward for programs that pay a monetary value where the money could be replaced dollar-for-dollar, replacing benefits lost in the form of medical care or housing vouchers could be much more complicated.

According to a Sept. 23rd report from Oregon’s Legislative Revenue Office [PDF], the median 2026 rebate could land between $1,035 and $1,286, and the 2027 rebate could be between $1,442 and $1,790. The projections vary primarily based on how much the Hold Harmless provision will cost, as demonstrated in this chart from the LRO report.

What about businesses?

Oregon’s existing corporate tax structure includes a corporate minimum tax based on Oregon sales that scales up from $150 to $100,000. It also includes a 6.6% income tax on the first $1 million of income and a 7.6% tax on income over $1 million. Businesses are required to pay the higher of the two taxes. Additionally, all businesses in Oregon with over $1 million in gross receipts are required to pay a .57% Corporate Activity Tax that was passed by the legislature in 2019 to provide a stable, ongoing source of funding for K-12 public education.

Because Measure 118’s funding mechanism increases the corporate minimum tax by applying the 3% gross receipts tax to total sales over $25 million, it will effectively mean that many big businesses will pay the corporate minimum tax plus Measure 118 tax instead of the corporate income tax (CAT will still apply in addition to that). Some funds paid by large corporations that would have gone into the general fund under the existing tax structure will instead go toward the rebate.

How does Measure 118 compare to the Alaska Permanent Fund?

The only state that currently has a guaranteed income program is Alaska. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend distributes a portion of the state’s oil revenue to residents each year. The program has noticeably decreased poverty in the state especially among indigenous Alaskans, according to a recent study published in the journal Poverty & Public Policy. Like Measure 118, each resident receives an equal dividend regardless of age or income. Unlike Measure 118, though, the payout is tied to resource extraction rather than a tax on big businesses. A rough average amount of the dividend is around $1,600, though it fluctuates based on the fund’s earnings.

One crucial difference is that the APF takes the money it collects and invests a portion of it, creating a long-term fund that the state can draw upon when natural resource extraction revenue wanes. Measure 118 would instead pay out all of its revenue. Another difference is the Alaska Permanent Fund provides less robust protections for public benefits: the money counts as income for many benefit programs like SNAP and housing vouchers. It is excluded from calculations for Medicaid eligibility, however - this means that Oregon could potentially follow a similar approach with federal approval. Alaska also repays Social Security for any SSI over-payments resulting from the APF dividend, so Oregon could try to make a similar arrangement.

What could Measure 118 mean for Oregon’s future?

Many of Oregon’s public officials have come out as opposed to Measure 118, largely arguing that big businesses might choose not to do business in the state to avoid the increased tax burden. They have also argued that the Hold Harmless provision would create too many administrative complexities and challenges, and that the diversion of some funds away from the general fund would hurt essential public services like education and healthcare.

As voters go to the mailbox, though, it is important to weigh these concerns against the potential benefits. Measure 118 could provide financial relief to millions of Oregonians, which could help reduce economic insecurity. It could lift children and families out of poverty. And it would pay for this with a tax that would only apply to less than 2% of businesses in Oregon (KGW). It’s not a perfect proposal, but it is a bold attempt at taxing big businesses to help the broader population.

Unique Healthcare Challenges for Homeless Individuals with Disabilities

A study by Oxford Academic published in "Social Work" highlights several key barriers to healthcare access for homeless individuals with disabilities.1 These barriers include:

• Absence of Accessible Services - Inadequate care results from many healthcare facilities' lack of capacity to address the unique requirements of people with disabilities.

• Transportation Problems - It can be challenging for homeless people to regularly attend medical visits since they frequently lack access to dependable transportation.

• Financial constraints - Prescription drugs and medical supplies might be prohibitively expensive out of pocket, even with Medicaid.

Possible Remedies

In order to tackle these issues, the following actions could be taken:

• Funding for Affordable Housing Should Be Increased - Increasing funding for affordable housing, particularly for people with disabilities, can aid in closing the affordability gap between income and housing expenses. This strategy is in line with the Housing First model supported by some states, including the Oregon Department of Human Services2, which offers temporary financial assistance to homeless people with severe impairments. Read my recent How Important article for more on the topic of homelessness among individuals with developmental disabilities.

• Improved Service Coordination - People with disabilities can get comprehensive care that is customized to meet their needs if housing services and support providers work together more closely. Portland State University's Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative promotes creative methods of helping homeless individuals, stressing the importance of coordinated services that attend to housing and health needs.3 The Healthcare for the Homeless Program at Greater Portland Health, which uses a trauma-informed approach and harm reduction to provide primary care, dental care, and mental health support to homeless people, provides an example of this kind of integration.4

• Enhanced Data Collection - To successfully drive policy and program development, current and reliable data on the healthcare requirements of homeless people with disabilities are required. The data on health inequalities among people with disabilities from Oregon Health & Science University provides a starting point, but ongoing and thorough data gathering is essential for creating healthcare services that are responsive.5

Increasing the accessibility of healthcare for homeless people with disabilities necessitates a multifaceted strategy that takes into account both urgent needs and structural obstacles. We can best ensure that this vulnerable population obtains the care they require by strengthening service coordination, increasing funding for affordable housing, and augmenting data gathering.

Note: This article was adapted from one I originally published on the Vulnerable People and Places Blog.

People experiencing developmental disabilities have particular difficulties that increase their risk of being homeless without proper interventions and support. In addition to the Pacific Northwest region's overall affordability crisis and the lack of adequate government assistance, this population is perhaps most significantly impacted by the passing or incapacity of elderly caretakers such as parents.2

This chart from the ECONorthwest study highlights individuals in Oregon at risk of homelessness based on their living arrangement. Among individuals with developmental disabilities residing with a family caregiver, approximately 26 percent are believed to be experiencing housing insecurity.

Contributing Factors

• Elderly Caretakers - Among individuals with developmental disabilities who have an older family member as their primary caregiver, the risk of housing insecurity and homelessness increases when their family member is no longer able to care for them due to illness, injury, or death. This situation emphasizes how crucial it is to plan for long-term care and housing options for people with developmental disabilities.

• Economic Difficulties - A large number of people with developmental disabilities are dependent on Supplemental Security Income or SSI, which frequently is insufficient to pay for housing. The monthly SSI payout amount in Oregon is $783, which is significantly less than the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment. In the Portland metro area, monthly rents have increased by 83% on average over the last 20 years, whereas monthly SSI benefits have only increased by 50% according to the ECONorthwest study. People with developmental disabilities are financially burdened by this discrepancy, which makes them more likely to become homeless.

• Support System Gaps - Coordination between housing services and organizations that offer assistance to people with developmental disabilities is lacking. The efficacy of programs intended to support these people in maintaining stable housing is hampered by this. Better coordination between housing entities and developmental disability service providers is necessary.

Potential Solutions

• Increase SSI payments and/or expand housing vouchers - One solution is to increase the income of the individuals to help them better meet their needs. This could potentially include the expansion of housing vouchers to many more people experiencing developmental disabilities.

• Increase Funding for Affordable Housing - Allocating more resources towards affordable housing specifically for individuals with developmental disabilities can help bridge the gap between available income and housing costs.

• Better Coordination of Services - Improving the alignment between housing services and support providers can ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities receive comprehensive care tailored to their needs.

• Targeted assistance to help caregivers better plan for the future - Since one of the major issues is aging and illness among older caregivers, a program could assist them with long-term planning for their loved one. This would ideally be in combination with financial assistance.

The Need for Better Data

One of the major challenges in addressing housing insecurity among individuals with developmental disabilities is the lack of current and reliable data. The Oregon Department of Human Services provides data on the types of developmental disabilities that individuals experience, including autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and other intellectual and developmental disabilities.3 However, precise statistics on homelessness broken down by specific disability types are limited. The National Core Indicators surveys4 offer some insights into the experiences and needs of individuals with different types of developmental disabilities, emphasizing the importance of tailored support services​.

The issue of homelessness among individuals with developmental disabilities in Oregon is a multifaceted problem that requires immediate attention. Economic challenges, support system gaps, and the aging of caregivers all contribute to the housing instability faced by this vulnerable population. Addressing these issues will require a concerted effort from policymakers, service providers, and the community. By shining a light on these challenges, we can advocate for the necessary changes to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities have access to safe and stable housing.

For further information on homelessness in Oregon, please visit Portland State University's Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative.

Note: This article was adapted from one I originally published on the Vulnerable People and Places Blog.

Subscribe now