Republican Cliff Bentz wins reelection for Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District

Republican Cliff Bentz has won his reelection for Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District and will hold his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 2nd district is the largest congressional district in Oregon and represents around two-thirds of the state, comprising everything east of the Willamette Valley. Rep. Bentz joins us to share more on his thoughts around recent election results and key issues for the Republican Party.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. We’re going to continue our post-election coverage today. We start with Cliff Bentz. He is one of two Republican members of Oregon’s congressional delegation. The other is Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who I should point out is currently narrowly behind in her race against Democratic challenger, Janelle Bynum – with more votes still to count. Bentz represents Oregon’s 2nd District. It’s by far the largest district in the state in terms of geography, encompassing around two-thirds of Oregon’s total area.

We called Bentz up yesterday. I started by asking what he thought the biggest issues were in the election.

Cliff Bentz: Well, it’s going to be the economy first; it’s going to be the border second; and it’s going to be probably energy third. Yeah, I think a lot of people would say it was democracy, but they never defined democracy. So I’ve never been quite sure what they meant by that. But I would say the economy first, probably inflation. And I think somebody put it really well when I was out in Utah – a county sheriff said the trouble is people don’t have the money to buy all the stuff they used to buy. And the stuff that they used to be able to afford, they can’t anymore. And then they turn to their credit card and the interest rates are 20%, 25%, 30%. Life gets pretty grim when you’re trying to fill in holes in your budget with that kind of financing.

Miller: On the economy, it is an issue where both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spent a lot of their time talking about it. Let’s say that you’re right, that was the most important issue for the voters who mattered the most. Why do you think a majority of voters were more likely to trust Donald Trump for that issue, than Kamala Harris?

Bentz: Although I would be speculating, but mainly because I haven’t had a chance to look at some of the analysis that’s been done in the swing states to get to the real of it, I suppose. But from my standpoint, I think they probably saw him as a successful businessman that had been involved in a lot of different types of economic endeavors on the private side of things, as opposed to the vice president who had worked for government most of her career, if not all of it. And they probably felt that if there was somebody that knew how business truly worked, it would be Donald Trump and not Kamala Harris.

Miller: How do you think Donald Trump’s second term is going to be different from, or similar to his first?

Bentz: Well, I think – again, this is rampant speculation – but I would say that we’re going to see him issue a number of executive orders reversing what President Biden did on his first day in office. So I think we’ll see that first. And I think that’s consistent with what he did the first time he was president. I think we’ll see him address the border early on. I think we’ll see him try to address the Ukraine situation early on. I think we’ll see him try to address energy issues early on. I think you’ll see him reverse the efforts to take out the four lower Snake River dams early on. I think you’ll see a dramatic change in the approach that the CEQ has been using.

And you’re going to see a lot of the same things. But on the other hand, he’s had four years to learn about how the presidency worked. He’s had another four years to find folks to appoint to positions that he now knows exist and need change. So I think the major difference between his first four years and now his second is going to be the nature of people he appoints and the speed at which that’s going to happen.

Miller: I’ve heard that from a lot of people, that the idea is that it could be a more focused and in terms of execution, a more unified executive because there will be people in place who are more ready, and willing, and perhaps able to carry out his wishes. Does that jive with what you’re expecting?

Bentz: I’m gonna use the Secretary Bernhardt of the Interior Department, because I know him the best. You may recall that Secretary Zinke, who’s now in the House with me, was appointed first for about a year and then Secretary Bernhardt was appointed to take Secretary Zinke’s place for the balance of three years of Trump’s first term. And what happened there, I think, is that Trump became much more aware of how bureaucracy works and he realized he needed people who actually knew how it works, like say David Bernhardt.

Bernhardt was a career bureaucrat, if you will, and knew exactly how it worked and was only curious about how much authority he was going to be given by President Trump. And that’s why, following the end of the first Trump term, Bernhardt wrote a book called “You Report To Me,” and he calls out exactly how he then did his best to try to address the challenges that a long entranced bureaucracy presents. I think we’re going to see President Trump, the second time around, find a lot more people like Bernhardt.

Miller: One of now President-elect Trump’s signature campaign promises is the mass deportation of millions of undocumented people. Do you want to see that happen?

Bentz: Well, mass deportation – let me just express how challenging that what you just said is going to be. I had occasion just, I’m going to say about a month-and-a-half ago, to have the previous head of Homeland Security attend a small meeting. And there were about 15 of us there, and he was asked somewhat of the same question. I asked him, “Well, share with me, if there was a desire to deport 11 million people, how many folks would that take? And how would you go about it?” And he said, “Well, we need a lot more than we have now. And the sheer number of people that it would take to engage in ‘mass deportation’ would be huge.” And so I said to him, “Tell me the truth, how is this really going to work?” He said, “Well, what we’ll do is we’ll wait until somebody violates a law and then when they’re arrested for whatever the problem may be – blowing through a stop sign or committing some worse crime – then it would be, at that point, discovered that they don’t have the benefit of paperwork and they would then be deported.”

I said, “That’s gonna take quite a while to get through, waiting for 11 million people to commit some sort of a crime. I’m gonna guess that many of them will never commit a crime.” And he said, “Well, you are correct.” I said, “Well, then, what’s it gonna cost to go find people and make this happen?” And the cost would be enormous. So I would suggest that mass deportation, I think is a phrase people bandy about, and they probably should ask questions about the previous director of Homeland Security, who … I’m sorry, his name escapes me.

Miller: I should say that what you’re talking about, there are the logistical and financial pieces of this. There are many other ways to think about it. One of them is the economic effect for say, a heavily agricultural district like yours. And it’s worth pointing out to listeners, in case they forgot this, you have broken with your party on immigration issues before. In 2021, you supported – and I don’t think there were very many Republicans who did – a Democratic bill that would have established a system for agricultural workers to earn temporary status with an eventual option to become permanent residents.

So you have not been in lockstep with your party always on immigration issues. What would you like to see?

Bentz: Well, let’s talk about that bill. First, there were 35 of we Republicans that voted for that bill and none of us happily, because you just talked about the second half of the bill. The first half of the bill, which is why I voted for it, was consistent with the promise I made to my constituents – many of them farmers and many of them who rely upon immigrant labor – that I would do the best I could when it came to visa programs that will get people here legally. And that bill had in it some fixes to some of the more glaring problems with visa programs, H-1B, the visas. And these visa programs are good ways of bringing folks here temporarily to help with work nobody else seems to want to do.

And that is the first part of that bill, and I supported it for that reason. I did not support the second half of the bill. But guess what, you don’t get to rewrite bills, particularly when you’re in the minority, as I was then. That bill went to the Senate where it died and it died for many reasons having to do with the second half of the bill, which was the part you mentioned, amnesty, and people having a means of circumventing, what I’ll call, normal immigration.

So the challenge of how we protect farmers and ranchers, and the types of businesses that are important up and down the Columbia River – the cherry orchards, for example, the apples, the nurseries, not to mention construction or motel, hotel folks – all of those different types of jobs need to be in some fashion made legal. And one of the best ways to do it is with visa programs. And what I would hope is that once we figure out how to help President Trump secure the border, that we will move immediately into addressing a more comprehensive approach; not a completely comprehensive, that never seems to work, but a slow step by step process of working with the different types of pieces of the program that have proved efficient and workable in the past. And temporary worker status is one of them.

Miller: I have to say, what you’re talking about seems much more incremental and moderate than a lot of the language that came from the Trump campaign that propelled him into office. Do you see a possible majority for what you’re describing in the incoming Congress and in the chief executive?

Bentz: Well, probably better to talk to somebody that’s gonna be working for him and not a member of Congress, as I have the privilege of being. I would say that there are many people who want to address immigration in a careful, thoughtful way, but they all know it starts with securing the border. So what we’re going to see, I think, is a very aggressive move by the Trump administration to secure the border so we can then move to trying to “fix” immigration.

It’s a hugely, hugely complex area. It deserves huge amounts of thought and how one’s going to approach it. Because as you say, it’s been politicized to the nth degree, and moving away from hyperbole and wishful thinking, and into how you’re actually going to do it – it’s a big job. I’m on judiciary, I’ve been engaged in these conversations for four years. I’ll just say they’re difficult.

Miller: I want to go back to something you mentioned earlier because I feel like it went quickly, and it’s an important point. You were very clear that as you said, you liked half of that bill, but not the other half. You voted for it because you didn’t have complete control and that’s the way lawmaking often works. But that’s not the way many lawmakers these days talk about lawmaking. I mean, there’s often much more of a zero sum game. There’s a piece of this bill I don’t like and I’m going to vote no. And that could come from a single lawmaker [or] it can come from an entire caucus.

I’m curious just how likely you think it is these days that lawmakers will approach bills the way you just described? In other words, it’s not perfect, there are things I really don’t like. But there’s enough in it that I like that I will say “yes.”

Bentz: So you probably watched us … not probably. I know you watched us in Congress struggle over the past two years to reach agreement among ourselves. By “ourselves,” I mean, the Republican caucus. We started out with 222 of us. I think it dwindled down to 219. And then it came back up in that 222, 221 place.

Miller: Yeah, it was a very public display of not knowing exactly who you were and who should lead you. And I’m glad you brought that up because it’s at the heart of this. How much are we willing to compromise?

Bentz: So I need to go a little bit further. If you look carefully at what was going on, there are a group of we Republicans who have made a practice of running against other Republicans, and saying that certain other Republicans aren’t pure enough, aren’t this, or that, or whatever enough, and to join the Democrats is to become part of “the uniparty.” And thus the “uniparty” becomes a bad word, it becomes a negative description. And then they raise money on that. I guarantee you, they raise money on that. Gee, we’ve got to stop, stomp out the uniparty. When you get together and vote with one of the other sides, then obviously, you’re an enemy of the Republicans.

That type of approach works now, better than perhaps it did in the past, because of the ability to raise money online. So you instantly let people know that you’re right and everybody else is wrong. And if you can develop an audience that certain members of our caucus have, that’s willing to throw a few bucks in each time that you do this, then you’re unlikely to change. So how does one address that? And I’ll just say that it’s with great difficulty. There’s been much discussion by large groups of us, broken into different caucuses, about what to do about it and those issues will come up next week.

I must say I’m very happy that it appears that the American people are going to send Republicans back, in the majority. It appears that we will pick up perhaps as many as four seats on top of what we already had. I hope that turns out to be the case, we don’t know yet for sure. But if it does, then what we need to be doing as a group – and we’ll start that next week – is sitting down and trying to figure out how to get along and how to move away from attacking each other. We’ve got to do it if we’re going to be a success with Donald Trump as president and with us controlling the Senate.

Miller: But does a Donald Trump presidential win give the most extreme version of the Republican Party more power, not less?

Bentz: Well, that’s gonna be a function of what it is that President Trump decides he wants to focus on first and what he brings in. But it also depends on what we in Congress decide to do. We’re not led by the nose by the president. We are a separate branch of government and what we decide we want to do, we can go ahead and do ...

Miller: You say that, but if I may – I feel like one of the lessons of the last couple of years is that Donald Trump, by far, more than any other Republican on Earth seems to have his finger on the pulse of the Republican electorate. And often what he says goes, in a lot of ways. So obviously, you are an independent branch of government. But first of all, do you disagree with that? Do you not see him as more the standard bearer of the party than any president, I guess, I can think of in my lifetime?

Bentz: Well, so I would say that President Trump has his thumb on the pulse of the nation. He just won, it appears, the popular vote. And he won the electoral college, it appears by a number, I think, over 300 some odd … I’m not sure, I haven’t checked. But he certainly has grasped something that is more than normal, what we say, on the sense of what the nation wants. So I wouldn’t just say that it’s all Republicans. I’m guessing he got a bunch of votes from Independents, or he wouldn’t have won.

OK, now your question is, or your assertion is that he has been in control of Congress and I guarantee you he has not. I would say that his position on different issues has value and weight, but he does not come into our caucus and tell us what to do, guarantee it. I’m there and I’ve been there for four years. So, yes, the press would like it said that way because they thought that somehow by making everybody Trump, they would win the Senate and they would win the House – they were wrong.

Miller: What’s an example, do you think, in the last two or four years, where something that he really wanted and was public about, that Republicans in Congress didn’t then go along with and at least push for?

Bentz: Hold on just a second. We’d have to make a list. And I will just say there are many people who say different things about … well, they’re just going to do what Trump tells them. I am assuring you, that is not true. Let’s just leave it there. I’ll tell you that there are other situations where it happens that he says something, but we already agree with him, not because he told us to, but because we agree. I know – let’s use the so-called bipartisan immigration bill that tried to get out of the Senate and did not. And by the way, I think seven Democrats in the Senate voted against it. So to suggest that somehow Trump killed it when seven Democrats – it was either five or seven – voted against it, is ridiculous. People should go back and actually look at that fact.

But the reason I voted or would have voted against that particular bill, had it come across and it didn’t, is because it still allows some huge number of people to come in. That’s not gonna fly, it won’t fly. The American people aren’t going to stand for it and I don’t blame them. But if you looked at – and this is the best example to answer your question – check and see how many news outlets said it was all because of Trump. I guarantee you it was not, but good luck convincing people of that.

Miller: There’s so many more issues I want to get to. And I know that, as you said before we started talking, the only thing I’m preventing you from doing is going on your six mile run. So I have that in mind. I’m going to try to keep the rest relatively short. But I do want to ask you about the proposal you put forward last week. You announced that you’re going to be introducing a new proposal for the Owyhee Canyonlands. There is, though, another proposal from Oregon Senators Wyden and Merkley last year that’s still on the table. Why are you making your own proposal now?

Bentz: It’s really important that people understand that my bill is based upon and contains a huge amount of the Wyden/Merkley bill. So when people say I have a new proposal, they should go through and compare the two bills, and they’ll find that there’s a huge part of it that’s identical. I just got off the phone this morning, actually a Zoom call – I’ve lost track of how many I’ve now had with Senator Wyden and his team – but just as recently as this morning, going over different aspects of the bill. While we’re still a little bit apart, we’re making great progress in creating a bill that is a combination of the Wyden/Merkley bill and what I’ll call the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition bill, the OBSC bill.

People persist in saying it’s the Bentz bill – it’s not. It’s the group that’s been working for five years along with Senator Wyden’s team during much of that time to put together a bill that properly protects the land. And when I say protects the land, my quote, “bill,” the OBSC bill, contains permanent protections against weed invasion; and projections for fire suppression; and protections for cattle grazing, and different ways of doing that in manners that are more beneficial for the land. And again, the key here is that this is a congressional effort led by Senator Wyden, mostly. I think Jeff Merkley is involved somewhat, but mostly Senator Wyden on the one hand and my office on the other, as we try to incorporate what the community has spent so much time and work putting together ...

Miller: I want to get your thoughts on a quote I read in Willamette Week. This came from Ryan Houston, the Director of the Oregon Natural Desert Association. Because it has a direct bearing on what you’re talking about and the time over the last five years. He said this: “While Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley spent the past five years working with tribes, ranchers, conservation groups, hunters, recreationists, businesses and others to develop their thoughtfully negotiated well balanced proposal, Representative Bentz chose not to participate in those conversations.” What’s your response to that?

Bentz: So this is a pretty small community over here. You should know this. And the OBSC enjoys the involvement of one of my brothers, Andy Bentz, and there was no reason in the world for me to put another Bentz into that mix. My brother was former county sheriff, knows this area extraordinarily well, grew up in this area, was like I said, county sheriff for 15 years for Malheur County. He was at the table during most of those meetings during that five years. They didn’t need another person in there. What they did need is someone who would come in, pick up what they had put together and begin to make sure it was consistent with what I have heard from many of my constituents down in that part of the world.

By the way, as you know, I’m a lawyer. And I have represented, as a lawyer, many of those ranchers over the last 30 years. I know them. They’re like brothers and sisters to me, literally. And so the fact that they came in with a product that I knew they were working on during that period of time was good enough for me. And that’s what I’ve been using. For the guy from ONDA to come in and say that it’s my bill – he knows better. He knows better. And because he knows that that bill that I have brought in is the reflection of the OBSC, the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition’s efforts. He knows better.

Miller: Cliff Bentz, we will talk again. Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Bentz: I appreciate you calling, Dave. Thank you.

Miller: Republican Cliff Bentz represents Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District. We talked yesterday.

We turn to Jeff Merkley now. He is one of Oregon’s two Democratic U.S. senators and he joins us to talk about his party’s way forward after losing its Senate majority. Senator Merkley, welcome back.

Jeff Merkley: It’s good to be here with you.

Miller: There is a lot of talk right now among Democrats of a post-election autopsy or a deep look into why the election went down the way it did and what comes next. How have you come to understand what happened?

Merkley: I’m really struck by how, when I entered the Senate, every Democratic member of the House from Oregon was a guy. Now, every single one is a woman. That’s a huge transition that kind of is interesting, in the light of the concern about Kamala … may have lost votes as a woman. And also just a huge contrast between what happened in Oregon and what happened nationally, that people in Oregon are still pretty happy that the Oregon Legislature is functioning reasonably well to address their issues.

I’m still in a stage of a bit of shock and real concern for our country when you have a candidate who has talked like Trump has about enemies within, about using the justice department to go after his political enemies, to seek to have generals the same that Hitler had that are unquestioning in carrying out commands. Those are real concerns in a democracy, let alone the many policy issues that I feel he’s on the wrong track on.

Miller: All of those are things that Kamala Harris, her surrogates and supporters talked about a lot over the last many years, actually. Why do you think they didn’t resonate with a sufficient number of voters?

Merkley: I do have a theory of the case on this and that is that the national legislature has been quite dysfunctional when it comes to key issues like the cost of housing, or the cost of groceries, or being able to pay the same fair drug prices paid by people in every other democracy. But we get ripped off by prices that are twice as high or 10 times as high for drugs. We really have had a national system that has become more and more rigged for the powerful. So Democrats have campaigned and said we’re working on all these issues. But then they have accepted a Senate where the Republican minority could actually block better policy on health care, housing, education, jobs, using what’s referred to as a filibuster, although it doesn’t actually involve talking anymore.

So I think there’s been a loss of faith that Democrats can deliver, because they’ve had the chance and not done as well as they should. They delivered on a number of things, by the way. There were some big bills this last Congress, but they weren’t the bills that attacked those bread and butter issues at the table. They delivered on production of semiconductor chips in America with the Chips Act. We delivered in terms of massive infrastructure rebuilding in America, unlike anything that had been done since the Eisenhower Freeway Project. Delivered on incentives to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and therefore decrease the impact of climate change.

But when it came to the kitchen table, not so much. And I think that the cynicism that comes from a more paralyzed national legislature does feed interest in someone who presents more strongman qualities that Trump has bragged about. I think we do need to reform the national legislative system and it’s something I’ve really focused a lot of attention on, so it can deliver for the people. So there is no veto when Democrats are in power, they can actually deliver on the policies that they campaign on.

Miller: I wanna come back to the question of the filibuster, something that you and I have talked about and you have talked about a lot, written an entire book about. There’s no U.S. senator who’s more focused on the issue of changing the way the filibuster is performed than you.

But to stick with policy questions. If one of your main cases here – the heart of your case of the election – is that Democrats were hamstrung in putting forward policies that would have made a bigger difference in pocketbook issues, say, and that voters would have noticed, what are examples of the policies that you wish Democrats had been able to enact?

Merkley: Well, let’s start with the price of drugs. We put a cap on insulin and began the process of negotiating the price of 10 of the most expensive drugs for Medicare, but shouldn’t that vision be extended to every drug for every person in America? There’s no reason that Americans, who invest so much more money in the R & D that brings about these drugs … Americans should get the best price on all of them, not be paying two to 10 times more than what people pay in Canada, or Europe, or Japan, or Australia.

And then let’s turn to housing. Over the last few years, hedge funds have bought up a huge amount of the single family housing in America. Ownership of that housing was a major source of wealth for middle class America. And in just a decade’s time, we’ve seen that American dream and that foundation for wealth for the middle class evaporate. People do not believe their children are going to be able to buy homes and their children don’t believe they’re going to be able to buy homes. So essentially, the richest Americans – putting hundreds of millions of dollars into hedge funds – are taking that slice of the American economic pie that went to middle class America, taking it off the plate of middle class Americans, and putting it on the plate of the megamillionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile, those same investments are driving up rents. So many families are paying such a larger portion for rent. So, Americans who are not the richest Americans are getting hit both on rents and on a shattered dream of homeownership.

Miller: So to turn back to the filibuster, in the time we have left, you’ve been called a kind of filibuster reform purist because you’ve maintained your stance even when your party is in the minority. Just to be clear, briefly, you have not suddenly changed your mind on what seems like a core conviction, right, even though you are now, once again, going to be in the minority?

Merkley: No. And to be clear, my argument has been to reform the filibuster so that the minority maintains leverage as long as they continue a public debate. So take this paralysis that has been caused by a veto power in which those who are saying they want more debate don’t actually have to show up, because you have 59 senators vote for more debate or vote to close debate … and you can’t close debate and even if there’s zero votes on the other side. What I’m saying is give the minority the ability to carry the case before the American people, as long as they’re willing to hold the floor continuously. So take what is now secret, make it public. Take opposition that is now effortless and make it require effort.

Miller: Just to be clear about what this would mean … So for example, let’s say Republicans retain control of the House – an open question but not far fetched – giving them unified power over both chambers of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court. If Democrats were going to, say, try to block a national abortion ban, the only way to do it would be by talking nonstop, right?

Merkley: Yes. Exactly. And what that would do would take the debate before the American people. The American people could weigh in and when they finished weighing in, the Republicans would abandon that effort because their position would be hugely unpopular.

Miller: Jeff Merkley, thanks very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Merkley: Great to be with you. Thank you.

Miller: Jeff Merkley is one of Oregon’s two Democratic U.S. senators.

Meghan Moyer joins us now. She has served as the public policy director for Disability Rights Oregon. And on Tuesday night, she won the runoff election for a seat on the Multnomah County Commission. She defeated Administrative Judge Vadim Mozyrsky by about 19% points. Meghan Moyer, congratulations and welcome back.

Meghan Moyer: Thank you so much.

Miller: So, it’s been a couple of days now since Tuesday evening. How are you feeling right now about your win?

Moyer: We’re excited and really grateful to the voters. The district won.

Miller: What do you think made the difference in this race? In the end, I think it was less close than a lot of local political watchers might have been expecting.

Moyer: Yeah, and I’m not 100% sure. I think this was like a lot of our local races, there wasn’t polling. And I was outspent in the primary and outspent in the general. So I think those are some conventional wisdoms that might disadvantage me. But I think the conversations I was having with voters about being really honest about what I thought was needed to address some of the issues in our county resonated. I never offered quick fixes. I never pretended we could fix problems overnight. But I really ran on a platform of, here are concrete things that we really desperately need to do if we want to reach a long-term solution for people in crisis.

I think that people in Portland were, particularly my district, ready to hear that and appreciated that, but also appreciated my background, the types of things I worked on, and my eagerness to get to the county and work really, really hard to make sure that we are actually able to deliver the services desperately needed to help people find stable, long-term housing and support.

Miller: Do you see a connection between your win and Shannon Singleton’s win over Sam Adams?

Moyer: Yes, I do. And I think, although Shannon and I are different people and we have different expertise, we both share a strong understanding of the systems that the county runs and operates, and what’s working and what isn’t working. And both, I think, articulated in our own ways, a very clear vision for how we get back on track.

One of the narratives that I have pushed back against was this idea that we’ve tried every compassionate approach and that doesn’t work, and so it’s now time for a law and order approach. Shannon Singleton and I, both, from our own work and years of experience, I think articulated, no, actually, we haven’t done everything we’re supposed to be doing and we should be frustrated by that. And here are the gaping holes and here’s how you can actually fix these systems, so that people are not falling through these cracks. And we haven’t tried that yet. We should be frustrated that those gaps have not been filled, but it is not time to abandon evidence-based compassionate approaches.

To me, that was probably the most heartening of the election results as I looked at my race and I looked at Shannon’s. Although the city is not totally clear, at least from where it seems to be headed, I see a lot of people who had a similar platform of, we can do this right, and we can fix this, and we do not have to turn into a community that has lost all compassion – really seem to carry the day on Tuesday. And that, to me, is incredibly exciting.

Miller: We have just about a minute left. But what are you going to be doing over the next two months as you prepare to take on this new job?

Moyer: Well, I have been really clear that my number one priority, because of my expertise, my background and my passion, is to fix our broken behavioral health system. We do not have a functional mental health treatment and addiction treatment system. So I’m looking to do a deeper dive on the ground-level to make sure that I understand where people are falling through the cracks. And my expertise has always been on, how do you set up funding streams, and how do we use Medicaid and all of those things?

But it’s now time to get my hands dirty on real specifics about how many beds do we need of this type? How many providers are interested in serving some of our unserved population? And what would that take? So I’m really in talking to everybody mode, figuring out how to partner with our state legislators from this area, because it’s going to take a state and local partnership in order to bring services online that we desperately need.

Miller: Meghan Moyer, thanks very much.

Moyer: Thank you.

Miller: Meghan Moyer is a commissioner-elect on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.