Morillo, with her snarky and strange X posts, will help continue to degrade and destroy Portland. Businesses will continue to flee, tax revenues plunge, vacancy rates soar, and cops will leave as insane policies like spending $10 million on a group of cop haters to manage police discipline will drive the best of PPB into retirement or other employment.
Great show. It’s good for people to hear the undue influence that business interests have expected and enjoyed for far too long. The irony that they blame new DSA electeds for the problems that their influence, and garbage champions like Ted Wheeler, have caused in Portland.
Councilor Morillo’s direct messaging is an incredible tool in fighting through the BS. Such as the red baiting attacks that weak Democrats always run from. As long as it is effective with low info democrats, the right will continue to disingenuously attack that if you’re not 100% blindly pro-cop then you hate the police, if you’re not 100% blindly pro-business then you are anti-business, if you’re not 100% nationalist then you hate America. DSA candidates are not afraid to push past the childish labels and reclaim the policy sphere for real public safety, real community enrichment, and pride in an American Dream that for once includes every single person.
Mike, you called this episode a “rebuttal” to your conversation with Jon Isaacs yet you neglected to ask Angelita to respond to one of the two main points Jon hammered on—that DSA’s leadership actively calls for the abolition of the nuclear family.
I thought it was disingenuous when you didn’t even bother to ask about one of DSA’s most controversial positions. It was a discredit to Jon to call this a rebuttal but wouldn’t even bring up his most compelling argument. He literally said, most Portlanders don’t know that DSA’s leaders are calling for the end of traditional families and with this interview, you did nothing to bring it to light. Was that intentional? After all, Jon did say Portland voters would be alarmed if they knew this was DSA’s stance.
As a former public safety official, surely you’ve seen the challenging statistics around poverty, crime, education, etc. for children who don’t grow up in two parent households. A bit puzzling you didn’t think to question Angelita on this.
I think you misread my argument. I don’t think people against the PFA program or tax should be labeled “anti-family.” You can be pro-program and against how it’s funded or run — that’s actually my understanding of the Metro Chamber’s position, and for some of the reasons you raise.
Your criticisms of the program are well taken. Voters approved this originally, but after living with it, they may feel differently now — I don’t know. I hear a lot of complaints, but it’s hard to know if the loud voices represent a majority of voters.
My actual point was narrower: I find it hard to accept the premise that the DSA is “anti-family” when they were so instrumental in passing PFA. In the interview with Jon, he cited comments from a group leader at some convention — that’s evidence someone within the group has expressed anti-family sentiment. But a speech from one person doesn’t convince me the broader movement is anti-family. I’ve watched Bernie Sanders for years, and he’s never struck me as anti-family — quite the opposite.
So: being against PFA doesn’t make you anti-family, agreed. But advocating for it is decent evidence you’re pro-family in my book. Thanks for listening!
It wasn’t an intentional omission. TBH - I thought that was one of the weakest points made by Jon. It’s been the DSA folks fighting hard for preschool for all, while the chamber has been hostile to the program.
Hard for me to say DSA is anti-family when they have been some of loudest voices on the issue most directly impacting parents with small children in our region.
But your question makes me think that maybe that’s not well known.
Also - both interviews were long! And I’d like to keep that conversation going…I think we really have to wrestle with the policy direction these two distinct groups are pulling in.
I’m hoping to have a part 2 to the debate — there were a lot more questions I wanted to put to Jon, and more for DSA as well. I appreciate you highlighting this though - because that tells me that there are at least some people who honestly want to hear that issue addressed.
I’d push back on the framing that the “DSA fought for PFA, so how can they be anti-family”.
The fight isn’t about the program, as you know, the fight is about the tax policy, and conflating the two is how you avoid defending the tax on its own terms.
Everyone I know who is considering moving cites this tax. Of Multnomah County’s roughly 400,000 tax filers, just 36,233 paid PFA in 2024, about 9%. And only 5,833 of them, the ones earning over $500,000, carried 74% of the entire program.
So acting like the critics of the tax are against the program is preposterous. They are against the way it’s funded principally (not to mention how it’s been rolled out and the lack of accountability), and believe this is a great idea that should be expanded out of the general fund at the state level.
If it’s so great, shouldn’t it be widely available in more than 1 county out of 36 counties in our state? So you move across BHH to a random pocket in Washington County and suddenly you don’t pay the tax? Make that make sense.
Let’s call a spade a spade. Preschool For All lets the DSA get behind a tax policy that impacts a class of people that this crowd considers “wealthy”. That fits.
And it’s worth debating that definition.
Is a single Portlander earning $125,000 “wealthy”? They are one of the top 9% of filers who pay this tax. In fact, Angelita Morillo’s council salary is $133,207, which puts her just over the line. She pays the PFA tax herself, likely only $120. That’s why I suspect she doesn’t have a problem with the funding source and the strategy.
Finally, the tell is in that they have repeatedly refused to index it to inflation. If they had, the tax wouldn’t start until about $153,000 for a single filer this year. Instead the threshold stays frozen while cost-of-living raises quietly dragging more filers in so they can “claim” there are more of them each year (more on Mitch Green’s report later). That’s good politics not good policy.
I’d love to see the legislature attack this issue this next session. Let’s consider expanding Preschool Promise universally to 4s and 3s across the state so kids in Clackamas and Washington County can access the same programs that parents in Hillsdale can.
Thanks Mike, appreciate the reply and enjoyed you and Jon ripping packs of baseball cards on-air.
The ideas DSA support sound nice but the local execution isn’t there:
1. You mentioned Preschool For All but last year our family and about 1/3 of others were rejected. With $600 million in unspent funds, it’s hard to square why the rollout has been so slow. It’s not like they’re building new facilities—it’s basically a voucher program for existing preschools. Even this year, I know multiple families who were turned away.
2. Angelita mentioned she loved when people bring up data, but the analytics show we are worse off in education, economics and solving homelessness. She spoke a lot about passing amendments but in what measurable way are Portlanders better off? And please don’t mention Donald Trump—the left needs a better plan than blaming him for everything.
3. On a personal note, I’ve found many things DSA leaders stand for to be abhorrent, including the abolition of the nuclear family and Mirah Wood retweeting “Long live the Ayatollah”, even before the war, as he was in the midst of slaughtering tens of thousands of his own people. Again, these are DSA leaders in their own words. Going a layer deeper, it’s not a stretch to say the DSA has been quite anti-Semitic.
I hope you do have Part II of your debate and I’d love to hear you ask Angelita for data on how Portlanders are better off when it comes to our local economy, education and addressing homelessness. And if you’re going to ask “what does DSA stand for?”, then I think it’s fair to question their leaders’ remarks on the nuclear family, publicly praising for murderous dictators, refusing to renounce terms like Globalize the Intifada (Mamdani) and other DSA criticisms.
This conversation would be a lot different with Lars moderating - luckily he has a show - if you want his take on things.
The mod squad interview was actually the first - it was the Jon Isaacs interview. Go back and give it a listen.
My goal is to let people speak and draw out their thoughts - I’m not trying to debate. I do try to ask questions that force guests wrestle with what I think their critics would ask.
Thanks for listening and the feedback. I will absolutely continue to pursue guests that I think are interesting and have a thoughtful perspective- whether or not I necessarily agree with it.
Morillo, with her snarky and strange X posts, will help continue to degrade and destroy Portland. Businesses will continue to flee, tax revenues plunge, vacancy rates soar, and cops will leave as insane policies like spending $10 million on a group of cop haters to manage police discipline will drive the best of PPB into retirement or other employment.
I see Josh is still the same old crank he's always been. Lol. At least we can count that.
Great show. It’s good for people to hear the undue influence that business interests have expected and enjoyed for far too long. The irony that they blame new DSA electeds for the problems that their influence, and garbage champions like Ted Wheeler, have caused in Portland.
Councilor Morillo’s direct messaging is an incredible tool in fighting through the BS. Such as the red baiting attacks that weak Democrats always run from. As long as it is effective with low info democrats, the right will continue to disingenuously attack that if you’re not 100% blindly pro-cop then you hate the police, if you’re not 100% blindly pro-business then you are anti-business, if you’re not 100% nationalist then you hate America. DSA candidates are not afraid to push past the childish labels and reclaim the policy sphere for real public safety, real community enrichment, and pride in an American Dream that for once includes every single person.
Mike, you called this episode a “rebuttal” to your conversation with Jon Isaacs yet you neglected to ask Angelita to respond to one of the two main points Jon hammered on—that DSA’s leadership actively calls for the abolition of the nuclear family.
I thought it was disingenuous when you didn’t even bother to ask about one of DSA’s most controversial positions. It was a discredit to Jon to call this a rebuttal but wouldn’t even bring up his most compelling argument. He literally said, most Portlanders don’t know that DSA’s leaders are calling for the end of traditional families and with this interview, you did nothing to bring it to light. Was that intentional? After all, Jon did say Portland voters would be alarmed if they knew this was DSA’s stance.
As a former public safety official, surely you’ve seen the challenging statistics around poverty, crime, education, etc. for children who don’t grow up in two parent households. A bit puzzling you didn’t think to question Angelita on this.
Thank you for the comment and engagement.
I think you misread my argument. I don’t think people against the PFA program or tax should be labeled “anti-family.” You can be pro-program and against how it’s funded or run — that’s actually my understanding of the Metro Chamber’s position, and for some of the reasons you raise.
Your criticisms of the program are well taken. Voters approved this originally, but after living with it, they may feel differently now — I don’t know. I hear a lot of complaints, but it’s hard to know if the loud voices represent a majority of voters.
My actual point was narrower: I find it hard to accept the premise that the DSA is “anti-family” when they were so instrumental in passing PFA. In the interview with Jon, he cited comments from a group leader at some convention — that’s evidence someone within the group has expressed anti-family sentiment. But a speech from one person doesn’t convince me the broader movement is anti-family. I’ve watched Bernie Sanders for years, and he’s never struck me as anti-family — quite the opposite.
So: being against PFA doesn’t make you anti-family, agreed. But advocating for it is decent evidence you’re pro-family in my book. Thanks for listening!
First of all - thanks for listening.
It wasn’t an intentional omission. TBH - I thought that was one of the weakest points made by Jon. It’s been the DSA folks fighting hard for preschool for all, while the chamber has been hostile to the program.
Hard for me to say DSA is anti-family when they have been some of loudest voices on the issue most directly impacting parents with small children in our region.
But your question makes me think that maybe that’s not well known.
Also - both interviews were long! And I’d like to keep that conversation going…I think we really have to wrestle with the policy direction these two distinct groups are pulling in.
I’m hoping to have a part 2 to the debate — there were a lot more questions I wanted to put to Jon, and more for DSA as well. I appreciate you highlighting this though - because that tells me that there are at least some people who honestly want to hear that issue addressed.
I’d push back on the framing that the “DSA fought for PFA, so how can they be anti-family”.
The fight isn’t about the program, as you know, the fight is about the tax policy, and conflating the two is how you avoid defending the tax on its own terms.
Everyone I know who is considering moving cites this tax. Of Multnomah County’s roughly 400,000 tax filers, just 36,233 paid PFA in 2024, about 9%. And only 5,833 of them, the ones earning over $500,000, carried 74% of the entire program.
So acting like the critics of the tax are against the program is preposterous. They are against the way it’s funded principally (not to mention how it’s been rolled out and the lack of accountability), and believe this is a great idea that should be expanded out of the general fund at the state level.
If it’s so great, shouldn’t it be widely available in more than 1 county out of 36 counties in our state? So you move across BHH to a random pocket in Washington County and suddenly you don’t pay the tax? Make that make sense.
Let’s call a spade a spade. Preschool For All lets the DSA get behind a tax policy that impacts a class of people that this crowd considers “wealthy”. That fits.
And it’s worth debating that definition.
Is a single Portlander earning $125,000 “wealthy”? They are one of the top 9% of filers who pay this tax. In fact, Angelita Morillo’s council salary is $133,207, which puts her just over the line. She pays the PFA tax herself, likely only $120. That’s why I suspect she doesn’t have a problem with the funding source and the strategy.
Finally, the tell is in that they have repeatedly refused to index it to inflation. If they had, the tax wouldn’t start until about $153,000 for a single filer this year. Instead the threshold stays frozen while cost-of-living raises quietly dragging more filers in so they can “claim” there are more of them each year (more on Mitch Green’s report later). That’s good politics not good policy.
I’d love to see the legislature attack this issue this next session. Let’s consider expanding Preschool Promise universally to 4s and 3s across the state so kids in Clackamas and Washington County can access the same programs that parents in Hillsdale can.
Thanks Mike, appreciate the reply and enjoyed you and Jon ripping packs of baseball cards on-air.
The ideas DSA support sound nice but the local execution isn’t there:
1. You mentioned Preschool For All but last year our family and about 1/3 of others were rejected. With $600 million in unspent funds, it’s hard to square why the rollout has been so slow. It’s not like they’re building new facilities—it’s basically a voucher program for existing preschools. Even this year, I know multiple families who were turned away.
2. Angelita mentioned she loved when people bring up data, but the analytics show we are worse off in education, economics and solving homelessness. She spoke a lot about passing amendments but in what measurable way are Portlanders better off? And please don’t mention Donald Trump—the left needs a better plan than blaming him for everything.
3. On a personal note, I’ve found many things DSA leaders stand for to be abhorrent, including the abolition of the nuclear family and Mirah Wood retweeting “Long live the Ayatollah”, even before the war, as he was in the midst of slaughtering tens of thousands of his own people. Again, these are DSA leaders in their own words. Going a layer deeper, it’s not a stretch to say the DSA has been quite anti-Semitic.
I hope you do have Part II of your debate and I’d love to hear you ask Angelita for data on how Portlanders are better off when it comes to our local economy, education and addressing homelessness. And if you’re going to ask “what does DSA stand for?”, then I think it’s fair to question their leaders’ remarks on the nuclear family, publicly praising for murderous dictators, refusing to renounce terms like Globalize the Intifada (Mamdani) and other DSA criticisms.
Are you able to share a link to the study she cites regarding the mobility of high income earners? Thank you.
Here’s the study I referenced in the show open: https://www.reed.edu/newsroom/press-releases/2026/reed-college-economist-co-authors-study-on-migration-effects-of-multnomah-county-preschool-for-all-tax.html
https://www.portland.gov/council/districts/4/mitch-green/news/2025/8/20/new-report-councilor-greens-office-debunks-tax
I believe this is what she was referring to
I enjoyed listening to this episode. Thanks, Mike.
This conversation would be a lot different with Lars moderating - luckily he has a show - if you want his take on things.
The mod squad interview was actually the first - it was the Jon Isaacs interview. Go back and give it a listen.
My goal is to let people speak and draw out their thoughts - I’m not trying to debate. I do try to ask questions that force guests wrestle with what I think their critics would ask.
Thanks for listening and the feedback. I will absolutely continue to pursue guests that I think are interesting and have a thoughtful perspective- whether or not I necessarily agree with it.