2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Not only are diesel engines more efficient, but they can run on recycled-vegetable-oil biodiesel. I think biofuels in general are a long-term dead end (we should be aiming for good batteries, and a sustainable grid), but recycling fry oil and blending it in with our diesel fuel is a way to drop a few cents off the cost of fuel, and reduce emissions by a small amount.

It's unconscionable to disrupt the food supply for fuel, though.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Saying "We created 100,000 jobs" is almost meaningless if those jobs don't pay enough for even a single person working just for their own survival.

Job creation on it's own can't be the priority - creating good jobs is what we should focus on.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

As the candidates describe their plans, I like Obama's - it gives tax benefits to small businesses without giving breaks to the big corporations that are posting record profits despite an economy that has been tightening down on individuals for the past several years.

Tax breaks for homeowners are a double-edged sword, though - they also give tax breaks to the super-rich, who really don't need them. If it were up to me, I'd limit the break to those who own only one home, and put a cap on the value of that home - say $750,000, which is enough to get a nice home in all but the most expensive areas of the country. If someone has a million-dollar house and can't make ends meet, I think they need to re-evaluate their priorities.

I'm not an expert in the housing market, so that number is really a wild guess. And I understand that the current housing market may mean that someone is stuck with a million-dollar house that they can't get rid of. But the housing slump won't last forever, and a tax code based around the slump would give extra benefits to those that don't need them during normal times.

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context

I think one of the problems with the "cheap oil will make us use more oil" versus "Americans were already pretty stretched" debate is mostly a matter of class. For an independent farmer with slim profit margins, driving an old pickup that he can't afford to replace, $4 gas is devastating. For an upper-middle class person who drives a hummer because they can afford to, $4 gas encourages getting a smaller car and better driving habbits.

The only way to balance this is to have cheap gas, but have an inefficiency tax on vehicles sold to individuals (not to businesses - construction firms need trucks, after all).

posted 4 years, 8 months ago
view in context