2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 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 terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

How do you feel about the state sending out kicker checks that are smaller than what it costs the state to process and mail them?  That actually happened last time around.

Speaking about careless use of taxpayer money ... the kicker law ensures that is just what will happen!

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

When we moved back to Oregon in 1993 and learned about the kicker law, we couldn't believe that Oregonians had passed such a ridiculous piece of legislation - and added it to the state constitution, to boot.

The basic premise of the kicker is flawed:  taxpayer refunds are given if the state takes in more in taxes than the state economist predicted. In other words, refunds are based upon a GUESS, an educated guess, but still a guess.

This means that the state can never adequately plan ahead, because we cannot accumulate reserves in good years.  This year, we are learning (?) once again that the state should have a rainy day fund.  If we can't get rid of this ridiculous kicker law, the least we can do is modify its numbers so that the wiggle room is a lot greater than 2%.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Vaccines are not completely safe for all people. They are just safer than the alternative of catching some of the real nasties out there: polio, measles, influenza, smallpox (which MAY have been eliminated, or not...)

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

There should be NO exemptions from required vaccinations except for proven health risks (such as allergies to the vaccines -e.g. when they are made with eggs). The philosophical objections of today's parents illustrate the maxim that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". This generation of parents has no collective memory of the horrible epidemics that used to ravage our populations. When I was a child, I was not allowed to go swimming in a public pool, because that was a great way to catch polio (before the vaccine). Also, I nearly died from measles when I was five. Measles is a known killer, but young adults today have little knowledge of this fact. Your program participant who stated that it is BETTER to get measles is way off base.

There will always be a small risk from vaccines, and I understand that parents want NO risk for their children. Unfortunately, if enough children in a small area (such as Ashland) are not vaccinated for a disease, they put at risk other members of the population who, though once vaccinated, may have reduced immunity because of elapsed time or simply because vaccines don't "take" in a few individuals. These individuals are protected through "herd immunity" - if enough people are successfully vaccinated, diseases simply have no way to spread to the unprotected individuals.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context