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 international 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

These guests, on today’s program, generally do not see that if the federal does not balance the federal deficit, which the failure of sun setting would simply exacerbate, not only do the regional partners rely upon the local revenues for funding, which are falling, directly, but the businessmen will themselves contribute to further exacerbation of national debt, and the further de-funding of local projects, indirectly. Indirecly, by insisting upon tax breaks that, from their inception, were designed to increase the national debt, and increase the general stability of state infrastructures.

It's important to remember too WHY the GOP passed the tax cuts with that 'sunset' provision.

The reason was that under the reconciliation procedures they used to pass it (y'know, the same procedure they argued it was un-American to use when Democrats used it) they HAD to sunset the provision because the tax cuts added massively to our deficit and their projections proved that it would. Since the reconciliation rules were intended only for bills that would REDUCE the deficit, they HAD to sunset the law to qualify the bill to be passed under them (Democrats have since modified the rules to disallow this sort of trickery, and ensure that bills passed under reconciliation will definitely reduce the deficit, which ought to say something about which party is really concerned with reducing it.)

In other words, that Republican majority KNEW the bologna they now regularly spew about how tax cuts increase revenue was complete nonsense.

"eighty cents" is a fair deal to all concerned. 

A twenty cent toll to interregional transportation will make for a better region. Presently the relationship between Portland and Vancouver rather more resembles the San Diego / Tijuana divide, than two cities between American States.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Sarah Jane Rothenfluch explains the guest selection parameters in "[url=http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/posts/list/1750211.page]Candidate Conversations: Secretary of State[/url]." That 'think out loud' segment posted Mon, Oct 20, 2008.

Sarah Specifically states that in regard to including third party candidate seth wooly, "For these conversations we chose to include the top two candidates -- those who have received significant campaign financing, who have proof of running a state-wide campaign and, where possible, have evidence of a measurable showing in a district-wide poll. While I have no doubt that Mr. Woolley is thoughtful and well qualified, unfortunately for this discussion the top two candidates were Kate Brown and Rick Dancer. I do encourage you to take a look back at our Primary Conversation about the Secretary of State race when we included a number of candidates. Thank you."

One notes that position is taken despite proposition 65, which is on this year's ballot.

Ironic that a YES vote on the proposition: "CHANGES general election nomination processes for most partisan offices; all candidates run in single primary; top two primary candidates compete in the general election."

Seems OPB anticipates election outcome. At best it was an unfortunate position that OPB took.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

RE: Seth Woolley

Dear Sarah,

With all due appreciation of the fine program which did take place, the station makes a statement regarding proposition 65, ?the nomination processes for major minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices? proposition.

Notice this proposition 65, which is on this year's ballot, states that a YES vote: "[b]CHANGES[/b] general election nomination processes for most partisan offices; all candidates run in single primary; top two primary candidates compete in the general election."

Despite the 'proposed' change, the reponse you make to Joseph Knight suggests the station maintains that proposition should pass, but also that the station behaves apriori as though the proposition already entered law, and good scheduling guidelines.

All kidding aside,I object. A third party candidate in this very important election year, who is on the final ballot, say Seth Woolley, deserves a coffee break?s worth of equal time. I am surprised OPB chose not to provide it to the extent it might fair-mindedly insure, at least until such time as Proposition 65 does pass... or not. What will the station do if 65 does not pass?

Thank you, Sarah.

Yes, i voted against 65, and will never know if i might have supported Seth. I do look forward to another opportunity to take issue with your policy, if only during some future primary.

ps. I end by pointing out this exclusion of Seth Wooly was not singular. In the discussion of[url=http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/posts/list/1/1736209.page#2123615]Candidate Conversation: State Treasurer[/url], several take umbrage with the station policy of 3rd party exclusion from debate.

most sad

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context