2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal 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 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 portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Regarding Republican ideas for health care (just mentioned on air), some are pretty strange.  Specifically bartering for health care with chickens:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/health-care_reform_0

Really?  Rather than adopt a universal health care system like every other industrialized wealthy nation (who all pay less, get better public health outcomes, and cover every citizen), we should pay our doctors with chickens?

Until realistic ideas come out of the far right, I'm afraid they'll continue to be characterized as nutters...

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I wandered by the Tea Party shindig in Corvallis on 4/15.  My goals were basically:

1) Find out who they were

2) Find out what they know, as distinct from what they think they know

3) To the extent that there was a gap, provide information

4) Thank them for taking the time to care and be active

It was a bit depressing.

1) Overwhelmingly older folks, mostly with family members

2) They thought that Obama was "socialist", responsible for the national debt, and some even thought he was a dictator despite having been democratically elected by a larger margin than his predecessor, and this irritated them greatly.

2) Although most of them received Social Security and Medicare, not a one thought that they were "socialist", nor did they want those programs eliminated.  They thought "OmamaCare" was "socialist" despite the fact that it isn't even single payer, much less single provider.

3) I told them that SS and MC weren't savings accounts, but wealth transfers from one generation to the next.  From me to them, for instance.  They were unmoved.  I told them that there are three dozen countries who all pay less for health care, get better overall public health results, and cover all citizens. Some are socialist, some not.  Wouldn't it make sense to spend less, get more and cover more people?  NO!

4) At the end, all were quite respectful when approached that way.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Perhaps a tax increase on people that *do* have discretionary income would be appropriate? A luxury tax, estate tax, etc.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

"I would like to see the legislator pass a tax for children everyone wants there kids to get a good education well it is time the people who have the children pay for there education."

Err, education is important for all citizens, whether or not they have kids in school. Without it, we'd have a citizenry that can't differentiate "their" from "there" from "they're", legislators from the legislature, and perhaps be prone to garbled run-on sentences...

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Regarding raising taxes, my sense is that we should:

* Increase the gas tax by a penny per gallon every month for at least a year. The increase will be lost in the everyday volatility of gas prices, thus traumatizing no one. But it will raise necessary revenue and give encouragement to citizens to buy energy efficient vehicles on their next purchase.

* Keep the estate tax, but make it graduated. Exempt the first million or two, but then increase it with every additional 5 million until the top rate is reached.

* If we cut taxes, they should be income taxes on the middle class. These additional funds in citizen pockets have a far greater chance of being spent in the economy than upper bracket tax cuts or estate tax cuts, which fall purely on discretionary income.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The primary benefit as I understand it is that of emissions: it's easier to scrub pollution at a single central power plant than it is at a million tail-pipes.

Also, as we bring more solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources into the grid electric vehicles would automatically "update" their power supply without the need to update the hardware of the car (as you might find with a diesel conversion kit, etc.)

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

What about the potential of growing plants that are effectively weeds on marginal lands?

Consider hemp, a crop currently grown in Canada, that yields seeds (for oil and/or food), stalks (for fiber), and residual plant material that could serve as an input in a biogas digester (for fertilizer and methane). Yet it is a very robust plant that can grow in many circumstances with minimal inputs: aka a weed.

We wouldn't take land out of food production, we'd be bringing marginal land into production. And with the low energy inputs, we'd displace much more fossil fuel than with corn ethanol.

If the government were to enact rational policies regarding hemp, it could be a very valuable crop indeed.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context