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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

From what I remember of the last kicker, it cost a tremendous amount of money to actually send out the checks to every Oregon taxpayer (according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy, this cost about one million dollars to do http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=iss071026kicker).

The cost to refund alone is enough to reconsider the kicker in its current form. Along with others on this blog, I also feel the kicker system is shortsighted. I would like to see other, smarter options for revenue excesses such as a system (perhaps a state bank that cascadian mentioned) that would set aside money for loans to small enterprise, grants, public projects, preventive health measures, etc. so that we can take that million + and help create innovative projects for our state.

Clearly the last kicker in 2007 could have helped us out in our current downturn... I resent that those who pushed for a constitutional kicker are now the ones saying the government is inept at budgeting, even though everyone should know that budgeting in a recession is next to impossible. Lets think more long-sighted than short for once.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Its much easier to blame the individual than to examine the complexities of the environment, physiology, politics, food industry power, and economics that contribute to the end result of poor nutrition our society is now dealing with. Its called an "epidemic" for a reason, not because several million people suddenly decided, individually, to adopt unhealthy behaviors.

Saying it is an individual's choice alone while ignoring these myriad factors is not only faulty, its simply irresponsible. Whether you think you are or not, we ALL pay the price for obesity-related illness.

Addressing public health issues require a comprehensive approach, including but not limited to education, taxes, and policies that support healthy living. History shows us that it cannot be done with a simple "free market" approach, it takes a lot more than that to turn things around.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

While alcohol use and abuse is a significant problem for health and our society, simply by the numbers, tobacco causes a SIGNIFICANTLY higher number of deaths and related illness, of which the cost is then passed on to the public and our society. It is taxed in order to recover the cost that society bears, and concurrently, discourage new smokers from picking up the addiction and keep youth from wanting to smoke (as they are much more price sensitive than addicted adult smokers are).

While the Master Settlement Agreement does ban tobacco from being advertised to kids, in practice this is not the case. Go in to any convenience store and you're inundated with posters, lighted cigarette displays, floor mats, penny catchers, and other brightly colored, catchy looking tobacco advertisements. Why are these ads created in ways that are attractive to youth, if they weren't intended for this market demographic?

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context