Dave Porter: we need a substantial, national, revenue-neutral gas tax. Such a tax would be transformational for our foreign policy, for our energy policies, JK: Why not just use our domestic supples that are now off limits?

Dave Porter: for our environmental policies, JK: How does a gas tax help our environmental policies? All I can see it doing is hurting low income people. Do you care about low income people? To the extent that some people think forcing people into mass transit is a good thing, they need to realize that mass transit uses MORE energy than small cars. (Look at the numbers!) If you really want to save energy, encourage small cars, not costly, smoke belching mass transit. (Remember that MAX is about 50% powered by belching coal plants.)

Dave Porter: and for our economic development policies. JK: How does a tax help economic development? The best it can do is shovel money at politician’s pet projects. Few such projects actually work. A classic is financing solar panels that produce electricity at TEN or more times the cost of the grid. Simply Stupid. But it’s government.

Wind power disappeared during the recent cold spell in England. Cold. No wind. Bad.

Thanks JK

Nothing that the Governor wants, not one thing, can be considered a permanent improvement in this State until one other thing is addressed (e.g. you might get some of what he wants temporarily, but nothing will be permanent unless...)

Taxation and Revenue.

Oregon's apple cart was upset by Measure 5 in 1990. We have not had one minute of stable government since then, with everything alway in flux watching the income tax revenue go up and down, and State spending having to follow.

It's time, with the historic opportunity of a super majority of Democrats in State government, to get this straightened out. I'm not proposing a sales tax, although some taxation of transactions such as autos or luxury goods might be in line, but rather we re-look at property taxation and income taxation.

We treat all residential property in Oregon equally. Perhaps those second or third homes ought to be taxed at a higher rate. Perhaps luxury condo's on the Oregon Coast that are in use 14 days out of 365 ought to have a higher tax rate. Not all residential properties are equal.

Perhaps we should revisit commercial property taxation. In my little old Central Oregon County alone, a nominal rise in the rate of taxation on commercial property would generate a whole lotta something.

-- Any change in property taxation could be set up to benefit both the Counties (and Cities) and the State. ---

Certainly Oregon should look at a divorce from the Federal income tax system. We really ought to be taxing the upper income levels more than we do. Oregon follows the (I think) ridiculous notion that money earned from investments should be taxed at a lower rate than money earned from labor. They should be taxed at the same rates. The low rate of corporate taxation really ought to be looked at.

There is a lot that could be done on the revenue side to increase and diversify Oregon's revenue stream. Frankly, to improve education K - BA, to provide "adequate" children's and senior services, to provide the prisons and courts with "adequate" funding - we just have to have more money. It need not be too painful to find that money, but there just has to be more.

Cutting State services (e.g. State workers, or contracted out services that employ people) at this time will really hurt the economy. It will hurt a whole lot less to get some new revenue streams to the State.

Anyway, talking only about services provided by State Government without getting into revenue is just a dead end road.

JK-- The revenue-neutral gas tax that Porter is talking about would use the money to reduce payroll taxes... helping low- and middle-income people who work. JK: And how long would that last? Just like the promise to reimburse landowners for the takings under SB100. Never happened.

My guess is that "revenue neutral" will be in name only and get worse from there.

Thanks JK

@ Billy aka JK,

Part of the beauty of a substantial, revenue-neutral gas tax is that it does not require the government to favor any particular form of transportation, - alternatives, small cars or guzzlers. This is why some on the right support a gas tax over government funded subsidies or tax breaks. Let the market, that is pricing, influence consumer behavior. No need for the government to pick between mass transit and cars of any size. No politican’s pet projects, solar or otherwise, are part of this proposal. For more, see the post on my blog titled “Incentives vs Gas Tax: Gingrich vs Friedman, Inglis and Laffer” here. I’d put Governor Kulongoski in Gingrich’s camp (incentives) on this issue.

Environmentally, by pricing gas higher, consumers would use less. To the extent that carbon and other pollutants are in gas, less would be released into the environment.

As for economic development, the big effect comes from the reduction in imported oil (to make the gas). Instead of paying $billions after $billions to a variety of often hostile petro-states around the globe for oil, we would spend the $’s on whatever each individual transportation consumer chooses as an alternative – so small cars, hybrid cars, electric cars, hydrogen cars, some new kind of car, and a variety of forms of mass transit. To the extent that the alternative forms of transportation are made and/or staffed by neighbors, or at least US workers, we are recirculating $’s previously sent abroad into our own communities.

There could be a lesser economic development effect from how we make the gas tax revenue neutral. Under Friedman’s proposal, all the revenue from a gas tax would be used to reduce the payroll tax. This is a generally progressive tax reduction that also, by reducing the cost of an employee to a business, stimulates employment. But there are other ways to make a gas tax revenue neutral that might have different effects. At the state level, for example, would could just split the total gas tax paid equally among all the taxpayers (or licensed drivers, or licensed cars) and send out the checks (like Alaska does with some of its oil money). We could probably do this by county to adjust for rural vehicle use.

And, yes, we should all be concerned about programs running as presented.

The governor all but admitted that alternative modes of transport are NOT sustainable. To be sustainable, both bicyclists and transit passengers must pay their own way because sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability, not extorting motorists with higher taxes and fees to pay for bicycle infrastructure, and to subsidize both transit infrastructure and ongoing transit operations. Instead of actually promoting genuine sustainability that would require a bicycle tax on bicyclists to pay for bicycle infrastructure, and a tax surcharge on transit fares that would both better reflect the true fiscal costs of providing the service, and help pay for the damage two-axle transit busses do to the roads – while behaving like an ivory tower elitist himself being driven around in a state funded town car - the governor’s proposals are all about attempting to control the transportation choices of the working people and people on fixed incomes through calculated manipulation and targeted social engineering.

In 1970, the per capita income in Ireland was $2441 (Germany $3807, France $3775). In 2005, Ireland's Per capita income had risen to $33,199 (Germany $29,853, France $30,401). Ireland now has the second highest per capita income in the EU.

What caused this huge reversal of fortunes? Basically, they got serious about education and they cut their tax rate on business income to 10%, the lowest in Europe. Business flocked to Ireland from all over the world to utilize a well educated workforce and to pay less tax.

My point is that I think Gov. K. has one key element of his plan for long term prosperity at least half right. He wants to emphasize education. Unfortunately, that usually translates to just more money for more of the same. What drove superior education results in Ireland was an emphasis on higher standards. Until we demand more of our students we will continue to enable the majority to coast through school. A state with a workforce with a second class education will never provide us with sustained prosperity.

Where the Governor has it dead wrong is his emphasis on raising money - read increasing taxes. First, he should emphasize effective use of the money the State now receives from its people. Anyone who has had more than a brush with State 'services' and who cannot see blatant waste is either blind or fiscally ignorant. I am not saying there are not legions of hardworking folks employed by the State. They may even be efficient (though I have personally seen little of that) but it is often efficient at things we don't need to have done.

Suggesting that we tax businesses more in a time of recession is a guarantee of increased unemployment.

For more on the topic, read my post "How Much Should We Be Taxed?" at my blog here

How is Oregon spending money is as important as the revenue situation. Every employee of a school district (supt. down to the folks who work part time in a classroom or clean those classrooms) is a public employee. What do administrators do which makes them worth a salary 2 or 3 times that of a teacher? Why do people at the asst. supt. level deserve a car allowance? This was in the SJ.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20090112/NEWS/901120327/1001 Also on Tuesday, the board is scheduled to:

Approve contracts for top district managers:

Glenn Gelbrich, deputy superintendent, who earns $132,913 and has a $3,000 car allowance

Mary Cadez, assistant superintendent for human resources, who earns $121,716 plus a $3,000 car allowance

Rich Goward, chief financial officer, who earns $126,585 plus a $3,000 car allowance

Salam Noor, assistant superintendent for research and development, who earns $60,047 plus a $1,250 car allowance. This is less because he's starting mid-school year.

@ Terry Parker:

he governor all but admitted that alternative modes of transport are NOT sustainable. To be sustainable, both bicyclists and transit passengers must pay their own way because sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability, not extorting motorists with higher taxes and fees to pay for bicycle infrastructure, and to subsidize both transit infrastructure and ongoing transit operations. Instead of actually promoting genuine sustainability that would require a bicycle tax on bicyclists to pay for bicycle infrastructure, and a tax surcharge on transit fares that would both better reflect the true fiscal costs of providing the service, and help pay for the damage two-axle transit busses do to the roads – while behaving like an ivory tower elitist himself being driven around in a state funded town car - the governor’s proposals are all about attempting to control the transportation choices of the working people and people on fixed incomes through calculated manipulation and targeted social engineering.

Jeff Jensen of Portland agrees with you (letter to the Oregonian):

As a bicycle commuter for 17 years, I fully agree with Willie Nyquist's suggestion (Letters, Dec. 9) that we tax bicycles by adding a registration fee. In fact, I would like to suggest that the rate be the same for all vehicles and reflect the relative use of the road. How about $1 a pound?

So how about it? You constantly are calling for bicyclists to pay up -- how about we charge all vehicles an annual fee, $1/lb. to support all modes.

What's needed is not "energy independence" (which will never occur for any state, and is a bizarre goal anyway) but independence from fossil fuels, as suggested in this presser:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE POST CARBON INSTITUTE PROPOSES "REAL NEW DEAL FOR ENERGY, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY" TO INCOMING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION Plan Endorsed By Bill McKibben, Michael Moore, Randy Udall, Lester Brown. SEBASTOPOL, CA, January 13, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Post Carbon Institute today announced the release of "The Real New Deal: Energy Scarcity and the Path to Energy, Economic, and Environmental Recovery," a proposal to the incoming Obama Administration. The plan calls for responding to the current economic crisis with a massive policy and investment shift towards a fossil fuel-independent economy. Noting the urgency to address global fossil fuel depletion and climate change, the "Real New Deal" calls for a series of bold measures to electrify the transportation system, rebuild the electricity grid, relocalize the food system, and retrofit the nation's building stock for both energy efficiency and energy production. The plan's lead author is Post Carbon Institute Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg, author of "The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies" and an internationally recognized expert on fossil fuel depletion. Heinberg said, "While there are many 'new deal' plans being offered to President-elect Obama, our plan recognizes that declining fossil fuel supplies and rising greenhouse gas emissions put us at tremendous and immediate risk. Building more roads and bridges as a stimulus for jobs is the wrong tactic. We must re-engineer our country now to deal with the end of cheap energy and to stop catastrophic climate change." Bill McKibben, author of "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future," remarked, ""The world is up against real limits, limits that will define our future. We're running out of oil and we're running out of atmosphere, and those two alone will change the planet. Let's get ahead of the curve for once." Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore declared, "I strongly endorse 'The Real New Deal.' The Obama administration takes office at one of the most critical moments in our history with a tremendous opportunity and a grave responsibility to take appropriate action." Debbie Cook, former Mayor of Huntington Beach, California and Post Carbon Institute Board President said, "I endorse 'The Real New Deal' as the only sane way to approach the twin challenges of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. We need a systematic, coordinated effort and we don’t have any time to waste." Other endorsers of "The Real New Deal" include Randy Udall (renowned writer; director of Community Office for Resource Efficiency), Lester Brown (founder of Earth Policy Institute and Worldwatch Institute), David Orr (Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics at Oberlin College), and Pat Murphy (founder of The Community Solution and author of Plan C). To view the full plan, visit http://www.postcarbon.org/real-new-deal. Post Carbon Institute, based in Sebastopol, California, conducts research, develops technical tools, educates the public, and informs leaders to help communities around the world understand and respond to the challenges of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. Contact: Asher Miller, Executive Director Post Carbon Institute 707-823-8700 x109 [email protected] http://www.postcarbon.org

...a series of bold measures to electrify the transportation system, rebuild the electricity grid, relocalize the food system, and retrofit the nation's building stock for both energy efficiency and energy production. JK: Do they have a clue that electricity does not come out of thin air and that costs matter? If so, where do they propose getting the electricity, presumable without nuclear, and who pays the bills?

Thanks JK

Remember Karen Minnis being at war with the OEA?

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/behind_the_scen.html

Democrats tried to negotiate. At one point, they offered to split the difference -- take the outstanding figure and let the GOP fund what it wanted while Dems put their half toward schools. The GOP flatly refused. They don't see it as giving money to schools, they see it as going to the OEA. One negotiator reportedly said it bluntly: "we're not giving another dime to the OEA". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, this morning I looked up the salary for the Governor and our other statewide elected officials.

Turns out those district administrators mentioned above make more than the Governor and other statewide officials AND get a car allowance.

If this session's Republicans start in again on how it is all the fault of the teachers union, hit them with those administrative salaries.

It is time to have that debate.

The Governor's plan on health care is not enough. Of course all children should have health care that is a given.

But back when Governor Ted was running for re-election in 2006, I like many volunteers made thousands of calls and knocked on hundreds of doors. We told people to vote the Democratic ticket because the Democrats were going to provide "good jobs, quality schools, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, and safe communities".

Sadly "Affordable health care" is a promise not yet delivered for many Oregonians.

I might have missed something, but in the two years since his re-election this is the first time I've heard him mention health care at all.

Senator Kennedy suffering from brain cancer manages to get to Denver to demand Universal health care coverage at the convention. Governor Ted couldn't be bothered to make it to the conversation. He should have been there as an advocate for universal access to health care.

His piecemeal approach to health care is timid and lacks the vision for the change for which Oregonians voted, and with or without the Gov. will someday achieve.

George Anonymuncule Seldes suggested that bicycles be charged a dollar a pound as a registration fee. Then how about too that dollar a pound be the “ONLY” dollars state and local governments spend on bicycle infrastructure. Bicyclists would be lucky if that paid for a bicycle lane around just one on block Maybe then bicyclists would see the reality of who they are poaching from to fund their freeloading including their egotistical rants for more specialized infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it.

don't the car owners have about 100 years of sprawl, gridlock, pollution and security costs for fuel to reimburse cyclists for, first? You are ignoring the facts: roads are mostly paid for by user fees and home builders. Exceptions are urban renewal districts and some cities. Transit is mostly paid for by non-users.

For honest analysis see: Should We Try To Get The Prices Right?, DELUCCHI, ACCESS NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000, page 12 estimates autos get 6.9 cents/mile subsidy while buses get 16.8 cents/mile subsidy and rail is several times as much! See: portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm

Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation Excerpt: Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs. Transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy See: portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm

Thanks JK

Posted by: Evan Manvel | Jan 12, 2009 3:21:09 PM

Goosebumps at the line: "Oregon is the beating heart of that revolution."

I read that line ant thought, "what possible basis..."? Thanks for the answer. No basis, but it gives the membership goosebumps.

When it comes to fighting climate change, recently I’ve been hearing a chorus of naysayers singing a three-part harmony of – too costly, too burdensome, and too soon.

But this chorus is out of tune – and out of touch – with Oregon’s future.

He's talking about you Carshlock! I was at the speech, and I could have SWORN I heard him add something about shoving a bowling ball sized lump of charcoal up some old guy's ass...must have been my imagination!

In the future, just note, OOT (out of touch) in reference to JK's postings or be considered part of the prob. 4 years of the same rambling has aired everyone's POV! To quote the Guv, "Move on!"

Thanks JK

You're welcome.

I agree that making healthcare available and affordable is a good idea. However, I can't by the apparent contradiction of taxing hospitals and providers in order to make healthcare more available. It seems kind of like bombing for peace. Instead, why not even out Medicare reimbursement rates amongst the 50 states? Why does a procedure in Seattle, Palm Beach or San Diego net the provider more reimbursement than a provider in Roseburg, Portland or Eugene?

On another front - make the Clinton forest Plan actually happen. Another mill in southern Oregon announced their closure yesterday. Without some form of Forest Industry, Oregon will continue to flounder economically.

He's talking about you Carshlock! I was at the speech, and I could have SWORN I heard him add something about shoving a bowling ball sized lump of charcoal up some old guy's ass...must have been my imagination!

Mon dieu, I think you've solved the Oregon economic crisis. Native industrial diamond production! I mean you have to figure with one that tight...

More on subject, I just returned from a month in Ft. Worth and was shocked at the degree to which they are consciously fighting sprawl. Lots of apts right downtown. They make SFB billy look like a bike messenger, by comparison. There's a level in any movement, a tipping point where the usual conservative argument go out the window and there's a stampede to reverse course. I saw it in LA with the environmental movement, when poor blacks started joining Yuppie whites, and now I am seeing it with urban congestion. Billy, you take care of yourself! I want you to live long enough to see how wrong you were. You can dither about places like the West coast, but Texas is as Texas does and it means something there.

Torridjoe - You completely overlooking one thing. Motor vehicle owners have been subsidizing the economy for the last 100 years. One in every ten jobs is tied to the auto industry. Shortly after nine-eleven when the economy plummeted, rather than closing assembly lines, the auto industry rescued the economy with zero percent interest loans. More recently it was National Guard hummers that rescued the emergency services in Gresham when the majority of the city was snow bound. Even bicycle and transit infrastructure are no longer constructed with pick axes, hand shovels, mules, or even user paid dollars. It now takes backhoes, dump trucks, and other motorized equipment along with motorist paid tax dollars to complete the job. Furthermore, it is those same motorized backhoes and dump trucks that build houses, apartment buildings, office buildings and factories. Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability. Therefore it is the bicyclists (and transit users) that owe the motorists a payback, not the other way around.

Terry --

How much money is spent on bicycle lanes and other bicycle amenities? Let's talk federal, state, and local budgets.

It seems to me that your concern is way out of proportion to the dollars involved. Even if we assume that all bicycle-related expenditures are utter waste, don't they total up to something akin to a rounding error?

The elephant is stampeding through the village, and you're worried about the gnat on his ass.

How much money is spent on bicycle lanes and other bicycle amenities? Let's talk federal, state, and local budgets JK: How much road area is taken up by bike lanes on major streets? What is the value of this road area?

Thanks JK

Economic stimulus package.

I think we should shut down all of the coal and natural gas plants in Oregon and hire people to ride electricity generating bikes.

We could be 100% carbon dioxide free.....at least in the energy generation sector. Next we will have to stop all the polluting breathing that humans are doing.

You people make me sick.

we will have to stop all the polluting breathing that humans are doing.

You people make me sick.

OK. You got the order of the statements backward though.

You know, you can have this discussion without any "should", "oughts" or "musts", which leaves the Carschlock, Parkher and Duns out in the cold.

Hmmm. 4 PM. Your attitude couldn't have anything to do with your impending car commute, could it? Congestion doesn't contribute to that.

<hr/>