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

Required reading:  Elizabeth Warren's book "The Two-Income Trap."  Throwing more money at higher ed, whether through increased taxes, student loans, or any other means, simply encourages spending and tuition increases. 

The solution is to make the tough choices.  Are stadiums and athletic programs really needed?  Is there duplication of programs across different institutions?  Is administration bloated?  Are tenured faculty any better than contract teachers from the private sector?  As long as we add money without increasing efficiency the system will continue to drain the wallets of parents who want a good education for their children. 

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

(trying again, might be a problem with the website)

Limiting population growth must be on the table at Copenhagen.  Most of the strategies being discussed to limit carbon emissions are expensive and rely on unproven or undeveloped technology.   Furthermore, if we become more efficient but add more people who produce carbon emissions we won't make progress on reducing emissions.  Reducing population by comparison is simple and can be done today.  Policymakers continue to avoid an easy and workable way to reduce carbon because of the conflict with religious groups and economists that still believe unsustainable population growth is the solution to our problems.  We can no longer tolerate this kind of ignorance.  

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context

The idea that "growth equals jobs" is a fallacy.  Growth may create construction jobs, but the current crash in the construction industry is clear proof of this fallacy.  I know plenty of people who moved to Portland without a job, just to be in the area and try to find employment with the hope of staying here.  Some left, a few stayed.  Job creation is more complex.  Job creation requires an educated work force, infrastructure for commerce, good transportation, resources for industry or services, an economy and tax structure that encourages business creativity, and many other factors.  If we want jobs, we have a harder task ahead of us.  Don't expand the UGB to increase employment; it won't work. 

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Often governments present us with false choices.  Instead of assuming (and thus encouraging) people moving to the region, we have a third choice:  look at ways to discourage growth.  One growth-control mechanism that hasn't been discussed is systems development charges (SDCs) that require new residents to pay for the incremental services they need.  Today, current residents shoulder most of the financial burden of growth. 

The main issue preventing SDCs is that developers lobby against them in Salem.  We need to shut down this lobby and give this idea, and others that control growth, a fair public debate. 

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The kicker happens so rarely that we are fooling ourselves to think diverting it will build a rainy-day fund.  A longstanding principle of prudent financial planning is to save first before spending.  The state should put money into the rainy-day fund every year, in good times and bad, before spending one dime of taxpayer money.  If we did this, our budget problems would be gone in ten or fifteen years, for good. 

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I'm an artist, and while it's unfortunate the OCT funds were diverted, Oregonians should not complain about the state funding important programs from what's already in the bank.  The big issue here is that Oregonians don't want to pay for the programs they insist on the state providing.  If we could work together to accept reasonable taxes on "untouchable" things such as gasoline, liquor, wine, and beer, with citizen oversight on how the funds are used, the OCT wouldn't need to be raided. 

I do think that the money needs to be returned when the economy recovers, and legislators will be accountable for that when I cast my vote in the future. 

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The controversy over the Columbia Crossing bridge project highlighted an ongoing denial of realities in our region.  Currently Metro, in partnership with Portland, plans to have one million new residents in the region by 2040.  If policies were in place to reduce the number of new residents significantly, then the number of lanes for the bridge could have been reduced from the recommended twelve.  Instead, we swallowed hard and will build twelve lanes.  We can't have an inconsistent policy that on the one hand invites new people to the region, and on the other hand fails to provide the transportation services needed to support them. 
 
Both Metro and the City of Portland are hamstrung because they attempt to control growth by saying "no" to infrastructure while saying "yes" to housing development.  There are other ways to control growth that limit growth and fund necessary infrastructure, such as system development charges or limits on building permits.  If the energy that's expended in these endless debates were funneled into creating a better system for controlling growth rather than encouraging it, our quality of life would not be in the danger that it is now.  Sustainability cannot be achieved when we are constantly playing catch-up to overpopulation.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

If you've read Richard Dawkins, you know that the three most attention-getting things for humans are danger, food, and sex.  That's what you see on the evening news.  One of the reasons audiences are moving to the Web is that they know this at some level and have a desire to seek out information on other topics besides those three. 

Interesting example:  One night, Fox 12 news had a "Dirty Dining" segment about dangerous food in a strip club.  They combined all three into one segment. 

All news media needs to appreciate that going toward more sensationalism won't solve the problem.  Providing more variety and individualized access to more and better content might help.  

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

It's too bad Paul Ehrlich isn't on the show today.  Your guests seem to have accepted that population growth is inevitable.  The key to a sustainable future is a sustainable population.  The easiest way to reduce resource consumption is to have fewer consumers. 

We humans have to learn to stop breeding if we want to have a sustainable quality of life rather than the declining one we are beginning to see. 

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I've subscribed for 28 years and it's sad to see how the Oregonian has declined.  The changes are exactly the opposite of what I expect to see.  I'd much rather see the "Living" section (now "how we live") shrink than the news, business, auto, or sports sections. 

What I find especially frustrating about the Oregonian's web site are that it's difficult to navigate.  Also, the search capability is poor.  Entering verbatim text from a published article often produces no hits online.  To access the archives, which I have done before for research purposes, requires payment.  And I've been a subscriber for 28 years!  Subscribers should have free access to what's now paid content online.  We have supported the paper and should get something back in return for that.  Now that's a model that might sell more subscriptions. 

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

One idea I've not heard is eliminating the state income tax exemption for dependent children for more than two kids. Large families put the greatest burden on the school system, but they do not contribute enough to the funding to educate students. If we phased in the change over a period of 18 years, parents could plan families accordingly and the schools would receive more money to lengthen the school year.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context