Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook RSS


The Register Guard – EDITORIAL

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

A risky option…

A proposal to privatize the United States’ air traffic control system has surfaced again…

Last year, GOP Congressman Bill Shuster, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, introduced a bill that would have dismantled the air traffic control system and turned its functions and responsibilities over to a private, nonprofit corporation…

This is not a system to be discarded lightly or turned over to private interests without an assurance that the prosperity and security of the United States would be as well-served under private management as it has been under public…

…[Rep. Peter] DeFazio argued that privatization would “tear apart aviation programs, risk unnecessary duplication and complexity, and ultimately cost money for taxpayers and travelers.”…

Any move to dismantle the existing system for a new, untried system with the potential for massive conflicts of interest should be firmly squashed.

We Respond & Your Comments

“As a traditional government agency constrained by federal budget rules and micromanaged by Congress, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is poorly suited to run what amounts to a capital-intensive, high-tech service business.” So declared Clinton and Obama administration policy expert Dorothy Robyn in a Brookings Institution study.

“A look at the five countries where private groups handle air traffic shows there need not be any safety risks” according to

One report charges that the FAA is using “technology from the World War II era.”

Private enterprise is almost always preferable to government control. And when Progressive statists such as The Register Guard, New York Times and Rep. Defazio line up against private enterprise we get suspicious.

We say if private air traffic control is good enough for Canada and other countries it’s probably good enough for us!


Tax based on exorbitant CEO pay makes sense

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

By Steve Novick

For The Register-Guard

Over the past 40 years, economic inequality in the United States has skyrocketed. The richest 1 percent now receives about 20 percent of total national income, up from 10 percent in the 1970s. Most of the increase has actually gone to the super-rich, the top one-tenth of 1 percent…

One of the most dramatic examples of galloping inequality is exploding CEO pay. In the 1960s, the typical CEO of a large corporation made about 20 times what the median worker at that company made. Now, CEOs routinely make hundreds of times what the median worker makes…

In 2014, two members of the California Senate came up with an innovative idea: Apply a higher corporate tax rate to corporations with extreme ratios of CEO pay to typical worker pay…

As a member of the Portland City Council, I read about that idea and thought it was brilliant…

We Respond & Your Comments

Steve – We truly feel you feeling “The Little Guy’s” pain. And we’ll take you seriously when you start whining about:

  • George Clooney and other liberal actors making gazillions more than “The Little Guy” schlepping cables on their movie sets;
  • Barbra Streisand and other ageing pop stars earning tons more than “The Little Guys” adjusting their microphones;
  • Whoopi Goldberg and other liberal TV celebs taking home buckets more than the “The Little Guy” mopping the floor of her set.

Just one more thing, Steve – What is it that you so dislike about CEOs? Is it that they actually produce something? That they create jobs for “The Little Guy”? Think about it.


House Democrats need Republicans for solutions to Oregon’s problems: Editorial

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

By The Oregonian Editorial Board 

Democratic legislators in the lopsided House of Representatives don’t need Republican votes to get what they want this session. Aside from bills to raise revenue, the Democrats can accomplish much on their agenda with a simple majority, something they handily own with the party’s 35-25 dominance in the House…

… good legislation is not created in echo chambers. The strongest policies emerge only after a process of challenging assumptions, debating impacts and negotiating compromises that address the problems while limiting unintended consequences…

One-party rule doesn’t serve Oregonians well no matter which party is in charge. It doesn’t promote rigorous debate that considers the fiscal impacts as well as the social benefits of public spending…

We Respond & Your Comments

Our point here isn’t that Democrats need Republicans or vice versa.

It’s that our Founding Fathers built a system based on slowing down change (including legislation) and doing the hard work of governing.

Governing means engaging in negotiation that leads to a compromise leaving both sides with equity in legislation. Leave one side closed out and you’ve created a group that wants nothing more than to undo what the other side crammed down their throats.

Each side needs to remember that it won’t be in power forever. And when the outs become the ins they’re salivating to a) dismantle the other side’s agenda and b) do a little cramming of their own.

Our Founders’ system works when it’s used. Let this be a warning to any party in power. Because power is always temporary.


Merkley grills secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson on climate change…

Thursday, January 26, 2017

By Gordon R. Friedman | The Oregonian/OregonLive 

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley on Wednesday questioned U.S. secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson, a former chief executive at Exxon Mobil, about his views on climate change…

Merkley asked Tillerson… if he believes the United States should mitigate the effects of climate change…

“Every one of us in our states are seeing effects on the ground. And as we see that, we know we’re just at the beginning,” Merkley said. “Do you see it as a national security issue?”

Tillerson: “I don’t see it as the imminent national security threat that others do.”…

Merkley turned to the Paris Agreement on climate change and limiting greenhouse gas emissions signed last spring…

We Respond & Your Comments

Get it? Russia’s occupying Eastern Ukraine; China’s building airbases on artificial islands in the South China Sea; Philippine president Duterte screams “Bye bye America.” Israel sees us as an unreliable ally; the Middle East is on fire…

And Sen. Merkley’s asking the next secy. of state about climate change? But wait, there’s more…

According to The Wall Street Journal, Merkley “wanted to know about the mountain pine beetle, an invasive forest species he claimed was expanding as a result of warming.”

Tillerson must have been thinking “The world’s going to hell and this guy’s quizzing me on some damn beetle? How in hell did he get elected?” We confess to wondering the same thing.


The Effect of Mandatory Sick Leave Policies…

Thursday, January 12, 2017
  • Maxford Nelson, Labor Policy Analyst, The Freedom Foundation

Mandatory paid sick leave laws are employment benefit regulations that require employers to provide certain amounts of paid sick leave to employees…

Since San Francisco’s implementation of a citywide paid sick leave law.., at least seven cities and the state of Connecticut have adopted similar laws… Proponents of mandatory paid sick leave laws argue that…employees will no longer have to choose between going to work sick and foregoing pay, public health will improve by keeping sick workers from spreading illness at work, and businesses will profit from healthier employees and lower turnover…

This paper is the first to undertake a comprehensive review…of the most significant… studies of mandatory paid sick leave policies. Several important conclusions…emerge from this analysis:

  • Workplace illness does not appear to be a widespread problem…
  • Most firms voluntarily offer paid sick leave benefits without being required to do so by law…
  • Studies tend to exaggerate employer support for mandatory paid sick leave laws…
  • Consumers, workers and employers are all negatively affected by mandatory paid sick leave policies…
  • Mandatory paid sick leave laws do nothing to reduce turnover…

We Respond & Your Comments

Surprise! Paid sick leave laws, ginned up by “compassionate” politicians to dredge up votes, are like most “Progressive” policies (e.g. minimum wage increases). They:

  • Sound good
  • Don’t work
  • Are expensive
  • Hurt the people they were supposed to help.

We encourage you to click on the link here and read the short “Executive Summary,” where you’ll see even more reasons why mandatory paid sick leave laws accomplish nothing but scoring votes for Progressives.


“Huge betrayal”: Kate Brown angers veterans with cuts despite Measure 96

Thursday, December 29, 2016

By Hillary Borrud

Oregon veterans are taking Gov. Kate Brown to task for proposing millions of dollars less for services than voters might have assumed when they passed Measure 96 in November.

Measure 96 was the most popular measure on the fall ballot, winning 84 percent to 16 percent. It sets aside 1.5 percent of Oregon Lottery funds for services such as education, housing, health care and helping veterans better access their benefits. That’s expected to hit more than $18 million over the next two years.

Brown’s budget, revealed last week, includes that funding as directed. But at the same time, it would spend $10 million less from the general fund than it does in the current budget…

Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, who was a leading advocate for Measure 96, called the governor’s budget proposal “a slap in the face to Oregon voters.”…

We Respond & Your Comments

If Guv Kate, or for that matter, any other politician wants to know why citizens’ trust in and approval of government is as low as it is, all they have to do is read the 141 words above

Or they could just read this summary:

  • Citizens of Oregon gathered enough signatures to put Measure 86 on the ballot;
  • 86% of voters approved it;
  • The governor they elected responded: Go fry ice. I don’t care what you want.

When Kate’s running again and bleating that “Oregon’s brave veterans are my top priority”, she thinks Oregonians will forget what she did to them in 2016. Will we let them?


Demon Oil’s Gotta Go!

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

University of Oregon: Go Fossil Free!

…We call on the University of Oregon…to divest within five years from direct ownership from any commingled funds that include fossil-fuel public equities and corporate bonds…

University of Oregon students stage mock wedding between UO foundation and fossil fuel industry

By Andrew Theen, The Oregonian/OregonLive

…Divest UO Organizers ended their nearly 10-week protest with a mock theater-style event… 

UO Foundation is on the road to divesting in fossil fuels…

By Diane Dietz, The Register-Guard

The University of Oregon Foundation confirmed Monday that it plans to end its investment in “carbon-based fuel sources.”…

We Respond & Your Comments

In June we showed that divestiture of energy stocks is merely an empty gesture . Today we speak directly to our energy obsessed “Greenies.”…

Hey, Greenies, now that you’ve convinced adults, who should know better, to divest energy stocks, how about you divest some of your stuff you wouldn’t have without demon oil? Stuff like:

  • Cars – even your puny 121 horsepower Priuses. Where do you think electricity comes from? Anyway, my model airplane has more power;
  • Air conditioning – powered by fossil fuels. When you’re broiling next August just remind yourself how righteously green you are;
  • Your precious iphones & iPods. How much oil did it take to manufacture & ship them to you? Divest them and save a polar bear.

It sure was fun lecturing other people about sacrificing for your green obsession, wasn’t it? Now go back to school. You have much to learn.


From WHO WILL PAY THE [Measure 97] TAX?

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The vast majority of the more than 400,000 active businesses in Oregon will be unaffected by this measure …

We Respond & Your Comments

“This measure” refers to Measure 97 which, if passed by Oregonians this November, will levy a 2.5% tax on gross revenue over $25 million earned in Oregon by “C ” class Oregon corporations, which are those taxed separately from their owners.

Here’s how, according to a local CEO, her small retail operation will be affected:

  • She buys a shipment of oranges from a grower
  • Next she sends it to a processor
  • Then she has it packaged

If all these vendors are subject to the Measure 97 tax, each will pay a tax of 2.5% on the money our retailer pays them. When they all pass this new cost along to her she’s looking at a 7.5% increase in cost of goods.

She’s also expecting, thanks to Measure 97, similar increases in utility, phone and many other bills.

The “vast majority” of Oregon businesses will be “unaffected” by Measure 97? Not on your life.


From WHO WILL PAY THE [Measure 97] TAX?

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Only the largest corporations doing business in Oregon — C corporations with more than $25 million in Oregon sales — will pay the new minimum tax. In fact, a report by the Legislative Revenue Office shows that 85% of the revenue raised by the measure will be paid by corporations with more than $100 million in Oregon sales. These are some of the largest corporations in the world.

The vast majority of the more than 400,000 active businesses in Oregon will be unaffected by this measure. In fact, less than one quarter of 1% of all businesses operating in the state will see their taxes go up…

We Respond & Your Comments

Gee, that’s not so bad, is it? Only those big, evil, greedy corporations would pay Measure 97 taxes. Right? Anyway, it’s “for the children.” Sounds pretty good – stick it to a corporation and get free stuff for the kiddies! What’s wrong with that?

Plenty’s wrong. According to Fred Thompson, director of the Willamette Center for Governance and Public Policy Research, “The 1,000 corporations directly affected by Measure 97 employ 40 percent of the state’s business labor force, [and] account for…over half of its private-sector wages.”

You mean those dastardly corporations hire people? Who would have thought it? Certainly not the “Yes on 97” gang.

As for the “vast majority” of Oregon businesses being “unaffected” by Measure 97 –  more on that later.


Corporate tax: Dueling PACs raise millions

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

By Gordon Friedman, Statesman Journal

Two groups campaigning on opposite sides of a ballot measure that would increase corporate taxes have raised millions of dollars ahead of the Nov. 8 election.

The proposed tax, called Measure 97, would create a 2.5 percent tax on sales exceeding $25 million for some corporations.

Our Oregon, the group supporting the tax, has raised $1.5 million so far. The money is from just two donations of $750,000 each by the Oregon Education Association and SEIU Local 503, the state’s largest public sector unions…

Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat with longstanding ties to public sector labor groups, endorsed the measure last week

We Respond & Your Comments

Were we less cynical we’d think the Oregon education Association (OEA) and the SEIU were dumping big bucks into Measure 97 because they want to buy more crayons and PCs for our kiddies.

But OEA and SEIU are unions, not child welfare agencies. Their mandate is to grab more money for their members, not do nice stuff for children. They’re behind Measure 97 because they know it’ll line their union members’ pockets. Period.

And Guv Kate’s with them because she knows a boatload of Measure 97 loot will be find its way into her 2018 campaign coffers.

Don’t say we didn’t warn you.