As I was catching up on the news and enjoying my coffee this morning, I ran across an article I wasn't overly excited about. (Side note: I found this Pumpkin Spice Coffemate at Safeway and it's fantastic!) Anyway, CNNMoney.com ran a spot on the cities that were being hit by foreclosures. Unfortunately Portland, OR made the list. At first I was thinking, 'Oh great, another article with bad press for Portland.' Then I started to think of the opportunity it presented for people looking to buy right now.
Being that my generation seems to be somewhat economically cursed, this could be great for us. I remember when I was in college, the world was rosy and we were plugging along with the tech boom. You couldn't possibly lose money and everyone had a job. Then as I was getting out of college, the bubble burst. Jobs were no where to be found, and the thought of buying a house was the furthest thing from my mind. As I started to work and make money, oddly enough in buying foreclosures, the prices of homes started to shoot up. Most of the people I knew were not quite financially ready, and by the time they were, houses were too expensive.
Then came the current bubble burst. Now all of the people who were just getting financially stable were worried about their jobs. Once again, buying a house was the furthest thing from their minds. Well, low and behold I think we've made it past the worst of that too! So now, if you've got a job, a little money in the bank, and haven't ruined your credit along the way, this is YOUR time! With bank owned (REO) properties and short sales out there, prices have been driven down. Foreclosures have forced everyone to lower their prices across the board. So while it is hard on existing homeowners, this is the first opportunity for all of those people that have just been waiting for it to be 'their time'.
On the other side, I can say that in my years of experience dealing with foreclosures and short sales in and around Portland, foreclosure not always a bad thing for the homeowner either. In most cases, it's been a relief for them once the house is actually sold. Now did that person want to be in the position where they were upside down in their house or unable to afford it? Absolutely not! However, once they were thrust into that position, it was an 800 pound gorilla hanging on to their back. Once they were able to offload it, suddenly they had a clean slate and were able to rebuild.
Regardless of how you look at it, foreclosures are going to remain in Portland and Oregon in general for the near future. You can either look at it as an opportunity, or as another black cloud on our beautiful state. However as Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying, "The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."
Here is what the article in CNN Money said:
Foreclosure rate: One in 44 homes
Percent increase: 87%
National rank: 61st
Unemployment rate: 10.8%
For a long time, the housing bust failed to reach the far Northwest. But it was just a delay: In the past year there has been a big run up in foreclosures, particularly in Portland.
One big reason is that the state and metro area are more dependent than most on the housing industry. Much of Oregon's economy is manufacturing based -- including lumber and other construction products -- so when homebuilding started falling nationwide, many Oregon workers lost their jobs.
In addition, Portland had its own mini-boom in home prices during 2004 through 2006, according to Don Gladson, a broker with Coldwell Banker Seal in Portland. "Prices went way above where they should have been," he said.
When home prices dropped in the bust, many borrowers were left owing more on their mortgages than their homes were worth. Gladson estimated that half the borrowers in Portland are now underwater.
"It was a double whammy," said Tom Potiowsky, Oregon's state economist. "But the sluggish economy is the bigger whammy."
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Portland Winters, Not So Bad
Share
Tweet
I think all of America knows Portland as part of the rainy Northwest. I must say, I am included in that way of thinking, and when people from out of town ask me how the weather is in Portland my usual answer is; 'The summers are beautiful and it rains the rest of the time.' However, I'm not sure if it's just this year or if it is just easier to overlook the blue sky days in hindsight. This year in particular though, I've really started to see that we rarely have to deal with prolonged bouts of rain.
Over the past couple of months, we have had a few weeks where there were solid gray skies and consistent rain. For example, as I worked away this afternoon I looked out my window to see beautiful blue skies. This past Saturday, I walked down to Safeway in 55 degree weather. That's not too bad for a day in the middle of winter in the Pacific Northwest. Either way it adds a different level of energy that you can feel buzzing around the city. I know for me it makes getting motivated to do my job much easier. This is especially true when I'm spending hours of my time driving clients between houses. I think we can all agree that a dark rainy day is less than ideal.
Overall, I can still say there is no better place to be than Oregon in the summer. We have months of dry, warm, beautiful days. It's rarely too hot, and rarely cloudy from July to the end of September. However, the winters don't seem to be as bad as I remember. Maybe this is a special year, or else I just didn't take the time to notice in the past. Regardless, all of these sunny days in December and January have made Portland a decent place to be in the winter. I guess my lovefest for Oregon and Portland will continue as long as the Mountain is an hour away, the coast is an hour away, the summers are perfect, and the winters are 'not so bad'.
Monday, January 25, 2010
$10 Lunch in Portland's Pearl District
Since I often times meet clients for lunch in the Pearl District, I'm always looking for a good deal. For me a good deal is decent or good food where I can get away with spending $10 for lunch including tip. If I can make that happen, I'm a pretty happy guy. Lately I always seem to gravitate toward 2 places down here.
This blog has been moved to: http://www.aarons2cents.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Aaron’s Outlook for Portland Real Estate in 2010
I’ve been doing a lot of reading and more importantly checking out the most recent numbers for home sales in the Portland, OR market and have seen a few trends. First off, we are far better off than we were a year ago. Last January we had 19.2 months of inventory and at the end of December 2009 we had 7.7 months. *Inventory in months is calculated by dividing the Active Listings at the end of the month in question by the number of closed sales for that month. Basically this drop in inventory means that by the end of the year there were fewer homes on the market compared to the number of sales taking place. According to the Market Action Report:
I know this is a lot of numbers that may not make sense to everyone, but I do think it's important to give a background on where we are coming from. In 2010 I believe that prices will continue to decline due to the number of short sales and bank owned (REO) properties out there. Also interest rates are still unbelievably low and have been hovering at or below 5%. Eventually rates are going to have to go up. As this happens buying power will start to go down. For example, if you are trying to buy a $300,000 house at 5% your monthly payment will be $1610. If you are buying that same $300,000 house at 6% it would be $1798 per month and if went up to 7% it would be $1996 per month. You can see how much the rate can affect your monthly payment. Now assume you are stuck with a budget of $1610 a month and the rates are at 7%. Where you were going to be buying a $300,000 house, you are now only able to spend a little over $240,000. If you add this reduction in buying power to the pressure to compete with 'distressed properties', I think values will continue to fall for the short term.
NOW HERE IS THE SILVER LINING! If you are currently looking to buy a home you are in great shape! The example above shows how much more buying power you have right now. With the number of short sales and REO properties, there are some absolute steals out there. I have seen homes out there that are literally at 2003 or 2004 prices. Now if I could tell you that you could go back in time and buy a house in 2003 before the big bubble, wouldn't you jump on it??? I would too! However, in 2003 interest rates were hovering around 7%. So now you get the 2003 price with the current 5% rate. That goes a long way in helping out with the monthly budget!
I could go on for days and bore you to death with stats and figures, but I won't. Overall, I think 2010 will have a slight drop in prices for homes and rates will start to climb. If you are looking to buy, I would act quickly. A large jump in rate will more than outweigh a small drop in price. As always if you have any questions feel free to call or e-mail me. I'm always available! You can always check out my website at: www.aaronstelle.com as well.
Here's to a safe and prosperous 2010!
Sales activity in the Portland metro area showed marked improvement thi s December compared to the same month a year ago. Closed sales were up 52.6% compared to December 2008 and pending sales rose 40.9%. New listings also rose 11.9%. On the other hand, compared to November 2009, closed sales fell 16.1% (1,506 v. 1,795). Pending sales dropped 14.1% (1,141 v. 1,328). New listings fell 15.8% (2,104 v. 2,499). At the month’s rate of sales, it would take approximately 7.7 months to sell the 11,597 active residential listings. 2009 Summary Comparing activity from 2009 with that of 2008, pending sales increased 4%. Closed sales were 0.9% short of the 2008 total. New listings fell 18.8%. See residential highlights table below. Total sales volume for 2009 was $5.5 billion, down from $6.3 billion in 2008, and $9.7 billion in 2007. Sale Prices The average sale pr ice for December 2009 was down 2.5% compared to December 2008, while the median sale price declined 4.2%. Compa r e d t o November 2009, the average price rose 7.3% ($293,300 v. $273,300) and the median grew 1.3% ($242,200 v. $239,000). For the year, the average sale price dropped 12.2% compared to 2008. The median price fell 11.2%. See year-to-date information in the table below.
I know this is a lot of numbers that may not make sense to everyone, but I do think it's important to give a background on where we are coming from. In 2010 I believe that prices will continue to decline due to the number of short sales and bank owned (REO) properties out there. Also interest rates are still unbelievably low and have been hovering at or below 5%. Eventually rates are going to have to go up. As this happens buying power will start to go down. For example, if you are trying to buy a $300,000 house at 5% your monthly payment will be $1610. If you are buying that same $300,000 house at 6% it would be $1798 per month and if went up to 7% it would be $1996 per month. You can see how much the rate can affect your monthly payment. Now assume you are stuck with a budget of $1610 a month and the rates are at 7%. Where you were going to be buying a $300,000 house, you are now only able to spend a little over $240,000. If you add this reduction in buying power to the pressure to compete with 'distressed properties', I think values will continue to fall for the short term.
NOW HERE IS THE SILVER LINING! If you are currently looking to buy a home you are in great shape! The example above shows how much more buying power you have right now. With the number of short sales and REO properties, there are some absolute steals out there. I have seen homes out there that are literally at 2003 or 2004 prices. Now if I could tell you that you could go back in time and buy a house in 2003 before the big bubble, wouldn't you jump on it??? I would too! However, in 2003 interest rates were hovering around 7%. So now you get the 2003 price with the current 5% rate. That goes a long way in helping out with the monthly budget!
I could go on for days and bore you to death with stats and figures, but I won't. Overall, I think 2010 will have a slight drop in prices for homes and rates will start to climb. If you are looking to buy, I would act quickly. A large jump in rate will more than outweigh a small drop in price. As always if you have any questions feel free to call or e-mail me. I'm always available! You can always check out my website at: www.aaronstelle.com as well.
Here's to a safe and prosperous 2010!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Measures 66 & 67: Economy and Jobs By State Representative Dennis Richardson
Representative Dennis Richardson: Measure 66 and 67 explained
by In the news Tuesday, January 12. 2010
Measures 66 & 67: Economy and Jobs
By State Representative Dennis Richardson,
The State of Oregon is in a financial crisis. Like most states, Oregon’s revenues are down and its costs are up. Although individuals, families and businesses have cut back to deal with these hard times, in the current 2009-11 Budget, Oregon State has expanded programs, added 1540 additional employees, increased spending by $4.7 Billion (9.3%), and increased long-term debt by $4 Billion. All of this spending in 2009 was on top of a 21% General Fund spending increase in 2007. In short, Government spending compounds and Oregon’s spending is unsustainable.
Oregon’s problem is not the need for more revenue, but the need for more discipline in spending. The total State Budget for 2005-07 was $40.8 Billion, and for 2009-11 it is $56 Billion—a jaw-dropping $15 Billion, 37% spending increase in only four years.
The consequence of the State’s insatiable appetite for additional revenue through tax increases will be a slower economic recovery and the loss of thousands of jobs for Oregon workers. In sum, Measures 66 and 67 send the following message to high-earning Oregonians and their businesses: If you live in Oregon, move away, and if you are considering business investment, take your money and jobs elsewhere. If you think this is mere hyperbole, read what the economists have learned from other states that raised such taxes.
It might be helpful to review what occurred in the crafting of our current 2009-11 State Budget. Even though Oregon’s economy was in recession and State revenues were down, the All Funds Budget rose by $4.7 Billion--a 9.3% increase in spending." To compensate for inadequate revenues, the solution of the House and Senate Democrat Majority and the Governor was to create new revenue streams. These new revenue sources included increasing our gas tax, vehicle registration fees and multiple other tax and fee increases. (Click here to see the entire list of new taxes and fees passed by the 2009 Legislature.) In addition, the Democrats increased the state’s debt load by borrowing an additional $4 Billion of long-term debt.
The increased gas tax, the substantial increase in vehicle registration and title fees, the new sales tax on health insurance policies and hospital bills, as well as the other new taxes and fees are now in force, and we have no choice but to pay them. These new taxes and fees will generate an additional $916 Million of revenue this biennium to the State (without even mentioning the $4 Billion in new State debt).
Unfortunately, $916 Million in new revenue was not enough. The Democrat leaders and Governor wanted $1.650 Billion to pay for expanding programs and government expenses.
To get the additional $733 million to cover the additional spending, the Democrats passed additional tax and fee increases on high-earning Oregon individuals and businesses. Many believed these additional taxes went too far, and 120,000 Oregon voters signed petitions to give Oregon’s voters the final vote on these tax increases.
This brings us to the January 26th vote on Measures 66 and 67.
The voter’s pamphlet, the news media, and our mail boxes are full of information and misinformation--Pro and Con--seeking to influence our votes.
The proponents of these Measures would have us think life as we know it will end without these two tax increases. We heard such fear-mongering in the campaigns for tax increase Measure 28 and Measure 30 (both of which the voters defeated). We are hearing it again. Proponents of Measures 66 and 67 are wringing their hands and pleading that K-12 education will be decimated, senior citizens will lose their access to basic care, criminals will be set free, etc., etc. We have heard this propaganda before.
Such scare tactics cloud the fact, there will be no automatic cuts in programs if the tax increases in Measures 66 and 67 fail.
The Legislature is already scheduled to meet in February. If these two tax measures fail, I believe there will be a vote to raise the corporate minimum tax from $10 to $150, without imposing a permanent tax based on business sales—a tax that would have to be paid, even when the business is losing money—like the tax increase contained in Measure 67.
Next, the Legislature will look at existing pools of money sitting in various accounts, and decide how much would be prudent to use. Finally, the Legislative leaders and Governor will calculate what amount, if any, will need to be cut from the State Budget.
Any actual cuts will be made where Legislative leadership and the Governor choose to make them. Such cuts should start in places that will have the least affect on our children and actual programs benefiting our citizens.
Nevertheless, it may be tempting for Oregon voters to pass these Measures. After all, don’t they just affect rich people and big corporations?
Since Oregon’s unemployment rate continues to hover around 11%, let’s consider the consequences of these Measures on Oregon’s families and their economic survival. In other words, how will Measures 66 and 67 affect the Oregon economy and our desperate need for more jobs?
As stated above, knowledgeable economists have demonstrated that Oregon will lose thousands of jobs, over time, if the voters pass these permanent tax increases on Oregon’s high-income-earners (business owners), and Oregon’s successful corporations (job creating employers). The analysts have reviewed other states that have increased such taxation, to learn from their experiences. They found that when income taxes are increased, wealthy people leave high taxation jurisdictions and move to lower taxation jurisdictions. Recently, a Medford C.P.A. told me that Reno, Nevada is actually recruiting Oregon residents and businesses to “come to Nevada, where there is no income or inheritance taxes.”
This is common sense. If you were an employer and were looking for the best state to move or build your business in, would you go to a state with the highest income taxes in the nation?
If Measure 66 passes, Oregon will have a top personal income tax bracket of 11%, and will tie with Hawaii’s new tax rate and share the distinction of having the highest tax rate in the nation. Washington and Nevada collect zero personal income taxes and Oregon will be at 11%. (Let’s see, which sounds more attractive…the lowest tax in the nation or the highest?) I know that Oregon could point to the fact that we have zero sales tax, but that does not change the national income tax rankings, and the adverse publicity high-taxing states receive.
Like most of you, the Measure 66 tax increases will not affect my wife, Cathy, and me. Nevertheless, our votes should not be based on class envy. With the Measure 66 rate fixed at $125,000, and with income creep and inflation, those who do not earn $125,000 now may well be subject to the higher tax rate in the future. When I was a boy, my father, a contractor, earned a good wage, $7,000 per year. Today, that same job would pay more than $70,000 per year. Those of us who have been around for awhile have felt the affects of “bracket creep” during our careers.
High Income Earning taxpayers already pay most of Oregon’s taxes. They should be rewarded for their success and thanked for the jobs they create for Oregon workers. Instead, we punish them. If the proponents of Measure 66 want to increase Oregon’s revenues, they are free to increase the taxes they pay on their own State Income Tax returns. To me, it makes little sense to drive those who create Oregon jobs and pay most of Oregon’s taxes across the Columbia River to Washington State or other low-tax states.
Regarding Measure 67, I have already pointed out that an increase in the minimum filing fee is not the issue. The problem is that Measure 67 will tax Oregon corporations on their sales and not profits. Here in southern Oregon is located Town and Country Chevrolet. Yesterday, I talked to its owner. Alan Deboer. He confirmed that their profit margin on new car sales is so low that the dealership lost $250,000 in 2009, even though it did $14 million dollars in business. For Town and Country, $15 million is the break-even point. If Measure 67 passes, Town and Country Chevrolet will have to add $15,000 in additional taxes to a balance sheet already dripping in red ink. Such will be the case with all high-volume, low-margin Oregon corporate businesses.
The Measure 67 tax increase is 1/10 of 1% of sales, and when the profit margins are only 1-3%, it can represent a 10% tax increase on profits. It is unwise to burden Oregon’s highest income earning taxpayers and high volume businesses with additional, permanent tax increases such as those contained in Measures 66 and 67. We cannot tax our way out of this recession. It is time for a change in spending habits in Salem. Oregon’s economic problems will not be solved by raising taxes on those who own Oregon’s businesses and hire Oregon’s work force. Although Measure 66 and Measure 67 were passed by the Legislature, by Referendum their future will be determined by the voters. Will these Measures pass or fail? It is up to you, me and the other Oregon voters to decide.
Sincerely,
Dennis Richardson
State Representative
by In the news Tuesday, January 12. 2010
Measures 66 & 67: Economy and Jobs
By State Representative Dennis Richardson,
The State of Oregon is in a financial crisis. Like most states, Oregon’s revenues are down and its costs are up. Although individuals, families and businesses have cut back to deal with these hard times, in the current 2009-11 Budget, Oregon State has expanded programs, added 1540 additional employees, increased spending by $4.7 Billion (9.3%), and increased long-term debt by $4 Billion. All of this spending in 2009 was on top of a 21% General Fund spending increase in 2007. In short, Government spending compounds and Oregon’s spending is unsustainable.
Oregon’s problem is not the need for more revenue, but the need for more discipline in spending. The total State Budget for 2005-07 was $40.8 Billion, and for 2009-11 it is $56 Billion—a jaw-dropping $15 Billion, 37% spending increase in only four years.
The consequence of the State’s insatiable appetite for additional revenue through tax increases will be a slower economic recovery and the loss of thousands of jobs for Oregon workers. In sum, Measures 66 and 67 send the following message to high-earning Oregonians and their businesses: If you live in Oregon, move away, and if you are considering business investment, take your money and jobs elsewhere. If you think this is mere hyperbole, read what the economists have learned from other states that raised such taxes.
It might be helpful to review what occurred in the crafting of our current 2009-11 State Budget. Even though Oregon’s economy was in recession and State revenues were down, the All Funds Budget rose by $4.7 Billion--a 9.3% increase in spending." To compensate for inadequate revenues, the solution of the House and Senate Democrat Majority and the Governor was to create new revenue streams. These new revenue sources included increasing our gas tax, vehicle registration fees and multiple other tax and fee increases. (Click here to see the entire list of new taxes and fees passed by the 2009 Legislature.) In addition, the Democrats increased the state’s debt load by borrowing an additional $4 Billion of long-term debt.
The increased gas tax, the substantial increase in vehicle registration and title fees, the new sales tax on health insurance policies and hospital bills, as well as the other new taxes and fees are now in force, and we have no choice but to pay them. These new taxes and fees will generate an additional $916 Million of revenue this biennium to the State (without even mentioning the $4 Billion in new State debt).
Unfortunately, $916 Million in new revenue was not enough. The Democrat leaders and Governor wanted $1.650 Billion to pay for expanding programs and government expenses.
To get the additional $733 million to cover the additional spending, the Democrats passed additional tax and fee increases on high-earning Oregon individuals and businesses. Many believed these additional taxes went too far, and 120,000 Oregon voters signed petitions to give Oregon’s voters the final vote on these tax increases.
This brings us to the January 26th vote on Measures 66 and 67.
The voter’s pamphlet, the news media, and our mail boxes are full of information and misinformation--Pro and Con--seeking to influence our votes.
The proponents of these Measures would have us think life as we know it will end without these two tax increases. We heard such fear-mongering in the campaigns for tax increase Measure 28 and Measure 30 (both of which the voters defeated). We are hearing it again. Proponents of Measures 66 and 67 are wringing their hands and pleading that K-12 education will be decimated, senior citizens will lose their access to basic care, criminals will be set free, etc., etc. We have heard this propaganda before.
Such scare tactics cloud the fact, there will be no automatic cuts in programs if the tax increases in Measures 66 and 67 fail.
The Legislature is already scheduled to meet in February. If these two tax measures fail, I believe there will be a vote to raise the corporate minimum tax from $10 to $150, without imposing a permanent tax based on business sales—a tax that would have to be paid, even when the business is losing money—like the tax increase contained in Measure 67.
Next, the Legislature will look at existing pools of money sitting in various accounts, and decide how much would be prudent to use. Finally, the Legislative leaders and Governor will calculate what amount, if any, will need to be cut from the State Budget.
Any actual cuts will be made where Legislative leadership and the Governor choose to make them. Such cuts should start in places that will have the least affect on our children and actual programs benefiting our citizens.
Nevertheless, it may be tempting for Oregon voters to pass these Measures. After all, don’t they just affect rich people and big corporations?
Since Oregon’s unemployment rate continues to hover around 11%, let’s consider the consequences of these Measures on Oregon’s families and their economic survival. In other words, how will Measures 66 and 67 affect the Oregon economy and our desperate need for more jobs?
As stated above, knowledgeable economists have demonstrated that Oregon will lose thousands of jobs, over time, if the voters pass these permanent tax increases on Oregon’s high-income-earners (business owners), and Oregon’s successful corporations (job creating employers). The analysts have reviewed other states that have increased such taxation, to learn from their experiences. They found that when income taxes are increased, wealthy people leave high taxation jurisdictions and move to lower taxation jurisdictions. Recently, a Medford C.P.A. told me that Reno, Nevada is actually recruiting Oregon residents and businesses to “come to Nevada, where there is no income or inheritance taxes.”
This is common sense. If you were an employer and were looking for the best state to move or build your business in, would you go to a state with the highest income taxes in the nation?
If Measure 66 passes, Oregon will have a top personal income tax bracket of 11%, and will tie with Hawaii’s new tax rate and share the distinction of having the highest tax rate in the nation. Washington and Nevada collect zero personal income taxes and Oregon will be at 11%. (Let’s see, which sounds more attractive…the lowest tax in the nation or the highest?) I know that Oregon could point to the fact that we have zero sales tax, but that does not change the national income tax rankings, and the adverse publicity high-taxing states receive.
Like most of you, the Measure 66 tax increases will not affect my wife, Cathy, and me. Nevertheless, our votes should not be based on class envy. With the Measure 66 rate fixed at $125,000, and with income creep and inflation, those who do not earn $125,000 now may well be subject to the higher tax rate in the future. When I was a boy, my father, a contractor, earned a good wage, $7,000 per year. Today, that same job would pay more than $70,000 per year. Those of us who have been around for awhile have felt the affects of “bracket creep” during our careers.
High Income Earning taxpayers already pay most of Oregon’s taxes. They should be rewarded for their success and thanked for the jobs they create for Oregon workers. Instead, we punish them. If the proponents of Measure 66 want to increase Oregon’s revenues, they are free to increase the taxes they pay on their own State Income Tax returns. To me, it makes little sense to drive those who create Oregon jobs and pay most of Oregon’s taxes across the Columbia River to Washington State or other low-tax states.
Regarding Measure 67, I have already pointed out that an increase in the minimum filing fee is not the issue. The problem is that Measure 67 will tax Oregon corporations on their sales and not profits. Here in southern Oregon is located Town and Country Chevrolet. Yesterday, I talked to its owner. Alan Deboer. He confirmed that their profit margin on new car sales is so low that the dealership lost $250,000 in 2009, even though it did $14 million dollars in business. For Town and Country, $15 million is the break-even point. If Measure 67 passes, Town and Country Chevrolet will have to add $15,000 in additional taxes to a balance sheet already dripping in red ink. Such will be the case with all high-volume, low-margin Oregon corporate businesses.
The Measure 67 tax increase is 1/10 of 1% of sales, and when the profit margins are only 1-3%, it can represent a 10% tax increase on profits. It is unwise to burden Oregon’s highest income earning taxpayers and high volume businesses with additional, permanent tax increases such as those contained in Measures 66 and 67. We cannot tax our way out of this recession. It is time for a change in spending habits in Salem. Oregon’s economic problems will not be solved by raising taxes on those who own Oregon’s businesses and hire Oregon’s work force. Although Measure 66 and Measure 67 were passed by the Legislature, by Referendum their future will be determined by the voters. Will these Measures pass or fail? It is up to you, me and the other Oregon voters to decide.
Sincerely,
Dennis Richardson
State Representative
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Eating Healthy - 5 Simple Changes
Every year it seems as though all of the U.S. is trying to do something about their diet or health as the new year rolls in. Sometimes it's in the form of a New Years resolution and sometimes it's just a conscious effort. Either way, eating healthy is always a good thing. The obesity numbers in the U.S. are staggering and it really doesn't take that much to lose weight and be healthy. If more people would just be aware of what they are putting in their body and do a small amount of exercise we'd be dropping weight by the collective ton. Here are a few things that are simple to add into your diet for 2010. While there are many ways to improve your diet, like eating whole grains instead of enriched flower, here are 5 simple choices you can make as reccommended in the article:
Five 'eating better' foods to slip into your diet in '10
By Val Willingham, CNN Medical Producer
Katherine Tallmadge, national spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association and a registered dietitian in Washington, D.C., says you can find these foods in most stores. Best of all, they're high in benefits but low in calories.
Grains
Add oat, barley and rye to your daily diet. Doctors have known that oat can bring down cholesterol levels -- but so can rye, which may become the new "in" grain for 2010. In a study in the current issue of the journal Nutrition, Finnish doctors found that men who had borderline high cholesterol could lower their numbers by eating dense rye bread.
The American Diabetes Association also recommends increasing your intake of dietary fiber and whole grain products, such as rye, to prevent the development of type 2 diabetes. "Rye lowers cholesterol like oats do, and it evens out blood glucose for diabetics," Tallmadge says.
But don't run out and buy regular rye bread at the store. Instead, purchase rye mixed with whole wheat -- it's found in dense, whole-grain breads and in specially made crackers. "I buy the rye crackers," Tallmadge says. "They're low in fat, high in rye and are a perfect snack with low-fat cheese."
As for barley, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that diets high in barley lowered total cholesterol levels and reduced the risk factors associated with excess weight, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Barley can be cooked and served as a side dish similar to rice or couscous. It can also be used as an ingredient in soups, stews, casseroles and salads.
Dr. Peter Shields, professor of medicine and oncology and deputy director of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Medical Center, has done extensive studies on diet and cancer. He says any diet filled with fiber, either from fruits and vegetables or grains, is good for you.
Soy
Researchers have found that soy can ward off certain cancers as well as help your heart. The Food and Drug Administration says foods high in soy protein may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. According to the FDA, 25 grams of soy protein a day can cut heart problems by reducing cholesterol levels.
Soy can be found in numerous products, such as tofu burgers, soy meats and soy milk. In order to get the full benefit of soy, the FDA suggests looking for products that have 6.25 grams or more of soy protein per serving and that are low in fat (less than 3 grams), saturated fat (less than 1 gram) and cholesterol (less than 20 mg).
Tallmadge urges parents to introduce soy into their children's diets as well. "We know that when introduced earlier in life, it can have a very strong protective effect against breast cancer and prostate cancer," she says. Soy can also help fight childhood obesity because it's low in fat and calories. Soy also contains vitamins, minerals, fiber and protein for growing little ones, and it comes in a variety of foods that kids like, such as chocolate soy milk, frozen pizza, taco "meat" and "chicken" nuggets.
Salmon and other oily fish
"Wild salmon is a wonderful dish that's not only tasty but is great for you," Tallmadge says. "It cuts inflammation in the body that can lead to heart problems. It's a good source of vitamin D and also contains omega-3 fatty acids that keep the brain and heart healthy."
Salmon and other oily fish -- such as mackerel, sardines, herring, fresh tuna, trout and anchovies -- are among the few food sources of vitamin D. A 3.5-ounce fillet of cooked salmon contains 360 international units of vitamin D -- almost a full day's recommended dietary allowance for anyone under the age of 70. Oily fish are also chock-full of omega-3 fatty acids, which curb cardiovascular disease by decreasing the risk of arrhythmia (which can lead to sudden cardiac death), triglyceride levels and the growth rate of atherosclerotic plaque.
The American Heart Association recommends eating fish, particularly oily fish, twice a week. Although almost all types of fish are good sources of protein, it's the oily fish that have omega-3 fatty acids. But the AHA also calls for consuming fish in moderation. That's because some oily fish -- such as swordfish and fresh cuts of tuna -- contain mercury, a heavy metal that interferes with the brain and nervous system. High mercury levels can cause serious health problems, especially for children and pregnant women.
Red wine
Tallmadge calls red wine the "almost the perfect drink." "But because it contains alcohol, you need to drink it in moderation -- about five ounces a day for women, 10 ounces a day for men," she says.
Nutritionists and physicians are careful about recommending alcoholic beverages, but agree red wine is good for you in small doses. Research suggests antioxidants in red wine, called polyphenols, help protect the lining of blood vessels in your heart. These antioxidants come in two main forms: flavonoids and nonflavonoids. Flavonoids are found in foods such as oranges, apples, onions, tea, cocoa and grape juice, as well as other alcoholic drinks like beer and white wine, but red wine contains the highest levels.
Resveratrol, a nonflavonoid antioxidant, is a key ingredient in red wine that appears to help prevent damage to blood vessels, reduce bad (LDL) cholesterol and prevent blood clots.
Some research shows that resveratrol may reduce inflammation and blood clotting, both of which can lead to heart disease. More research is needed before it's known whether resveratrol causes these effects. If you choose to drink wine for your health, Tallmadge says stick to red, because research has shown red grapes have 10 times more health benefit than white grapes.
"It seems all the benefits, like resveratrol, are in the seeds and the skin," Tallmadge says, "So when they crush the red grapes, the benefits stay in the wine."
But Georgetown's Shields says that any alcohol, including wine, has also been found to increase the risk of breast cancer. "Some studies have shown an increase risk of 14 percent with each gram of wine you drink on a daily basis," he says.
And a recently published study found that drinking even moderate amounts of alcohol raises the risk of a breast cancer recurrence.
"It's really important that you moderate how much you drink, because the risk might outweigh the benefit," Shields says.
Green tea
"Think green," Tallmadge says. Green tea is also full of antioxidants that scientists say can ward off some cancers. In a recent Japanese study that looked at nearly 500 Japanese women with stage I and II breast cancer, researchers found the women who drank more green tea before and after surgery had a lower chance of the cancer recurring. Other studies from China showed that the more green tea patients drank, the lower their risk of developing stomach, esophageal, prostate, pancreatic and colorectal cancer, compared with those who did not drink green tea.
Recent studies have shown green tea can even help you stay thin. "They've found people who drink green tea every day are leaner," Tallmadge says. "Green tea helps lower belly fat."
Scientists say that's because it revs up your metabolism. In a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, green tea extract increased energy expenditure, which is a measure of metabolism, plus it had a significant effect on fat oxidation, or how much fat your body burns.
But here's the catch: One cup won't do the trick. "You have to drink a lot of it ... at least three, up to six cups a day, to get the effect," Tallmadge says. "And that means you use bags or loose tea every time you make a cup." In other words, to get the full benefit, you have to brew it, not buy it in a bottle.
Another catch? Most of the green tea research has been done on animals. "Although laboratory data has shown great benefits in green tea, a lot of statistics on humans still aren't there yet," Shields says. "The green tea industry has asked the FDA for permission to let them put these claims on their boxes; as of now, the FDA says there's not enough human data to justify the labeling."
Back to that list of resolutions. When it comes to eating better, Tallmadge and Shields say moderation and balance are important. No one food is going to keep you cancer-free or make your heart healthy. "It's unrealistic to think that eating only soy or grains all the time is going to make you a healthier person," Shields says. "You need to look at the whole picture, and have good, healthy behaviors: Eat well, drink in moderation and stay active. All of these lead to a healthier life."
Tallmadge agrees. "Putting these foods into your diet are excellent substitutes for other foods that may not be healthy," she says. "If you are trying to cut down on sugar, and are looking for a drink alternative, why not green tea? Or a better snack at night can be rye crackers instead of chips. It's all a matter of balance and good nutrition."
Five 'eating better' foods to slip into your diet in '10
By Val Willingham, CNN Medical Producer
Katherine Tallmadge, national spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association and a registered dietitian in Washington, D.C., says you can find these foods in most stores. Best of all, they're high in benefits but low in calories.
Grains
Add oat, barley and rye to your daily diet. Doctors have known that oat can bring down cholesterol levels -- but so can rye, which may become the new "in" grain for 2010. In a study in the current issue of the journal Nutrition, Finnish doctors found that men who had borderline high cholesterol could lower their numbers by eating dense rye bread.
The American Diabetes Association also recommends increasing your intake of dietary fiber and whole grain products, such as rye, to prevent the development of type 2 diabetes. "Rye lowers cholesterol like oats do, and it evens out blood glucose for diabetics," Tallmadge says.
But don't run out and buy regular rye bread at the store. Instead, purchase rye mixed with whole wheat -- it's found in dense, whole-grain breads and in specially made crackers. "I buy the rye crackers," Tallmadge says. "They're low in fat, high in rye and are a perfect snack with low-fat cheese."
As for barley, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that diets high in barley lowered total cholesterol levels and reduced the risk factors associated with excess weight, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Barley can be cooked and served as a side dish similar to rice or couscous. It can also be used as an ingredient in soups, stews, casseroles and salads.
Dr. Peter Shields, professor of medicine and oncology and deputy director of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Medical Center, has done extensive studies on diet and cancer. He says any diet filled with fiber, either from fruits and vegetables or grains, is good for you.
Soy
Researchers have found that soy can ward off certain cancers as well as help your heart. The Food and Drug Administration says foods high in soy protein may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. According to the FDA, 25 grams of soy protein a day can cut heart problems by reducing cholesterol levels.
Soy can be found in numerous products, such as tofu burgers, soy meats and soy milk. In order to get the full benefit of soy, the FDA suggests looking for products that have 6.25 grams or more of soy protein per serving and that are low in fat (less than 3 grams), saturated fat (less than 1 gram) and cholesterol (less than 20 mg).
Tallmadge urges parents to introduce soy into their children's diets as well. "We know that when introduced earlier in life, it can have a very strong protective effect against breast cancer and prostate cancer," she says. Soy can also help fight childhood obesity because it's low in fat and calories. Soy also contains vitamins, minerals, fiber and protein for growing little ones, and it comes in a variety of foods that kids like, such as chocolate soy milk, frozen pizza, taco "meat" and "chicken" nuggets.
Salmon and other oily fish
"Wild salmon is a wonderful dish that's not only tasty but is great for you," Tallmadge says. "It cuts inflammation in the body that can lead to heart problems. It's a good source of vitamin D and also contains omega-3 fatty acids that keep the brain and heart healthy."
Salmon and other oily fish -- such as mackerel, sardines, herring, fresh tuna, trout and anchovies -- are among the few food sources of vitamin D. A 3.5-ounce fillet of cooked salmon contains 360 international units of vitamin D -- almost a full day's recommended dietary allowance for anyone under the age of 70. Oily fish are also chock-full of omega-3 fatty acids, which curb cardiovascular disease by decreasing the risk of arrhythmia (which can lead to sudden cardiac death), triglyceride levels and the growth rate of atherosclerotic plaque.
The American Heart Association recommends eating fish, particularly oily fish, twice a week. Although almost all types of fish are good sources of protein, it's the oily fish that have omega-3 fatty acids. But the AHA also calls for consuming fish in moderation. That's because some oily fish -- such as swordfish and fresh cuts of tuna -- contain mercury, a heavy metal that interferes with the brain and nervous system. High mercury levels can cause serious health problems, especially for children and pregnant women.
Red wine
Tallmadge calls red wine the "almost the perfect drink." "But because it contains alcohol, you need to drink it in moderation -- about five ounces a day for women, 10 ounces a day for men," she says.
Nutritionists and physicians are careful about recommending alcoholic beverages, but agree red wine is good for you in small doses. Research suggests antioxidants in red wine, called polyphenols, help protect the lining of blood vessels in your heart. These antioxidants come in two main forms: flavonoids and nonflavonoids. Flavonoids are found in foods such as oranges, apples, onions, tea, cocoa and grape juice, as well as other alcoholic drinks like beer and white wine, but red wine contains the highest levels.
Resveratrol, a nonflavonoid antioxidant, is a key ingredient in red wine that appears to help prevent damage to blood vessels, reduce bad (LDL) cholesterol and prevent blood clots.
Some research shows that resveratrol may reduce inflammation and blood clotting, both of which can lead to heart disease. More research is needed before it's known whether resveratrol causes these effects. If you choose to drink wine for your health, Tallmadge says stick to red, because research has shown red grapes have 10 times more health benefit than white grapes.
"It seems all the benefits, like resveratrol, are in the seeds and the skin," Tallmadge says, "So when they crush the red grapes, the benefits stay in the wine."
But Georgetown's Shields says that any alcohol, including wine, has also been found to increase the risk of breast cancer. "Some studies have shown an increase risk of 14 percent with each gram of wine you drink on a daily basis," he says.
And a recently published study found that drinking even moderate amounts of alcohol raises the risk of a breast cancer recurrence.
"It's really important that you moderate how much you drink, because the risk might outweigh the benefit," Shields says.
Green tea
"Think green," Tallmadge says. Green tea is also full of antioxidants that scientists say can ward off some cancers. In a recent Japanese study that looked at nearly 500 Japanese women with stage I and II breast cancer, researchers found the women who drank more green tea before and after surgery had a lower chance of the cancer recurring. Other studies from China showed that the more green tea patients drank, the lower their risk of developing stomach, esophageal, prostate, pancreatic and colorectal cancer, compared with those who did not drink green tea.
Recent studies have shown green tea can even help you stay thin. "They've found people who drink green tea every day are leaner," Tallmadge says. "Green tea helps lower belly fat."
Scientists say that's because it revs up your metabolism. In a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, green tea extract increased energy expenditure, which is a measure of metabolism, plus it had a significant effect on fat oxidation, or how much fat your body burns.
But here's the catch: One cup won't do the trick. "You have to drink a lot of it ... at least three, up to six cups a day, to get the effect," Tallmadge says. "And that means you use bags or loose tea every time you make a cup." In other words, to get the full benefit, you have to brew it, not buy it in a bottle.
Another catch? Most of the green tea research has been done on animals. "Although laboratory data has shown great benefits in green tea, a lot of statistics on humans still aren't there yet," Shields says. "The green tea industry has asked the FDA for permission to let them put these claims on their boxes; as of now, the FDA says there's not enough human data to justify the labeling."
Back to that list of resolutions. When it comes to eating better, Tallmadge and Shields say moderation and balance are important. No one food is going to keep you cancer-free or make your heart healthy. "It's unrealistic to think that eating only soy or grains all the time is going to make you a healthier person," Shields says. "You need to look at the whole picture, and have good, healthy behaviors: Eat well, drink in moderation and stay active. All of these lead to a healthier life."
Tallmadge agrees. "Putting these foods into your diet are excellent substitutes for other foods that may not be healthy," she says. "If you are trying to cut down on sugar, and are looking for a drink alternative, why not green tea? Or a better snack at night can be rye crackers instead of chips. It's all a matter of balance and good nutrition."
Monday, January 4, 2010
Government Spending - The Truth in Numbers
It's funny how we hear the same sayings over and over again. 'We need to cut waste!' 'We are going to take a little more from the wealthy.' ' We should quit giving our money to everyone else and keep it in America'. I think this article does a pretty good job of showing how much or little things things would really do. Once again it shows that most of these speeches are little more than political jargon.
Reducing U.S. debt: Ideas from the Hall of Lame
By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerJanuary 4, 2010: 4:34 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Only in the world of federal debt do tens of billions of dollars amount to little more than rounding errors.
Yet it's the rounding errors that many lawmakers reach for when making impassioned speeches about reducing the debt.
Whatever merit their ideas may have, they don't have a prayer of generating sizeable savings.
Sure, every little bit counts.
But "a little bit" doesn't really move the needle when you're talking about $12 trillion in accumulated debt, several trillion more expected over the next decade and tens of trillions more on top of that due to long-term shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security.
All told, the long-term fiscal shortfall could top $60 trillion over the next 75 years if nothing changes, said Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.
That's why deficit hawks talk about the need to narrow the long-term "fiscal gap." That's a measure of how much money is needed every year starting now just to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio where it is today.
Estimates of that gap range anywhere from 4% to 9% of gross domestic product. In a $14 trillion economy, that means to close the gap altogether Uncle Sam would need to come up with $560 billion to $1.26 trillion a year.
With that in mind, here are just a few of the oft-touted ideas for tackling debt that politicians love to pound the table for while avoiding much tougher -- and infinitely less popular - decisions.
Reduce earmarks
There may be a lot wrong with earmarks, but driving U.S. debt into the stratosphere isn't one of them.
An earmark is typically defined as a slice of the money allocated to an agency that a lawmaker or the president requests be set aside for a specific project.
While some earmarks are much harder to justify than others, they don't represent additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount of spending that lawmakers have already agreed to in a given year.
And what earmark spending there is doesn't represent more than a small percentage of total spending in any given year.
"Those who suggest that earmark reform is the answer to rapidly rising federal debt are unfortunately diverting the public's attention away from the enormous fiscal issues that face our nation," wrote budget expert Charles Konigsberg in his book "America's Priorities."
Cut wasteful spending
Even if everyone agreed on what counts as wasteful spending, eliminating it may not make as big a difference as everyone hopes.
That's because two-thirds of federal spending is mandatory, meaning lawmakers don't get to choose whether or how much to spend on certain budget items such as Social Security and interest on the country's debt.
The other third of the federal budget is so-called "discretionary" spending.
In 2010, the CBO expects discretionary spending will be roughly $1.4 trillion. A little more than half will be on defense, leaving $683 billion for non-defense discretionary items, such as education and transportation.
There's almost certainly some wasteful spending in these areas. But not several hundred billion dollars' worth a year.
The White House budget office has embarked on numerous efforts in the past year to reduce spending, boost efficiencies and curb improper payments. All are important and would be a mean feat if achieved. But their savings -- something close to $20 billion a year -- won't really make a dent in the larger debt problem.
Reduce foreign aid
The moral and strategic benefits of providing economic and humanitarian assistance to other countries may become especially intangible to voters when they themselves are hurting in an economic downturn.
But those who might call for a reduction in foreign aid would hardly hit pay-dirt. In the past 30 years, foreign aid has constituted 1% or less of both the size of the economy and of the federal budget.
Typically, only about $20 billion a year is spent in total on humanitarian and economic assistance, according to Konigsberg.
Pay as you go
There is a push from the administration and from budget hawks for Congress to adhere to so-called pay-go rules, which require that any spending increases or tax cuts be paid for.
That is, if they want to pass a tax cut that would reduce revenue by $100 billion over 10 years, they would need to either cut spending by $100 billion or raise another $100 billion in revenue from another part of the budget.
What pay-go can do is keep the debt situation from getting worse. But it isn't a panacea.
"Pay-go keeps us where we are. It doesn't put us in a better position," said Bixby, a pay-go proponent.
Tax the rich more
Couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 seem to be lawmakers' answer to paying for ... well, everything. Health reform, tax reform, random other legislative initiatives and, of course, deficit reduction.
The problem is that there's just so much money that can be reasonably squeezed from this very small group of Americans.
"The president thinks we will somehow reduce the deficit and fix the tax code without raising taxes by a dime for those poor souls making a quarter million dollars-a-year or less. Unfortunately, that's 95 percent of us. Can't wait to see how he does it," Howard Gleckman, editor of the blog TaxVox, wrote in a recent blog post.
The need to think (really) big
The only way to really lasso the debt situation, budget experts say, is to make a serious attempt to curb spending growth and boost taxes across the board, but particularly with respect to Medicare and Social Security.
That will inevitably mean a reduction in the benefits promised to future retirees and a host of other castor-oil-type remedies that won't garner much applause from the electorate.
Whether lawmakers will make that happen is an open question, Gleckman suggested.
"As long as politicians believe that fiscal discipline is career suicide, little will change."
Reducing U.S. debt: Ideas from the Hall of Lame
By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerJanuary 4, 2010: 4:34 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Only in the world of federal debt do tens of billions of dollars amount to little more than rounding errors.
Yet it's the rounding errors that many lawmakers reach for when making impassioned speeches about reducing the debt.
Whatever merit their ideas may have, they don't have a prayer of generating sizeable savings.
Sure, every little bit counts.
But "a little bit" doesn't really move the needle when you're talking about $12 trillion in accumulated debt, several trillion more expected over the next decade and tens of trillions more on top of that due to long-term shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security.
All told, the long-term fiscal shortfall could top $60 trillion over the next 75 years if nothing changes, said Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.
That's why deficit hawks talk about the need to narrow the long-term "fiscal gap." That's a measure of how much money is needed every year starting now just to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio where it is today.
Estimates of that gap range anywhere from 4% to 9% of gross domestic product. In a $14 trillion economy, that means to close the gap altogether Uncle Sam would need to come up with $560 billion to $1.26 trillion a year.
With that in mind, here are just a few of the oft-touted ideas for tackling debt that politicians love to pound the table for while avoiding much tougher -- and infinitely less popular - decisions.
Reduce earmarks
There may be a lot wrong with earmarks, but driving U.S. debt into the stratosphere isn't one of them.
An earmark is typically defined as a slice of the money allocated to an agency that a lawmaker or the president requests be set aside for a specific project.
While some earmarks are much harder to justify than others, they don't represent additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount of spending that lawmakers have already agreed to in a given year.
And what earmark spending there is doesn't represent more than a small percentage of total spending in any given year.
"Those who suggest that earmark reform is the answer to rapidly rising federal debt are unfortunately diverting the public's attention away from the enormous fiscal issues that face our nation," wrote budget expert Charles Konigsberg in his book "America's Priorities."
Cut wasteful spending
Even if everyone agreed on what counts as wasteful spending, eliminating it may not make as big a difference as everyone hopes.
That's because two-thirds of federal spending is mandatory, meaning lawmakers don't get to choose whether or how much to spend on certain budget items such as Social Security and interest on the country's debt.
The other third of the federal budget is so-called "discretionary" spending.
In 2010, the CBO expects discretionary spending will be roughly $1.4 trillion. A little more than half will be on defense, leaving $683 billion for non-defense discretionary items, such as education and transportation.
There's almost certainly some wasteful spending in these areas. But not several hundred billion dollars' worth a year.
The White House budget office has embarked on numerous efforts in the past year to reduce spending, boost efficiencies and curb improper payments. All are important and would be a mean feat if achieved. But their savings -- something close to $20 billion a year -- won't really make a dent in the larger debt problem.
Reduce foreign aid
The moral and strategic benefits of providing economic and humanitarian assistance to other countries may become especially intangible to voters when they themselves are hurting in an economic downturn.
But those who might call for a reduction in foreign aid would hardly hit pay-dirt. In the past 30 years, foreign aid has constituted 1% or less of both the size of the economy and of the federal budget.
Typically, only about $20 billion a year is spent in total on humanitarian and economic assistance, according to Konigsberg.
Pay as you go
There is a push from the administration and from budget hawks for Congress to adhere to so-called pay-go rules, which require that any spending increases or tax cuts be paid for.
That is, if they want to pass a tax cut that would reduce revenue by $100 billion over 10 years, they would need to either cut spending by $100 billion or raise another $100 billion in revenue from another part of the budget.
What pay-go can do is keep the debt situation from getting worse. But it isn't a panacea.
"Pay-go keeps us where we are. It doesn't put us in a better position," said Bixby, a pay-go proponent.
Tax the rich more
Couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 seem to be lawmakers' answer to paying for ... well, everything. Health reform, tax reform, random other legislative initiatives and, of course, deficit reduction.
The problem is that there's just so much money that can be reasonably squeezed from this very small group of Americans.
"The president thinks we will somehow reduce the deficit and fix the tax code without raising taxes by a dime for those poor souls making a quarter million dollars-a-year or less. Unfortunately, that's 95 percent of us. Can't wait to see how he does it," Howard Gleckman, editor of the blog TaxVox, wrote in a recent blog post.
The need to think (really) big
The only way to really lasso the debt situation, budget experts say, is to make a serious attempt to curb spending growth and boost taxes across the board, but particularly with respect to Medicare and Social Security.
That will inevitably mean a reduction in the benefits promised to future retirees and a host of other castor-oil-type remedies that won't garner much applause from the electorate.
Whether lawmakers will make that happen is an open question, Gleckman suggested.
"As long as politicians believe that fiscal discipline is career suicide, little will change."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
