Dudley 20-point plan list to create jobs

Below is an excerpt from Oregon Governor candidate Chris Dudley’s 20-point plan to create private sector jobs report. We list the 20 ideas below:

1. Reduce Capital Gains Taxes by 73 Percent
– With Oregon businesses facing the highest capital gains taxes in the nation, Chris Dudley will propose jump starting our economy by reducing Oregon’s capital gains rate from 11 percent to 3 percent (a 73 percent reduction) for two years and then resetting the rate to 5 percent in the years thereafter. This change will enable Oregon to have a competitive rate with neighboring states, making it more attractive to existing and new businesses.

2. Promote Local Job Recruitment – Chris Dudley wants to give cities and counties an incentive to recruit new businesses to Oregon by providing them half the additional state income tax revenues generated from the employees and businesses they recruit. Currently, Oregon’s recruitment strategy is based on property tax abatements under the state’s Strategic Investment Program. Forfeiting property tax revenues can act as a disincentive to local governments that depend on them to fund vital services. The remittance would be for the duration of the property tax abatement.
3. Align State and Federal Taxes – The 2009 Legislature rushed to disconnect Oregon from the federal tax code and denied Oregon businesses the tax relief contained in the 2009 Federal Stimulus Package, including proven strategies such as accelerated depreciation to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This move complicated tax compliance and exposed small businesses to increased errors and liabilities in their tax filings requiring Oregon businesses to keep “two sets of books” for federal and state taxes. A rolling reconnect to the federal code will provide certainty for Oregon’s small business, simplify tax filings with the state and the IRS, and lower accounting costs. Oregon should only disconnect from the federal code if doing so will give the state a competitive advantage and create jobs.

4. End Double Taxation – Chris Dudley will end the double taxation on agricultural co-ops and other Oregon businesses. Currently, many Oregon businesses, such as agricultural co-ops, are taxed two times: once on the co-op before revenue is shared with members and again when members receive their share of earnings. Chris Dudley believes double taxation is wrong and will end it.

5. Create Tax Relief for Emerging Businesses – Chris Dudley will allow qualifying small and emerging businesses the option to defer the majority of their income or excise taxes for two years, then pay back the deferred tax with interest, over a four year period. While small businesses are struggling to find adequate working capital through traditional bank financing, this will provide a way for businesses to help make ends meet during difficult times.

6. Implement the “Oregon Works” Initiative – Chris Dudley believes the state government should be providing a hand-up rather than a handout. To accomplish this, he will propose two new tax credits for small and emerging businesses that will phase out when Oregon’s unemployment rate dips below the national unemployment rate for two months:

Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit – Chris will propose a tax credit to employers who add workers who are currently on public assistance. The cost of the credits will be offset by reduced public assistance expenditures.

Back-to-Work Tax Credit – Chris Dudley will propose a one-time tax credit to small, emerging businesses that add workers who are currently receiving unemployment benefits.

Promote Sustainable Natural Resource Industries

Chris Dudley will re-focus state policies to support, not stand in the way of, sustainable natural resource industries in agriculture and ranching, timber and forest products, fishing and seafood and will be a champion for federal policies that properly balance jobs and conservation. To accomplish this, Oregon must:

7. Listen to Resource Communities – Chris Dudley will select a natural resources policy advisor, agency directors, natural resources agency staff and citizen appointees who understand Oregon’s natural resource industries and who will balance the need for jobs and conservation. As Governor, he will work with resource-based communities to promote and advance Oregon’s natural resource products around the world.

8. Better Utilize State Forest Lands – Oregon’s six large state forests are an underutilized asset that should be a greater source of jobs for Oregonians and revenues for state schools. For example, more active management of just the 93,000-acre Elliot State Forest could create between 165 and 195 jobs and would generate additional revenue for the state’s Common School Fund. Chris Dudley will balance the desire for conservation and recreation on state lands with the need and demand for forest products from state lands – products that create jobs and revenue for the Common School Fund. Taxes on timber harvests are a major source of revenue for Oregon public schools.

9. Water for our Future – Oregon is facing critical water levels across the state (not just in the Klamath and Umatilla basins) and has never had a strategic vision for water management. Chris Dudley will work to remove unnecessary barriers and allocate funding to water projects that focus on conservation, reuse and storage. Investments in these projects will assist struggling communities, enhance environmental stewardship, provide needed resources to grow our agricultural sector, and create jobs.

10. Support Oregon State University (OSU) Statewide Services – Chris Dudley understands the unique relationship between OSU and our natural resource sector. OSU’s statewide public services (extension service, experiment stations and forest research lab) embody the intersection of commerce, natural resource management and research. Chris Dudley will work to prioritize and restore funding in order to provide economic development opportunities for our natural resource employers.

11. Promote the Use of Forest Biomass – Chris Dudley believes that environmentally responsible stewardship of state forests and job creation are not mutually exclusive. Chris will promote the expansion of biomass cogeneration to achieve both of these goals. These projects provide economic stability for businesses and communities; hold broad community support; provide for forest health; and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, all while meeting the test of employing science-based management.
Prepare Oregon for its Economic Future

Strengthen K-12 and Higher Education

A global economy demands a globally competitive education system – from pre-kindergarten through college. Chris Dudley understands that Oregon’s economic future depends on preparing the next generation for college, work and the world. Unfortunately, while good work is going on in classrooms across Oregon, the general state of education in Oregon, from pre-kindergarten through 12, has fallen behind. Nothing demonstrates this failure of leadership and progress more than Oregon’s humiliating retreat and defeat in the Obama Administration’s “Race to the Top” reform initiative. Oregon’s plans and strategies are fragmented and disconnected. In seeking needed reforms, we’ve allowed dysfunction among adults to deprive children and students. The result is that Oregon has no comprehensive approach to ensuring that every child leaves the public school system ready for college, work and the world. While the graduation rate for all students in Oregon is 84 percent, for Hispanic students it stands at 70.5 percent and for African-American students, the rate is 68.5 percent.

As Governor, Chris Dudley will make education reform a top priority, challenging the status quo and demanding that education policy and quality be put ahead of education politics. To achieve reform, Chris Dudley will shake-up the administration of schools, put an emphasis on teacher quality and preparedness and shine a light on programs and policies that are working in local communities to better educate our kids.

To accomplish this, Oregon must:

12. Prepare Every Child for College, Work and the World – Chris Dudley has released a comprehensive education reform plan available at www.chrisdudley.com. The focus of the plan can be summarized with the following words: accountability, performance, professionalism, choice and an end to business as usual.

Chris Dudley will see that Oregon’s youngsters arrive in kindergarten ready to learn, with disadvantaged students having access to a preschool or pre-kindergarten program. Our children should leave the third grade proficient in reading, with struggling readers having access to reading tutors. Parents should have the choice of where they send their children, and state education dollars should follow the child to a school in another district, a charter school, virtual school or alternative learning environment that meets the child’s need. He will push for a grading system for schools that is as simple as A-F and schools that are “full time learning” centers or so-called Community Schools where education continues after school and through the summer (the “third semester”), especially for children of low-income parents who cannot afford the enrichment activities other parents can. He’ll push for schools where meaningful professional development, peer-mentoring and teacher collaboration are rewarded. To graduate more students ready for advanced training and college, Chris Dudley will focus attention on the true proficiency of students (knowledge and skills) rather than just course credits or passing grades, allowing students to move at their own pace toward Advanced Placement classes, dual-credit opportunities and advanced career/technical training with state funding following the student. He’ll also reconstitute effective drop-out prevention programs and cost-saving measures to move dollars into our classrooms.

Chris Dudley believes our overall goal should be to end a K-12 system that produces too many drop-outs – particularly among our disadvantaged students – and “graduates” too many students unprepared for college or the work world. That system is not fair to the students or to the taxpayers, and it hurts Oregon’s economy. Oregon’s schools need greater accountability, higher performance standards, increased choice, and new ways to achieve savings in the classroom. Chris Dudley believes a wholesale transformation of our state’s education enterprise is critical to Oregon’s long-term economic health. We must ensure that our children arrive in kindergarten ready to learn and leave high school ready for a professional/technical career or college. We must keep our best and brightest in Oregon. In all this, we must see that our educational enterprise meets the needs of Oregon employers for innovative workers, now and into the future.

13. Transform Oregon Higher Education – Chris Dudley believes it’s never been more important for Oregon to have an accessible and high quality system of higher education. Higher education is essential to producing the innovators and leaders of tomorrow and to strengthening Oregon’s climate for job creation and economic growth. Regrettably, Oregon’s current system of higher education is falling behind due to an outdated governance and management model that limits autonomy, accountability and innovation.

For example, higher education budgets approved by the legislature include more than 6,000 categories compared with just a few for K-12 education and community colleges, despite the fact that 14 percent of university funding comes from the state compared with 72 percent of K-12 funding and 59 percent of community college funding. Former University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer said, “I am more and more convinced that our present system has just reached the outer limits of its utility.” The presidents of Oregon State University and Portland State University and the chancellor of the university system have expressed similar sentiments. In addition to political micro-management, the past 20 years have seen steady erosion in state financial support for higher education. Adjusting for inflation, state funding for the university system has decreased 16 percent the past 20 years while enrollment has increased 27 percent. And 20 years ago, students paid approximately 30 percent of the cost of their education. Now, tuition covers closer to 70 percent.

In December 2009, Chris Dudley was the first gubernatorial candidate to publicly embrace major reforms being advanced by state higher education leaders to reform the relationship between state universities and state government. For too long, Oregon has increased its regulation of higher education while decreasing funding – resulting in less autonomy, accountability and innovation. As Governor, Chris Dudley will champion reforms that will allow each institution the opportunity and responsibility to govern itself. In exchange, Dudley will demand a specific commitment to ensuring greater accessibility for Oregon students, improvements in efficiency and management, greater accountability and transparency and a robust commitment to innovation and partnerships with the private sector to strengthen the state economy.

14. Expand Research and Development (R&D) – Chris will support the extension of Oregon’s research and development tax credit, which is currently set to sunset. Oregon’s credit is modeled on the federal R&D credit. It provides a credit when a qualifying business increases its expenditures over a base year. The credit is not an entitlement for doing the same thing year after year. It is an incentive to increase R&D expenditures and make investments in emerging economic opportunities. Without action next session, Oregon’s R&D tax credit will be eliminated.

To help attract entrepreneurs and venture capital to the state, Chris Dudley will also urge the Legislature to expand Oregon’s R&D tax credit by making it refundable for small, emerging businesses. Research and development is something Oregon is doing right and must not abandon. In 2007, according to data from the National Science Foundation, Oregon business spending on R&D was ranked 9th nationally. The high wage jobs created by R&D businesses provide an opportunity to grow the foundation for more taxpayers in Oregon.

Ensure Oregon is Open for Business

Job-Focused Governing

Over the past 16 years (and recently due to government policies such as Ballot Measures 66 and 67) Oregon’s business reputation has been further tarnished and confidence in Oregon as a place to invest has declined. As Governor, Chris Dudley will lead Oregon’s economic comeback by declaring that Oregon is indeed open for business and will pursue policy and personnel changes to demonstrate that state government is eager for both existing and new businesses to invest here and grow here.

To accomplish this, Oregon must:

15. Implement Operation “Second Look” – As he detailed in his 26 Point Plan to Control Spending and Reform Government, Chris Dudley will ask his budget manager and agency heads to re-examine all programs and positions added in the 2009 Legislature. Chris Dudley believes that state government should have put its fiscal house in order before building additions. As governor, he will take a second look at these 2009 add-ons and recommend not moving forward on these new enterprises or eliminating older ones to offset the costs.

16. Promote Oregon’s Comeback at Home and Around the World – While Oregon has many natural assets and is known for many positive things, a friendly business environment, regrettably, isn’t generally one of them. As Governor, Chris Dudley will combine his unique professional background with Oregon’s many natural assets to promote Oregon across the nation, and around the world as a desirable investment and tourist destination. Chris Dudley will promote Oregon’s deep water ports as import and export hubs and include the ports in the development of his trade agenda. Following legislative approval of his comeback agenda, Chris Dudley will recruit people from across the nation and around the world to visit, invest and stay in Oregon.

17. Require Economic Impact Analysis On Legislation – As Chris Dudley outlined in his 26 Point Plan to Control Spending and Reform Government, he will require that all final bills requiring his signature include an economic impact statement, detailing potential private-sector job impacts and increased compliance costs for business. The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates what bills will cost the state, and the Legislative Revenue Office estimates what tax changes will mean for state revenues. These estimates provide important information to policy makers, but they rarely mention the legislation’s potential impact on Oregon’s private sector.

18. Refresh State Government with New People, New Attitudes – As Governor, Chris Dudley will change Oregon’s job creation policies by changing the people who help shape them. Chris Dudley will breathe new life into state government by hiring and appointing a new generation of people from diverse and balanced backgrounds without regard to partisan politics and from every corner of the state. Special attention will be given to ensuring that women and minorities are represented in a Dudley Administration. Mostly, Chris Dudley will seek quality people who share a commitment to restoring private sector job growth as the foundation to saving our quality of life.

19. Build the Columbia River Crossing; End the Gridlock – Chris Dudley believes it’s critical for the regional economy to end the bureaucratic grid-lock that has already cost taxpayers $100 million (and counting) only to discuss a new I-5 Interstate Crossing. As Governor, Chris Dudley will support a bi-state authority (appointed by the governors of Oregon and Washington) to oversee the project and its management; removing the many layers of competing governments that have failed to agree on a plan for the project. The management authority will have a single director and will remain in place for the life of the project to oversee eventual design, construction and funding implementation.

20. Implement a Balanced State Energy Plan – Chris Dudley believes access to reliable, affordable energy is essential to creating a positive environment for job growth. He also believes that innovation in energy production can and should be a source of future jobs and economic growth in our state.

As Governor, Chris Dudley will support an energy policy that balances the need for necessary infrastructure with our existing efficiency and conservation programs. He will maintain a strong commitment to the development of renewable energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and geothermal while also supporting an affordable, safe and reliable energy infrastructure necessary during the transition to more supplies of renewable and sustainable sources of energy. He will vigorously defend the region’s hydroelectric power system that is an abundant source of reliable, affordable, carbon-free energy. He also supports a collaborative, science-based approach to saving salmon in the Columbia River.

  • a retired professor

    A lot of this stuff is going to cost money. What is he going to sacrifice to pay for it? It would be nice to see a budget for the next biennium, especially since there is supposedly a $3 billion shortfall coming in the general fund.

    Looking at what I’m most familiar with, education, I wonder about a lot. The stuff on education is full of well-meaning platitudes. He seems to be signing on to Obama’s “Race to the Top”. Does he really believe this is going to lead to a situation where every child in the public schools is ready for his goal of college or a professional/technical career? Does he really know how to get minority students to meet his goal of performing as well as others? If so, he has a secret that has eluded everyone else in the country. What does giving each school a grade of A to F mean? It sounds like more No Child Left Behind. Has this really worked? Has it improved schools? Damaged them?

    He seems to decry the cut in support of public higher education. But nowhere does he talk about restoring these cuts, so far as I can tell. Is the plan to continue public funding at Mississippi levels? All he has is talk about greater autonomy and accountability. Are these goals even compatible? What do they mean? Freedom to raise tuition at will? To raise admissions standards if a state campus desires to do so? Or a tuition freeze, or greater accessibility? He has a blather-filled quote from former UO President Dave Frohnmayer (his fellow Republican), who presided over 15 years of academic decline at UO. What does this tell us?

    All in all, not much here besides unfunded costly ventures and empty platitudes, Nothing much about the real problems the next Governor is going to have to deal with. No tax reform, apart from the capital gains tax cut. Very little but blather about education. Not much there!

    • Sybella

      You know, I hire people who have graduated from Oregon public schools as well as those who only attended for a while. They are in no way ready for the every day world. I believe they have been abused by the public school system when they aren’t taught nor made ready for the challenges of living and working in our world. They have no clue.

      Even if Mr. Dudley’s plans don’t all get into action, he’s thinking and looking for the better good of our state. Obviously he won’t walk in the door of the capital, snap his fingers and it be complete. Only an idiot even thinks that would happen.

      His ideas make sense and we the people are ready for some sense in our Government,.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t see that you’ve made any attempt to answer the prof’s questions, which all seem pretty reasonable, starting with the observation that there’s no plan given to pay for this.

        And you really think the graduates of the public schools have been “abused”, that they’re clueless? Why do you hire them? At the least, I’d think you hire private school graduates, if you really think they’re so much better.

        • Sybella

          I wasn’t attempting to answer his question

          • a retired professor

            At least we can agree on that.

  • Bob Clark

    I plan to vote for Chris because he brings a cheerful demeanor to the job and his philosphy slows Oregon’s trend towards an ever increasing welfare state. I think Chris could improve his 20 point plan especially in the area of education by narrowing its focus to this: fostering the development of a healthy competition between alternative means of education, particularly, between public schools and other private and/or non-union forms of education. Just accomplishing this would be a herculean accomplishment.

    I think also Chris needs to add a 21st plan point which would be to rebalance the state’s land use laws to allow more local control so as to help foster a healthy competition between cities to encourage economic growth. Measure 49 for instance squashed the spurt of economic development which would have occured under Measure 37. Somewhere between the two lies the political answer. I’ve thought that maybe allowing farmers to sell their property for development in exchange for contributing a certain fraction of the farm for greenways might be a good outcome. Layering in new developments with land conservation portions.

    I definitely see Kitzhaber as accelerating the trend towards Oregon as a welfare state where the individual and the individual community is coerced to fall in line, and disincentivised to increase economic activity, but rather to sit bye idle. The individual and individual community become rather like slaves to a few decision makers in Salem. Ironically, Kitzhaber has the disposition for the Welfare state as when I’ve had occasion to see him, he seemed rather arrogant and dismissive of various groups.

    • eagle eye

      Other than a brief mention of charter schools and other related public school alternatives, does he say anything about plans along the lines you like? I see nothing about private schools. I’m afraid you may be looking for what you want to see rather than what is there, or what he has any intention of putting out there.

      In fact, I’d guess he’s afraid — apart from whatever beliefs he really holds — that any mention of a move away from public schools would spook the voters he needs to put him over the top.

  • valley p

    Well, its Republican par for the course. Cut taxes and magically revenues are going to increase. Plus we get to spend more on schools, sort of …someday.

    How many times are people going to fall for this crap? At the national level it is even worse. Republicans used to be a fiscally responsible party. Now they are believers in magic and fairy dust.

    Here is reality. If you reduce capital gains taxes you will reduce revenues. If you give half the income tax to localities where businesses locate you will reduce state revenues. If you give businesses more “tax relief” by aligning state and federal income tax codes you will reduce state revenues. If you end so-called double taxation then you reduce state revenues.

    Tax “relief” for emerging businesses? That reduces state revenues. Additional tax “credits.” = Less revenue.

    Increase state timber harvest? Aside from the fact the people won’t let you because that compromises water quality, salmon, viewsheds, and wildlife habitat, There is no market demand for more timber from Oregon. State forests sell a product that competes with private forests. If you ramp up state forest harvest you lower the value of timber on private land, so whatever gain you get is matched by a loss. Do the math!

    Then of course Dudley is going to increase spending on education.

    My God….when will reality kick in? If you really think government does too much then cut it. stop pretending you can spend more and tax less. Dudley fails economics 101, as does the entire Republican party.

  • AndrewW

    These recommendations don’t “create jobs” they may help change the business environment, but only solutions that create DEMAND can create jobs. Innovation does that.

    here’s an example: http://www.2020b.com they claim to be solving three big problems all fueled by demand, not subsidies.

    • Mary’s Opinion

      What sparks a demand for more jobs is a demand for more products or services. A company can hire as many employees as it wants but if there no customers those employees will lose their jobs. This country needs an economic environment that says to its citizens – feel secure about the job you have. If you don’t have a job now you soon will. Begin to plan on making those purchases you have been putting off because of your uncertainty about the economy. We need confidence in our economy and our government.

      • AndrewW

        You are speaking of general demand in the economy. When people have more money they spend more money. That is a result, not an action.

        I am talking about innovation that is valuable enough to create demand. For instance, if somebody had an innovation to produce roads or bridges faster and at a lower cost, more cities and towns could afford to replace them and that would create jobs based on demand, not subsidies. The same is true for consumer products and some services. By making things more efficient or more affordable or even more attractive that creates demand – real demand that pays for those jobs.

        • Anonymous

          Unfortunately there are a lot more things than roads and bridges. If you aren’t working and can’t afford a car, why would you even want a road and bridge. They don’t taste very good on bread

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Frankly the best item in this agenda is item one – cut capital gains taxes.

    Oregon needs to ask itself if it wants to continue on its obesssion to destroy business.

    If it wants to continue on that course, then great, keep capital gains taxes high.

    If it wants to increase revenues then great, cut capital gains taxes.

    Capital gains tax cuts dont always bring in more revenue, but in general they a capital gains cut is a fairly reliable way to increase revenue somewhat directly (capital gains tend not to be major portions of the revenue stream for government) as well as indirectly, through increased growth.

    We can see this prettyhttps://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/3507-Dudley-20-point-plan-list-to-create-jobs.html#comments clearly on the Federal level. Following the capital gains cuts of 1997 and 2003 revenues to the federal government rose 20% and 15% as compared with the start of the 1990’s.

    This is pretty well known stuff and was even pointed out to Obama by Charlie Gibson during the primary debates. Gibson asked Obama why he intended to raise capital gains tax rates when raising rates tends to lower the revenue from those taxes. Obama said it was a measure of basic fairness. Gibson pressed him again, was the point of Capital gains taxes to raise revenue or not, because if so, then raising rates would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Obama replied that the point of the tax was to ensure basic fairness.

    This is pretty basic stuff if even Obama and Charlie Gibson are aware of it. In fact its how most of us operate in our own lives – thus fulfilling the dictum that everyone is a conservative in the field of their own endevour.

    Example 1

    If we are running a garage sale and no one is buying much of anything, we worry we wont make any money at all so we lower prices, we don’t raise them.

    Example 2

    If we are looking for a job fresh out of school, we may want a $200k starting salary, but we know our revenue will be zero because no one will pay it, they will look elsewhere. Therefore we lower our price to a more reasonable salary.

    With the highest capital gains tax in the country lots of people look elsewhere than Oregon to invest in an asset, be it a property or a factory. It simply makes sense to do so. Oregon can continue its war on business, but if increased revenues for government are the goal, then lowering capital gains taxes would be the thing to do.

    • valley p

      “Capital gains tax cuts dont always bring in more revenue, but in general they a capital gains cut is a fairly reliable way to increase revenue somewhat directly”

      Mythology. This issue has been studied to death. Decreasing capital gains taxes decreases revenues. Even the Bush Administration economists knew that and said so. Here is the analysis from the CBO on the relationship between capital gains taxes and economic growth.:


      Increasing economic growth from a capital gains cut is speculative at best. If you reduce taxes on capital, you make it more valuable and make investment (versus spending) more likely. But this does not hold true for capital gains taxes. In fact, if you want to increase short term revenues, advertise that you will INCREASE the capital gains tax next year. People will rush around selling things to pay the lower rate this year.

      “Gibson asked Obama why he intended to raise capital gains tax rates when raising rates tends to lower the revenue from those taxes.”

      I don’t know about what Gibson asked or didn’t ask, but if he made that claim he was wrong. Taxes on capital gains are related to economic growth, not the other way around. If the economy grows, capital gains are high, and revenues go up. You and he have it backwards. Read the CBO analysis. Revenue from capital gains goes up or down with the economy. Capital gains taxes do not cause the economy to go up or down.

      Wash rinse repeat. Cutting taxes equals cutting revenues. There is no magic potion out there. Economic growth in Oregon will depend 99% on economic growth in the nation. Our tax rates, as long as they are not grossly out of line with the other states, will make zero difference to our growth. Investing in higher education and infrastructure is about the only thing a state can do to boost its prospects. That or be lucky enough to have recoverable energy reserves that get suddenly discovered.

      “With the highest capital gains tax in the country lots of people look elsewhere than Oregon to invest in an asset, be it a property or a factory”

      Maybe so and maybe not. Assets are assets. If Oregon property and commercial assets are undervalued due to taxes, one would not know that from the prices. Property here is way more expensive than in the Midwest or south. And business are no cheaper. Investment value is based primarily on the profit potential of the asset, not the capital gains tax. For example, what is the productivity of an acre of forest in Oregon versus and acre in Alabama? What is the cost of harvesting and processing and selling the product? What is the price? How much one will pay in taxes after having enjoyed (or not) the profits for a number of years is just not gong to matter that much.

      • AndrewW

        Taxes are ancillary. You have to create demands to creates jobs. Not demand by giving away money, but demand that comes from solving problems or making something more efficient.

        Watch their video: https://www.2020b.com they get it. they are solving 3 big problems.

      • valley p

        “Investing in higher education and infrastructure is about the only thing a state can do to boost its prospects. ”

        Amend that to add: “and provide targeted tax breaks and credits to attract and hold traded sector industries that are location insensitive.” i.e. bite the bullet and give breaks to industries that can locate anywhere, but will choose here if we help them.

        • AndrewW

          Are you kidding me? We already have some bright people. They are seeking INNOVATION. They are using their imagination. Education is important, but it has failed in the US. Professors don’t solve problems. Neither do MBAs ot PHds. The most incredible progress in America has come from innovation and the desire to solve problems.

          Some people get it: 2020b.com

          Creating demand is the key – not more money for education or anything else. This isn’t for government to solve – it is for us to solve. Government has never solved anything – people have.

          • eagle eye

            “Education is important, but it has failed in the US. Professors don’t solve problems. Neither do MBAs ot PHds.”

            Tell that to the people in the Boston area, or the Bay Area, or Austin.

            For that matter, tell it to George W. Bush when he needed to replace Rumsfeld, Powell, and Greenspan!

            China and India will be passing us by soon enough — largely with help from Ph.D.’s that we trained but forced to leave America!

          • AndrewW

            I would agree that education is important because it prepares people for jobs, but it doesn’t create them. Plus, most innovations come from people with imagination, not degrees.

            It has become too easy to blame others or simply settle for “the way things are.” For decades we’ve known how bad our education system is, how unlivable our cities are and the need for clean, renewable energy. Big problems that many believe the “government” should solve or that we just have to live with. I think that’s lazy. Ideas solve problems and that should be our focus.

            Stimulus funds won’t save us and cutting taxes won’t save us – we have to save ourselves.

          • eagle eye

            “most innovations come from people with imagination, not degrees”

            They’re not incompatible, you know. If you don’t believe me, visit any of the locations I mentioned.

            I’m afraid the days of the homespun basement inventor are mostly in the past. Even Thomas Edison — who was born in the mid-19th century — did a spell of course-taking at the Cooper Union.

            I would claim that most of the vast innovations of the past century or so have originated largely in the work of people with degrees, very many of them with advanced degrees.

            Example: Andrew Grove, responsible for one of Oregon’s largest employers, Intel, had a Ph.D. in engineering from Berkeley.

            If you go back further into the development of electronics and computing, it’s even more laden with advanced education. Ditto the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry.

          • AndrewW

            Not true. Here’s a list of the Top 100 Entrepreneurs without college degrees.

            I have invested in new innovations for the past 25 years. While some ideas do flow from many universities, the best ones I have seen come from those that have either dropped out of college or quit because it didn’t make sense. My explanation for this is that the individual that doesn’t want to be taught to do a job or have a “career,” but rather to create independence and wealth, realizes that it is imagination that delivers ideas, not knowledge. The other modern day fact is that information is now readily available via the internet. Smart people figure thing out, not pass tests. Higher education is not about solving problems, it is about obtaining knowledge (assumed) and a degree.

            I am much more inclined to listen to a wild-eyed inventor without credentials, than a sleepy-eyed “smart” guy with plenty of degrees. The ideas i’m chasing now are from three young people that endured their college experience and recognize that it has little to do with what they’ve created. What makes them different from the more “educated,” is that they are ambitious and they are seeking solutions because of the financial rewards that enables their full independence.

            America doesn’t have enough people trying to improve things, yet that’s where new jobs will come from.

          • AndrewW
          • AndrewW

            Richest self-made Americans
            without a college degree:

            William H. Gates III
            Harvard University, dropout
            Net worth: $43 billion
            Source: Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT – news – people )

            Paul Allen
            Washington State University, dropout
            Net worth: $21 billion
            Source: Microsoft; Charter Communications (nasdaq: CHTR – news – people )

            Larry Ellison
            University of Illinois, dropout
            Net worth: $15.2 billion
            Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL – news – people )

            Michael Dell
            University of Texas Austin, dropout
            Net worth: $11.2 billion
            Dell (nasdaq: DELL – news – people )

          • eagle eye

            Interesting that those guys all got their start in universities. Also, they’re all about the same age, and getting kind of long in the tooth. They all went into an industry — computing — at a time of revolutionary development, probably not to be repeated. But they were by no means the only, or the first people to make large fortunes or innovations in that industry.

            And of course, they were all in an industry based on much earlier developments in physics (solid state physics, quantum mechanics — look up some names like Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrdoinger, Bardeen) and mathematics (von Neumann, Turing) — largely, if not exclusively based in non-commercial enterprises (universities, the military) in their formative stages.

          • AndrewW

            38% of the Forbes 400 list of Billionaires never went to college. Whether or not someone accomplishes something in life is more about their ambition than their education.

            Plus, you ignore the fact that knowledge is no longer locked up in colleges and universities – it’s everywhere, and it’s mostly free. A college degree isn’t the meal-ticket it used to be, just ask last years graduates. I have a hunch that some of the previous years dropouts may be doing better than they are right now.

            I invest in innovation and ideas. Most of the deals I’ve seen or have been involved in during the last 10 years have come from individuals that were ambitious and used their imagination. Very few have come from college grads or even colleges/universities.

          • eagle eye

            I think it’s more like 14%. Who didn’t get a degree. At least among the “self-made” billionaires.


            I don’t know how it breaks down if you exclude foreigners, or break it down by age. But it seems like college might give you a leg up. If 86% have degrees.

            Have you asked them if they regret having gone to college?

          • AndrewW

            According to Forbes 33% of the 400 billionaires never got a degree. This also: The average net worth of billionaires who dropped out of college, $9.4 billion, is more than double that of billionaires with Ph.D.s, $3.2 billion. Even if you factor out the world’s second richest man, Bill Gates, who left Harvard University and is now worth $53.0 billion, college dropouts are worth $5.3 billion on average, as compared to those who finished only bachelor’s degrees, who are worth $2.9 billion. And what is true for billionaires holds equally for the garden-variety rich: According to a recent report from Cambridge, Mass.-based Forrester Reaseach, a full 20% of America’s millionaires never even set foot in college.

          • Anonymous

            See my reply under #9.

          • eagle eye

            Well, “Knowledge is power”, someone once said (Francis Bacon). But have it your own way.

            A list of 100 people who succeeded without a degree is kind of silly. Like a list of smokers who lived to 90. And a lot of those people actually got their start in the colleges they dropped out of.

            If Thomas Edison, Andy Grove aren’t good enough for you, consider Phil Knight. He seems to think enough of higher education to have made major academic donations to places like Stanford, OHSU, and of course his alma mater UO.

            But for exemplars of innovation, I’ll take Silicon Valley, Route 128 over Oregon.

          • AndrewW

            Well, Einstein said “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

            Argue with him.

          • eagle eye

            Professor Einstein? The guy with the Ph.D.? The one who worked at three universities and a research institute after he escaped from the patent office? I have no quarrel with Einstein. Now there was a real innovator!

            By the way, check out what Bill Gates has been up to. Check the places he’s been visiting:


          • AndrewW

            It is interesting to note that Gates was “excited to have the students share their ideas.”

            No mention of the professors.

          • Anonymous

            Uh, maybe you should have taken reading lessons back when you were in school:

            “I’ll also be spending time at each school meeting with students and faculty to learn about innovative work they’re doing in their various programs. “

          • AndrewW

            Read the end of the article.

          • eagle eye

            Anyhow, it sounds like Dudley is not your man! He has said he wants to beef up Oregon higher education, fund it better, give scholarships to the best Oregon students to stay in-state.

            The Kitzhaber years were very hard for Oregon higher education. Maybe he is your guy!

  • Bob Tiernan

    *valley boy:*

    Well, its Republican par for the course. Cut taxes and magically revenues are going to increase.

    *Bob T:*

    As usual, it’s not as simple as you make it sound.

    Compare this to what’s par for the course in the Democrats’ tax strategy book. Gee,
    let’s increase the luxury tax on yachts, and let’s see, hmmmm, based on the average
    annual sales of yachts we’ll take in X-amount. But the reality was that yacht sales
    went out of country or were put off, leading to shrinking revenues from that source
    (sales) and many laid off workers whe’d been in the yacht trade from manufacturing
    to sales and service. Brilliant. Talk about revenues that were supposed to magically

    Bob Tiernan
    NE Portland

    • valley p

      “As usual, it’s not as simple as you make it sound.”

      I’m not the one who makes it sound simple. Republicans are the ones who make it sound simple, as in cut taxes and the economy will magically grow fast enough to increase revenues greater than they were before the tax cuts. Talk to your own people about this, not me.

      The democratic strategy book is to balance spending and taxing, which is why the health care bill runs a surplus according to the CBO.

      And your strategy is to lose sleep over the price of yachts. Spare me. Lets give the tax break to canoe buyers instead.

      • AndrewW

        Government won’t solve our economic problems. It never has. It really doesn’t matter if they are Democrats or Republicans. It’s always amazing to hear Presidents claiming to “create jobs” or that they even have an effect on the economy.

        America will only rebound if we get off our collective asses and build better products, make our industries smarter and more efficient and even figuring our how to create clean, renewable energy. If we do some of those things we can export that innovation – something we haven’t done in a long, long time.

        • valley p

          “Government won’t solve our economic problems. It never has.”

          GOVERNMENT stepped in and prevented runs on banks in the 1930s, unfortunately after a private sector bank closed and took my grandfather’s life savings with them. GOVERNMENT created a more stable banking system that worked great until deregulation of the Savings and Loans in the 1980s led to a major private sector financial collapse. So government stepped in and made depositors whole, at great cost to taxpayers.

          In 2008 Lehman brothers went under, the largest bankruptcy in US history. The entire banking industry again teetered on collapse. Ordinary businesses that rely on short term loans to cover cash flow were on the verge of not meeting payroll across the US. Again, THE GOVERNMENT stepped in a bailed out the private sector.

          It must be nice Andrew, to think that the private economy just hums happily along and does not need government. Unfortunately its not the real world.

          • AndrewW

            Maybe you should read what I wrote and respond to that. I didn’t say we didn’t “need” government, I said that Government has never solved any problems. You have mentioned regulations and they have there place and because of politics are constantly changing.

            Right now our economy is in trouble. 15 million people are out of work. How is government going to solve that? All government can do is print money to buy jobs in an effort to delay further problems while HOPING it all works out. Hope is not a plan.

            We spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that didn’t have any sustainable effect. Sure, it preserved a few jobs for another year, but what then? More money?

          • eagle eye

            “I said that Government has never solved any problems.”

            Well, if that’s what you said, it’s perfectly idiotic.

            Leaving aside minor things like World War II, or Roosevelt’s rescue of the country starting in 1933, or even the Interstate Highway System, I would just point to the recent TARP bailout. Whatever the causes of the financial crisis — they are many and complicated, in my opinion, with much blame to go around — I’m quite convinced that the government probably averted a financial collapse, with unemployment that would have made our current problems look like child’s play.

          • AndrewW

            TARP has only delayed things for one year. That’s not a “solution” it is a deferral. What has the government done to create jobs? 1% of the stimulus package went to R&D, much of it “politically-connected R&D.”

            Highways? Born out of necessity the Federal Government created and financed the Interstate System. It is a good example of government providing basic infrastructure, but it isn’t solving a problem. In many ways initial utilities were provided by government AFTER inventors created them.

            The financial crisis was enabled by government regulations. Those regulations are changing. I believe those bailouts and loans represent government cleaning up the mess IT made.

            Government has a role, but it certainly isn’t in the solution business. Obama gave an MIT Professor $24 million for the development of wind turbines off the East Coast, “enough to power one-third of America, complete with 2 hours of storage.” First, it would need a lot more than “2 hours of storage” to be even reasonably reliable – at least 2 full days are necessary. But, the best part is when the Professor told Obama that the turbines would all be fitted with radar and “that they would be shut down when birds were migrating” much to the disappointment of one-third of America. He made these comments directly to Obama (youtube has a video). That’s an example of remarkable stupidity and a waste of $24 million. It was only done to appear to be investing in our future. Instead, it turns out it was a political connection. DOE, Obama nobody noticed the lunacy of shutting off the turbines two months out of the year. Nobody.

            But, that’s GOVERNMENT.

          • eagle eye

            TARP has only delayed things for a year? In the first place, it’s been more than a year, it’s closer to two. Second, a couple of years without a catastrophic depression is better than a couple with a depression. Third, there’s no evidence that we’re slipping into a massive depression. And fourth, the market was utterly helpless in the face of the looming financial calamity.

            And the financial crisis was “enabled” by government regulations? Right! Instead of doing their jobs, the regulators let the free market to its own devices, as in the absurd over-leveraging and the development of the catastrophic unregulated derivatives. Ask that old Ayn Rand fan, Allan Greenspan. Or is he too much of a socialist for you?

            And don’t like government energy solutions? Then try BP! Or better yet, try nuclear power.

            Oops, but, that’s GOVERNMENT. Yup, a little thing called the Manhattan Project. Specifically, the part by Enrico Fermi. That’s right, one of those lazy-eyed perfessers! Under the stands at the University of Chicago.

            Oh, I’m still waiting for the free-market solution to World War II.

  • AndrewW

    TARP rescued a financial mess that government allowed. The government should have regulated derivatives AND sub-prime mortgages. They didn’t.

    I was speaking about your Trillion dollar stimulus package that hasn’t done anything but DELAY and DEFER, while putting us further in debt. We printed some money to buy some jobs. We didn’t create any.

    Giving the professor $24 million was a complete waste. That has nothing to do with BP or nuclear power. It has to do with Obama’s investment in a make-believe solution.

    • Anonymous

      So now we agree that solving problems — like averting a financial calamity — is a job for government. We’re getting somewhere!

      And “your [i.e. “my”] stimulus package”? I was talking about TARP, not the stimulus package. I was not in favor of the stimulus package.

      And, if you’ve been one of my fans long enough, you know that I haven’t exactly had a lot of kind words for wind energy. Or Obama.

      • AndrewW

        I would differ slightly. The government cleans up the mess (problem) but they don’t create solutions. How are they doing with healthcare, poverty, education, clean energy, immigration, our food supply (eggs not regulated), insurance, obesity, roads, bridges, exploding gas pipelines and on and on.

        In my lifetime (<50 years) I would only give credit to JFK for figuring out how to get to the moon. Since then it's just been a bunch of bull-shit, politically/government speaking.

        That's why I believe Americans have gotten fat and lazy. Everyone thinks somebody else is going to solve our problems. I'm just suggesting stop look to government and begin looking to each other. That's why I like that 2020b.com vision. I haven't heard of anyone solving 3 big problems and NOT asking for government subsidies. It's rare.

        Wind energy isn't valuable without storage. Obama has been a disappointment. Turns out he's a pragmatist more concerned with what "looks best" than what "works best." He has disappointed. Love those speeches, though.

      • AndrewW

        I would differ slightly. The government cleans up the mess (problem) but they don’t create solutions. How are they doing with healthcare, poverty, education, clean energy, immigration, our food supply (eggs not regulated), insurance, obesity, roads, bridges, exploding gas pipelines and on and on.

        In my lifetime (-50 years) I would only give credit to JFK for figuring out how to get to the moon. Since then it’s just been a bunch of bull-shit, politically/government speaking.

        That’s why I believe Americans have gotten fat and lazy. Everyone thinks somebody else is going to solve our problems. I’m just suggesting stop look to government and begin looking to each other. That’s why I like that 2020b.com vision. I haven’t heard of anyone solving 3 big problems and NOT asking for government subsidies. It’s rare.

        Wind energy isn’t valuable without storage. Obama has been a disappointment. Turns out he’s a pragmatist more concerned with what “looks best” than what “works best.” He has disappointed. Love those speeches, though.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *valley boy:*

    I’m not the one who makes it sound simple. Republicans are the ones who make it sound simple, as in cut taxes and the economy will magically grow fast enough to increase revenues greater than they were before the tax cuts.

    *Bob T:*

    You seem to be stuck on calculating the amount of revenues based on some fixed number
    of taxpayers and their income, as if nothing ever changes. You also make the mistake of
    calculating revenues based on a set number of people in an economy that remains the
    same size. Stop doing that.

    *valley boy:*

    The democratic strategy book is to balance spending and taxing, which is why the health care bill runs a surplus according to the CBO.

    *Bob T:*

    But the CBO must provide a conclusion based on the data it is given to work with, and nothing else. In this case, the estimate was based on ten years of taxation dedicated for the program, and only five or so years of outlays. Ten years of revenues, and five or six years of outlays.

    This would be like a tax created to pay for three new aircraft carriers, with the illusion of these
    being paid for by a new dedicated tax being created by starting to collect the taxes right away
    but only starting to spend the money after five years. You wouldn’t fall for that one, even if
    technically correct, so why fall for the ObamaCare illusion? Let me repeat: the CBO was obligated to provide its estimate based on taxes collected for ten years, but outlays for about half of that period. You don’t even have to know the numbers in order to do the math on that one.

    *valley boy:*

    And your strategy is to lose sleep over the price of yachts. Spare me. Lets give the tax break to canoe buyers instead.

    *Bob T:*

    It’s not that I lose sleep over the price of yachts, but that the point to that episode is
    that Democrats think things are so simple that raising such a tax wouldn’t change
    any behavior or activities and that the revenues anticipated would magically appear
    because the same number of yachts would be sold.

    Or that a state increasing taxes on a billionaire would bring in X-amount of additional revenues when in fact when the billionaire relocates, the revenues are zero.

    Gee, how’d that happen?

    Bob Tiernan

    • valley p

      “You seem to be stuck on calculating the amount of revenues based on some fixed number
      of taxpayers and their income, as if nothing ever changes.”

      No. I’m stuck on realism. Voodoo economics has been tried twice and has failed twice. Raising top marginal tax rates was also tried twice and succeeded twice. How many experiments should we run?

      “But the CBO must provide a conclusion based on the data it is given to work with, and nothing else.”

      Wrong Bobby boy. The CBO is the group that comes up with the data. They determine how much revenue will actually be raised by a proposed policy, how much “savings” will be gained, and what the costs will be. Congress relies on them for this purpose, which is why they wait for CBO to “score” bills before they vote on them.CBO scored the bill that passed. It generates more revenue than it spends according to their analysis, using their own data.

      “Ten years of revenues, and five or six years of outlays. ”

      Aside from your being factually wrong, the CBO also estimated that in the out years, beyond the first 10, that the bill would run even greater surpluses over time. That suggests that your 10 year 5 year argument is pure BS. If the bill needs twice as many years for half the finding, then why would out years be even better?

      The fact is that much of the “cost” of the health care bill is in savings in current programs, particularly Medicare. Those savings are phased in, as are the new benefits. so there is no 10 year 5 year ratio. Read something objective about this bill and you might learn something.

      “Let me repeat: the CBO was obligated to provide its estimate based on taxes collected for ten years,”

      Fine…repeat yourself. But the taxes are a small part of the CBO score. And many of the outlays, particularly subsidizing people to buy private insurance, also do not kick in until 2014.

      “Or that a state increasing taxes on a billionaire would bring in X-amount of additional revenues when in fact when the billionaire relocates, the revenues are zero.”

      IF the billionaire relocates that may be true. But the fact is that billionaires locate wherever the hell they want and shelter their taxable assets by multiple methods. No billionaire is going to give a rip about a state’s income tax rate. And since Oregon has I think one billionaire resident, and he has not moved, I guess your point is moot anyway.

      Consider this Bobby. Total economic growth for ALL 5 income quintiles in America went up faster under the past 4 Democratic than the past 4 Republican administrations. And the results are not even very close. Unless you think there is some grand coincidence happening, higher taxes on the rich coincide with higher growth rates in our incomes…all of our incomes. So you can argue theory and I’ll argue reality. Your theory has been tried and it fails. My theory, which is based on observation of reality, has been found to be true.


  • eagle eye

    I did. I read the entire article, not just the parts that said what I wanted.

    Anyhow, apart from perhaps a few subject areas, who cares if Bill Gates wants to talk with the Harvard faculty? Does he have something to tell them about, say, gene expression in tumor cells?

  • Bob Tiernan

    Because you probably can’t figure out how to go this far back…

    *valley boy:*

    Yes government policies, across the board, influence private economic decisions. And I suppose the absence of government would end that problem. Yet the government exists, and it responds to issues with policies.

    *Bob T:*

    Gee, what a white-wash. When the government passes policies, in this case in the form of tax breaks etc that corporations but not individuals enjoy, don’t complain about what takes shape afterwards and blame it on the market.

    *valley boy:*

    Your faith in the private market is touching. I lack that faith. I’m reality based

    *Bob T:*

    If you’re reality based, then why are you blaming the market on the health care system we have now?

    *valley boy:*

    and look at 1929

    *Bob T:*

    You look at a superficial explanation of it. Some of it was driven by government policies, and afterwards what really hurt the economy was Fed policy (tightening the money supply far too much) as well as stupid things like protectionist trade policies. We’ve had downturns before 1929, and what stood out compared to 1929 was limited government reaction. Only an ignorant person would say that a free enterprise system is supposed to be free of downturns. The free market economists certainly never say that.

    *valley boy:*

    the S&L debacle, dot.com bubble, real estate bubble, beanie baby bubble, Enron, Bernie Madoff and a lot of other evidence as demonstrating that the private market unfortunately needs a baby sitter else it will wreck us.

    *Bob T:*

    What you describe exists in all systems, some more than others, but the question is what market corrections do afterwards. For the real estate bubble example, your ignorance really shows. Such a bubble would not have grown and then popped had housing been market based, instead of manipulated for political purposes by do-gooder politicians trying to manage the economy to “better serve us”, which led to it getting worse. Government guaranteeing loans and mortgage payments may sound like the nice, squishy, compassionate thing to do, but what it led to was more money chasing after every house, which in turn drove up the prices. Somehow people like you never explain why home prices doubling and tripling in a relatively short period helped low income people, other than that the loans they got from government policies meant that it was harder to come up with the monthy payment and disaster loomed. But no matter –banks get blamed by the ignorant people, yet all the banks did was react to the government guarantees. In other words, since the government was guaranteeing that the mortgages would be paid or loans made, mortgages became one more thing that could be traded. There’s no reason to expect banks or other institutions to ignore that. But the banks would not have given loans to unqualified people the way the government had been doing and still is doing. So tell us now, who baby-sits the government when its policies wreck us?

    In the health service field, to cut to the chase, you still seem unable to explain why it’s been en efficient system to make people think that insurance should be all about making co-pays for routine matters rather than the really expensive stuff insurance was formed to handle in the first place. It’s like Oh my god, I have to go to a doctor to have a rash looked at, and I’ll have to pay for the visit out of my own pocket. never mind that more money is spent on cable, cell phones and so on. But it’s so easy to blame the insurance companies and the doctors, isn’t it?

    Your economic illiteracy is so brain dead that I can’t even continue with this reply.

    Bob Tiernan

    • valley p

      “to cut to the chase…”

      Dare we hope?

      “you still seem unable to explain why it’s been en (sic) efficient system to make people think that insurance should be all about making co-pays for routine matters rather than the really expensive stuff insurance was formed to handle in the first place.

      Ill ignore the incoherence of your sentence and try to answer what I think your question is. And read this carefully.

      *I do not think the current system, either pre or post Obama is “efficient” * I never said it was, and could have sworn I was saying the opposite. We have the most inefficient health care delivery system in the western world. We could adopt ANY western European system and save a minimum of 30% AND get better health care results.

      As for whether the system would be “more efficient” if we only insured the big stuff and charged for day to day medical care like we do for groceries or gas at the pump, my answer is that no, it would not be “more efficient.”

      Here is the reason. Health care is not like buying tsakas, nor is it like other types of insurance. It is more like electricity or police or fire service or K-12 education. It is a “utility,” not a mere commodity. It is necessary to a normal modern life, it is a service that every citizen needs to have access to, and it does not lend itself to shopping around. You could make fire fighting “more efficient” by charging people every time they call 911. There would certainly be fewer calls. But you would also have lost a lot of early intervention opportunities, so what is saved on the front end is lost and then some on the back end.

      80% of all health expenditures are made by 20% of the people. And as it turns out, those expenditures are not the piddly day to day types that your system would charge more for. It is the big emergency stuff and the chronic stuff. So even if you made the piddly stuff more efficient by charging for it at the door, you would not make a dent in the big stuff and might make it worse.

      You would probably make the big stuff cost more because you would end up with fewer early diagnoses since people would skip the regular checkup because they could not afford it this or that month. People are like that. They find ways to put things off that are not fun. Doctor visits are not fun. Make them cost more and they will be less fun and less used.

      Using your example, the rash, lets say people decide to not have it looked at. And it turns out 1 rash out of 100 is a signal of something more serious that could be treated inexpensively and effectively if caught early. The 99 $50 visits you saved would end up costing $100K in expensive intervention on the back end for the one rash that turned out to be an early sign of something.

      My economic literacy is good enough to know that being penny wise and pound foolish is not an effective way to save money. Plus, if visiting the doctor less often were the key to lowering costs, the US would already by the cheapest delivery system because tens of millions of Americans have no insurance and only see doctors in emergencies.

      So once again Bobby, reality intervenes in your free market utopia.

  • lesueur insurance oregon

    Hey Chuck, wtf!