Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 14, 2004 5:06 AM. The previous post in this blog was See how the other 1% lives. The next post in this blog is Insomnia?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

When I was 57, it was a very good year

A review of President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's 2003 federal tax returns, which were released to the public yesterday, reveals another financially successful year for two rich old boys from Texas.

Bush's tax status was virtually unchanged between 2002 and 2003. For the latter year, he had income of almost $400,000 from salary, around another $400,000 of interest income, $23,000 of dividends, and around $2600 of royalty income. He and his spouse took roughly $95,000 of itemized deductions, up from about $84,000 last year, with the increase largely attributable to a "miscellaneous" expense that wasn't disclosed on the portion of the return that was released to the public.

The First Couple paid $227,494 in federal income tax for '03 on a taxable income of $727,083. That's an effective rate of 31.29 percent of taxable income, and 27.67 percent of their gross. The rates the previous year were 34.75 percent and 31.39 percent, respectively. The decrease is no surprise -- the Bush tax cuts tend to favor rich, married, single-wage-earner couples like George and Laura. In fact, under the tax laws in effect when Bush was elected in 2000, the Bushes' taxes for 2003 would have been more than $260,000.

And so the Bushes are paying around $35,000 less in federal income tax now than they would have in 2000.

Cheney's return is always more interesting, because the Vice President is one rich s.o.b. He and his spouse grossed around $1,988,000 from all sources, including $454,000 of salaries, $627,005 of tax-exempt bond interest, $137,644 of dividends, $6564 in taxable interest, $44,500 from Lynne Cheney's consulting business, $327,643 of book royalties, and $302,000 in capital gains on sales of more than $10,000,000 of mutual fund shares in the early part of 2003. (They got out of Treasury bond funds -- "big time," as the Veep himself might say.)

For 2003, the Cheneys had so many tax goodies on their return that they had to pay alternative minimum tax (AMT) -- a special tax designed to prevent taxpayers from overdoing it on tax-favored items. This cut into the tax benefits of their deductions substantially. They wound up owing $248,369 in income taxes (including AMT, but before a foreign tax credit of about $7,000) on a taxable income of $813,266. That's an effective tax rate of 30.54 percent of taxable income, 19.59 percent of their adjusted gross income, and only 12.5 percent of their total gross, including the interest on their tax-exempt bonds. They did pretty well on those counts compared to '02, when the percentages were 35.45, 28.72 and 17.67, respectively.

I struggled to calculate what the Cheneys would have had to pay on their 2003 income under the tax law as it existed in 2000. The calculations get pretty hairy, what with the AMT and the capital gains preference. (The Bushes haven't had any capital gains to speak of in the last two years.) My best efforts result in a would-be 2000 tax on the Cheneys of $287,000, rather than the $248,000 they actually paid under the Bush tax cuts. That's about a $39,000 tax savings this year for the Second Couple from what they would have paid under Clinton.

Charitable contributions for the year? The Cheneys' jumped from about $120,000 to about $320,000, because Ms. Cheney's book royalties, which all go to charity, rose by that much. The Bushes' gifts to charity sagged very slightly -- from $69,925 in '02 to $68,360.

The Bushes stopped listing their daughters as dependents this year for the first time, but they weren't providing their parents with any tax benefit anyway, because the family makes too much money.

One mystery in my review of the Bush and Cheney tax returns is that they are partially incomplete. The forms released to the public do not include the many explanatory statements that were attached to the returns. As any IRS agent will tell you, those attachments are an integral part of the return, and they are covered by the perjury statement that the taxpayers sign. (Although the Bushes don't sign their returns -- they have someone at their bank do it for them under a power of attorney.) But the separate statements don't get published as part of the annual White House tax return disclosure ritual.

An intriguing item on the Cheneys' returns: they deduct their tax return preparation fees on Ms. Cheney's business schedule. That way Ms. C. doesn't have to pay 15 percent plus in self-employment (Social Security and Medicare) tax on the money she pays her tax accountants at KMPG. A smart move, but is it kosher?

UPDATE, 4/15, 4:15 a.m.: The plot thickens on the Cheneys' tax return preparation fee, just discussed. Several alert readers have commented to me off-blog about how much advantage the Cheneys might have gained by having that expense deducted on Lynne Cheney's business schedule, as opposed to listing it as an itemized deduction. There are a couple of advantages, and they appear to add up to even more than the 15-percent-plus in saved Social Security and Medicare taxes that I speculated about in the above post.

First of all, a correction on my part. It turns out that Ms. C. had already paid the maximum tax into Social Security for the year on account of her book royalties and her day job. And so she didn't save any Social Security tax by clever placement of the tax prep deduction; she wouldn't have owed any more Social Security tax than she actually paid, regardless. However, she did save Medicare taxes (just under 3 percent) by the deduction of the tax return prep fee on her business schedule.

More significantly, however, if that expense had been listed as an itemized deduction instead of a business deduction, it would not have been deductible by the Cheneys for AMT purposes, whereas it was fully deductible for that purpose (saving 28 percent of the deduction in tax) on the business schedule. Bottom line: The couple appears to have saved tax of more than 30 percent of the tax return prep fee by the way they listed it. (A couple of additional, indirect tax savings were suggested, but they'd be really tiny.)

Some of my correspondents join me in questioning the correctness of how the Cheneys played it. It's not a lot of money for tycoons like them -- maybe $1,000 or so in tax -- but I'd sure love to hear someone explain how the couple's tax accountants are entirely an expense of her consulting business.

One possibility is that the tax preparation fee listed on her business schedule is only part of the overall amount they paid to have their taxes done. Perhaps the rest was deducted as an itemized deduction (but not for AMT purposes) on those mysterious attachments that don't get released with the rest of the tax forms. Without those statements, I guess we'll never know.

Comments (21)

Jack, you and Robert Landauer of the Oregonian need to get your stories together. You describe the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) as "a special tax designed to prevent taxpayers from overdoing it on tax-favored items."

According to Landauer's column on 4/3, on the other hand, "[t]he AMT stealth tax shows that rich political donors are effectively waging class warfare on the rest of Americans."

Now I'm not comparing Bob Landauer's expertise on the tax law to yours, but Newsweek magazine also had a cover story recently calling AMT "The Dirty Little Secret" of the Bush tax cuts.

So could you kindly enlighten us? Is AMT is liberal snare to catch rich guys like Cheney, or a plutocratic plot to soak the middle class to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

Um, how about....both?
Here's Dan Gross' Moneybox column discussing the politics of the AMT:

Jack, care to explain the mechanics of it?

As for the AMT, Jack Robby, that's a long post for another day. I tried to describe it in a way that someone who never heard of it before would understand it. If it doesn't get changed soon, as Landauer points out, many more Americans are going to become painfully aware of it.

The article on AMT referenced above is a good example of what I'm talking about. After asserting, with no evidence, that "Republicans don't want to fix the AMT because fixing the AMT would require undoing their beloved tax cuts," the author provides a convenient hyperlink referencing three bills introduced in Congress to repeal AMT and one to index it to inflation.

All four bills were introduced by (you guessed it) Republicans.

I would welcome anyone to identify a Republican elected official who supports AMT.

JR, of course the GOP hates the AMT. The AMT costs guys like Cheney many, many tens of thousands. In his case, this year, $47,198 to be exact. The Republicans will be glad to let the AMT start impacting middle-class folks, as it will in a few years, and then when the outcry gets loud enough, repeal the AMT altogether. Cha-ching! Another $47K in take-home for Cheney.

Not wanting to fix it and not wanting to get rid of it are two different things. It's an absolutely routine legislative game to refuse to fix something you don't like so that its unintended consequences do less damage, because it's better to let it malfunction to the point where you can get rid of it entirely. The same thing happens with bills -- you don't amend a bill in committee that you hate in order to make it less awful. You let it pass, and then you blame the people who passed it over your objection and you argue for its repeal. It gets you a political point, and all it costs in the meantime is all the malfunctions -- which you can blame on the guy who passed it anyway.

Sad, but true.

In order to blame the Republicans for refusing to "fix" AMT, shouldn't you have to point to some Democratic proposal to fix it that the Republicans have blocked? I listened to quite a few of the Democratic Presidential Debates (I know, I'm a masochist) and I never heard any of them criticize AMT, much less propose changes to it.

(I wonder, if asked, how many of the candidates would have thought AMT refers to automated teller machines?)

I did hear the Treasury Secretary (in response to a question) criticize AMT and its increasing impact on middle class taxpayers when he was in Eugene a couple of months ago, but last time I checked, he's a Republican.

My answer to Democrats who want to attack AMT is "Go ahead, make my day!"

The Democrats, at least in Multnomah County, best stick with sticking the little guy. I made a little over $10K in our lovely city last year (no benefits), and even I get to write a check for 80 bucks to pay -- as nearly as I can tell -- for teachers' medical benefits to which they do not contribute and that their union refuses to negotiate.

Find me almost any Republican to vote for, or campaign to work on, and I'm yours.

Sorry .... Mannix DOESN'T count!

Actually Petey - 70% of your local tax went to schools mostly to pay for instructional days and to retain teachers. In Portland alone, 24 school days were retained and over 600 teaching positions (1 out of 5 teachers, preventing a 30% increase in class-size). I won't go into all the details of the mental health services you funded or assistance for low-income seniors or public safety.

If you want to get the facts and figures for school funding, check out an independent report at

And, yes the teachers health care is an issue in Portland at least. But, Portland also pays their teachers a very low salary in comparison with other districts in the area.

So feel good about your 80 bucks - it makes a difference.

Nice try but no sale, auggie. I don't feel good. And I will fight them at the polls and in the court of public opinion as far as I can and probably as long as I live.

I have quit bitching about Bill Gates though. His work for real schools is terrific.

(And do the math. How much difference do you think $80 makes on a benefit-free income like mine? Be real!

AMT is not so much a stealth tax as a cynical tax. AMT was designed to tax tax sheltered income that was effectively eliminated in 1986. Now tax shelters are our kids, our houses (property tax)and state and local income taxes.

I spoke to an former key aide to our local Congressman about this and it was apparent that Congress has no clue as to the impact AMT has on people. I prepared the tax return for the brother of this former aide. Marginal regular tax rate - 25%. AMT rate 26%. Thanks for the tax cuts but a lot more of us just are not going to see them.

> In Portland alone, 24 school days were retained and over 600 teaching positions

Not a chance. Are you saying that without the tax, Portland would have cut 24 school days and fired 600 teachers? No way in hell. They would have lost some days and fired some teachers, but nowhere near that many. Those are scare numbers designed to ensure the passage of the tax - and they obviously worked.

> (I wonder, if asked, how many of the candidates would have thought AMT refers to automated teller machines?)

At least Sharpton would have. At least he probably knows what the IMF is now.


I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the GOP hates the AMT simply because it means people like Cheney (who can sell off 10 mil. in assets in a single year) have to pay an extra 47k, because that would make you look like a very silly, very partisan hack.

Congress may have unwittingly enacted a flat tax when it approved the AMT. Since the AMT is not adjusted for inflation, at some point everyone will pay either a 26% or a 28% rate.

Citizens and fellow spinners:

There are many ways to spin a tax debate and a tax return (or else there would not be so many tax preparation services and armies of tax lawyers and accountants as well as commentators and social ethicists).

The most common spin is that nobody but "poor old me" pays as much and gets so very much little.

The second is that a "few very rich folks" get all the breaks while the poor pay for those breaks.

The fact is that the country is made of a lot of "poor old me" hard working singles and couples that pay between 21% and 27% of their gross income in federal income taxes. This sector that ranges between $60K and $80K in gross income pays roghly 20% of the total taxes (see IRS annual report) while the sector just above ($80K to $120K) pays another 25% and the sector above that ($120K to $150K) pays another 25% and the sectors below $50K pay little or nothing at all.

Of course, we could argue that the relative burden of wealth acquisition and management for each sector varies considerably by reason of life conditions and opportunities. This appeals greatly to the proposition (sophism?) that it is harder to be poor than to be rich and thus government must equalize the burden through tax incentives and other controls that benefit the poor and curb in the rich. Whether this results in a nation of poor and virtuous people or a country of rich and greedy people is something that has been bouncing around for the best part of three centuries with mixed results for the equality of poverty side.

Moreover, little old ladies who worked in factories, businesses, and schools for over 30 years now sit on investment portfolios of mutual funds and bonds and money market investments that now qualify them to be placed in the "millionaire" category. Of course, they should not have done that and trusted instead in the Social Security system that would reward them in their old age with $1,000.00 or $1,200.00 monthly payments greatly augmented with the wonderful benefits of Medicare and Medicaid.

There are a lot of these "old ladies" and in any tax-the-rich discussion, we must answer the question: What to do about retiree earnings from lifelong savings and investments?

Of course, these "old ladies" probably vote GOP and therefore must be punished as greedy, useful idiots that have become the wild variant that causes the failure of the equation of "income redistribution" and "fair" taxation.

While I am not an accountant and have stayed far from the corridors of legislative obfuscation and lawyering, my aunt is one of those "old ladies" and since her move to a senior citizens village, I have come to know a large contingent of people like her who scrimped, saved, and worked hard to build a retirement egg nest while educating their children and giving generously of time and resources to their communities. On paper, they are now "rich" and pay taxes like the "rich people" of tax equality debates; however, we pretend that they do not exist and that our fury is only directed to "other rich people" that need to be punished for their malfeasance in wealth acquisition. Yet, this brings up the rather nagging question of: how do we separate the "good" rich from the "bad" rich?

When we are truly and honestly ready to answer this in a manner that is non-partizan and rational, please let the world know.

My aunt would also like to know before her next birthday (92) and I would like to know also that I may be able to write the proper checks to the new Internal Revenue Tax Equalization Service from my prospective share of her hard earned legacy.

It is all so simple in the abstract yet messy in the details. Perhaps Teresa Heinz-Kerry has the answer.

I know that the responses will be either acrimonious attacks of a personal nature, hard and high sounding references to personal ignorance, or invective cliches from workers rallies around 1886. Nonetheless, it is good to say something just to let people know that the country has a large number of radical centrists that are very amused by the arguments between extremes.

Thank you and adieu.

It's always so humorous to watch class warfare jealousy in action, when you and me and everyone else on this board would love nothing more than to have annual incomes like President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Everyone likes to hate the rich, but they'd like to be one even more.

"...At least Sharpton would have. At least he probably knows what the IMF is now."

Impossible Mission Force?

The following represents my informed opinion, Your mileage may vary.

I am a CPA, and have been licensed since 1998, specializing in small business taxation.

First of all, $1000 seems like a low price to do a tax return with the complexities of the Cheney's, especially seeing where they live. However, it is reasonable for just the Schedule C portion (income from self-employment)

That being said, it is possible to argue that without a Schedule C, the taxpayer would complete the return themselves, and the full cost to prepare the return is deductible as a business expense.

It sounds to me that they have deducted only a portion of the entire cost to prepare their return, and it was reasonable to do so.

Where's Kerry's return?

Phil: The $1,000 was my conservative estimate of the tax savings. The deduction, for "tax preparation, planning, and representation fees," was $4,113.

Thanks, Jack-That seems a little high, even for a complex return and CPA costs in DC, unless her info was brought in a shoebox (which I don't believe is the case). Arethtere other services provided? Maybe quarterly payroll tax returns, etc?
Another potential cost increaser is the "representation fees". If the taxpayer gets called in front of the IRS, any firm I know of would charge their highest rates. If the extra fees are related to the business, I would not hesitate to deduct on the Sch. C.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When I was 57, it was a very good year:

» An inspirational reading for April 15 from Isaac Laquedem
We interrupt our support of the social welfare state to honor Tax Day. Having sent two large installments of Danegeld to the federal and state governments today, rather than be needlessly creative about the joys and benefits of taxation in [Read More]

» Bush, Cheney, and Kerry Tax Returns from Reagan's Blog
Jack Bogdanski has done analysis on the Bush, Cheney and Kerry tax returns. One thing that is interesting is that Cheney is one rich SOB. I would have expected Kerry to be the richest among the three, but no. I still think Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Ke... [Read More]

» Tax Question (Paging SayUncle) from Les Jones Blog
Jack Bog analyzed Bush and Cheney's tax returns. Now he has an analysis of Kerry's tax return. One item on Kerry's return is from the 2003 sale of a piece of art. It was originally purchased in 1996 for $1... [Read More]

» She links me, she links me not... from Alas, a Blog
Long Story: short pier critiques Paul Erdős. Well, sort of. Not really. Anyway, it's a terrific post, and I've been meaning to link to it for ages now, so you should go read it. Especially if you're interested in gender... [Read More]

» Bush, Cheney, and Kerry Tax Returns from The Blind Scholar
Jack Bogdanski has done analysis on the Bush, Cheney and Kerry tax returns. One thing that is interesting is that Cheney is one rich SOB. I would have expected Kerry to be the richest among the three, but no. I still think Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Ke... [Read More]


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics