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 June 21, 2009 1:54 PM. The previous post in this blog was What fools these mortals be. The next post in this blog is OMG! OR in the NYT, and it's not all good!. 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

Sunday, June 21, 2009

The Wall Street rants, and gets it wrong

The weekend Wall Street Journal has a wicked editorial in it, blasting the Oregon Legislature for having the nerve to raise corporate taxes. But before they get so preachy, those editorial writers should get their facts straight. They state:

Oregon will soon boast the second highest [individual] income tax rate in the nation, moving ahead of California (10.55%), and only slightly behind New York City (12.6%). Corporations will pay a 7.9% tax on gross receipts, up from 6.6%.
Oregon doesn't tax gross receipts -- it taxes net income, allowing the expenses of income production to be deducted from gross income to reach the tax base.

But hey, it's the Wall Street -- no business tax increase could ever, ever be justified. If it were up to that publication, income tax would be imposed only on working people's wages. Income from businesses and investments would be completely exempt. Bush actually announced this as his agenda back before he went back onto the pretzels, but the vast majority of the voting public wanted no part of it. Nor does it now.

Comments (38)

Of course, no mention of the missing sales tax component in Oregon. Californians, for example, also pay 8.25% minimum in sales tax.

The WSJ doesn't need to mention that business people ARE working people. They understand that when that is raised=it's passed on to the worker/consumer.
Economic laws are actually not that hard.

Actually Jack, HB 3405 does tax gross Oregon sales of C corps.

Links to the entire bill, official summaries and fiscal impact statements, and Oregonian news coverage can be found here:

The first section makes clear that the minimum tax will now be based on gross Oregon sales:

House Bill 3405


SECTION 1. ORS 317.090 is amended to read:
317.090. (1) As used in this section, “Oregon sales” means:
(a) If the corporation apportions business income under ORS 314.650 to 314.665 for
Oregon tax purposes, the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax year, as
determined for purposes of ORS 314.665;
(b) If the corporation does not apportion business income for Oregon tax purposes, the
total sales in this state that the taxpayer would have had, as determined for purposes of ORS
314.665, if the taxpayer were required to apportion business income for Oregon tax purposes;
(c) If the corporation apportions business income using a method different from the
method prescribed by ORS 314.650 to 314.665, Oregon sales as defined by the Department of
Revenue by rule.
(2) Each [taxpayer named in ORS 317.056 or 317.070] corporation or affiliated group of corporations
filing a return under ORS 317.710 shall pay annually to the state, for the privilege of
carrying on or doing business by it within this state, a minimum tax [of $10.] as follows:
(a) If Oregon sales properly reported on a return are:
(A) Less than $500,000, the minimum tax is $150.
(B) $500,000 or more, but less than $1 million, the minimum tax is $500.
(C) $1 million or more, but less than $2 million, the minimum tax is $1,000.
(D) $2 million or more, but less than $3 million, the minimum tax is $1,500.
(E) $3 million or more, but less than $5 million, the minimum tax is $2,000.
(F) $5 million or more, but less than $7 million, the minimum tax is $4,000.
(G) $7 million or more, but less than $10 million, the minimum tax is $7,500.
(H) $10 million or more, but less than $25 million, the minimum tax is $15,000.
(I) $25 million or more, but less than $50 million, the minimum tax is $30,000.
(J) $50 million or more, but less than $75 million, the minimum tax is $50,000.
(K) $75 million or more, but less than $100 million, the minimum tax is $75,000.
Enrolled House Bill 3405 (HB 3405-A) Page 1
(L) $100 million or more, the minimum tax is $100,000.

They must have been confused by the fact that the legislature passed two corporate tax increases in the same bill.

The legislature just passed a corporate AMT based on gross receipts with HB 3405, so the WSJ must have accidentally applied the numbers for the corporate income tax increase (from the same bill) to the gross receipts tax.

So the truth is probably worse than they reported. We increased corporate income taxes AND added a corporate AMT based on gross receipts. (meaning even if a wholesaler lost millions of dollars it might still pay $150k in taxes based on the value of its gross receipts).

The Wall Street says that Oregon has been taxing gross receipts, and it simply hasn't.

Yes, corporate income taxes were increased, and the corporate minimum tax was changed from a ridiculous flat fee to one based on gross sales. Washington State has a gross receipts tax. No one is going to die.

Economic laws are actually not that hard.

No, they aren't. When business taxes are increased, they're passed on to the consumer. When they are cut, the investors take them. Great system.

When business taxes are increased, they're passed on to the consumer. When they are cut, the investors take them. Great system.

Oh, if human reactions to tax laws were that simple. In the real world, economists generally admit that they simply don’t know which individuals bear the brunt of business tax increases, or reap the benefit of business tax decreases. What they do know is that businesses don’t pay taxes – individuals do, be they consumers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower wages or fewer job opportunities, and/or investors/owners in the form of lower dividends/profits.

No one is going to die.

Probably true, but someone is going to lose his or her job, or not get a job that wasn’t created because of these higher taxes. Probably a lot of someones.

Thanks, Steve, for the Bush perspective. It's done our country so well -- I really miss it.

One thing mentioned brielfy in the WSJ but not in the recent Oregonian discussion about state budgets is the fact that the last biennium budget increased state spending by almost 20%. The original budget proposal for the next biennium claimed that another 20% increase was necessary to "maintain current services." The budget compromise settles for a "cut" that is a 4% or so increase over the last biennium.

So, the cut is still an increase year over year.

It is one thing to raise taxes to cover a shortfall. It is another thing to take an increase in funding to justify higher state expenditures year after year.

The schools and public safety are placed front and center as the victims if budgets are to be cut.

No one has the answer as to what is a fair level of taxation.

No one has an answer to controlling spending.

Businesses have immediate feedback - reduced revenues lead to reduced profits or even losses, resulting in lost jobs or worse, the business failing and shutting down.

If companies are successful, companies grow and probably require more tax-paying employees. Drive a business out of business and there are less tax revenues and more unemployed workers.

Tax incentives are offered to companies like Intel, Nike, Adidas, and others. Once they are established, they are then the targets for further tax extraction.

Though only a handful of executives may be the >250K targets for new taxes, they are also the decision makers who determine whether to setup or expand operations in Oregon. Making them the whipping boys when times gets tough surely causes them to think carefully about the future.

While I am definitely not in the >$250K salary segment, I don't like the trend downward if things get worse. What next, an asset tax on our retirement savings or other equity holdings?

To me, there's nothing more depressing than middle-class people defending the money of the filthy rich. Let them come in off their polo ponies and make their own case.

Under HB 3405, the alternative tax on Oregon sales primarily affects unprofitable C corporations. Some of these are mom and pop's. It also affects start-ups, funded by venture capitalists and angel investors. Since the company by definition is not profitable, the minimum tax will have to be paid by either further investment by the investors or cutting expenses (which as a practical matter means
payroll). Ironically, this tax increase (and disincentive) will be most noticeable in the more successful start-ups (the ones with the largest sales traction), which are the start-ups that produce the most jobs in the short-term and have the prospect to be significant
long-term employers. And since the base of the minimum tax is Oregon sales, it will affect software companies particularly, because their out of state sales are "thrown back" to Oregon (absent nexis with another state). To the extent the state increases taxes on an unprofitable investor-funded start-up, the state will be creating a disincentive to
start such businesses here.

Bob Wiggins
Mount Hood Equity Partners

Get used to it, fellas. The party's over. And appears likely to stay over for quite some time. Unless you have somebody better than Kevin Mannix and Sarah Palin.

A company grossing $5 million can afford to pay $4,000 to the State of Oregon. That's less than a round of golf and a dinner for the CEO and his friends.


I mean this is a great time to raise taxes, with Oregon unemployment only trailing Michigan's by a hair.

Jack, what you got against "the rich?" Being wealthy isn't a crime. Besides the rich already pay the vast majority of the income taxes in this country.

Why don't all those others pony up something themselves? It's easy to rant against the rich when it mean you won't have to pay your own fair share of tax.



Remember that when at some point you fall into the category of being considered "filthy rich". I am sure you know the poem, "first they came. . ."

Yes, those with means need to pay for a safe and just society.

Just be careful with the broad brush.

I am not defending the filthy rich.

I am defending those who have been successful in life and work (some who may even be donors to your employer; you know very well that tuition does not pay all the costs). I am simply pointing out that class warfare when it comes to taxation is a slippery slope.

No, it isn't. $250K a year is a good dividing line for filthy rich. I say let's go back to the JFK years when the top rate was 92%. Or 50% under most of Reagan. I know, I know, that will be such a disincentive for work that people like Henry Paulson won't get out of bed in the morning and rob the rest of us blind for another day. What a great moment for America that would be.

I mean this is a great time to raise taxes, with Oregon unemployment only trailing Michigan's by a hair.

When times are good and Oregon has a surplus, you guys demand that it all get paid back as a kicker. This is the same thing.

People are losing their jobs in America with or without tax raises. Put your rose colored glasses away. Let's talk about all the off-shoring and out-sourcing to India, China, the Carribean, etc. where labor is cheap. Oh, and, where the US gov't gives big breaks to US corporations that do this say like Nike and Intel. Nike did the recent set of lay-offs while it was profitable so let's be clear that business agendas/actions are more often about raising stock prices so executives benefit from stock options soar.

It seems to me that increasing taxes on the very rich would be an incentive, not a disincentive, since they will have to work harder to pocket the same amount of money.

Not that they need all that money. Executive compensation is mostly tied to egos, just as it is in professional sports.

Raising taxes on corporations might cause them to raise prices, but if they are in a highly competitive field, the can't do that or some other company will go lowball and steal their business. Or it may cause them to reduce payroll, but believe me, they already are trying to get by with as little payroll cost as they can get away with. If they need well trained personnel, they can't afford to cut pay--other than the top execs, who probably are overpaid. So the tax increase for a lot of companies will hit investors and owners, and these groups have reaped big windfalls over the past eight years.

Oh, one place they might cut is their annual gifts to PACs and single-minded business lobbies. Which then might even out the political playing field. (Well, not really, but the tilt may not be as extreme.)

Jack wrote: "A company grossing $5 million can afford to pay $4,000 to the State of Oregon. That's less than a round of golf and a dinner for the CEO and his friends."

Are you kidding me? The new minimim tax on gross receipts arises in cases where the company is NOT MAKING ANY MONEY. My world is start-ups. CEOs of unprofitable start-ups do not spend their companies' scarce resources buying golf and dinner for their friends. In almost every start-up I have been involved in, at one time or another, the CEOs have taken reduced or no salaries so the rank and file could get paid. (And most of these companies ultimately survived and went on the become successful businesses.) In two of the start-ups my current fund is invested in, I personally advanced money to each company so it could make payroll. In a start-up, $4000 is a significant amount of money. It's the cost of a medium-sized trade show. It's one employee's salary for a month.

When a company is actually making money, I think it's very reasonable to discuss what an appropriate rate of tax on the company's income should be. This new gross receipts tax on unprofitable businesses is a very big deal and a terrible idea, and your remarks above are arrogant and ignorant Jack.


You can scream all you want, but if a company is grossing $5 million, it can pay something more than $10 to the state. Even if it is, as you put it, "NOT MAKING ANY MONEY," it can set aside a big $4,000 of the $5 million it brings in to pay some taxes, just as it needs to put aside something for rent, fuel, utilities, materials, employees' wages, property taxes, etc. The services that the state provides are not conditional on the constituents making a profit, and the taxes that pay for those services need not be, either.

As for "ignorant and arrogant," that's a pretty funny comment, Mr. Big Shot. A little touchy about one's political philosophy being laughed out of the state and the nation? Please don't take it out on me. Maybe you and Merritt Paulson could meet up for a nice, relaxing sauna.

This is a good blog entry!
If your making hefty profits, why should you be whining about paying more taxes?
Anybody with an income over 200k needs to pay a much heftier part of the burden of keeping this great nation going!

This is the only country in the world where you get to make so much filthy wealth and horde if all for yourself.

AND THAT FOLKS, is why all the rich from all over the world set up shop here!

"You guys?"

Jack, you're engaging in class warfare. It's very unbecoming.

You don't get it. All of us already pay too much in taxes. Government just spends it inefficiently and unwisely. It's pretty simple. I mean I don't get a guaranteed 8% return on my 401k like some PERS do.

All this government spending is just unsustainable. You don't have to listen to me. The Chinese will soon tell you through the bond market.

If you believe $250,000 is the threshold of the filthy rich then you are out of touch with financial reality. Those people are hardly even upper middle class, especially if they have 3 or 4 kids.

Sometimes I wish Rush Limbaugh had a Sunday show, so that the rightwingers could hear their soothing talking points seven days a week and not feel that they have to repeat them here.

All this government spending is just unsustainable.

Where were you for seven years while Bush-Cheney bankrupted the country to satisfy their blood and oil lusts?

People are losing their jobs in America with or without tax raises. Put your rose colored glasses away. Let's talk about all the off-shoring and out-sourcing to India, China, the Carribean, etc. where labor is cheap. Oh, and, where the US gov't gives big breaks to US corporations that do this say like Nike and Intel. Nike did the recent set of lay-offs while it was profitable so let's be clear that business agendas/actions are more often about raising stock prices so executives benefit from stock options soar.


Someone can see the forest for the trees.

This is where I part ways with my Libertarian brethren. The reason America became a world power with a great standard of living in the first place, is that it was an industrial powerhouse. Lots of things were made here, some of them the highest quality on Earth. Ever looked at tools (or firearms or automobiles or sewing machines) made here from the 30s through the late 60s ? Best in the world.

A while back, a customer of mine from India was telling me about his Dad. Apparently, the old man, who wasn't all that well-to-do, swore by American footwear. He was willing to pay extra for a third world country...because it was the best. For decades.

Everyone wanted to buy our stuff. Of course, this had a lot to do with the fact that after WW2, we still had factories and cities that weren't bombed to pieces by ourselves, the National Socialists, and our Communist allies...but our stuff was still the best in the world.

Now we sell entire foundries to China.

Their culture is thousands of years old, they are not stupid people. Now, there is even serious talk of the Yuan going on the gold standard at some point, as an international reserve currency. That will be the death knell of the value of the Dollar. Think Wiemar Germany in the early 20s. Of course, the fiscal policies of The One and his Bankster masters are only increasing the likelihood of hyperinflation.

How has this short-sighted policy of outsourcing benefited our country in the long run ?

I'm all for those nations industrializing and so forth. But why do we have to subsidize this at the expense of the long-term prosperity of our people ?

Yeah, I'm an isolationist. America first, as jingoistic as that may sound. Unfortunately, I have this sinking feeling that by the time I'm old, there won't even be scrap left here to sell...

If you believe $250,000 is the threshold of the filthy rich then you are out of touch with financial reality. Those people are hardly even upper middle class, especially if they have 3 or 4 kids.

And yet they're in the top 1% of all income earners. Top 1% is upper middle class? Who is it you think is out of touch?

Mom-and-pops are more often S corporations or LLCs than they are C corporations, and would pay a $150 tax instead of the graduated tax that rises to $100,000. (And if a mom-and-pop business is grossing $100,000,000/year and paying that $100,000, it's not the corner grocer.) I would expect startup firms, such as those funded by Mr. Wiggins's company, to be S corporations during their period of unprofitability, or to be LLCs if their owners are ineligible to own shares in S corporations, if this tax is truly a major disincentive to be here.

Issac, I suspect you are right on mom and pops, though I haven't seen any statistics on that. Before receiving venture or angel funding, start-ups are sometimes LLCs or S corporations. However, venture funds cannot invest in S corporations, as the fund, which is a limited partnership, is an ineligible shareholder in an S corporation. We also do not invest in LLCs, because of the effect of rules that affect our retirement plan investors. We're basically stuck with C corporations at this point. Bob Wiggins

After reading the above comments I'm stunned by the general lack of knowledge about business economics some have. It is apparent that those who have never run a business have no understanding of the cash flow of a business. Mr Wiggins is correct. I am a retired banker. I had a family owned business that was doing so well they invested in a plant expansion and hired six new employees. Then they got the tax bill for $200K. The money was out the door for the expansion and payroll for the new hires. There choice was to layoff two hires or borrower the money. I told them to borrow the money as the expansion would provide the $$ to payoff the loan. And by the way, the principal payments on the loan comes from profits as does uncapitalized capital expenditures. You folks who work for wages think what a company reports in profits is $$ laying around which are stuffed into the shareholders/owners pockets. I most cases these profits are reinvested in plant and employees.


You make some excellent points re the potential for this new corporate minimum tax to hit start-up companies. Fortunately it's fairly easy for LLCs to convert to C corporation status should they need funding that cannot be obtained while an LLC.

But I don't think this new minimum tax is going to have start-ups running for other jurisdictions. Where are they going to go? If the argument were true that start-ups go only to low-tax jurisdictions, then there wouldn't be any start-ups in Washington (B&O tax imposes solely on gross receipts much harsher than Oregon's minimum tax) or California (don't get me started). Nevada is a low-tax state, yet I don't see start-ups fleeing the West Coast to be protected by the gang from Reno 911.

The truth is that start-ups consider taxes as one factor among many. Other critical items include infrastructure, talent pool, willingness of local government to provide incentives (such as Oregon's BETC), and competition. Using Jack's example, I don't see how a $4,000 tax bill on $5 million of gross receipts will become the determining factor for a start-up seeking to locate its business. Indeed, most start-ups I know pray for the day they will have $5 million in gross receipts - a $4K tax bill would be a nice problem to have.

Like it or not, the reality is that people and jobs will be leaving Oregon as a result of the increasing tax burden.

Moving across the river into Washington State and its lack of income tax (despite the sales tax) is a mathmatically sound way to acheive this. Then who will we tax? Beware the Pyrrhic Victory.

Meanwhile, Paulson's buddies at Sachs give us more to chew on... and get sick from.

Also, can we all stop using the term "mom n' pop" and "corporation" in the same sentence to further our strained arguments?

Oregon will not miss any of the innumerates who move to Washington for a better tax deal. Funny how companies just keep on moving and starting up here, and some fairly big ones stay -- I guess they just aren't very smart, looking at the whole package rather than just focusing on one line of one tax schedule.


Just because some of us subscribe to an economic theory you disagree with, please don't assume that we're carrying water for Bush or Paulson.

Personally, I didn't vote for either President Bush, and I oppose Mr. Paulson's attempt to saddle Portland taxpayers with the costs of his ball parks.

There seems to be an assumption here that tax increases will hit only "the rich." HB 2649 will result in some increase in tax liability for most taxpayers. It collapsed the existing 5% and 7% brackets, which weren't very large to begin with. The 5% bracket used to go from $0 to $3,050; now it's $0 to $2,000. The 7% bracket used to apply to taxable income from $3,050 to $7,600. Now it's $2,000 to $5,000. Therefore, almost EVERY Oregonian with taxable income will see some increase in personal income tax liability.

The bill also reduced the standard deduction for single people, which hadn't even come close to keeping up with inflation over the years. This will also lead many residents to have slightly more taxable income. In addition, the deduction for federal taxes paid is reduced.

The creation of the new Oregon personal minimum tax will also hit people below the $125K level. I suspect that, over the next few years, the legislature will tighten the screws on "high middle income" taxpayers through this mechanism.

Finally, Jack, I don't agree that corporations with $5M in gross revenues can "afford" to pay an extra $4,000 in taxes. It isn't like they aren't paying any taxes now, including various payroll taxes, licensing fees, etc. It's very likely that much of that $5M is going to pay employees and/or buy goods or materials. If the business has $5.1 in expenses, it can't "afford" to pay anything. The assumption that businesses with this level of gross revenue are buying luxury boxes at the Rose Garden and buying dinners that cost thousands is far from reality.

Your blog Jack, but why would you belittle people making intelligent arguments? People and businesses are mobile and taxes will influence where they go. Taxes are a drag on the economy. Raise the rates and lower the incomes, and you may actually collect less taxes. Also, taxpayers hire CPAs and attorneys to rearrange their situations to minimize the tax.

Richard/s - You know some of us "workers" have actually studied finance (like with a capital F). And we do, in fact, understand business economics. Some of us in fact will be leaving the bloat that is corporate Amerika and starting our own businesses. I think you confuse small to medium size business realities with multinational mega companies. And if you understand that the value of a business is in long term growth and viability, then offering executive benefits that ensure short term profit taking and the "deferred maintenance (think of an apt. building owner)" set of actions... as in suck it dry and take as much out now as possible so I can get my pie, is one really stupid way to go. And really was does someone do to earn $4 or more million a year if they were not in on the founding of a company. Most execs cannot manage their own lives, let alone actually make sound decisions...

LucsAdvo: thanks for making my point. My comment had nothing to do with your incoherent post.

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

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
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: 8
At this date last year: 0
Total run in 2018: 10
In 2017: 113
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