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.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 31, 2011 5:25 PM. The previous post in this blog was Nowhere to run. The next post in this blog is "Urban renewal" is not worth it. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Archives

Links

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

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Utterly Boring.com
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
HinesSight
Onfocus
Jalpuna
Beerdrinker.org
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
Sansego
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
Mireio
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
{AE}
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Althouse
GirlHacker
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Frytopia
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
StumptownBlogger
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 Drink.com
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion
LoveSalem

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
Misterblue
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
Twisty
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
Pinktalk
Mellow-Drama
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Rosenblog
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Blort
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
Maukie
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
KGW-TV
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
KOIN
Willamette Week
KATU
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB
Topix.net - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
KPTV
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

Music-Related
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Seal
Sting
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, January 31, 2011

Health insurance law is in trouble

To those of us who wanted a public option, the health care law passed by Congress last year was a bitter disappointment. Now another judge has held it unconstitutional.

Are we supposed to be outraged by the court's holding? Given our belief that the Democratic Congress should have spent more time on goals like rolling back the obscene Bush tax cuts, we're just not feeling all that upset.

Comments (25)

If you look at the ruling, or excerpts from it then the ruling looks fairly strong for two points.

The first is that the Judge rather strongly argues that the Commerce Clause does not empower the Federal Government to force citizens to buy something. Obviously this will be the position of at least four Supreme Court Justices.

The second problem is that in what can only be called an act of Legislative Malfeasance the Congress did not include a "Severability Clause" in the legislation. This clause is normally present and states that if one provision of the law is ruled invalid, that affects only that provision and not the rest of the law. By failing to include this provision, which one can assume was one of pure idiocy by the Democrats who wrote it, if any provision of the bill is ruled unconstitutional the Court can, if they want to, throw out the entire bill.

Anyone think Scalia and Company won't just do that?

"...federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him...he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Read it and weep Jack.

The top 1% of income earners now pay more taxes than the bottom 95% Maybe we can tax success out of existence?


http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-sotu-2010-redux-if-we-truly-care.html

The healthcare law does indeed have a severability clause - see Title II, Subtitle F, section 255. The (mostly) lawyers who wrote the law are not idiots. The judge simply states in his opinion that he cannot seperate out the individual mandate from the rest of the law under the severability clause (because, according to him, the mandate is so entwined in the law as to make it unseperatable), therefore he is throwing out the entire law. Fortunately, two other federal judges who have upheld the law were smart enough to be able to do so. The score now is 2-2, so who knows what will happen when it gets to the Supreme Court. Perhaps it will be declared unconstitutional; then the country can go back to the good ole days of denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime benefit caps, and best of all, making sure all those disgusting poor people don't have healthcare coverage.

Maybe our state government, which hasn't done anything interesting or useful snice about 1970, could give us a single payer system.

"The top 1% of income earners now pay more taxes than the bottom 95% "
The anti tax zealots always find a way to ignore FICA when it suits the lie of the moment.

The top 1% of income earners now pay more taxes than the bottom 95%

That's because the top 1% make more money than the bottom 95%... or pretty close to it.

People like Paul Sorenson who make this argument immediately reveal themselves to be not worthy of taking seriously. The progressive income tax is approaching its 100th birthday. There's a reason for that.

We should celebrate. Under our federalist sysTem with a government of limited, enumerated powers, it is true that the Feds can't force you to buy health insurance and reMain within the Constitution.

Besides, when this turkey crashes, we are not going to go backWatds, unless every Dem simply follows Obama's lead in folding Before the cards are dealt. When the big court kills this thing, then we can get a real national health plan, Medicare For All, with none of the legal hassles.

In the 1970s, the 2nd amendment was a legal backwater, with few legal precedents and not much interest. That changed when the NRA went radical... from a 19th century how-to-aim-your-rifle organization to a zealot-driven political organization.

Some say that the recent constitutional attacks on the Obama health care stuff, the EPA, clean water/air, etc, and overall revivalism in commerce clause (etc) attacks are akin to such 2nd amendment fulmination.

Indeed, just as the "well-regulated" part has apparently been stripped from the 2nd amendment, expect, in a decade or so, the rallying cry for the latter-day teabaggers to be on this-or-that about the severely restricted commerce clause. Roberts court uber alles!

The current reading of the Commerce Clause is at least a decade old. The rallying cry, if there is one, is now, not 10 years from now.

It will all come down, once again, to what Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks.

Didn't the Senate just relax nomination rules to limit blocks of judicial nominees? (Not sure if this went through.) If so, we can only hope that Obama is able to play the field with (slightly) less conservative lower courts.

Since the rumor on Kennedy, fairly or not, is that he browses the Web to taste international judicial opinion before opining, maybe more lower court judges like Goodwin Liu might prompt him leftwards.

Supreme Court justices aren't influenced by lower court judges. They're their bosses.

Indeed, just as the "well-regulated" part has apparently been stripped from the 2nd amendment, expect, in a decade or so, the rallying cry for the latter-day teabaggers to be on this-or-that about the severely restricted commerce clause. Roberts court uber alles!

Posted by PJB | January 31, 2011 11:35 PM

Sigh. Well-regulated did not mean rules and regulations aka laws. It meant a regular, effective militia (and no thats not the National Guard). Tis funny how we seemed to get along fine with few if any ownership restrictions until 1934. The NFA was born out of prohibition causing gangster turf wars and the early ATF tax men.

I'm quite happy with this ruling but it ain't over yet. The last thing I want is more government involvement in my healthcare.

Well I did not read the entire law, so if there is a "serverability clause" I stand corrected. Here is a news report from Slate that I relied upon, but once again despite many examples I may once again have to be reminded about the accuracy of the Net.

"The bill passed by the House and Senate did not include a severability clause. Most big pieces of legislation include such a clause, which typically explains that "invalidity or unenforceability of one or more provisions of this Agreement shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement."

So how did the Democrats fumble this? Shortly after Monday's decision, a few liberal attorneys got on the phone for a call with reporters, sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society. I asked Neera Tanden, who's now the chief operating officer at CAP but who was a senior adviser at the Department of Health and Human Services during the passage of the bill, why there was no severability clause.

"One of the reasons there was not was that there was a keen understanding in the process that courts generally have a deferential view of severability and try to make the rulings have the least impact," she said. "And that took the pressure off the severability clause."

That was the thinking at the time from plenty of experts. Two months ago, Washington and Lee University law professor Timothy Jost told Brian Beutler—one of the first reporters to notice the severability slip-up—that it was unlikely that a lower court would void the entire health care bill if it voided the mandate, because "the normal rule is that partial invalidation is the required course."* Today, his optimism left tattered on Judge Vinson's carpet, Jost intimated that the Senate had made a mess of things."

The last thing I want is more government involvement in my healthcare.

Well, lucky you: it's the last thing you're going to get. They call it 'Medicare'. If that frightens you, you should perhaps look up a death panel about the time you hit 65.

Allan L., a major source of funding in the Obamacare bill was cuts in Medicare. Yep, throw that baby out with your bathwater, why don't you.

As for that taking Medicare when 65, with the nanny-state "protection" covering kids under parental policies until they are 26 years old, I for one probably won't be going on the Medicare I've paid for for decades before I'm 80 years old, if I live that long.

There are all sorts of adverse, unintended consequences in this spaghetti mess, control-freak inspired bill. If you want a clue as to how the law is going to unfold go back to Jack's recent post about Hanford. Look at the warring panels, conflicting bureaucracies and mistaken experts, and the costs spiraling beyond reason. The health care law has parallel flaws. It's a Rube Goldberg contraption that will collapse upon the people its intended to serve in innumerable ways.

I think the proper term is "Romneycare" — it seems to be working ok in Mass. It's not ideal. But to your specific points: (a) the planned Medicare cuts mostly remove generous subsidies to the drug and insurance companies — subsidies that figure to sink this country's economy if they are not addressed -- and (b) if allowing people to buy and pay for health coverage for children up to age 26 is nannyism to you, I guess the healthi insurance "industry" can be happy that your views didn't get in the way of their objectives for expanding their markets through this bill. I"m no big defender of the ACA. A single payer system would have been much better. But a lot of moronic ideas and superstitions stand in the way of that.

Allan L., you're right that it's Romneycare --- but there are two relevant points to be made about that:

One, when did it become the job of supposedly liberal Democratic presidents to pass GOP policies like NAFTA and Romneycare.

Two, states may do wHat the Feds may not in our system, where states have plenary powers, able to pass any laws for the health, safety, aNd welfare of the people, while the Feds were given only specifically Enumerated powers, and the whole thing was sold as being a gooD idea because the ninth and tenth amendments ensured that the federal government couldn't grab a bunch of additional powers.

If we want national health insurance, and we should, We have a proven and constitutional model, Medicare. What we do not need is the federal government Enshrining the power of the insurance lobby into the federal Rules.

I think the dems passed what they could. I think the individual mandate is a bad idea, but not unconstitutional. There is no slippery slope here.

That's because the top 1% make more money than the bottom 95%... or pretty close to it.

Per IRS statistics for 2008 (most recent year available at irs.gov) with the closest available breakdowns:

The bottom 96.93% of returns filed (those with reported AGI of $200K or less) accounted for 70.2% of all reported AGI. Those same returns accounted for almost 48% of total income tax.

The top 0.6% of returns filed (reported AGI of $500K or more) accounted for a little less than 18% of all reported AGI, but paid a little more than 33% of total income tax.

In short, the top 1% don't make anything like "more than the bottom 95% or pretty close to it". In fact, from IRS data, the top 3% make less than half what the bottom 97% make, yet they do pay more income tax than the bottom 97%. And that top 0.6% pay almost TWICE as big a slice of the income tax pie proportionate to their slice of the income pie.

Yes, this conveniently excludes FICA -- which complicates matters quite a bit, for a number of reasons not least of which is that those dedicated taxes finance a separate system outside of the regular federal budget.

But my point is that arguments for making the income tax system MORE progressive (e.g., by eliminating the "obscene" Bush tax cuts only for high-income filers) based on an idea that the top x% aren't paying their "fair share" just aren't supported by the facts.

Those same returns accounted for almost 48% of total income tax.

So, to you, 48% is "pretty close" to 5%, in describing total tax burden? And you're complaining because the top earners pay more of their income in income tax than the rest? That describes a progressive system, doesn't it?

Leaving out the FICA tax because it's "too complicated" or a "different bucket" is much too convenient. For an employed taxpayer with earnings of $110K or less, the FICA burden is about $14,500 or 13%. For earnings of twice that amount, it's the same number, or half the percentage. Unless it's two wage earners in the household. In that case, they pay twice as much as the single, higher-paid worker. Earn a million bucks? The FICA burden drops to about 2% or less. As for the buckets, the government has been dipping in them all to find operating money.

Sorry, Allan, you lost me there. Where did the "5%" come from, and where do you think I compared that to the 48% figure?

My primary point was simply to dispute the original claim that Jack made, which I cited at the beginning of my comment. The top 1% do not have anywhere near the income that the bottom 95% have, which was the implied justification for the top 1% paying so much of the income tax burden. Incidentally, Paul Sorensen is also incorrect in claiming that the top 1% pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%, as the IRS figures I cited make clear.

A secondary point, given Jack's opinion that the Bush tax cuts should be rolled back "for the rich", is that our system is pretty damn progressive as it is. When 18% of the income is burdened with 33% of the income tax load, even with the Bush tax rates in effect, I'd say that "the rich" are already paying more than their fair share.

Yes, FICA is complicated both from the tax revenue standpoint as well as from the benefit distribution standpoint. The contribution cap is in place largely because it is at least nominally a separate system, and there is a corresponding benefit cap. You are absolutely right that the feds have effectively pulled money out of every conceivable pot they could find, so treating SS separately from the rest of the federal budget is a massive accounting shell game anyhow.

Lest you think I'm one of these knee-jerk anti-tax types, here's my prescription for changes to the system:

1) Eliminate FICA as a separate payroll tax, and roll it into the federal income tax (both corporate and individual). Adjust rates/brackets as needed to transfer equivalent revenue from FICA to income tax.

2) Eliminate the SS trust fund and roll it into the general budget.

3) Means-test SS benefits, as with any other welfare program.

4) Once the above changes have been implemented, as additional revenue is needed then taxes should be raised across the board and not only on any one part of the income spectrum (the amount of the increase need not be equal across the board, but everyone should share in any increased burden of government).

That scheme would doubtless be to my personal detriment (while I am solidly in that bottom 97%, I do currently benefit from the SS cap, and with any luck would not meet the means test for future SS benefits under my plan) but I thoroughly believe that it would be a much more fair system.

And I also realistically understand that it would be politically impossible to achieve; the SS means test is a non-starter and merging the accounting for SS with the general federal budget would make our true federal financial situation too apparent for the comfort of those in charge.

So given the system that we have currently, if income tax revenues need to be raised (and I do believe that they do), they should be raised from everyone. Roll back the Bush cuts across the board, not just for the rich. The rich already contribute far out of proportion relative to their income.

BTW, just to compare the current Bush tax structure to the Clinton tax structure that preceded it, I went back to look at the same numbers for 1999 (height of the Clinton boom years, and full Clinton rates in effect).

For TY 1999, the closest I could get to the top 1% given the reported breakdowns was the top roughly 0.5% (at that time, incomes over $200K).

So here's the difference:

YEAR                            1999     2008
Approx. Top % 0.5% 0.6%
Approx. Share of Income 15.2% 17.8%
Approx. Share of Income Tax 29.4% 33.3%

Bottom line, the "rich" under the Bush tax system already face roughly the same tax burden proportionate to their share of the income as they did under the Clinton tax system.

Good discussion, David, thank you. I won't rehash a lot of what is already far downstream in the web currents, but if you go back to the top, you'll see where the 5% came from and how I might have misunderstood that you were defending that number.

I agree with much, if not all, of what you say. I'm somewhat troubled by the idea of means testing social security, because it then becomes a welfare program and vulnerable to attack from the right as such. As the program is structured, the payments to those who don't need them are not a meaningful fiscal burden and a reasonable price to pay for the ability to characterize the system as something other than the welfare that it really is. The other side of the same coin is that, unless the means testing cuts deeply, it doesn't make much difference to the fiscal profile.

The irony here, of course, is that conservatives are trying to kill a plan that is fundamentally conservative and pro-free market. It's deliberately structured to shield the health insurance industry from being wiped out of existence under a single payer plan -- which polls show has had consistent majority support for decades. If this law goes away, you can bet demands for single payer (i.e., opening up Medicare to everyone) will be back with a vengeance.

This isn't to say I support the ruling. For all its flaws, the Obama plan is much better than the status quo and replacing it with single-payer may take several years, during which time many thousands will die needlessly from lack of affordable care.


Sponsors


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

In Vino Veritas

If You See Kay, Red 2011
Turnbull, Old Bull Red 2010
Cherry Tart, Cherry Pie Pinot Noir 2012
Trader Joe's Grand Reserve Cabernet, Oakville 2012
Benton Lane, Pinot Gris 2012
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Reserva 2008
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2012
Pendulum Red 2011
Vina Real, Plata, Crianza Rioja 2009
Edmunds St. John, Bone/Jolly, Gamay Noir Rose 2013
Bookwalter, Subplot No. 26
Ayna, Tempranillo 2011
Pete's Mountain, Pinot Noir, Haley's Block 2010
Apaltagua, Reserva Camenere 2012
Lugana, San Benedetto 2012
Argyle Brut 2007
Wildewood Pinot Gris 2012
Anciano, Tempranillo Reserva 2007
Santa Rita, Reserva Cabernet 2009
Casone, Toscana 2008
Fonseca Porto, Bin No. 27
Louis Jadot, Pouilly-Fuissé 2011
Trader Joe's, Grower's Reserve Pinot Noir 2012
Zenato, Lugana San Benedetto 2012
Vintjs, Cabernet 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White 2012
Rainstorm, Oregon Pinot Gris 2012
Silver Palm, North Coast Cabernet 2011
Andrew Rich, Gewurtztraminer 2008
Rodney Strong, Charlotte's Home Sauvignon Blanc 2012
Canoe Ridge, Pinot Gris, Expedition 2012
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Gamay Noir Rose 2012
Dark Horse, Big Red Blend No. 01A
Elk Cove, Pinot Noir Rose 2012
Fletcher, Shiraz 2010
Picollo, Gavi 2011
Domaine Eugene Carrel, Jongieux 2012
Eyrie, Pinot Blanc 2010
Atticus, Pinot Noir 2010
Walter Scott, Pinot Noir, Holstein 2011
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
Coppola, Sofia Rose 2012
Joel Gott, 851 Cabernet 2010
Pol Roget Reserve Sparkling Wine
Mount Eden Chardonnay, Santa Cruz Mountains 2009
Rombauer Chardonnay, Napa Valley 2011
Beringer, Chardonnay, Napa Reserve 2011
Kim Crawford, Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Schloss Vollrads, Spaetlese Rheingau 2010
Belle Glos, Pinot Noir, Clark & Telephone 2010
WillaKenzie, Pinot Noir, Estate Cuvee 2010
Blackbird Vineyards, Arise, Red 2010
Chauteau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Northstar, Merlot 2008
Feather, Cabernet 2007
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Alexander Valley 2002
Silver Oak, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2002
Trader Joe's, Chardonnay, Grower's Reserve 2012
Silver Palm, Cabernet, North Coast 2010
Shingleback, Cabernet, Davey Estate 2010
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone 2009
Santa Margherita, Pinot Grigio 2011
Alamos, Cabernet 2011
Cousino Macul, Cabernet, Anitguas Reservas 2009
Dreaming Tree Cabernet 2010
1967, Toscana 2009
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009

The Occasional Book

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: 216
At this date last year: 64
Total run 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