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 October 20, 2011 9:47 AM. The previous post in this blog was Portland City Hall's next triumph: the grocery business. The next post in this blog is Portland, "America's ultimate White City". 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

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Republican platform: Tax businesses that are losing money

Why not get rid of all deductions -- wouldn't that make the income tax simpler? Now Rick Perry's on the "flat tax" bandwagon, so that he can compete with Herman 999 Cain.

Deductions are there for a reason. The income tax is imposed only on the profit of a business, not on its gross receipts. Congress made the judgment 100 years ago that taxpayers who are losing money in their operations shouldn't pay tax that year. If you get rid of deductions, businesses that are in trouble will go under faster.

Deductions also help families, encourage people to give money to charity, pitch in with large medical expenses, keep poverty-level wage earners off the tax rolls. make it easier to buy a home, and enshrine many other public policies. If the Republican Presidential candidate wants to get rid of all of those effects, we'll see how that plays in Peoria.

A "flat tax" sounds great to a people the first time they hear that phrase. But not if they think about it for a couple of minutes. If Obama runs as perfect a campaign as he did three years ago, he should be able to eat the "flat tax" alive.

Comments (28)

Understood, but we need to address the deductions issue.

If GE can get away with paying no tax, it doesn't matter if we raise the marginal rate on the rich to 99.9%, they've got better accountants and loopholes to take advantage of. Of course, that might mean no more subsidies (kind of a reverse loophole I guess) and COngress would lose a lot of power with fewer levers to play with.

The current tax system is way too complicated and favors wealthier individuals and families who can afford to hire some type of professional to give them an edge. It is also set up so that most people end up paying much more then they owe, which in turn gives the government a zero interest loan throughout the year.

Have no fear, a “flat tax” will never become reality.

However, that doesn’t mean that “deductions” are a good thing. Of course they’re there for a reason – to enable some to pay less in taxes than they would without the deduction. As such a system matures it inevitably rewards gaming the system. It’s only business; if I can pay a consultant less than I save in taxes with his “strategy” (in itself a bizarre concept if you think of taxes as the way you support your community… I need to strategize to minimize my support for that which I profess to value?), then I’ll do it. More effective still, with the right connections I can actually get the laws written such that I get favored treatment before the gaming even starts. Then throw in social engineering aspects which get to a more micro-management level (tax policy to influence the way I eat… really???), and it’s guaranteed to anger folks.

The urge towards a “flat tax” is an acknowledgment that people know they’re out of the game, sidelined and marginalized, and have zip influence on policy. Consequently they get to pay whatever those who are in the game say they should pay. Breeds resentment to constantly be the one in the harness instead of the one with the whip.

I think the real issue here these candidates are trying to addres is the drastic need to simplify the tax code. Too often people just accept that "this is just the way it will be and there's nothing we can do to change it", when in fact, it's not. I think injecting ideas of simplification into the conversation of taxes is a good thing, even if the particular plan right now is not. The status quo needs to be challenged, and sparking debates with various plans about how it can be done is good for this country.

Tax deductions are the same as government subsidies i.e. the government is trying to pick "winners and losers". It should not be the role (or goal) of government to pick winners and losers. Real winners do not need subsidies (or deductions) and NONE of us need to be "directed" by government to do what they think best for us.

If we didn't have to pay interest to the private banksters every time we print money, then we wouldn't need much of a taxing structure. We used to have a very minimal federal tax, but that all changed with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

And the real issue with tax fairness is that businesses and rich individuals have various methods to hide "income". So no matter what type of income tax you have, you can only collect based on what somebody claims is their income. A person on a payroll (most of us) can't hide their income.

The "flat tax" (a single rate, that is) isn't relevant to the issue of complexity in the tax system. Applying graduated rates to calculate the tax on taxable income isn't hard. A flat tax is attractive to conservatives because it is perfectly regressive.

The tax code keeps a lot of people employed. Private and public. I doubt if anyone will change it much.

Jack, Were you opposed to Measure 67?

Being able to trade tax exemptions should be illegal the same way paying cash for food stamps is wrong. Why are ANY tax deductions allowed? I don't have a problem with progressive tax, but tax shelters only work for the players. Why do the Gate's Foundation or even the Guggenheim and Rockerfeller Foundations exist? Answer: "Monarchy is not recognized/allowed in the USA."

Remember when Steve Forbes was portrayed as a wacko for proposing this a couple of election cycles ago? Funny how if they keep shamelessly trotting out their favored-though-derided dogs, sooner or later they get taken seriously--a la The Tea Party (f/k/a John Birch Society), supply-side ("voodoo") economics and "pre-emptive" war (f/k/a imperialism).

Simplification for the sake of simplification is sooooo GOP mindset too: black and white, white and black; old days good, modern life bad; simple good, complicated bad.

The real problem is the inequity in our tax system, and flat taxes would be a move towards even greater inequality (i.e., regressive) than we have now. People who seriously think this is a solution for any real problem we actually have are not qualified to hold the highest office in the country. This isn't a junior high student council they're dealing with.

"A flat tax is attractive to conservatives because it is perfectly regressive."

Fine, adjust the rates so that you exempt the first $30K a year in income.

As long as we have a bazillion deductions, people will take advantage of them. We need to take a hard look at re-hash of what we have.

“The real problem is the inequity in our tax system…”

Which are made manifest by “deductions” and all the other exceptions to the rules.

Because when I look at the tax tables they’re perfectly progressive. Make more, pay more, bringing progressive equity to the system. Yet in the end it’s not working that way. Why? The exceptions.

So one answer, that appeals to many (and not all are the troglodytes partisans make them out to be), is to do away with the exceptions. To simplify. Another answer is to add more, modify or add to the exceptions. Both are actually valid avenues.

As an old programmer my prejudice is to simplify. When stuck with spaghetti code it’s almost always best, in the long run, to scrap it and rewrite.

That assumes, of course, that there’s agreement on what the program is supposed do. That lack is the true “real problem” with the tax system.

Allan L: If the flat tax is "perfectly regressive", how do you describe payroll taxes (SS), which make the flat tax appear "perfectly progressive"?

Observer: How would going to a flat tax be more regressive than the current system of deductions (granted by the government)? If you want the system more "progressive", why not discuss payroll taxes, which tax on the FIRST dollar earned?

if the IRS could actually collect the taxes due we could all pay at a significantly lower rate. The benefits of social engineering nothwithstanding, a flat tax should enable us all to pay less taxes and the government to collect more. No deductions, no credits, not tax lawyers and accountants...

The tax code is a primary tool the government uses to manage the economy and nurture its fiscal health. No sense changing that.

The status quo is wonderful. Through various accounts, deductions, credits, exclusions and dodges I can shelter or defer taxes on half or more of my income some years. That's so fair -- let's keep the system in place!

And while we're at it, bring back other ruses that were deep sixed the last time the tax code was flattened, like double declining balance depreciation for commerical real estate (imagine how much more leveraged real estate markets would have been going into the meltdown if that was still in place), sales tax deductions (on top of state income tax), income averaging (to empower double digit deflation), deduction for married couples when both work, and on and on and on.

Reality is that dramatic simplification of the tax code is a free lunch insofar as the economy is concerened. If the populous is swayed the other way on this and other issues by Sugar Daddy Barack we all are doomed.

I've heard you should never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. That probably applies equally to debating tax policy with a tax professor on his own (high-traffic) blog, but I never really followed the first aphorism anyway....

Jack wrote:

Deductions are there for a reason. The income tax is imposed only on the profit of a business, not on its gross receipts. Congress made the judgment 100 years ago that taxpayers who are losing money in their operations shouldn't pay tax that year. If you get rid of deductions, businesses that are in trouble will go under faster.

I understood flat tax proposals for businesses to be based on (a measure of) profit. I would be surprised if Perry's proposal was actually a tax on gross revenues.

Here is a flat tax description that I found in a recent US News op-ed:

Instead of the hundreds of forms required by the IRS, the flat tax uses two simple postcards. Families use the household postcard, and all they need to know is their labor income, available on a W-2 form. They then subtract an allowance based on family size. The remaining amount is taxable income, and the tax bill is based on the flat rate. The business postcard is equally simple. All businesses, from Microsoft to a hot dog stand (as well as individuals with "Schedule C" income), start with total revenues, and then calculate taxable income by subtracting wage costs, input costs, and investment costs. The IRS then gets a flat percentage of that remaining amount.

Many different (mostly right-wing) tax platforms have been marched out under the "flat tax" banner over the years. The one someone was nattering about this morning was a tax on income with no deductions. If no deductions are allowed, it's a tax on gross receipts.

Another one trotted out a while back would have been "flat," all right. And oh-so-simple! Because it would have exempted all income except wages. "You'll be screwed royally by the wealthy, but you'll be able to file your tax return on a postcard!" Didn't get anywhere.

I also favor simplifying the tax code, and eliminating some types of deductions seems prudent. I agree that one purpose of a progressive tax code with multiple deductions is, as the original post indicates, to "keep poverty-level wage earners off the tax rolls," but I question whether that's an argument in favor or against the current system.

In my mind, everyone should pay taxes, no matter how modest. A progressive scale is fine, but the top end shouldn't escape responsibility through deductions and the bottom end shouldn't escape at least some very modest payment, even if its only 5 or 10 dollars.

When 47% of all American households pay nothing to support or maintain our nation's government, we have a problem.

"When 47% of all American households pay nothing to support or maintain our nation's government, we have a problem."

So the 47% doesn't pay social security taxes, state and local taxes as well???

(Mis-posted to your grocery story.) I am admittedly clueless about taxes. Given that this is you area of expertise, I am very interested to know what you think the remedy is to this? What would President Bojack propose to fix the trainwreck that is the U.S. Tax Code?

The smartest proposal I have heard would be to scrap the income tax for 90% of the population. Adopt a European-style value-added tax (which yes, is regressive compared to an income tax), and impose an income tax on top of that for only the top 10% of income earners.

It makes a lot of sense -- too much sense for our current, insane federal legislative process.

Regarding deductions, now might be a good time politically to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, if you were of a mind to get rid of it. Real estate prices are continuing to go down whether the interest deduction is in place or not - that was always the argument of the real estate pros, that it would depress prices (i.e. "pop the bubble"). Also, with marginal tax rates as low as they are now, the tax savings isn't much until you get into the higher brackets, and those people would not be frozen out of the housing market, they would just have to settle for a slightly less desirable piece of real estate.

I know there are arguments both ways on the mortgage interest deduction.

The flat tax or any other regressive tax is the quickest way toward socialist revolution. The increasing poor will keep demanding services and voting. Soon the system goes up in smoke (yes, that was a Cheech and Chong reference).

History. It's so informative.

You're right, Jack, that there are all kinds of crazy ideas that float under the rubric "flat tax" but the serious ones combine a comprehensive tax base(which still allows businesses to deduct actual expenses of doing business such as payroll, rent, cost of goods sold, etc.) with a flat tax rate above a some personal exemptions.

Probably the best simple explanation of a true flat tax appears in Milton Friedman's book Capitalizm and Freedom written in 1962. But you're right, it isn't practical today and, given the largely regressive nature of most state and local taxes, wouldn't be fair.

Combine a more comprehensive tax base with a flatter system of graduated tax rates is what the 1986 Tax Reform Act represented, which has been variously credited to Reagan, Packwood, Bradley and Gephardt.

What we have today is the remnants of that system albeit with a somewhat less comprehensive tax base. A more comprehensive tax base (i.e., fewer deduction and loopholes) combined with lower rates has a lot of bipartisan support today and is what the Simpson-Bowles commission recommended.

The Flat Tax talk is all campaign fodder for Republicans.

Mike H:

I don't know if there are statistics measuring the percentage of people who pay social security, state and local taxes but who don't pay federal income tax. But we do know that individual and corporate income taxes make up nearly 59% of the total receipts of the federal government (FICA and other payroll taxes are approximately 34%). If that 59% is paid by only half the population, the others are getting a free ride. Everyone should share in the costs of maintaining the federal government.

And further: Most of those at the low end of the income scale have all the Social/Medicare taxes they pay "refunded" to them through the Earned Income Tax Credit and other programs. For those whose incomes exceed EITC limits, all they are paying for are two federal government programs - Social Security and Medicare. That is hardly full participation in our society. Most probably pay some level of state and local taxes (in Oregon particularly, state income taxes kick in at very low income levels), but that's not relevant to this discussion which is about federal taxes.

I completely agree with the Kid that everyone in this society should be paying something, even if it's a tiny amount. It is not fair that half of Americans pay little to nothing for the maintenance of our society. The system has been set up this way to create a large group of potential voters to support bigger government and more taxes on everyone but them.

How much should the disadvantaged pay in order to "pay something" when so many of them have been screwed by the powerful people who decide how the economy and financial markets work? If the rich send a guy's job overseas, which the dimmest corporate poobahs must have realized was a potentially damaging long-term plan, how much should "fairness" demand he pay for the privilege of being transformed into a poor person? If he signed a shaky mortgage because "there has never been a better time to buy real estate" and "the appreciation will take care of it," how much should he pay for that advice?
Yes, he should support the common defense, but if you haven't noticed, poor people usually make their contribution in blood.


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

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: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run 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