I've heard a number of people in recent weeks attempting to dismiss the entre Oregon budget crisis by the platitude "the legislature should live within its budget." This statement shows a serious lack of understanding of the budgeting process in Oregon. In fact, the state government would be perfectly happy to live within its budget, and we would not currently be in a crisis if that is what the voters actually wanted. However, the people who say this do not actually mean what they say.

The state's current budget, which was established some 18 months ago at the beginning of the current two-year cycle, would cover the necessary expenses just fine. The issue we currently face is that our actual income from tax revenues is falling way below that 18-month-old budget. If we could spend to the budget, through raising tax revenues or deficit spending, we would not be in a crisis.

Part of the state's current budget crisis can be blamed on all of those kicker refunds we insisted on getting back in the late 1990s. Consider, as a metaphor, the case of Joe Smith, a real estate agent. Realtors make a good metaphor for the state economy, because unlike the typical company employee, realtor income is not constant from month to month, and like the state government, it depends linearly on the condition of the economy in general.

Let's assume that Mr. Smith is more organized than most of us, and sits down in November to decide his budget and spending for the next calendar year. Let's say that he forecasts an average year, and budgets for an income of $60,000. As it turns out, he has an above average year, and he ends up making $100,000. Does he return the excess to his clients? Does he throw it in the garbage? No, of course not. He puts the extra cash into his savings acount.

Next year, if his income drops to $40,000, Mr. Smith has that buffer in savings, so he can maintain his budgeted spending even though his income has dropped.

The issue in the state of Oregon is that we do not allow the state to put anything into its savings account during boom years when income exceeds budget. Because of that, there is nothing available to make up the difference when income falls below the budget, and we are left with crises.

During boom years, we expect the state to stick precisely to its forecasted budget. During lean years, we expect the state to stick precisely to actual revenues. That represents the worst of both situations. Since Oregon continues to do its budgeting on a two-year cycle, it is no surprise that we have a budget crisis, and as long as we keep having operating this way, we will continue to have financial crises like the one we are currently in.

I see several ways to alleviate these problems in the long term. First, Oregon should leave its rural past behind and go to a one-year budget and legislative cycle. The world is too dynamic to think about budget forecasts two years in advance. Next, I believe we should eliminate the kicker refund, and allow the state to put any surplus revenue into a "rainy day" fund. However, that has about as much chance as Mike Tyson would on Jeopardy. I can already hear all the screams of outrage from where I am sitting.

One alternative would be to have the state budget for next year be based on the actual revenues from this year, instead of using the voodoo art of forecasting to get the final numbers. Although this would cause consternation at budget time during a lean year, at least we would not have to worry about running short at the end of a cycle and having to make drastic cuts just to survive.

(Submitted to the Oregonian on 2/27)

Gas prices here in Portland at "prime" locations (near freeway exits) hit $2.00 for regular unleaded, and $2.20 for premium yesterday. That is basically a 75% increase from six months ago.

I'm searching for the right adjectives to describe this. Predatory, immoral, price gouging, mercenary; all of these are accurate, but they don't express the depth of the vitriol I feel for the slimeballs setting these prices.

Yes, crude oil prices and futures have gone up recently. However, it takes MONTHS for crude oil to be refined into gasoline and appear at the pump. What that means is that gas stations and oil companies are using the tension in Iraq as an excuse to charge usurious rates for gasoline they had sitting in their tanks, purchased and refined long ago at a cheap price.

That's offensive. The government ought to do something about it, and I believe it is within their powers to do so. Will they? Not as long as we have a president who gets is part of that same industry. It is not impossible to believe that Bush anticipated this result from his quest for Iraq, and pushed his agenda along to help his friends in Texas.

The Southwest section of the February 20 Oregonian contained a number of letters weighing in on the issue of fluoridation. Unfortunately, many of these letters reflect a continuation of the disturbing recent trend in this nation toward a reliance on pseudo-science -- a trend being championed by our President.

Several people raised the notion that fluoride is a poison. Sodium fluoride is, indeed, poisonous, in the same way that table salt is poisonous. In fact, sodium fluoride and sodium chloride (salt) are very similar substances, chemically speaking. In large quantities, they represent a danger to the body. Salt does not kill us because we are smart enough not to ingest large quantities, and sodium fluoride in drinking water will not kill us for exactly the same resaon. It is added in very small quantities.

One writer referred to getting his information from a naturopath. As individuals, we are all entitled to get our medical care from whatever provider makes us feel comfortable. However, we should not be relying on naturopathy to set public health policy any more than we should be relying on astrology to set our space exploration policy, or Rush Limbaugh to set our national political agenda.

Too many people get their complete science information from newsletters and web sites written by people with about as much scientific background and credibility as President Bush. These newsletters include lots of ranting and raving designed to stir up anger and outrage, but ranting and raving does not make science. The scientific process is a gradual one, in which hypotheses and experimentation leads us from a general idea to a specific understanding.

People are entitled to righteous indignation and outrage. The right to express outrage is guaranteed in the constitution. But unless that outrage is actually based on facts or evidence with a well-established basis, it should have no effect on public health policy.

Flouridated water has proven benefits for dental health. It reduces tooth decay measurably and provably. Objecting to its use because of hysteria, pseudo-science, and unsubstantiated rumors is neither productive nor good public policy.

(This letter submitted to the Oregonian on 2/20 and printed 2/27)

Letterman had pseudo-psychiatrist Dr. Phil on his show last night, and the world is better for it. It has been a long time since I laughed that hard. Letterman has lampooned Dr. Phil's television show virtually every night for the last six months in his "Words from Dr. Phil" show, giving little snippets taken completely out of context, in which he generally makes Dr. Phil look like an idiotic country bumpkin.

I admire Dr. Phil for having the gumption to appear on the show after all of that abuse, but he proved that he can dish it out as well as he can take it. Letterman tried to get him to admit that most of the people on his show are just bozos who need little more than a swift kick in the pants, but Dr. Phil had a good answer for every barb. I enjoyed it.

Two men who know how to laugh at themselves: it was glorious.

Interestingly, part of Dr. Phil's advice mirrors one of my own little nuggets of philosophy: You only get one trip through life. If you aren't having a good time, you ought to go do something else.

Without any fanfare or public outrage of any kind, as far as I can tell, the FCC is set to enact some rule changes that will significantly alter the configuration of the nation's media outlets.

Today, a newspaper is not allowed to own a radio or television station within the market area it serves. That rule is scheduled to go out the window.

Further, today, a network is not allowed to own radio or television stations that serve more than 35% of the population of the country. That rule is also scheduled to be tossed out.

There are several things about these actions that I do not understand. First, I do not understand why the FCC would even consider making changes like this. Where is the benefit? It seems intuitively obvious to me that it is unconditionally a Bad Thing to have a single company serving news and content to more than a third of the nation. Besides corporate pandering, what is the point?

Second, where is the outrage? I'm guessing these rule changes will slip right by, under the guise of "deregulation is the universal good", but the fact is that most deregulation benefits corporate executive boards much more than it benefits middle America.

The first amendment ensures that the government cannot interfere with a free press, but there are no constitutional protections against corporate interference with a free press. To me, that single statement is a compelling argument for the continuted regulation of the media markets by the FCC.

Are they asking me to believe that corporate America has my best interest at heart? Haven't Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, and Martha Stewart all provided thorough and complete counter-examples against that claim?

We replaced and upgraded the operating system our main gateway server today. We had made a LOT of customizations to the old Red Hat 5.2 system, so we expected trouble. Fortunately, we had been planning this for months; the machine has been going flaky for quite some time, and it is difficult to keep up with all of the security updates. Thanks to all the planning, the upgrade itself wasn't too bad. We had been running it offline for a couple of weeks, and thanks to all the preparation, it only tooks about 4 hours this afternoon to do the switch and clean up all of the leftovers.

The thing that amazes me about this is the amount of guru mungling that I had to do. Very often, when I have finished with some delicated computer operation, I wonder what "mere mortals" do when they have the same kinds of problems?

I suppose they just throw them out and start over, which, considering the amount of trouble we have, might not be a bad solution overall...

About 25 years ago, I encountered a humorous book entitles "How to Avoid Death and Taxes and Live Forever." In one of my favorite chapters, they outlined a method for avoiding taxes that involved creating your own country.

Basically, you go out and find an uninhabited island that is not currently claimed as the property of any country. Put up a building, design a flag, and give your new country a name. Print up stationery, and send out a couple of press releases announcing the "Protective Republic of Bob", and naming yourself as King and Supreme Ruler.

Next, start writing some threatening letters to the U.S. State department, in which you grumble about unjust treatment at the hands of the United States government. Copy the New York Times, of course. Finally, declare war on the U.S.

When the government sends a battleship to investigate (or garbage scow, as the case may be), make sure you have enough explosives on hand to eradicate your sole building. Fire on the ship, then set off your explosives.

Finally, issue a press release blaming the destruction of your beautiful kingdom on the wanton agression of the United States. Demand reparations. The government will be happy to help you rebuild. And, fortunately, war reparations are not taxable!

I believe North Korea is now playing out this scenario in real life. The parallels are just too eerie. I just cannot fathom what a country with a starving populace and an almost complete lack of material resources thinks it can accomplish by THREATENING the United States, other than as a blatent attempt to get shot at and demand reparations. Is there any other possible explanations for why they would restart their nuclear program? Does anyone on this planet really think the United States has even the slightest bit of interest in invading North Korea?

I don't see a happy ending for Kim Jung Il's little misadventure.

I am saddened by the loss of the space shuttle Columbia yesterday morning. My sympathy and condolences go out to the families of the seven astronauts who lost their lives.

It is my fervent hope that we do not have another 18 month gap in flights while NASA investigates the failure. (Strictly speaking, I don't think they can do so, since we still have human beings up their in the International Space Station that will need refueling and replacement.) The astronauts all know that their job is dangerous, although their families might not see it that way.

I just hope this ends up being an unforseeable accident caused by a series of unlikely events, and not the result of incompetence or bureaucratic insistence. If the root cause was, in fact, stuff falling off of the external fuel tanks and damaging the wing, I suspect there are a number of good ways to solve that, including something as simple as a discardable shield to protect the delicate ablative surfaces during launch.