A few days ago, Lights On Oregon was the first to break the total estimated per person economic ramifications of Governor Kulongoski’s new gas tax. Kulongoski’s proposed tax increases will cost on average an additional $176 per person per year. What is the reason for this proposed tax? Governor Kulongoski claims that

This is the way to get Oregon out of this economic crisis.

Next question, what economic crisis is Oregon’s Government suffering from? We are told that there is a “One billion dollar budget shortfall.” This is close to a straight out lie. The “shortfall” stems from the Oregon revenue office over estimating tax revenues. The projected revenues for the State of Oregon fell by some $946 million from earlier projects. But, the current budget project is still some $900 million greater than the last budgeting cycle. Oregon Government’s revenue is not falling at all. It is projected to increase 3.5% per year for the next two years. This means the state revenue will increase from $15.2 billion to $16.1 billion.

The Governor’s new budget has nearly $2 billion in tax increases and “revenue adjustments” (i.e., higher taxes). In the new budget, services like veterans affairs are being decreased by some 16% and the state’s bureaucratic agencies are being increased (Department of Human Services +18%, Administrative Services +23%).

And finally, here’s what is most striking, in this “budget crisis” Kulongoski is adding some 1,500 new positions to Oregon Government. The absurdity of this is clear when one considers that fact that in October alone, Oregon lost 14,000 jobs. How do new taxes and new government employees help the struggling businesses and individuals in Oregon?

The Governor’s new taxes are simply nonsensical. Oregon Government is not in any “budget crisis.” If they were, they would not be adding 1,500 new positions.

Oppose the Governor’s new tax increase: it’s bad for Oregon.

According to the Oregonian:

Over the past couple of months, Oregon has lost more than 10,000 jobs, and a recently announced $1 billion state budget shortfall gave the state’s economy and its workers another punch in the gut. With the state headed into a recession — and losing good-paying jobs that support Oregon families — we need to seize opportunities to get people working again.

The Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal is just such an opportunity. Its construction alone would put 450 skilled union laborers to work for three years, and it would supply Oregon with a needed new supply of natural gas.

Tom Chamberlain the President of the Oregon AFL-CIO, goes on to argue that

Stabilizing energy costs is crucial for our region’s future. And while we should vigorously pursue renewable energy, natural gas can serve as a bridge to the cleaner energy future we all want. Furthermore, not all proposed LNG projects provide the safety, security, environmental protection and good jobs provided by Bradwood Landing.

Northwest Natural estimates that based on the transportation savings alone, Bradwood would save its customers more than $400 million over 20 years versus other supply options.

President Chamberlain hits all of the right points. The benefits of the Bradwood LNG terminal far outweigh the “problems” (to use the word loosely) that have been raised in opposition to it. Nevertheless, radical environmental groups continue to oppose the project. There comes a point when one must ask why?

Why do radical environmentalists oppose something that is good for Oregon?

1. The Oregonian reported this morning that

Portland city leaders have offered wind-power giant Vestas Wind Systems $12.5 million in cash incentives to build a $250 million North American headquarters here.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. We support the free market approach to renewable energy. Forcing the taxpayers to fork even more out of their pockets is not what we need.

2. More budget problems. According to the Statesman Journal:

The state’s Nov. 19 forecast projects $16.1 billion for the next two years in the general fund. The total is still 7 percent more than in the current two-year budget of $15.1 billion, which itself is up 21 percent from 2005-07. But it is less than the $17 billion projected back in June, and even the $16.8 billion on Aug. 28 — and it could go down still more before lawmakers adjourn next summer.

Kulongoski said last week that a troubling indicator was the statewide unemployment rate, which jumped nearly a full point in October to 7.3 percent - the largest one-month increase in Oregon since April 1980, and above the national average of 6.5 percent.

We think someone could use some better budgeting skills. Government spending is up some 30% from 2005. Here’s a thought: spend less—and we won’t have budget shortages.

Just a thought.