Congress and the President: Don't drop the millionaire surtax!

It has come to my attention that despite the President's laudable insistence so far on a new tax bracket for income over a million dollars a year, Democratic leaders are considering dropping it.  Please don't walk away from this important policy!

Bush-era rollbacks of progressive taxation resulted in a greatly increased concentration of wealth among a few powerful people, while the poor and the middle class saw their standard of living decline.

The problem with our less-progressive tax structure is not just that it's unfair.  It's also unwise.  Contrary to Republican rhetoric, job creation comes from the consumer spending of the masses, not the stagnant wealth of the rich. The economy is having a hard time recovering because the poor and middle class have a smaller slice of the pie than ever.

And in our money-driven political system, the increase in concentration of wealth has been accompanied by an even more dramatic increase in concentration of political power among the few.  The wealthiest now own not only most of the economy, but most of the Congress.  The "Golden Rule" of those with the gold making the rules has never been more true.

Restoring progressive taxation is crucial not only to millions of struggling Americans, but to the economic recovery and to the restoration of democracy in America.   Please strike a blow against corruption and decay, and don't back down now!

Rep. Blumenauer: Reject the tax compromise!

I thank you for your opposition to the tax compromise coming before the House. It is my belief that the proposal endangers Social Security by reducing its income and breaking the wall between it and the general fund; perpetuates unfair tax policy that will be even more difficult to repeal later; and stimulates the economy insufficiently to justify its trillion dollar price tag. In the long run it causes far more economic damage than it averts.

No doubt failure to pass this bill will endanger the weak economic recovery by abruptly cutting off extended unemployment benefits and by raising taxes on lower income earners. It is unfortunate that President Obama has set a trap whereby liberal Democrats will appear to be at fault for this, when in fact it is the fault of filibustering Republicans who refuse to give up staggeringly unfair tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. But regardless of the political fallout, voting NO is still the right thing to do. Thank you again for standing up for fiscal sanity.

Rep. Walden: Reject the compromise!

As an Oregonian, I strongly urge you to join the rest of our state's delegation in rejecting the tax legislation before you. While I certainly don't understand how liberals could support a bill that raids Social Security and continues the enormous redistribution of wealth towards the wealthy, I find it even harder to understand how alleged fiscal conservatives could support a bill that adds nearly a trillion dollars to the deficit and stimulates the economy so inefficiently.

While failure to pass this bill may cause short-term harm to the economy, its passage would cause far greater harm in the long run. I implore you to vote NO.

Sens. Wyden and Merkley: Reject the compromise!

I strongly urge you to reject the compromise tax measure about to come before the Senate. It is lousy fiscal policy and lousy politics.

Failure to renew unemployment benefits will cause much suffering and could endanger the weak economic recovery. It is unfortunate that the President has crafted a compromise in which "liberal" Democrats may appear responsible for these results. But sometimes it is necessary to do the right thing anyway regardless of the consequences -- which would still be the responsibility of filibustering Republicans, not of Democrats standing up for fiscal sanity.

In the long run, future suffering will likely be far greater if this legislation does pass. President Bush's regressive tax cuts will now come up for renewal in a Presidential election year when it will be more difficult to finally reject them permanently. The proposed bill also adds a trillion dollars to the deficit without targeting the funds optimally, undermines Social Security's trust fund when it needs strengthening, and breaks down the wall between Social Security and the general fund. All of these factors will cause far greater long term damage to the economy than any immediate damage to the current recovery from failure to pass the bill.

I desperately hope that you vote NO.

Candidates for Metro President: Metro and Mountain Biking

[sent to candidates Tom Hughes and Bob Stacey]

I am a local voter, genuinely undecided with respect to the current race for the Metro Council Presidency. I need to ask you about an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and upon which Metro could have a tremendous influence.

As you well know, we are renowned as a bike-friendly community. As a regular bike commuter I am grateful for the fantastic infrastructure that has been built both near my Portland home and where I work in Beaverton, and I am aware that you share my pride in what has been accomplished so far.

But it is particularly ironic that because I live here, where I can so comfortably and easily reduce my carbon footprint by bicycling to work, I have to get into my polluting automobile and drive for an hour in order to go mountain biking.

Most metropolitan areas similarly blessed with so much natural bounty have seen fit to develop mountain bike trail systems accessible to local cyclists without leaving town. In fact, the lack of local mountain bike access was cited by Bicycling magazine earlier this year as a primary reason for ranking Minneapolis ahead of Portland as America's most bike-friendly community. The League of American Bicyclists may even consider removing our region's "Platinum" rating next year over the issue.

Continued national accolades will clearly be contingent on remedying this deficiency. Efforts to date have met with little success. A recent proposal to add a modest amount of new trail, in a part of Forest Park with minimal ecological significance, has met with furious opposition from hiking user groups and has ultimately been stymied. Most other existing areas of publicly owned land are being managed for natural values and not developed for recreation, leaving us with few possibilities there.

And here is where Metro comes in. Metro is the only local agency acquiring significant areas of land for parks and preservation. No doubt many of the parcels being purchased have sufficient ecological significance to justify limiting recreational access (and I don't just mean by bicyclists). But it would surprise me if at least some of the acquisitions might not be suitable for mixed recreation including off-road bicycling.

Metro's core mission is to manage our growth and foster the development of a healthy, livable community where we all drive less and pollute less. Mountain biking is clean, quiet, non-polluting and healthy. Encouraging this popular activity to occur locally, rather than outside the growth boundary, is entirely consistent with that mission, and Metro is in a unique position to do something about it.

As Metro Council President, would you encourage your organization to evaluate the suitability of your lands for mountain biking, and at least consider allowing the development of bike trails on suitable lands? I eagerly await your response prior to election day.

Rep. Blumenauer: Thank you for your vote

I want to to thank you for standing up for Medicare reimbursement rate reform, and to let you know I now strongly support your YES vote on health care reform.

Like many of your constituents I would very much prefer a single payer system, and am appalled that the bill does not even offer a public option. Nonetheless, the events of the past year demonstrate that this is the best we can do in any foreseeable American political climate, and this bill still accomplishes many good things.

Thank you for standing up for Oregon, and against Republican obstructionism.

Mr. President, Senators Wyden and Merkley, Rep. Blumenauer: SIngle Payer is best, Public Option an absolute minimum

I believe our health system's biggest cost problem is the waste and inefficiency of the insurance industry, and the best way to reform it is to replace it with a single payer system.

I would be willing to live with a public option -- as long as it is set up to be truly competitive, and not merely a dumping ground for insurance companies to abandon their more expensive insureds.

Without at least the public option to compete with the private sector, I believe that any changes to provide universal coverage would simply enrich inefficient and wasteful private insurers with another trillion dollars in public money, ultimately bankrupting the country.

[Additional note to Senator Wyden:] I am trusting you to put the interest of the public above those of the insurers -- opponents of the reforms I support -- that have contributed to your campaign fund.

Mayor Adams: Don't back down!

Mayor Adams, we think the media have gone too far in calling for your resignation, and we're absolutely disgusted at the thinly (if at all) veiled hatred that has passed for "public opinion" on the Internet this week.  We were thrilled to attend tonight's rally in your support.

You know whether you had sex with a minor or traded favors with Amy J. Ruiz, and we don't.  Despite what has happened, we trust you to look within yourself and do the right thing.  If the allegations are true, you cannot win and you simply must resign.

But if the allegations are false, you are just as strongly compelled to stand tall and strike a blow against the hatred that festers within our community!  We believe that many of the attacks against you come from outside, and that you still have strong support from real Portland citizens.

The beast that has backed you into this corner may be intimidating, but ultimately it is weak and cowardly.  If you aren't guilty of any crime and you stand up to this monster, you WILL defeat it!  You will also expose this small-minded hate for what it is, our community will be better off as a result, and we will teach the rest of the world a powerful lesson about right and wrong.  You're the most capable and energetic mayor we've had in a long time, we've got serious challenges in front of us and we need you back at work.  Don't let the bastards win!

City Councillors: Support Sam Adams!

THANK YOU for standing behind Sam Adams!  We attended this evening's rally to support him.  We would not want him to resign unless it is revealed that he had sex with a minor or traded favors with Amy J. Ruiz, which so far we do NOT know to be the case.  Sam is the most capable and energetic mayor we've had in a long time, and we need him back on the job!

We suspect that most of the alleged public "outraged" being expressed online is coming from those who live outside the city, and from a handful of loudmouthed bigots who should be ignored anyway.  We believe that Sam has the support of the majority of real Portland voters, and that if he faces down the hatred he will prevail.  Thanks for your support!

Mayor Sam Adams: Hang in there!

We know there's been a lot of hate directed your way this week, but we just wanted you to know you have a lot of support out there in the community.

A lot of the virulent hate has come from non-Portlanders, and it's sufficiently laced with anti-gay rhetoric to reveal the bigotry that it represents.

We plan to attend tomorrow's rally in your support.  Please DO NOT RESIGN!  We hired you to do an extremely important job, we think you're the right guy to do it, and we still need you to do it!  Don't let the haters get you down.  We're convinced that when the smoke clears, you'll find you still have strong support from the actual voters of Portland.

Attached is the sign I have posted in my car's rear window.

Senator Wyden: Please fix the Wilderness Bill!

Although I enthusiastically supported earlier versions of the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness bill that included National Recreation Area designation for popular mountain biking areas, I am dismayed at the current version of this legislation.

The compromise in earlier versions was historic, showing you as a leader in figuring out how to manage multiple conflicting interests while protecting land from development, and reflecting well on your legacy.  It is my view that much of the political support that coalesced behind the earlier versions was contingent upon this compromise.  I know mine was: I wrote a number of letters to the editor supporting your earlier proposals, urged many other cyclists to do the same, conducted numerous exploratory rides of the area and posted photos and information to the public.  Despite the fact that as a mountain biker I would lose access to some of the less well-known trails on the mountain, I supported this legislation because I felt protecting the land from development and destruction was even more important.

So to learn that the provision that ensured my earlier support had been removed -- and that the clean, quiet, environmentally friendly and perfectly compatible activity of riding a bicycle will be banned from 130 miles of trails -- feels like a hammer to the chest.  It is simply heartbreaking for me to learn that this brutal loss is the first direct consequence of our wonderful and historic victories in November.

I regret that I must vehemently oppose the Wilderness bill in its current form, and I urge you to do the same unless it is fixed.

Rep. Blumenauer: Please fix the Mt. Hood Wilderness Bill!

While I wish I could share your enthusiasm for the new Mt. Hood wilderness bill -- and I enthusiastically supported earlier versions of it -- I must vehemently oppose it in its current form because it bans bicycling on more than 130 miles of trails.

As you well know, bicycling is clean, quiet and environmentally friendly, and this is equally true on dirt trails as it is on pavement.  Previous versions of this Wilderness legislation set a landmark precedent for the future by calling for the creation of a National Recreation Area that preserved bike access to many of Mt. Hood's trails while still protecting them for development just as well as formal Wilderness status.  This historic compromise has been stripped from the current version.

The bipartisan support for earlier versions of this legislation was contingent upon this compromise, and I find it a heartbreaking betrayal that it is left out now.

As a fellow cyclist (I just finished my 12 mile ride home from Beaverton a few minutes ago to discover this awful news), I beg you to oppose this legislation until it can be fixed.  There is absolutely no legitimate reason to kick bikes off this many miles of trails, and I find the bill completely unacceptable in its current form. 

National Park Service: I support the proposed bicycling rule change

Thank you for accepting my comments concerning RIN 1024-AD72, the National Park Service rule change for bicycling.  I fully support the proposed rule [which would revoke the current blanket restriction of bicycles to paved roads in National Parks, and allow park managers to consider allowing bicycles on trails on a case by case basis].

Bicycling is a clean, environmentally friendly recreational activity.  It is similar to hiking in its overall impact, and is far lower than any motorized or pack animal use. I am firmly convinced that there are many trails in the national park system where bicycling would be compatible with the natural values and with other users.

As I'm sure you are aware, the vast majority of national park visitors never enjoy the parks away from their vehicles.  Allowing safe bicycling would broaden the parks' recreational offerings to both children and adults, and encourage many more to explore the parks away from their cars.

I visit national parks frequently.  In recent years I have hiked in Badlands, Olympic, North Cascades, Joshua Tree and Yosemite, as well as many lower profile areas such as Mojave National Preserve, Newberry and Ebey's Landing.  I have mountain biked at Mount Saint Helens National Monument, and consider it a prime example of what should be possible in national parks.

I have bicycled around Crater Lake a number of times, but limit myself to once per year (and only on a weekday) because the road is so dangerous.  It has always seemed odd to me that in most national parks bicycles are permitted only on narrow, crowded roads shared with inattentive motorists and hulking RVs.

Earlier this year I visited Death Valley, exploring spectacular Echo Canyon and Chloride City by bike, even spending a night "bikepacking" on dirt roads away from the car.  Surely allowing quiet, clean bicycles on some of the old roads, ways and trails closed to motor vehicles could be compatible with the values of this magnificent and rugged park.

Mountain biking will help bring additional tourist dollars to communities near parks at a time when public lands visitation is declining.  Mountain bikers also volunteer prolifically, and can be counted on to show up to help build environmentally sound, sustainable trails.

Thank you for considering my comment.  Bicycling is a wonderful way to explore our national parks and I hope the proposed rule change will be implemented.

Governor Kulongoski: A liberal urges you not to fire George Taylor

Dear [Oregon] Governor Kulongoski:

Like most sensible people, I believe that human-caused climate change is a grave threat, but I urge you not to move [state Climatologist] George Taylor's office to a state agency and replace him. This would be ethically wrong, and would cause tremendous political damage.

• It's a violation of his academic freedom. If he's wrong, better to just let him turn into a laughingstock as evidence piles up against him.
• Firing an academician for political reasons will make him into a political martyr.
• It will backfire on us liberals more broadly. Conservative bloggers are drooling over the chance to prove us "hypocrites" for preaching tolerance and freedom of thought while persecuting those with a different viewpoint. Please don't prove them right!
• It plays right into the key claims of the skeptics: that the science cannot be trusted because scientists are biased, promoting climate theory to get more research dollars, and that dissenters would lose their jobs. Again, please don't prove them right!

Senator Smith: Sign on to Bicycle Commuter Benefits Act

Dear Senator Smith:

I urge you to co-sponsor Senator Wyden's Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act, S. 2635. As an Oregonian who has been commuting by bike for 6 years (usually 3-4 days per week), I have learned the benefits of bicycle commuting: I have lost weight, I have gotten in better shape, I get sick less often (yes, even riding inOregon rain!), I am more refreshed and productive at work, I use much less fuel and I contribute less to both traffic congestion and to the environmental downsides to driving.

For most people, there are still substantial barriersto bicycle commuting, but stronger incentives would encourage many to try it out. Although there is a cost associated with this program, we must remember that driving is enormously subsidized in our society, far beyond the contributions of fuel taxes. A tiny bike subsidy is only fair! Besides, every person who gets out of their car and on a bike is reducing congestion and wear and tear on the roads, not to mention using less fuel. Thus, bike commuting incentives actually pay for themselves in reduced operating costs for our transportation system as a whole. Again, I urge youto sign on to S. 2635.

SD Governor Mike Rounds: Veto the abortion ban

Dear [South Dakota] Governor Rounds:

I am writing to urge you to veto the abortion ban now upon your desk. By not allowing exceptions for rape or incest victims, the bill simply goes too far.

I am particularly appalled at the invocation of Christianity to justify such a brutal prohibition. My mother is a native South Dakotan (from Vienna) and a Lutheran minister. Three of my grandparents are also from South Dakota (Britton, Willow Lake and Watertown). They raised me to believe that Jesus stood for compassion. Forcing a young girl to bear the child of her rapist is such an act of cruelty that the Christ I worship would certainly condemn it.

What has South Dakota come to, that such a bill could gain passage? I hope you will send this bill back to the Legislature and tell them to get it right.