[Hering] Please Don't Let Him Near Public Policy

Lest you think I've stopped venting in regards to DH Editor Hasso Hering's editorials, entirely, I'm here to inform you I'm not quite done yet.

Hering on inflation:

Indexing for inflation is what government likes to do because it wants the money and has the power to collect it.

This amazes me. Again, I am confronted with the now-familiar conundrum: Is Hering simply incredibly ignorant of inflation and indexing, or does he have a problem with honesty?

Commenter JDR, with the first comment, gets right down to business:

Hasso, don't you understand the concept of "buying power"? Indexing is not an increase, it's a way for those on the lowest rung, to just stay even. Inflation is more money chasing less goods. Wages, and taxes don't buy as much as before. Another way to put it is that inflation effectively transfers wealth from those with cash to those with property. That is, from the public, and the poor to the private sector.

Inflation is caused by bad public policy, I'm sure we can agree on that, but don't try to fool us about who it's real victims are.

The last sentence of the editorial:

But raising [the fuel tax] should require a decision. It should never be an automatic step. (hh)

This is almost a persuasive argument. I might agree if there was no way to, you know, go back and see if inflation indexing is still a good idea. But seeing as how it's perfectly feasible to cancel existing legislation (and not doing so constitutes a decision), there's no compelling reason not to.

Get Off My Lawn, or I Get the Shotgun

I had noticed that for quite some time, Hasso Hering had been writing fairly plain and inane editorials. A few I even had trouble disagreeing with. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

In either case, that little vacation is over. This one makes my brain hurt:

Democrats in the Oregon legislature circumvented the constitution on tax increases (it requires two-thirds approval) by simply sending their proposed cigarette tax jump to the voters this fall. Voters seem to like the idea, but we might consider what happened in New Jersey.

Um, Hasso? I get that the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote, but are you seriously complaining that sending it to the voters is worse than trying to ram it through the State Legislature? Really? I thought democracy was a good thing.... No, this is just a piss-poor excuse for an argument. Sadly, however, I think there are some people who will agree with you that in this case, more democracy is bad, simply because it might mean more taxes. That seems shortsighted to me.

And honestly, if the State Leg had actually passed the increase without sending it to voters, you'd being pulling your last few hairs out over the injustice. You'd be calling for it to be sent to the ballot, I suspect. Pathetic.

That state, according to the Wall Street Journal, raised cigarette taxes 17.5 cents to $2.575 per pack last year in hopes for more revenue. Instead, revenue dropped. Some of the drop was attributed to cigarette smuggling from out of state.

In Oregon, the tax of $1.18 per pack, already 15th highest in the country, would go to $2.025 per pack if the voters don’t stop it. California’s tax is only 87 cents, Nevada’s only 80 cents and Idaho’s 57 cents. Sounds like an incentive for smugglers.

Our undermanned highway patrol, tasked with watching for marijuana and meth smugglers, then can have something else to worry about. (hh)

This is a reason not to raise cigarette taxes? Yes, it's a potential consequence. Well, maybe, anyway. Just because something happened in New Jersey does not guarantee the same will happen here. As a commenter noted on the DH website, the distances required to travel to smuggle into Oregon are a hell of a lot farther than the relevant ones in New Jersey. The only possible exception to that is Vancouver, Washington and its proximity to Portland.

Besides, look at the size of the rise in NJ - less than 20 cents per pack all the way to $2.575. That's almost a 1300% increase, and over $2.30 in real terms. Oregon's increase is around 80 cents per pack, making it somewhere around 70%. To imply that they are the same situation is dishonest.

Then again, I don't think Hasso ever met a truth he couldn't bend or distort in some fashion to support his pseudo-libertarian agenda. It's a pretty fucked-up skill for a so-called journalist to be using. Maybe he should become a pundit, or perhaps get a radio show. Then he'd fit right in.

UPDATE: It strikes me that this is a really poor editorial even by Hasso's normal standards. I wonder why.

One can only hope he's losing steam and decides to let someone else write them soon. As long as it's not Ann Coulter, I think I'll be content.