The Antiplanner

Great Example of Government Planning

3rd November 2009

Great Example of Government Planning

posted in News commentary |

Oregon Governor Kunlongoski wanted to give tax breaks to companies building windmills. The Oregon Department of Energy estimated the tax breaks would cost the state $13 million in foregone revenues over the first two years. The governor said that number was too big, so officials told the legislature they would cost only $1.2 million.

Flickr photo by qousqous.

The resulting “tax incentives are now among the nation’s richest.” How much did they end up costing? $167 million in the first two years — nearly 13 times the secret projections and 140 times what they told the legislature. In the second two years, they anticipate the cost will be $243 million.

As someone commented on fark.com, this “seems like a win-win.” Liberals should make be happy because we have more windmills and conservatives should be happy because the state has less money. Maybe if Oregon gets enough windmills, the state will wither away.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 28 responses to “Great Example of Government Planning”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On November 3rd, 2009, Dan said:

    I wonder if they used the same economists that were used when “estimating” the public numbers for economic activity after tax cuts or the cost of imperial aspirations …

    DS

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 6:28 am

  2. 2 On November 3rd, 2009, Frank said:

    Maybe if Oregon gets enough windmills, the state will wither away.

    We can only hope. However, the People’s Republic of Portland will simply vote more tax increases. Happens every election, even during severe recessions.

    Not enough tax revenue from income tax? (Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and tax revenues have drastically fallen; half of all state income tax goes to education, so you can imagine Oregon’s “state” of education.) Let’s tax beer! (God only knows what this will do to our microbrew industry, the largest of its kind in the world.)

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 am

  3. 3 On November 3rd, 2009, Neal Meyer said:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    Maybe if Oregon gets enough windmills, the state will wither away.

    Antiplanner, wasn’t that the final goal of Marxism? It never crossed my mind that the state would wither away because folks in Oregon built a bunch of windmills.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 am

  4. 4 On November 3rd, 2009, bennett said:

    Political decision or “planning.” I guess you can decide.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 am

  5. 5 On November 3rd, 2009, t g said:

    The Farce is revealed! The Antiplanner isn’t Quixotic, he is Quixote! Fight those windmills, old man. Chivalry isn’t dead yet.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 am

  6. 6 On November 3rd, 2009, Dan said:

    Political decision or “planning.” I guess you can decide.

    Shhhh. It is bad form to take away the only fallacy…um…”argument” Randal has.

    DS

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 am

  7. 7 On November 3rd, 2009, Mike said:

    If you think government planning is not driven overwhelmingly by political considerations, you may be too naive to even function.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am

  8. 8 On November 3rd, 2009, Mike said:

    “to even function”

    Or to boldly split my infinitives, apparently. :)

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 am

  9. 9 On November 3rd, 2009, Dan said:

    If you think ideological argumentation conflating blatant political maneuvering with the planning profession is not driven by a weak/naive position, you may be too naive to function. If you think it isn’t often implied here that blatant political maneuvering = planning or the planning profession, you may be too naive to function. If you think…etc.

    DS

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  10. 10 On November 3rd, 2009, MJ said:

    I wonder if they used the same economists that were used when “estimating” the public numbers for economic activity after tax cuts or the cost of imperial aspirations …

    The Bush tax cuts or the Obama (“stimulus”) tax cuts?

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  11. 11 On November 3rd, 2009, Mike said:

    Dan,

    “I know you are, but what am I?” is not a compelling argument. You are no longer in a grade-school recess yard. Please get a clue before expounding further.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

  12. 12 On November 3rd, 2009, bennett said:

    Mike and Dan,

    I suppose I agree with you both (to a point). Yes Mike, planning is political, but not everything political is part of the planning profession. To my knowledge the Governor of OR is not a professional planner. After reading O’Toole’s post I have a hard time figuring out how “planning” was involved. The Gov wanted to do something so he (allegedly) cooked the books and did it. How is that planning? From the looks of it there is no plan document and no professional planners (substantively) involved. Is there no distinction among the antiplanners between government planning (no matter how evil it may be) and the whims of an executive?

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm

  13. 13 On November 3rd, 2009, bennett said:

    P.S.

    Is O’Toole complaining that an industry is under taxed? I guess I truly don’t understand you libertarians. “Don’t tax!” you say, then bitch because a sector doesn’t get taxed. WTF?!?!?!?

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  14. 14 On November 3rd, 2009, t g said:

    I think Mike’s and the Antiplanner’s use of the word “planning” comes out of the very pure concept of directing the economy from a central (and consequently, uninformed) position. By Hayek, neither the professional planner nor the whimsical dictator could understand the economy and its needs sufficiently to direct it.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm

  15. 15 On November 3rd, 2009, blacquejacqueshellac said:

    Libertarians think taxes should be low, but more importantly equal.

    These stupid bloody windmills should pay the same tax rate as Exxon, your neighborhood pub, Walmart and you. And me.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  16. 16 On November 3rd, 2009, t g said:

    Back to #14: There are some elements of life which are not economic, and we wouldn’t allow them to be, that are naturally directed or restrained by a central agency, and this regulation is often seen as interfering with the market.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  17. 17 On November 3rd, 2009, bennett said:

    “Libertarians think taxes should be low, but more importantly equal.”

    So do communist. So do I.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  18. 18 On November 3rd, 2009, blacquejacqueshellac said:

    “There are some elements of life which are not economic, and we wouldn’t allow them to be, that are naturally directed or restrained by a central agency,”

    A central agency. Really. Who dat? You?

    What’s ‘uneconomic’? Stuff you don’t like?

    Who’s this ‘we’ that decides what ‘uneconomic’ and not allowed? You and your friends? Because it sure does not include me. This staggering, endless misunderstanding about the basis of ‘economic’ bothers me. Something is ‘economic’ if parties a and b wish to, and do, trade it for something else. The notion that there is some objective value for anything has long been disproved, and hence all decisions on what is ‘economic’ must be based on what people actually do – definitely not on what some central agency or academic or analyst thinks they ought to do.

    If you want, be upfront and tell us that some things are immoral even if economic and you want to stop them, OK, fine, a sex trade in young girls is a perfect example. Economic but wrong.

    As for bennett, that’s just a silly word game. The confiscation that commies believe in is not reasonable describable as a ‘high tax rate’.

    And it’s only equal in theory because there are always unequal pigs. We Roman Catholic Libertarians also believe in original sin, and plenty of it, so we know man is not perfect or perfectible and people will destroy any non-chaotic system ASAP.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  19. 19 On November 3rd, 2009, ws said:

    blacquejacqueshellac:“Libertarians think taxes should be low, but more importantly equal.

    These stupid bloody windmills should pay the same tax rate as Exxon, your neighborhood pub, Walmart and you. And me.”

    ws: Certainly I agree with you 100% on what you’re saying. But there’s plenty of gov’t handouts going on. Even Exxon and Walmart get tax breaks, incentives, and municipal development, etc. (Exxon had been fighting for years over its payments to the fishermens’ lives they destroyed). I’m curious why ROT chose this example, while avoiding other examples too. ROT bashes Transit, Portland, and Oregon beyond anything else. But cars, highways, and Houston — they can do no wrong! Me thinks that because this article had windmills and Oregon involved; that’s why it was chosen.

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  20. 20 On November 3rd, 2009, bennett said:

    blacquejacqueshellac,

    Your right about the word game. I guess that’s my point. As far as I can see communism and libertarianism are about the same they just draw the line in slightly different places. They both seem to have good critiques of existing systems, but both operate under utopian assumptions (although everyone always says “the world isn’t perfect”). I suppose my real question is, if this is the case, what good is either one?

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  21. 21 On November 3rd, 2009, Dan said:

    The Bush tax cuts or the Obama (”stimulus”) tax cuts?

    I was thinking of the discredited ‘trickle-down’ fetish. The deficits from making the rich richer are far, far more than the recent action. Not that I endorse bailing out these crooks.

    DS

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  22. 22 On November 3rd, 2009, Dan said:

    You are no longer in a grade-school recess yard. Please get a clue before expounding further.

    I may have had one too many after adding the grape to the dinner tonight, but I can no longer pay attention to this f’n moron.

    Sorry for being so blunt, but I must insist on Greasemonkey ending my pain with reading this dim-bulb drivel. Where is my relief?

    DS

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 pm

  23. 23 On November 4th, 2009, t g said:

    blacquejacqueshellac: What’s ‘uneconomic’? Stuff you don’t like?

    Murder – at least until the courts allow one to merely pay off the family of a man one kills.

    A central agency. Really. Who dat? You?

    Back to reality: because we are unwilling to commodify everything (despite your apparent fantasy to the contrary) we have governments that protect those rights that cannot be bought (like the right to life). I didn’t vote yesterday, so seeing as how this is a democracy, no, I am not party to that central agency.

    posted on November 4th, 2009 at 7:28 am

  24. 24 On November 4th, 2009, Dan said:

    Who’s this ‘we’ that decides what ‘uneconomic’ and not allowed? You and your friends? Because it sure does not include me. This staggering, endless misunderstanding about the basis of ‘economic’ bothers me. Something is ‘economic’ if parties a and b wish to, and do, trade it for something else. [emphasis added]

    It sure does include you. Arguments from ignorance are, even in 2009, not compelling.

    DS

    posted on November 4th, 2009 at 8:30 am

  25. 25 On November 4th, 2009, t g said:

    Thanks, Dan, your last link highlights where even economic decisions are uneconomic: does the FED pursue a policy that is good for the business class (low inflation) or good for the working class (high unemployment).

    posted on November 4th, 2009 at 8:41 am

  26. 26 On November 4th, 2009, t g said:

    [edit] good for the working class (low unemployment) [/edit]

    posted on November 4th, 2009 at 8:52 am

  27. 27 On November 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    The economy – any economy – is simply a tool. Nothing nore.

    An economy is neither a law nor ironclad physical principle. It can be mismanaged just like anything else. And uneconomic growth arises often enough that studying and quantiying it is increasing.

    DS

    posted on November 5th, 2009 at 7:30 am

  28. 28 On November 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:

    bennett said: P.S. Is O’Toole complaining that an industry is under taxed? I guess I truly don’t understand you libertarians. “Don’t tax!” you say, then bitch because a sector doesn’t get taxed. WTF?!?!?!?

    THWM: Most people that call them selves “libertarians” are hypocrites to begin with.

    Just as I don’t read O’Toole’s Autoplanner blog as much as I use to, because it’s 99.9% crooked political bullshit!

    posted on November 21st, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.