KRBN Internet News Talk Radio

06/07/2025

KRBN Internet News Talk Radio Commentary
Title: ODOT, HB 2025, and the Taxpayer Tipping Point
By: The KRBN Editorial Desk
Folks, we’ve spent the last few weeks doing something the state government apparently refuses to do: dig into the facts, follow the money, and actually ask who’s paying for all this. What we found should concern every Oregonian, regardless of political party or whether you drive a truck, a Tesla, or a bicycle.
Let’s start here:
ODOT’s $1.1 Billion Mistake
Yes, you read that right. In early 2025, the Oregon Department of Transportation admitted to overestimating $1.1 billion in expected federal revenue. That mistake wasn’t a rounding error — it was nearly 20% of their entire budget. The fallout? Internal audits, delayed projects, and legislators from both parties demanding accountability.
Yet instead of hitting pause and reassessing priorities, lawmakers tried to push through HB 2025, a monster of a transportation bill loaded with over $1 billion a year in new taxes and fees — much of it hitting average, working Oregonians right in the wallet.

What HB 2025 Would Have Cost You
Let’s lay it out clearly:
• Gas tax increase: Up to 15¢ more per gallon
• Vehicle registration: $43 → $113
• Driver’s license renewal: $48 → $74
• CDL renewal: $61 → $104 (a 70% jump)
• EV road usage fee: $340/year or a per-mile charge
• Vehicle title fee: $77 → $182
• Transfer/privilege tax:
– 2% on new vehicle sales
– 1% on used vehicles sold over $10,000 — even private party sales
• Per-mile tax rollout:
– Begins 2026 with EVs, expands to hybrids by 2028
– Eventually applies to everyone, not just EV owners
– Based on 5% of the gas tax per mile — about 2¢ per mile driven
Add it up, and the typical Oregon family would pay hundreds, possibly thousands more every year just to keep their vehicles legal and mobile.

But That’s Not All — Where’s the Money Going?
You’d think this money would go toward paving roads, fixing bridges, and making travel safer. Think again.
ODOT’s budget is filled with non-essential spending far beyond basic road maintenance:
• Bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure, mandated by law to get at least 1% of highway funds
• Single-use bridges, sidewalk projects, and “multimodal transit hubs”
• Transit subsidies, EV charging programs, urban development grants
• A growing DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) bureaucracy — 57 positions at ODOT alone, totaling an estimated $13 million annually
• And most recently, proposals for congestion pricing and toll roads that could cost households $500–$1,000+ per year
In fact, I-205 tolling is projected to bring in $132 million annually — not to fix rural roads, but to fund “corridor improvements” and multimodal priorities. That’s not congestion relief — it’s congestion monetization.

Are We Even a Transportation Department Anymore?
Let’s ask the obvious: when did ODOT stop being about roads?
We’re now funding climate strategies, DEI consulting teams, infrastructure “equity mapping,” and progressive transit experiments — all while essential projects sit on hold and roads deteriorate. And if you speak up? You're called anti-progress.
We support safe roads, clean communities, and responsible infrastructure. But not at the expense of transparency, fiscal discipline, and working families who are already being taxed out of their homes and driven out of their businesses.

The Takeaway
ODOT made a billion-dollar mistake, and the political class’s answer was: “Make the taxpayers pay more.”
Oregonians narrowly avoided HB 2025 — for now. But the ideas behind it? The fees, the taxes, the social engineering built into transportation? They’ll be back. That’s why it matters that we stay informed, vigilant, and engaged.
If we want a transportation system that works, we need leadership that fixes roads, not one that tries to rebuild society through toll booths and license fees.

28/05/2025

Surveillance in Eugene: What’s Being Watched — and Who’s Watching?

KMTR recently reported that 57 new License Plate Reader (LPR) dome cameras have been installed across Eugene. These cameras track vehicle movements and capture license plates in real time. The city says the data is stored for 30 days and is used for things like locating stolen vehicles, responding to Amber Alerts, and investigating major crimes.

But what’s not getting as much attention is something else I’ve been noticing around town: the growing number of dome-style PTZ (pan-tilt-zoom) cameras mounted on poles at intersections. These aren’t traffic control devices. They’re actively operated by law enforcement to monitor public spaces and track movement — in real time.

According to city sources, these PTZ cameras have already been used to identify suspects in assaults, car break-ins, and other incidents downtown. Police describe them as “force multipliers,” giving officers the ability to monitor multiple areas without being physically present.

So here’s the bigger question: Are we getting close to a ‘Big Brother’ scenario where someone is always watching and tracking us?

Personally, I think if a camera is mounted on a public pole, it should be clearly marked or identified — with a license number or ownership tag — so we know who operates it. Even if there’s no legal expectation of privacy in public spaces, I believe we at least have the right to know who’s watching us, and why.

Transparency doesn’t interfere with safety — it protects trust. What do you think?

Flock Safety cameras have made their way into the city of Eugene, and have already proven effective, according to police.The cameras were used to assist a Lane

08/05/2025

The Oregon Robin Hood Tax — SB 686 Unmasked
Oregon’s Senate Bill 686 is being marketed as a rescue plan for local journalism — but let’s be clear: it’s a state-managed wealth transfer from companies like Google and Facebook to select media organizations, with 10% going straight to a new government-run nonprofit called the Oregon Civic Information Consortium.

The bill mandates that certain “covered platforms” — defined as those with massive user bases and revenues — must:

“Pay at least $122 million annually to compensate digital journalism providers for accessing the Internet websites of the providers for an Oregon audience.”
(Section 2, SB 686)

That money is then redistributed:

90% to qualifying news outlets based on journalist headcount — disproportionately benefiting large, corporate-owned media, not small independent voices.

10% to the state-aligned Consortium for journalism-related grants — adding a layer of state-controlled influence over the press.

This may sound noble, but the reality is troubling:

It props up outdated media models that failed to adapt to the digital age.

It hands financial leverage over the press to the state.

It increases operational costs for major tech companies — costs that will be passed on to consumers.

It sends a clear warning to businesses: if you succeed too much, you’ll be forced to bankroll those who didn’t.

And Oregon’s broader business climate isn’t immune. A recent survey found that 41% of small business owners in the state are considering closing, selling, or relocating due to mounting taxes and regulations. Companies are already choosing to expand elsewhere.

We’ve seen this movie before: during North Dakota’s oil boom, aggressive new taxes and regulatory creep pushed businesses out — turning once-thriving towns into ghost towns. Oregon is beginning to show signs of that same dangerous trend.

This isn’t just about journalism. It’s about government picking winners and losers in the private sector — and using feel-good language to do it.

SB 686 is Oregon’s version of a Robin Hood tax — and like the legend, it’s more myth than solution.

01/05/2025

🧠 May is ALS Awareness Month 🧠

Over the last several months, I’ve been working closely with AI to develop an in-depth white paper on ALS — a devastating neurodegenerative disease that still has no cure. What started as a simple conversation evolved into an 85-page research-backed document proposing bold new diagnostic theories, early intervention strategies, and possible paths to regeneration.

Our work takes a systems-based approach, offering fresh — and admittedly speculative — insights into how ALS may begin long before symptoms appear, and how structural, vascular, and metabolic issues might be reversed rather than just slowed.

If you're interested in reading the full paper, message me directly here on Facebook and I’ll be happy to send you a copy.

Let’s keep the conversation going. Awareness is the first step toward progress.

— Robin Simmons
KRBN Internet News Talk Radio

If you're interested in reading the full paper, message me directly here on Facebook and I’ll be happy to send you a copy.

Let’s keep the conversation going. Awareness is the first step toward progress.

— Robin Simmons
KRBN Internet News Talk Radio

04/03/2025

Blog talk hosting service may be no more, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still have interactions. From the things I’m seeing coming up in Oregon’s legislature this year, I should probably start blogging again — and I’ll be announcing the new blog address soon.

But for now, there’s something else I want to talk about today — House Bill 3362, which proposes a 4% excise tax on the sale of new tires. This tax would go toward funding rail transit, tire pollution mitigation, and wildlife crossing infrastructure.

Supporters of the bill claim that the tax could generate up to $20 million annually to help fund public transit initiatives and reduce tire pollution — that’s the black residue you see on the roads.

24/01/2025

"Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon based on the severity and frequency of traffic crashes" says the department that wanted 9 roundabouts.

what are your thoughts?

here are the links to the Springfield project and my commentary looking at the data.

https://springfield-or.gov/city/development-public-works/infrastructure-planning/

https://robinwonders.blogspot.com/2022/03/9-roundabouts-on-main-street-in.html

17/01/2025

They are after the kicker again!!!

Oregon's tax burden is among the highest in the nation. According to a 2024 study by WalletHub, Oregon ranks 23rd in overall tax burden, with residents paying approximately 8.44% of their income toward state and local taxes.
CPA PRACTICE ADVISOR
This includes a top marginal individual income tax rate of 9.9%, placing Oregon among the states with the highest income tax rates.
TAX FOUNDATION

Despite the absence of a state sales tax, Oregon compensates with higher income and property taxes. The state's property tax burden is moderately competitive, though higher than neighboring states like California and Washington.
TAX FOUNDATION
Additionally, Oregon imposes a corporate income tax with rates up to 7.6% and a 0.57% gross receipts tax, contributing to its complex tax structure.

Given this substantial tax burden, many residents find it challenging to meet their financial obligations, including property tax payments. The "kicker" law, which refunds taxpayers when state revenue exceeds forecasts by at least 2%, provides much-needed relief. In the most recent cycle, the state returned surplus funds to taxpayers, yet still managed to increase its budget by over 20%.
TAX FOUNDATION

Eliminating the kicker would remove a critical safeguard that ensures taxpayers aren't overburdened, especially in a state where the tax load is already significant. Maintaining the kicker sends a clear message to politicians: fiscal responsibility and taxpayer relief should remain priorities.

By Taxpayers Association of Oregon OregonWatchdog.com Portland Democrat State Senator Lew Frederick has authored Senate Joint Resolution 15 (SJR 15) which would abolish the people' Kicker Income Tax Refunds. Voters put into the Constitution requiring over-collected surplus tax revenue to be re

14/01/2025

State wide property tax????? Hell No!!

Stop HJR 6 and HJR 8: Oregon Can’t Afford These Taxes!

Representative Paul Evans (D is back with two proposals—HJR 6 and HJR 8—that would create Oregon’s first-ever statewide property tax, adding even more financial pressure on homeowners and businesses.

What These Measures Mean for You

HJR 6 proposes a statewide property tax of $1 per $1,000 of home value to fund disaster resilience projects. For a $300,000 home, this means an additional $300 per year in taxes for the next 20 years.
HJR 8 proposes a lower statewide property tax but adds a tax on personal property, which includes business inventory. This would hit small businesses especially hard, potentially driving them out of Oregon.

Local Communities Already Fund Public Safety Cities like Eugene, Portland, Grants Pass, and Florence already have measures in place to fund public safety tailored to their needs:

Eugene: A Community Safety Payroll Tax funds local services.
Portland: A Heavy Vehicle Use Tax supports traffic safety.
Grants Pass: Uses grants, fees, and lodging taxes for public safety.
Florence: Funds safety through a public safety levy.
A one-size-fits-all statewide tax disregards these efforts and unfairly penalizes homeowners and businesses in areas already funding these services.

Why These Proposals Are a Bad Idea

Massive Financial Burden: Adds to already high property taxes.
Disproportionate Impact: Seniors on fixed incomes and struggling families risk losing their homes.
Economic Strain: A tax on business inventory under HJR 8 would be devastating to Oregon’s small businesses.
Public Opposition: Last year, over 1,200 Oregonians opposed a similar measure (HJR 201), and fewer than a dozen supported it. These proposals ignore clear public disapproval.

What Can You Do? Let your voice be heard! Contact your representatives and tell them to vote NO on HJR 6 and HJR 8. These taxes are the wrong solution for Oregon.

Share this post to help spread the word and protect homeowners, seniors, and small businesses from unnecessary taxes. Together, we can stand against these burdensome proposals. Let’s say NO to HJR 6 and HJR 8!

By Taxpayers Association of Oregon OregonWatchdog.com Last year, State Representative Paul Evans (D-Salem), submitted HJR 201 (2024 Session) which would have created Oregon's first ever property tax to go statewide and to be controlled by statewide politicians. Over 1,200 people testified again

03/01/2025

Happy New Year! Oh, and guess what? You can’t buy fluorescent tubes anymore. Surprise!

But wait, there’s more! Oregon’s on a roll with its eco-makeover. They’ve also nixed Styrofoam food containers—because who needs those, right?

Honestly, I hesitate to even bring this up (don’t want to plant any seeds here), but at this rate, toilet paper might be next on the chopping block.

So, let’s all do our part to save the planet: chow down on recycled foods and keep the dream alive!

Oregon has become the seventh state to ban the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs due to their mercury content, encouraging businesses and homeowners to transition to energy-efficient LEDs as part of

27/11/2024

Proposed Fire Fee

The Eugene City Council held a special session on September 30, 2024, to discuss draft proposals for a fire service fee and gather feedback. During the meeting, council members reviewed a tiered fee structure based on building size, suggesting $10 per month for an average single-family home and $38 per month for a typical commercial property.

Link to the City of Eugene page
https://shorturl.at/fbaWX

Eugene already imposes a public safety tax on individuals who work or live in the area. Given current financial challenges for many residents, is adding another fee—or tax—the right solution?

Important Considerations
Some legal concerns have been raised about bundling unrelated fees with utility bills. Courts in multiple states have ruled that utility bills should only cover consumption-based services, like water, sewer, or electricity. Here are a few examples:

Florida: Courts in Ocala, FL, ruled a fire service fee on utility bills unconstitutional, as it was effectively a tax added without proper legislative approval.
California: Under Proposition 218, any non-utility fees require voter approval and must be billed separately to ensure transparency.
Other States: Similar rulings in Colorado and Texas highlight the need for separate billing or classification as a tax to avoid legal challenges.
Key Takeaway
Even if voters approve a fire service fee, attaching it to utility bills can still raise legal and ethical concerns. Transparency, proper classification, and separate billing systems are essential to comply with legal standards and maintain public trust.

What do you think? Should Eugene move forward with this proposal, or should alternative funding methods be explored? Feel free to share your thoughts below!

13/11/2024

moving old shows to Speaker https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/krbn-internet-news-talk-radio--6403519

29/05/2024

Commentary by Robin:
Yesterday, June 28th, on the steps of the courthouse, Robert De Niro used a scare tactic, claiming that if Trump were re-elected, he would never leave office and would become a dictator.

It's interesting how people skew their words. Trump once mentioned that if he were elected again, he would be a "dictator for a day" as a metaphor for swiftly reinstating some of his policies and gaining control of the border. However, people have misconstrued this term to mean he intended to become a permanent dictator, just as they misinterpreted his statement about immigrants being "animals."

Robert De Niro's comment about Trump becoming a dictator is concerning, but under the Constitution, it's not feasible. The 20th Amendment ensures the president's term ends at noon on January 20th. If a president refused to leave, enforcement agencies, including the Secret Service, would ensure a peaceful transition of power. Additionally, our Constitution makes establishing a dictatorship nearly impossible. Martial law, an extreme measure, could only be declared under severe national emergencies and is heavily regulated with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.

Unfortunately, people suffering from severe Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) might actually believe this rhetoric.

In my opinion, whether you like Donald Trump or Joe Biden is your choice. Just be smart, review each candidate, and don't blindly vote for your party.