The Eugene Weekly’s cover story this week takes on the ever-present homeless problem with predictable Alan Pittman results. In other words, illogical and pudding-headed. To be fair, most of the article isn’t that bad; Pittman does a fair job of trying to cover Eugene’s typically FUBAR politics, but one paragraph in particular makes me die a little inside:

If Eugeneans are stuck with the bill [of homeless programs], a more palatable approach could be a graduated income tax based on the ability to pay. That could garner more money from the rich Ebenezers while protecting the poor from having to pay more taxes through high rents they already struggle to afford.

Oh sure, obviously. A graduated income tax makes perfect sense because there is a direct correlation between a rise in income level and personal responsibility for homelessness. Brilliant. Second of all, “rich Ebenezers”? Last time I checked, Eugene wasn’t exactly brimming with railroad tycoons, steel magnates and Dickensian plutocrats. Maybe Pittman is just bitter about the stagnating wages of alternative newspaper special investigators. Third, the phrase “graduated income tax based on the ability to pay” is completely redundant. Jesus Christ, I’m going to have an aneuryism.

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 at 19:43 by CJ Ciaramella and is filed under City, Media, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.