So? The title is the biggest logical fallacy out there. It doesn't matter what he is, or even his intentions. What matters is his argument.

I'm an unaffiliated voter and this street fee was the biggest crock of shit there was. No taxing people who live outside the city who use our streets? A tax system that didn't give credit to bikers and GHG-free forms of transportation users? Did Hales/Novick morons come together to form the most insanely inefficient, narrow and unfair tax they could possibly conceive?

It's one thing to be "progressive" and support a higher, progressive tax on wealthier people for education (as generally your wealth is determined by your educational achievement), it's entirely different to do the same with transportation, which is a different beast entirely that has serious degradation issues of service if not all people are paying into the pie at appropriate levels corollary to use.

The title reads like it's some sort of infiltration conspiracy by the GOP. I'll crack the code for you, Dennis. Most economists support user-fees over income taxes as a rule, but not exclusively. Not all economists are conservative, but many are.

It's possible, by extension of his economics background and knowledge, he affiliates with the Republican party in Oregon because of that. If you know anything about Oregon's tax system, it's far from an economists' desired plan as it's reliant on income taxes and disincentives to investment of capital. Potentially being in the Republican party is his only shot at changing some of that.

Oh yeah and the Arts Tax sucks you know what too. I think PPS should start graduating some students above what the state of Mississippi does before they ask for money for art.

Looks like I have more in common with Eric Fruits than I thought, despite him being a Republican.