The Oregon Department of Transportation is unaccountable for routine cost overruns on major highway projects. Nothing it has done has acknowledged or solved this decades old problem, and giving it billions more will fuel further cost overruns.
ODOT’s Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) misleadingly claim that 97 percent of projects are completed under budget.
ODOT is careful to define overruns only as costs after contracts are awarded: this conceals ODOT staff’s consistent pattern of low-balling cost estimates to get projects approved.
ODOT also has a practice of “re-baselining” a project—retroactively altering the initial cost estimate to conceal cost increases.
ODOT’s project database omits every large project that has experienced a cost overrun. The agency’s Transportation Project Tracker dashboard lists only six tiny projects as having experienced cost overruns. For example, there’s no mention of the Abernathy Bridge which has gone from $248 million to $815 million.
In recent correspondence with concerned citizens, ODOT staff simply omitted initial cost estimates, covering up a 47 percent cost overrun on the Iowa Street I-5 Viaduct project.
Accountability is the latest buzzword from highway builders: they claim that after decades of repeated cost-overruns, that somehow ODOT will suddenly become “accountable” and that this will rein in over-spending running in to the billions dollars.
If you rocked up to cast your ballot on polling day a few weeks ago, you may have noticed it was a bit quieter than it used to be. More and more Australians are forgoing their democracy sausage – and more importantly – voting before the final days of the election campaign. In fact, only 45% of Australians voted on election day, a record low that could be hampering Australians’ collective democracy.
Despite the shortest pre-poll period in living memory, with booths opening only 11 days out from the election (over a week later than in 2019), Australians set pre-poll records several times during the campaign.
Figure 1: Pre-poll votes in the days before Federal elections (Source: AEC)
But in the case of Climate Active, it’s the government itself running the scheme — and promoting it.
While claiming to crack down on greenwashing, the Australian government has been quietly enabling it for years.
I previously worked on the Climate Active program and understand the intent behind it.
But intent is no substitute for integrity.
And the scheme’s reliance on carbon offsets — combined with limited transparency, no assessment of real-world emissions trajectories, and endorsement of claims that may be impossible to prove — has turned it into a high-risk proposition.
Here’s how the scheme works. Climate Active certifies organisations and products as “carbon neutral” if they offset their emissions using carbon credits — even if those emissions are increasing.
The offsets themselves are often of questionable quality and permanence. But once the box is ticked, the government puts its name behind the claim.
Full time (Part Time negotiable), Fixed term for 3 years
Work with a team of interdisciplinary researchers and doctoral students building a conceptual and empirical map of the emerging Climate Economy in Australia
Academic Level A, Base Salary from $109,301 + 17% superannuation
About the opportunity
The School of Social and Political Sciences in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the School of Geosciences in the Faculty of Science at The University of Sydney are seeking a Postdoctoral Research Fellow to work on a joint project: The Climate Economy: Emerging Strategies for Australia.
This project explores Australia’s emerging Climate Economy, investigating how climate change challenges conventional economic policy paradigms and redefines political economic concepts and practices. We want to understand how the pressures of climate change are reshaping governance, investment, and policy strategies in unexpected ways. Our approach highlights the hybrid nature of this new political economic configuration, where public and private actors are taking on new roles and producing new economic geographies, financial instruments are being reimagined, and economic and sociospatial outcomes must be measured in novel ways. By mapping and evaluating Australia’s Climate Economy, we aim to provide new frameworks for understanding and democratising the economic policies that will define a climate-changed future.
The Australia Institute is proud to release a unique, authoritative and accurate assessment of Chinese foreign policy commentary, a first for Australia.
Postdoctoral Fellow at The Australia Institute, Dr. Fangcheng (Frank) Yuan, has combined his extraordinary research and language skills to deliver his paper, Chinese Foreign Policy Brief.
Dr Yuan has drawn on publications, interviews, statements and other sources reflecting the foreign policy views of Chinese officials and state-affiliated analysts, covering four themes:
The exchange of trade restrictions between China and the US
Taiwan’s reunification with China and other countries’ stance on the matter, including China’s misrepresentation of Australia’s position
Tensions between the US and its European allies
The Russia-Ukraine War
“China’s messaging, aimed at international and domestic audiences alike, has become increasingly colourful and self-referential, suggesting a sense of confidence matching the content of Beijing’s messages,” said Dr Frank Yuan, Postdoctoral Fellow at The Australia Institute.
“Beijing has treated the trade war as a malicious attack on China’s right to development by the US.
“While Beijing clearly disagrees with the sanctions on Russia, it is not shy to signal its discomfort with Russia’s use of force, even if it sympathises with Moscow’s security concerns.”
The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.
Covering Up the Cover-Ups | The Roundtable Ep. 268
Is it a safe and secure place for people to live? Or is it a place to make a small minority of people rich?
The answer is important because the housing market over the last two decades has shown that it can’t be both.
Since the turn of the century, investors have flooded into the market, pushing up house prices, outbidding first home buyers, and making housing less affordable.
With the Reserve Bank now cutting official interest rates, house prices are going to grow even faster, and these rising house prices are going to attract even more investors.
After an election where the issue of housing affordability was hotly debated, first home buyers struggling to break into the market are likely to watch as rapidly rising prices leave them further behind.
The major party’s policies on housing affordability fell into two categories.
The first are those that increase supply, which in the long run will make housing more affordable.
The second are those that gave some financial advantage to a particular group of home buyers, most often first-home buyers, that would increase demand, push up prices, and ultimately make housing less affordable.
Overall, the major party’s offerings on housing are best described as a dumpster fire of dumb stuff.
What neither side offered were policies that deal with the underlying cause of unaffordable housing, the explosion in investor demand for housing.
On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg explains why Australia has won the fight against inflation, complains about the RBA a bit, and appraises latest gender pay gap data. Plus: air horns!
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 22 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.
Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut
Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek
This article was originally published, in slightly different form, on founding Strong Towns member Seth Zeren’s Substack,Build the Next Right Thing. It is shared here with permission. Images were provided by the writer.
At a lake near my house there is a heron I call my therapist. I hadn’t seen him since October: seven months weighted with the ache of a century. Too much happened and too little changed. I wish current political horrors felt unrecognizable, but it’s like watching a reboot of a movie no one wanted the first time. Familiar in the worst ways, leaving me longing for what’s familiar in the best ways.
From a distance, I questioned if it was really him. There are a lot of herons in St. Louis. There is a lot of beauty in St. Louis, and it tends to vanish without warning.
But it was my heron, my old friend. Don’t ask how I know — do I ask you about your avian analysts? He was back in his office: a withered log under a bent branch. A flood had wrecked his last one, but he had found similar new digs.
All that mattered is that he had stayed. He stayed in St. Louis even though he could fly anywhere. I stayed, too. We stared at each other and didn’t wonder why.
Egads! The Democrats! I had almost forgotten about them. I’m sure they’d prefer we all did, at this point. Ineffectiveness and obscurity would be better than whatever the hell this train wreck is that we’re watching now. It feels indecent even to discuss, like commenting on someone’s unsightly facial deformity. But I suppose we must.
This week, the National Party announced they were leaving the Coalition to sit on the crossbench, which would make the Liberal Party the sole Opposition in the Australian Parliament. (Though talk of reuniting has already begun).
If the Nationals do see through their departure from the Opposition, there will be about as many MPs sitting on the crossbenches as there are in Opposition: perhaps 27 or 28 Nationals, Greens, independents and minor party MPs, and about the same number of Liberal MPs. This far exceeds what was previously described as the “record crossbench” of 16 elected in 2022 – and is the largest crossbench since the Coalition was formed in 1923.
But as the Australia Institute wrote during the election campaign, Australia did not federate in 1945. Large crossbenches were commonplace after Federation in 1901, sometimes exceeding not just the Opposition in size but the Government as well.
In a world gripped by daily catastrophes, there is one that affects all but lacks the attention it deserves. The climate crisis — pervaded by ecological collapse, war, endless resource accumulation fueled by capitalism — is the issue of our time. The warning signs are there but as author Eiren Caffall tells host Chris Hedges, people are not able to handle the facts regarding the “fragility of our ecosystem, and [they] just don't really have a great way of managing the emotional impact of that.”
Baseball stadium proponents are arguing a “jock tax” would be free money to pay for a stadium
That’s based on an illusion about where the money to pay baseball players income comes from
The economic evidence is that sports venues just re-allocate money in the local economy
Diverting Oregon income taxes to subsidize stadium construction subsidizes billionaire owners and millionaire players at the cost of other public services.
On May 15, 2025, City Observatory’s Joe Cortright testified to the Oregon Legislature’s House Revenue Committee on SB 110A, a proposal to divert taxes paid by baseball teams to subsidize the construction of a baseball stadium. Proponents of the legislation argue that the tax revenue is “free money” that wouldn’t otherwise come to Oregon without a major league team, and that the future stream of tax payments will support up to $800 million in debt toward stadium construction costs.
The proposed design of the $2.1 billion I-5 Rose Quarter Project includes two deadly hairpin freeway off-ramps.
Everyone focuses on the part of the Rose Quarter than involves covering over part of the I-5 freeway. No one ever talks about the two deadly off-ramps ODOT will build as part of this project.
Traffic exiting I-5 South at the Rose Quarter will go through a high speed tunnel and then choose between two hairpin turns on to local streets.
Similar ramps in Portland and Seattle are the source of frequent crashes and fatalities.
The plan to widen I-5 through the Rose Quarter, at the staggering cost of $2.1 billion, has a new added safety problem, a complicated new freeway offramp, of the kind that often leads to serious or fatal crashes.
By Sarah McKenzie
Acting Executive Director, Per Capita
Gender quotas in the Australian Labor Party have transformed not only the make-up of the party, but that of our entire Federal Parliament. Australia is now on the verge of opening its first gender-equal Parliament, driven in large part by Labor’s landslide victory at the 2025 Federal Election. Other major parties are taking note. Labor’s quotas have not only brought more women into Parliament; they’ve also helped them stay there. With clear evidence that quotas work, is it time to legislate for gender equality in political representation, consolidate this progress and ensure future governments continue to deliver for women?
It matters who sits in the houses of parliament. Women have changed our parliaments, our politics, and our country. In 2022 the Albanese Government delivered the first majority-women federal government, and with that came a government that has done more for women and girls than any in our nation’s history.
Since election day, conservative media have decided to begin a scare campaign around the government’s proposed changes to the tax concessions on superannuation. Currently, the earnings in superannuation funds are taxed at just 15%. This is a significant tax concession for most people and a very large one for the richest in Australia, who would be paying a 45% rate if super was taxed like income.
This means that the richest in Australia are getting a 30% tax break on their super, so it is little wonder that many of them are using super not to save for their retirement, but to avoid paying tax.
Superannuation tax breaks are being abused
The entire reason for the superannuation tax concessions is to encourage people to save for their retirement so they will not need to go on the age pension. This, in theory, reduces the burden on the government.
But the problem is that when you offer the richest people in Australia a 30% tax break, they will take advantage of it. The richest 10% – most of whom would never be eligible for the age pension receive $22bn in tax breaks by having money in super rather than having it taxed like income.
On this episode of Follow the Money, the Australia Institute’s Joshua Black and Jack Thrower join Glenn Connley to discuss the enormous cost of going to university, the absurdity of university vice-chancellors being paid more than the Treasurer, and why the practice of using international students as a political football must end.
This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 20 May 2025 and things may have changed.
Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to our Vantage Point series and save 25% on the Australia Institute website.
Guest: Joshua Black, Postdoctoral Fellow, the Australia Institute // @joshuablackjb
Guest: Jack Thrower, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // @jack-thrower
Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley
This article was originally published, in slightly different form, by Strong Towns Chairman Andrew Burleson on his Substack The Post-Suburban Future.It is shared here with permission. Image provided by the writer.
And it doesn’t involve changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing, which would be more effective but, strangely, the government won’t touch.
It’s a lever which the government has pulled before – and it worked.
The government could direct the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to force lenders to limit the number of loans they offer to investors.
In 2014, with investors flooding the property market and prices out of control, APRA introduced a 10% limit on the increase in the number of investment loans which banks could offer. Then, in 2017, it put a 30% limit on the number of interest-only loans which could be offered.
By limiting the number of investment loans, a natural consequence was that interest rates for investors went up. Interest rates for owner-occupiers stayed the same.
For the first time since investors sent property prices soaring in the early 2000s, the market was tipped in favour of owner-occupiers over investors.
Attending oral argument last week in the case touching on birthright citizenship pending before the Supreme Court, I observed a combination of confusion, omissions, and outright lies from some of the justices. As the lawyer for one of the amici, I witnessed the Court address the propriety of the nationwide, universal injunctions that have been issued by several district court judges blocking the execution of President Trump’s day-one executive order on birthright citizenship.
Let’s begin with the lies.
Early in the argument, Justice Sotomayor unequivocally stated that the Court had held 127 years ago that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, and repeated that holding in three other cases since. That is false.
The Supreme Court has never held that the children born on U.S. soil to temporary visitors or illegal aliens are citizens. The Wong Kim Ark case to which she was referring explicitly dealt only with a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States—and the word “domicile” or one of its derivatives was repeated nearly 30 times throughout that opinion. Any language in the opinion beyond that is not part of the holding, but is rather non-binding dicta. The same is true with the passing references in the three other cases she cited—they are pure dicta. So her claim that the Court has already issued holdings that are contrary to the president’s executive order is simply untrue.
The United States cannot reindustrialise until it definancialises
Trump’s mass tariffs announced on so-called ‘Liberation Day’ were an aggressive attempt to force global patterns of production to change. This approach was short lived however, as the sky-high tariffs against countries like Vietnam (46%) and Bangladesh (37%) were hastily delayed in favour of a flat 10% tariff. Whilst Trump initially doubled down on his tariffs against China, increasing them to a high of 145%, he has now retreated on these too. Chinese imports into the US will now be subject to a 30% tariff.
Trump’s tariff offensive shocked the world; however, it appeared inspired by an essay written by former financier and current Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Miran.
In the essay, Miran argues that global imbalances in trade have caused widespread economic issues within the US, namely the decimation of US manufacturing. In response, he outlines a plan to use tariffs as leverage to negotiate a depreciation in the US dollar by convincing trading partners to diversify their reserve holdings away from US dollar denominated assets. He dubs this the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord’.
Borrowers have endured two full years of pain, as rates shot up quickly but started coming down slowly.
People are still hurting, and there’s no need to keep inflicting unnecessary additional pain.
“The Australia Institute welcomes the news that the RBA has finally acted by reducing the cash rate by 25 basis points,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.
“This cut goes some small way to redressing the failure to cut rates at its April meeting.
“Households have been smashed by the rate rises which began in May 2022. Almost half of the increase in cost-of-living pressure on employee households is attributable to interest rate rises.
“The pain of these rate rises continues. In the first three months of this year, spending on retail was flat as households continued to cut back on spending to pay mortgage bills.
“The Reserve Bank should not end here. Over the past year, unemployment has remained at around 4.1%, and yet in that time, inflation has fallen from 3.8% to 2.4%, and private-sector wage growth has fallen from 4.1% to 3.3%.
“There is no wage price spiral. There is no need for unemployment to rise. The Reserve Bank should focus on achieving full employment.”
This article was originally published, in slightly different form, on Strong Towns member Michel Durand-Wood’s blog,Dear Winnipeg. It is shared here with permission. In-line images were provided by the author.
The obvious answer to the question of why the United States runs a trade deficit is that its export sales have not kept up with its demand for imports. A less obvious answer is that the imbalance reflects a macroeconomic phenomenon. Using national accounting, one can show deficits are also due to a persistent shortfall in domestic saving that requires funds from abroad to finance domestic investment spending. Reducing the trade imbalance therefore requires both more exports relative to imports and a narrowing of the gap between saving and investment spending.
The Statement on Monetary Policy sets out the Bank's assessment of current economic
conditions, both domestic and international, along with the outlook for Australian inflation and output growth.
A number of boxes on topics of special interest are also published. The Statement is issued four times a year.
For 60 years, IBM was the heartbeat of our family. As a son, I (Andy) grew up in its orbit, my childhood punctuated by eight moves up and down the East Coast before eighth grade. Each new school, each cardboard box packed in haste, was a testament to IBM’s growing reach. We laughed that its initials stood for “I’ve Been Moved,” a lighthearted nod to a company we revered for how it respected the individual, its unmatched customer service, and its unrelenting pursuit of excellence.
As a father, I (Rich) dedicated 30 years to IBM, following my father-in-law’s path as a field executive. I led teams that launched groundbreaking technologies, and was proud to steward a legacy that didn’t just shape our family but redefined industries worldwide.
As shareholders, we grieve what IBM has become—a company where “I’ve Been Misled” now overshadows its once-proud ethos.
This is our urgent warning to Fortune 500 CEOs: embracing divisive political agendas like DEI courts material risk, derails your mission, and betrays the American values that drive success. DEI was never about diversity—it was about control, elevating race and sex over merit in a way that fractured many corporate cultures, IBM included.
On the 50th episode of After America, Nick Bryant joins Dr Emma Shortis to reflect on the second Trump presidency, why division is the default in American political history, and what the United States might look like after Trump.
This discussion was recorded on Thursday 15 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.
Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.
Guest: Nick Bryant, author of The Forever War: America’s unending conflict with itself // @nickbryantoz
Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis
College acceptance season is here—and with it the reminder that the college admissions process is broken.
Application essays, formerly written by highly paid tutors for those who could afford it, are now being composed by artificial intelligence. At the same time, the Ivory Tower’s embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which elevates race and sex above all other considerations, has made a mockery of merit.
In the midst of this systemic failure, the University of Austin (UATX) recently implemented a never-before-attempted policy that removes the subjectivity of AI-infused essays and DEI-infected applications: admissions based almost solely on standardized test scores.
If an applicant receives a 1460 or above on the SAT, a 33 or above on the ACT, or a 105 or above on the Classic Learning Test (CLT), that student is automatically accepted. (Full disclosure: I am the president of the CLT.) Any student with lower scores can still be admitted with the added consideration of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate scores, as well as one-sentence descriptions of up to three significant achievements such as outstanding athletic accomplishments or examples of personal fortitude.
UATX does not accept essays, insincerely elongated lists of extracurricular activities, proclamations of intersectional victimhood, or any other non-merit-based materials.
Energy Australia has admitted that its Go Neutral scheme, which falsely told customers they could offset their gas and electricity usage, did nothing to stop climate change.
This is a landmark moment in the fight against greenwashing by companies pumping millions of tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere.
Energy Australia owns and operates some of the highest polluting industrial sites in Australia.
Now it admits that carbon offsets cannot undo the damage it causes by burning vast volumes of fossil fuels.
The admission only came after the Parents for Climate group took Energy Australia to the Federal Court over its Go Neutral claims.
ENERGY AUSTRALIA STATEMENT
“Today, Energy Australia acknowledges that carbon offsetting is not the most effective way to assist customers to reduce their emissions and apologises to any customer who felt that the way it marketed its Go Neutral products was unclear.
Energy Australia has now shifted its focus to direct emissions reductions.
Energy Australia acknowledges the importance of consumers understanding the climate impact of products and services offered to them and that offsets are not the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
The false carbon neutrality claim of the Go Neutral scheme was certified by the Australian government through its Climate Active program.
On this episode, Allan Behm joins Paul Barclay to discuss Australia’s diplomatic strategy of ‘pre-emptive capitulation’, America’s international bullying and how Australia should use its unrecognised national power.
This discussion was recorded on Monday 24 February 2025 and things may have changed since the recording.
On the 7th May 2025, the European Parliament adapted a report suspending Turkey’s European Union (EU) accession talks referring to Turkey’s non-alignment to the EU’s common foreign and security policy and democratic backsliding, following a crackdown of mass protests after the arrest of İstanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a potential challenger in the forthcoming presidential elections. The Report conceives of Turkey as a strategic ally and proposes to deepen cooperation on issues of mutual interest. This is not new. In the EU’s official reports and strategic position papers published in the last decade, the EU has conceived of Turkey as a strategic partner to deepen cooperation on particular issues such as migration management, approaching the relations in a ‘transactional’ manner rather than membership per se.
