Opinion
4A
Thursday, February 18, 2021
Our View
Public records
belong to all of us
hen The Observer and other news-
papers request access to information
from the government, it sometimes
hits the Wall of No.
Public records are part of the regular diet of
newsrooms. But some public bodies throw up tall
hurdles — usually in the form of big expenses
— to block access to those records. Records that
took public money to produce.
Back in 2018, for example, reporter Jackson
Hogan with The Bulletin, sister paper to The
Observer, asked the Bend-La Pine Schools for a
list and price of all apps and textbooks bought for
student iPads, specifically those in use. About a
month later, the district told him the cost of pro-
viding the information would be $2,000.
Eight district staffers would apparently have to
work a total of 18.5 hours to pull the information.
Then a lawyer with the High Desert Education
Service District would have to work six hours at
$115 an hour to review the information and redact
anything necessary. The district offered to give
The Bulletin 50% off and charge $1,000. Still,
prohibitively pricey for The Bulletin and other
newspapers.
Oregon House Bill 2485 seeks to enshrine 50%
off for journalists in law. It requires state agen-
cies to reduce public records request fees by 50%
if the request is made in the public interest. It
requires state agencies to entirely waive fees if a
public records request is in the public interest and
narrowly tailored. And it requires requests made
by members of the news media to be treated as in
public interest.
State Rep. Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, is spon-
soring the bill. She introduced it on behalf of the
Society for Professional Journalists.
We certainly appreciate the sentiment. But
sometimes 50% is no deal. The cost still can be
the Wall of No.
News media is not defined in the bill. That can
be tricky. Maybe The Observer or The Bulletin
would easily qualify. What about a person who
diligently tracks and regularly writes about edu-
cation policy on a blog? Is that person a member
of the news media? Are they acting in the public
interest?
As much as we like the idea of getting 50% off,
Oregon’s public records law is Oregon’s “public”
records law. The news media can play a critical
watchdog role and help spread information. It just
seems unfair that a member of the public could
be charged double for the same record as a jour-
nalist. The member of the public has just as much
right to it under Oregon law, not just as much
right at twice the cost. And by charging journal-
ists half the cost, the costs of providing infor-
mation to other members of the public would
presumably go up, because they would be subsi-
dizing the work of journalists.
More than 40 bills in play this legislative ses-
sion aim to change Oregon’s public records laws.
Some seek to block disclosure of information to
the public. Some seek to make disclosure easier.
We are flattered the intent of HB 2485 is to help
journalists tear down the Wall of No. But all Ore-
gonians have the right to know what their govern-
ment is doing.
HB 2485 is scheduled for a public hearing
on Thursday. Feb. 18, in the House Rules
Committee.
W
Other Views
Biden, Social Security, and my retirement
TOM PURCELL
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
t’s February. It’s cold. To fend off
the winter blahs, I dream of one
day retiring to a warm beach,
where I’ll stand in the surf, sipping
beverages from glasses with little
umbrellas in them.
I spend hours using the Social
Security Benefits Calculator to deter-
mine how much Social Security
will pay me, after I’ve paid in many
thousands of dollars throughout my
working life.
And I wonder if my full Social
Security benefits will be there when I
retire, so I can afford to escape cold,
gloomy winters.
It’s a realistic question. In 1950,
there were about 16 workers paying
into Social Security for every person
drawing benefits. Today, there are
roughly two.
According to Kiplinger, “starting
in 2021 the program’s annual costs
will exceed its income from employee
and employer payroll taxes and
interest earnings. Once the program
turns that corner, Social Security
will begin drawing down assets in its
trust funds to continue providing full
benefits.”
If nothing is done, the trust fund
will run dry by 2034 and will only
I
be able to pay 76% of its promised
benefits.
Worse, that would also take a
heavy toll on elderly Americans who
struggle to get by with Social Security
as their primary income.
The Biden administration has a
plan to prevent cuts and increase ben-
efits for elderly Americans most in
need — but wealthy Americans aren’t
going to like it much.
Currently, workers pay a 6.2%
Social Security payroll contribu-
tion on wages up to $142,800; their
employers pay an additional 6.2%. If
you’re self-employed, like me, you pay
the whole 12.4% — which we former
English majors refer to as “a lot!”
Social Security was consid-
ered an insurance program when it
was created in 1936. Under its orig-
inal classification, payroll contribu-
tions weren’t really “income taxes” at
all, but “insurance payments” made
throughout our working lives so we
can get monthly retirement benefits
until we die.
But some policymakers don’t see
the program that way. They see it
as too heavily funded by the middle
class and not funded enough by the
well-to-do.
Consider: A self-employed person
who earns $142,800 a year pays the
exact same amount of Social Secu-
rity taxes — $17,707.20 — as someone
who earns, say, $10 million a year.
The Biden administration hopes
Letter to the editor
to change that, by keeping the cap at
$142,800, but having the 12.4% pay-
roll tax kick back in on incomes of
$400,000 and up.
In that scenario, a self-employed
person earning $10 million would be
taxed 12.4% on the first $142,800,
nothing on income beyond that up to
$400,000, then an additional 12.4% on
the rest of his income.
If my calculations are correct,
his Social Security contributions
would jump from $17,707.20 to more
than $1.2 million — what we former
English majors call “a heckuva lot.”
Forbes reports the change would
affect about 800,000 buzzing-mad
high earners.
I don’t know how such a large
tax change would affect markets,
investing, the economy and ultimately
me. Frankly, government math makes
my head hurt.
I just hope to goodness our pol-
icymakers, as divided as the rest of
the country, will find a way to col-
laborate to bring a meaningful solu-
tion to the Social Security challenge,
so that I may one day enjoy my
retirement on a warm beach,
sipping beverages from glasses
with little umbrellas in them.
———
Tom Purcell, author of
“Misadventures of a 1970s
Childhood,” is a Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review humor columnist
and is nationally syndicated.
WRITE TO US
EDITORIALS
Stand against the
River Democracy Act
If this new River Democracy
Act passes, 4,700 river miles of
rivers in Oregon will be included
in the Wild and Scenic designa-
tion. Considered a “remarkable
achievement” by some, but others
see a monster land grab, a back
door to more lock-up and lock-out.
Increasing the buffer zone
from one-fourth to one-half mile
on both sides of the rivers creates
approximately 3,008,000 acres of
de facto wilderness. Baker, Union,
Wallowa and Grant counties will
be saddled with 700 miles. Wal-
lowa County alone 440 miles.
Management plans will be devel-
oped by the U.S. Forest Service or
other agency. Presently the Forest
Service is way over its head in
managing the forest.
Unsettling, upsetting, dis-
turbing — this is happening
under the term democracy. How
and when did we lose control to
a roomful of politicians in Wash-
ington, D.C.? Have we become
so complacent this is acceptable?
Ignoring impacts and input at the
local level has become standard
operating procedure. Lack of coor-
dination with the counties cir-
cumvents local input. Failure to
recognize local concerns was the
primary factor in the Blue Moun-
tains Forest Plan Revision with-
drawal. “Ditto,” trying it again.
No one cares more for our
public lands and waterways than
the residents of Eastern Oregon.
Federal and state agencies use
many tools to protect and preserve
special places. Additional restric-
tions, outside those presently avail-
able, are unwarranted. I’m urging
the Eastern Oregon Counties
Association to join in and support
Baker County’s opposition to The
River Democracy Act.
D.M. and Wanda Ballard
Baker City
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of The
Observer editorial board. Other columns,
letters and cartoons on this page express the
opinions of the authors and not necessarily
that of The Observer.
LETTERS
• The Observer welcomes letters to the edi-
tor. We edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste
and legal reasons.
• Letters should be no longer than 350
words and must be signed and carry the
author’s name, address and phone number
(for verification only). We will not publish
anonymous letters.
• Letter writers are limited to one letter
every two weeks.
• Longer community comment columns,
such as My Voice, must be no more than 700
words. Writers must provide a recent head-
shot and a one-sentence biography. Like let-
ters to the editor, columns must refrain from
complaints against businesses or personal
attacks against private individuals. Submis-
sions must carry the author’s name, address
and phone number.
• Submission does not guarantee publica-
tion, which is at the discretion of the editor.
SEND LETTERS TO:
letters@lagrandeobserver.com
or via mail to editor Phil Wright, 911 Jeffer-
son Ave., La Grande, OR 97850