Opinion
4A
Saturday, March 6, 2021
Our View
Plan needs to go
beyond writing
off student debt
O
regon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff
Merkley are backing a plan to
cancel up to $50,000 for federal stu-
dent loan borrowers.
“It’s ridiculous that so many students are
forced to take on back-breaking amounts of
debt to go to school — especially as the coro-
navirus continues to upend our economy,”
Merkley said in a statement. “It’s time to
cancel student loan debts so we can free up
Americans burdened by student debt to chase
their dreams, contribute to their communi-
ties, and help us pave the way to economic
recovery.”
The idea supported by Democrats is also
to eliminate any tax liability from having the
debt wiped out.
People who are low income or who are
racial minorities would certainly benefit, but
the benefit would accrue mostly to wealthier
families, according to the Becker Friedman
Institute for Economics at the University of
Chicago. Wealthier families, after all, hold
most of the federal education debt. The insti-
tute considers a simple policy of eliminating
$50,000 in federal student loan debt to be a
regressive policy, not a progressive one.
That it helps the rich the most is the least
important matter to weigh on how much debt
to kill off. This country provides plenty of
fiscal breaks to the wealthy, especially “job
creators.” The wealthy who benefit from this
plan could turn around and use the funds to
pay down business debt or improve equipment
or pay more to employees.
But for generations of Americans, elimi-
nating $50,000 of student debt would deliver
significant practical benefits. Students fresh
out of college pack big loan debt around that
hinders their ability to own homes or even
decent cars. We have folks facing retirement
who still are paying on students loans.
Wyden and Merkley say they want to ensure
that debt cancellation “helps close racial
wealth gaps and avoids the bulk of federal stu-
dent debt cancellation benefits accruing to the
wealthiest borrowers.”
To get there, this plan has to look beyond
merely writing off debt. The more significant
matter Congress needs to address is how to
prevent this from being an issue again. This
should be a one-time fix. To do that, there
must be mechanisms to ensure college stu-
dents don’t end up taking on more debt than
they can afford.
State colleges and universities, in partic-
ular because they operate with public money,
should have to make sure students understand
what the job market will be like in their field
of study once when they leave college. State
systems of higher education need to make sure
their students have a clear picture of what debt
means and how likely they are to pay it off in
a reasonable time.
Without such mechanisms, writing off
$10,000 or $50,000 would be no different
than a credit card user who racks up big debt
on several cards, moves that all onto a new,
low-interest card, and then continues to use
the old cards and get further into debt.
Letters
Allowing indoor dining
without vaccinating service
industry workers is risky
It’s been a tough year for us all.
We crave any shred of pre-pandemic
“normal.” We want an escape. That
is completely understandable.
That desire does not justify put-
ting service industry workers’ health
at risk.
By allowing indoor dining
without vaccinating service industry
workers, Gov. Brown is forcing Ore-
gonians into unsafe work conditions.
She is putting our collective desire
for escape and normalcy ahead of the
lives of our fellow Oregonians.
While eating in a restaurant, a
diner occupies that space for only
an hour or two. But the servers, the
cooks and the rest of staff are there
for eight-plus hours and interact with
hundreds of people in that time. The
high risk to their health during this
pandemic has been well documented.
Instead of forcing workers into
dangerous working conditions, Gov.
Brown and all of our elected officials
should be fighting to provide finan-
cial support to our struggling restau-
rants and their employees.
Since our elected officials are
neglecting their responsibility to pro-
tect these members of our commu-
nity, what can we do as individuals?
Buy takeout. Buy gift cards. Support
our local restaurants however we
can. Demand that our senators, our
representatives, our governor and
our county commissioners do more
to protect us.
But please don’t put the health
of these workers, our fellow Orego-
nians, at risk just to feel normal for
an hour.
And Gov. Brown, vaccinate these
frontline workers. May 1 is not soon
enough if you are allowing indoor
dining now.
Sean Lerner
La Grande
River Democracy Act will
build resilience, benefit
ranchers
I ranch near Union and irrigate
from Grande Ronde tributaries —
Catherine and Little creeks.
I was not caught off guard by the
introduction of the River Democracy
Act because I, like all Oregonians,
received an unprecedented invitation
from Sen. Ron Wyden to highlight
streams worthy of protection.
Some might think Wyden’s
request was only for recreationists.
However, for my ranching business,
the watershed’s ecological health is
essential. Moreover, my hometown’s
water quality, infrastructure and
economy depend on what happens
upstream, whether the waterway is
on private or federal lands.
WRITE TO US
EDITORIALS
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 nec-
essarily that of The Observer.
LETTERS
• The Observer welcomes let-
ters to the editor. We edit letters for
brevity, grammar, taste and legal
reasons. We will not publish con-
sumer complaints against busi-
nesses, personal attacks against pri-
vate individuals or comments that
can incite violence. We also dis-
courage thank-you letters.
• Letters should be no longer
than 350 words and must be signed
and carry the author’s name,
address and phone number (for ver-
If we continue neglecting our
floodplains’ health, fires and flooding
will further erode infrastructure
and threaten our safety. Windblown
trees and ice jams are already threat-
ening Union due to channeliza-
tion. Imagine what would happen if
fire took over our forest lands with
little vegetation to slow snowpack
melting. With the fire management
tools offered in the River Democracy
Act, we are less likely to see huge
amounts of sediment choking creeks,
flooding out private properties and
silting in irrigation systems.
While some seem concerned
that this legislation will nega-
tively impact private property and
water rights, this is an opportunity
to build resilience downstream by
restoring the waterways upstream —
enhancing the value of private prop-
erty and water rights.
Sen. Wyden invites us now to
modify the River Democracy Act.
Whether using livestock, forestry
practices or enhancing recreation
opportunities, the River Democracy
Act gives us a voice and opportuni-
ties for regenerative management.
Cattlemen, don’t be caught off
guard. Be part of the solution.
Andrea Malmberg
Union
Editorial too vague
to count for much
As an East Oregonian who values
public lands, clean water and wild-
life habitat, I was appalled by The
Observer editorial, “New river pro-
tections may have unintended conse-
quences” (Feb. 25, 2021).
The piece claims: “We are not in
opposition to the bill.” Yet the entire
editorial raises vague suspicions
about government in general and the
broad groups of people who support
the bill.
The editorial notes that politicians
are always trying to get reelected.
That is certainly true. Most of us
ification only). We will not publish
anonymous letters.
• Letter writers are limited to one
letter every two weeks.
• Longer community comment
columns must be no more than
700 words. Writers must provide a
recent headshot and a one-sentence
biography. Columns must refrain
from complaints against businesses
or personal attacks against private
individuals. Submissions must carry
the author’s name, address and
phone number.
• Submission does not guarantee
publication, which is at the discre-
tion of the editor.
SEND LETTERS TO:
letters@lagrandeobserver.com
or via mail to editor Phil Wright,
911 Jefferson Ave., La Grande,
OR 97850
want to keep our jobs. Some politi-
cians get reelected by goading and
manipulating voters’ fears while
serving special interests.
Special interest groups fund elec-
tioneering in exchange for future
decisions that provide profit for their
executives. In Oregon, the timber
industry has bought politicians on
both sides of the aisle for short-term
profit.
Truly democratic lawmakers
appeal instead to everyday constit-
uents. They make decisions toward
long-term goals for healthy eco-
systems and sustainable econo-
mies. Most outdoor people support
the River Democracy Act. People
working to combat climate change
and restore healthy ecosystems are
the opposite of a special interest
group.
The editorial warns that if passed,
this bill may negatively impact “the
people on the ground” or “someone
somewhere.”
Really? Could you be a bit more
specific?
I know many of my neighbors
reflexively oppose anything that
might make “environmentalists”
happy, but this bill doesn’t affect
private property rights. It doesn’t
restrict existing grazing or water use
privileges or mining. It doesn’t stop
future logging. Quite frankly, I wish
it did.
And as “historic” as this bill may
be, it still leaves 94% of the water-
ways in our state undesignated and
under-protected.
Oregon U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden
and Jeff Merkley and most Orego-
nians recognize the enduring ben-
efits the River Democracy Act will
extend to Oregon’s forests, rivers,
wildlife and communities.
We encourage them to stand
for the public interest and against
reflexive fears by turning this bill
into law as soon as possible.
Mary McCracken
Island City