Opinion
A4
Saturday, May 21, 2022
OUR VIEW
New taxes
make for
scary switch
othing may scare Oregonians away faster
from the state moving to a single-payer
health plan than big, fat new taxes.
And the state’s Task Force on Universal Health
Care is talking about ... big, fat new taxes.
Just how big and fat? Billions.
A new state income tax. A new payroll tax on
businesses.
And maybe even a new state sales tax.
The Legislature set up the task force to design
a single-payer health care system. The govern-
ment would create and run a system with prom-
ises of providing better care, coverage for all
Oregonians and lower cost. Single payer means
all the variety of benefi ts, policies and networks
would go away and be replaced by government.
Instead of paying health premiums or having an
employer pay for coverage, taxes would be paid
to the government.
People and employers are frustrated with rising
health care costs. The new taxes may be less than
what Oregonians eff ectively pay now. But there
are no guarantees that single payer will be the
cure everyone wanted. As imperfect as the health
care system is, it is the devil Oregonians know. It
is not some new devil with new taxes and change.
The state task force has a deadline of Sep-
tember to fi nalize its proposal. Then Oregonians
will have something fi rmer they can covet or
reject. The task force is meeting to get more into
the numbers. Some big decisions might be made
this week.
The task force needs to pick an assumption for
how much the system will cost to run. The diff er-
ence is in the billions. And the decision can lower
or raise the proposed new taxes. A state consul-
tant backed spending 6% on state administrative
costs, so about $3.5 billion in 2026 dollars. Some
task force members believe the state can do it
for less, perhaps 4%. But that 4% assumption is
called “aspirational” in task force documents and
is not supported by the state’s actuarial analysis.
How should the new income tax on house-
holds work? Should there be a cap on the house-
hold contribution roughly in line with what the
premium might be? Or should it be with no cap,
so household contributions increase with income?
With a cap, nobody would pay more than the
projected cost of their coverage. Without a cap,
it would work like a progressive tax and some
households may pay several multiples of their
projected coverage cost.
The task force needs to lay this out clearly
for Oregonians. There is a good draft FAQ that
answers many questions. There are many it
doesn’t, yet. Oregonians will need to know what
they would pay in a new income tax. Oregonians
will need to know what employers would be
paying in a new payroll tax. And, is a new sales
tax coming, too?
Give us the numbers. Justify them. Picking
aspirational goals not supported by actuarial
analysis may not help. Only with justifi ed num-
bers can Oregonians decide whether it is good to
essentially destroy private-sector health insur-
ance jobs and increase government control for
promises of better, cheaper care. Only then can
Oregonians decide if they should leap from the
devil they know and toward another who comes
making promises.
You can tell the task force your thoughts by
emailing jtfuhc.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov.
N
Dangers of stifl ing disagreeable ideas
ANNE
MORRISON
THINKING OUT LOUD
he First Amendment was
written to establish the right
of all Americans to speak
freely. It states: “Congress shall
make no law … abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press.”
For more than two centuries, at
least in theory, the First Amend-
ment has guaranteed the right of
individuals and the press to speak
openly and critically, even about
controversial subjects, including
the government, its policies or pol-
iticians. The ability of Americans
to obtain information, to consider
new ideas and to express unpopular
opinions is so basic to democracy
that traditionally the courts have
placed only limited restrictions on
freedom of expression. But today,
conservatives and liberals alike
undermine access to information
and ideas they don’t like. One thing
both groups agree on is that Amer-
icans have the right to free speech
— as long as it’s speech their own
group approves of.
It’s a fundamental principle
of conservatism that government
intrusion into the daily lives of
citizens should be as minimal as
possible. But many conservatives
clearly support government inter-
vention when it allows them to pro-
hibit teaching facts or philosophies
they just don’t like. In the past
year, conservative politicians have
banned more than 1,000 books
from libraries and classrooms, and
legislators have passed laws dic-
tating what students may learn in
schools and universities. They have
prohibited teaching about ideas or
theories that “promote a negative
account of the founding and history
T
of the United States of America,”
or that suggest racism or sexism
have contributed to social prob-
lems, or that might make a student
feel “discomfort, guilt or anguish”
because of their race or gender.
In Oregon, multiple Republican
candidates have expressed enthu-
siasm for creating laws to con-
trol what students can and cannot
be allowed to learn. As written,
those laws could prevent students
from being taught that Indian lands
have been stolen in this country,
or that massacres occurred here,
that slavery or internment camps
existed, or that people were once
unable to vote because of their race
or gender.
It’s impossible for students to
know how our nation has progressed
if they must be protected from
the trauma of learning where we
started. And it’s diffi cult to imagine
how bland a school’s curriculum
will have to be, now that the pri-
mary goal of teaching is no longer
to educate but instead to protect the
delicate sensibilities of each class-
room’s most tender student.
But liberals are in no position to
be righteous about restrictions of
unpopular ideas. For decades, lib-
eral activists have quashed perspec-
tives that they consider unaccept-
able. The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology withdrew its invita-
tion to lecture on geophysics when
students vehemently protested a
professor because he openly crit-
icized the premise of affi rmative
action. A Syracuse University pro-
fessor withdrew her invitation to an
Israeli fi lmmaker, fearing that his
appearance might generate contro-
versy, hurting her career. Activists
at multiple schools have challenged
appearances by former Secretaries
of State Condoleezza Rice or Mad-
eleine Albright, based on their own
criticism of foreign policy deci-
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Subscription rates:
Monthly Autopay ...............................$10.75
13 weeks.................................................$37.00
26 weeks.................................................$71.00
52 weeks ..............................................$135.00
█
Anne Morrison, a La Grande resident and retired
attorney, has lived in Union County since 2000.
STAFF
SUBSCRIBEAND SAVE
NEWSSTAND PRICE: $1.50
You can save up to 55% off the single-copy
price with home delivery.
Call 800-781-3214 to subscribe.
sions. Liberal activists have repeat-
edly decided that when they dis-
agree with someone’s views, no one
else should be allowed to hear those
views either.
It’s hardly a wonder that our
country has trouble moving for-
ward on social issues when discus-
sion is quashed because so many
people fear the consequences of
using a wrong word, or making a
statement that could inadvertently
off end someone else.
In a strange way, the right and
the left have united in the eff ort
to prevent the expression of ideas
deemed too dangerous to circulate
or too sacred to challenge — they
only disagree about which ideas are
the dangerous ones. The actions
and ideologies of both groups raise
exactly the same issue: In a democ-
racy such as America, what makes
any group think they are entitled
to dictate which ideas, theories
or opinions other Americans are
allowed to hear?
The issue is not about the con-
tent of books or lectures. The issue
is the fact that the left, like the
right, seeks to prohibit informa-
tion or discussion about ideas that it
considers disturbing or off ensive.
The race to stifl e disagreeable
ideas has dire consequences. It
imposes ideological conformity.
It chills speech. It intimidates stu-
dents from thinking critically
or from openly challenging the
ideas put before them. It encour-
ages Americans across the polit-
ical spectrum to refrain from
talking honestly about important
social issues that desperately need
discussing.
And it forces contrary thinkers
underground, where unchallenged
ideas become truly dangerous.
Anindependent newspaper foundedin1896
www.lagrandeobserver.com
Periodicals postage paid at Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Published Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays
(except postal holidays) by EO Media Group,
911 Jefferson Ave., La Grande, OR 97850
(USPS 299-260)
The Observer retains ownership and copyright
protection of all staff-prepared news copy, advertising
copy, photos and news or ad illustrations. They may
not be reproduced without explicit prior approval.
COPYRIGHT © 2022
Phone:
541-963-3161
Regional publisher ....................... Karrine Brogoitti
Home delivery adviser.......... Amanda Turkington
Interim editor ....................................Andrew Cutler
Advertising representative ..................... Kelli Craft
News clerk ........................................Lisa Lester Kelly
Advertising representative .................... Amy Horn
Reporter....................................................Dick Mason
National accounts coordinator ...... Devi Mathson
Reporter............................................Davis Carbaugh
Graphic design .................................. Dorothy Kautz
Toll free (Oregon):
1-800-781-3214
Email:
news@lagrandeobserver.com
POSTMASTER
Send address changes to:
The Observer,
911 Jefferson Ave.,
La Grande, OR 97850
A division of