Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 7, 2016)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. October 7, 2016 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor Mike O’Brien Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Our choice for Washington’s governor: Bryant I f dollars were votes, Democrat Jay Inslee would easily win a second term as Washington’s governor. He has raised more than $8 million for his re-election campaign. By comparison, Republican challenger Bill Bryant has raised only about $3 million, stacking the political odds against him. But this election isn’t about money. It’s about leadership, and the willingness to work for both sides of the state. And it’s about pragmaticism, not pie-in-the-sky schemes to save the planet on the backs of Washington farmers, businesses and consumers. That’s why we support Bryant. Inslee is a westside politician. His supporters are there, and so is their money. A review of his state campaign contribution report shows the vast majority of his 29,725 contributions came from the westside. We counted a little more than two dozen contributions from people who identifi ed themselves as either farmers or ranchers — and one of them had a Seattle address. To put that in perspective, 1,153 of Inslee’s contributions came from people identifying themselves as attorneys. Some 7,027 of Inslee’s contributions came from Seattle, which has a population of 608,660, versus 785 that came from Spokane, the second largest city in the state with a population of 208,916. That tells us what we could expect in a second Inslee term — more westside ideas such as the carbon cap, which he has ordered the state Department of Ecology to cook up without including the legislature, and more regulations on dairies and other facets of agriculture. On the other hand, Bryant knows and understands farming, business and trade. He was a Seattle port commissioner and has owned a trade consultancy for two decades. He is also a familiar face on the eastside of Washington. More than 250 contributions to his campaign have come from farmers, ranchers, fruit growers and processors. They trust Bryant to work for them and other interests around the state that count on a square deal. A square deal is not what the Washington wheat industry got from Inslee in 2014. The governor sided with the International Longshore Workers Union in its dispute with the United Grain Co. terminal in Longview. His employees, state Department of Agriculture grain inspectors, were harassed and threatened by ILWU members. Instead of continuing to protect the grain inspectors and arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators, Inslee withdrew state patrol protection. That forced the company either to cease operations or bow to the union. That in turn put much of the $1 billion Washington wheat O UR V IEW VOTE ‘NO’ on Oregon Measure 97 O regon voters in November must reject 97, a full $4.1 billion of the tax will be passed Measure 97, the gross receipts tax on to consumers in the form of higher prices or measure on the ballot. reduced wages and opportunities. The measure — pushed by public It seems businesses don’t pay taxes, but consumers do. employee unions, education and In addition to the big box health care advocates and other retailers and the Fortune 500 the liberal interests — proposes tax would hit a whole bunch Oregon’s largest tax hike of iconic Oregon brands ever. It would impose on such as Powell’s “C” corporations an Books and Wilco. additional 2.5 percent The burgeoning tax on gross sales in software industry Oregon exceeding that has of late $25 million. fueled Portland’s The measure is boom would be expected to raise particularly hard hit, as $3 billion each all of their sales originate here. year, or $6 billion Because Measure 97 taxes for the biennial gross receipts, not net budget cycle. profi ts, low-margin At fi rst blush, businesses with the Measure 97 seems requisite sales will like a no brainer. The pay whether they state faces a $1.5 billion make money or shortfall in the coming not. In that case, biennium as it assumes more of the tax bill will the costs of expanded Medicare under come out of the Affordable Care Act reserves. and struggles to Nonetheless, cover shortfalls supporters argue in the Public Measure 97 is all Employees for the kids, the old Retirement System and the sick. fund. But the Legislature’s An extra $6 billion lawyers say lawmakers can would seem to solve spend the money any way they those problems, plus put want. An extra $6 billion will go more money into schools and through the Legislature like guano other programs that have been short- through a goose. While the public changed since the Great Recession. employee unions will benefi t and But when you dig deeper, the government will expand to sop up measure’s problems are apparent. the money, we doubt many of the problems Supporters of Measure 97 fondly point out facing the state will be solved. that 70 percent of the companies that would We would prefer the Legislature take stock directly pay the tax are not domiciled in Oregon, of the state’s needs and present a reasoned and include big retailers, big banks, big oil, big reform of Oregon’s electricity, big pharm fi nances that includes — huge, greedy By the Legislature’s analysis of Measure 97, specifi c targeted companies carrying a full $4.1 billion of the tax will be passed on outcomes for away Beaver State revenue increases. boodle to Arkansas, to consumers in the form of higher prices or To facilitate its Wall Street and reduced wages and opportunities. It seems passage, Measure Moline. businesses don’t pay taxes, but consumers do. 97 supporters The big retailers have picked a that would be hit small segment of businesses to paint as — Walmart, Walgreens, Safeway, Target, etc. unsympathetic targets of their tax. But if — account for 88 percent of the retail sales in passed, Oregonians and many of the state’s Oregon, making Measure 97 a fairly broad-based iconic brands will fall victim. sales tax. By the Legislature’s analysis of Measure industry at risk. Upwards of 90 percent of the wheat grown in the state is exported, and none of it can be shipped until it is inspected. Inslee’s favoritism toward the ILWU also emboldened the union later that year to embark on a fi ve-month work slowdown at container ports that cost Washington farmers and processors $770 million, according to a study by the Washington Council on International Trade. Washington agriculture can’t afford Inslee’s brand of “leadership.” It’s time for a change in Washington’s Capitol. It’s time for someone who knows and understands agriculture, trade and business. That candidate is Bill Bryant. Hope emerges in Wash. wolf controversy By SHELLY SHORT and JOEL KRETZ Guest comment For the Capital Press Shelly Short and Joel Kretz olf confl ict in Amer- ica is a century old tradition with the recent Ground Zero centered in northeast Washington. We represent the 7th Legislative District, currently home to 15 of the 19 confi rmed wolf- packs in Washington. In other words, one legis- lative district, out of 49 state- wide, houses over 75 percent of the confi rmed packs in Washington. For us, the impact isn’t theoretical; it is real, intense and immediate. Historically, the pendulum has taken radical swings, from a goal of complete eradication in the past century to currently conferring virtual sainthood status upon wolves, in some circles. We believe neither extreme is realistic, and hope that we can do better. To be blunt, wolf recov- ery has not been popular in northeast Washington, and it’s much deeper than simply a wolf advocate-versus-cat- tleman confl ict. Our commu- nities fear that our whole cul- ture, our largely rural, pastoral way of life is on the verge of disappearing. Until those very real fears are recognized, vali- dated and respected there will be no resolution to the wolf confl ict. We do feel there’s a grudg- ing but growing acceptance of the notion of coexisting with wolves on a managed basis. There is willingness to ex- plore nonlethal deterrents as long as they are practical and effective, as opposed to inef- fectual, bureaucratic hoops to jump through. But there is one non-ne- gotiable sticking point where there has been a little lip ser- vice but no agreement in the past. When a pack of wolves does not respond to reasonable nonlethal deterrents and be- comes a chronic threat, it must be removed. Period. There will be no social acceptance in ru- ral Washington without that. In early 2015, we got a glimmer of hope. During a meeting with several infl u- ential environmental groups, they stated that as much as they hated the idea of a sin- gle wolf dying, they realized that there were times that it was necessary, and they said as long as nonlethal deterrents were used fi rst they would de- fend that publicly. Now remember, these were the same groups that we and our predecessors had been in a running gun battle with on a wide range of issues for de- cades. And as past events indicate future trends, we cynically predicted that when things got tough they would bail, or another environmental group W would sue. They replied that this was a position their boards had taken and that they were willing to stand and take the heat. I don’t recall a feeling of great optimism, but it cracked open a door. Now fast forward to Au- gust 2016 and the unfortunate situation that played out in Ferry County. We’re not go- ing to get into all the reasons or the history; it’s a complex situation that’s begs for more than 30-second sound bites. But we think all factions will agree it was a tragic situation. Last month, the depredations on livestock met, and then ex- ceeded, the bar laid out in the Wolf Plan to trigger lethal re- moval. Having been down this road before, our local communities, ranchers, and Washington De- partment of Fish and Wildlife staff braced for the inevitable onslaught of death threats, vile acts of intimidation, offensive editorials and infl ammatory comments. Crickets. … Then came a statement from the same environmen- tal groups noting that while they were heartbroken at the death of a wolf, they recog- nized that it was sometimes necessary and that they were backing WDFW and the lethal removal protocol. This was unprecedented, and we saw a glimmer of hope in the eyes of our neighbors for the fi rst time in years. Given the histo- ry here, this isn’t an easy thing to say, but we believe in giving credit where credit’s due, and we deeply appreciate these groups’ efforts to fi nd common ground. Unfortunately, within a few days, others chose to infl ame a complex, diffi cult situation threatening thousands of hours of hard work and real progress. We believe there has been too much progress made to allow the discussion to be dominated by extremist views, from all sides. We have hope that there is a path to stable wolf populations that also promote a vibrant ranching culture and thriving rural communities. And as long as those goals are funda- mental to the discussion, we welcome a public lands graz- ing conversation. These issues have been dominated for years by various factions lobbing verbal grenades resulting in vilifi cation of good people and unacceptable stalemate. There is a tenuous path for- ward to balanced solutions that hinges on respect for values of others. We believe it’s worth a try. State Reps. Shelly Short and Joel Kretz represent the 7th Legislative District in northeastern Washington.
