Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 20, 2017)
CapitalPress.com 6 Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. October 20, 2017 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion Agriculture’s tax reform tool box O UR V IEW By SHILOH PERRY For the Capital Press A Associated Press File A helicopter prepares to apply pesticides. Residents of Lincoln County, Ore., say they have the right to ban aerial spraying of pes- ticides despite a state law that pre-empts it. Law pre-empts counties from banning aerial spraying A n Oregon circuit judge is considering a case that argues local voters have a “natural right” to ban aerial spraying in Lincoln County, despite state statutes to the contrary. Lincoln County voters approved an ordinance earlier this year banning aerial spraying. It is being challenged in a lawsuit fi led by landowners Rex Capri and Wakefi eld Farms, who rely on aerial spraying. The plaintiffs say the local ban is prohibited by Oregon’s “right to farm” law, state laws regulating pesticides and the forest practice laws. Lincoln County Community Rights, which supports the ban, argues that Oregon laws that pre-empt local governments from regulating pesticides are unconstitutional. They claim an inherent “natural right” to self- government. The Oregon Constitution, they say, gives the people the right to reform or abolish the government — or, in this case, override the state’s pre- emption. The group’s attorney argued last week that voters had a right to approve a ballot initiative that protects the environment and that the Legislature can’t stop local governments, or local voters, from enacting more stringent regulations, even outright bans, on certain activities. An interesting argument, but Oregon courts have previously upheld the state’s authority to pre- empt local control. For example, in 2013 the Legislature passed a law that pre- empted local governments from banning genetically modifi ed crops. In 2014, opponents of GMOs in Josephine County put a local ban on the ballot that was passed by voters. Citing the state’s pre-emption, the circuit court struck down the county ban. That ruling was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals. It’s interesting to note that Lincoln County’s elected offi cials generally recognize the state’s supremacy in the matter. The attorney for the county argues that the county retains a right to ban aerial spraying on land it owns. But all landowners generally can prohibit spraying of their own property and it’s unclear the county has a greater right than private landowners. Landowners whose properties adjoin farms and forests where pesticides are sprayed have legitimate concerns that they will be subjected to drift, or accidental bombardment. But existing law provides remedies for these cases. Some could argue that Oregon’s pesticide application laws need to be tougher. If so, like-minded citizens from across the state have the right to petition the Legislature for redress. Such regulation that is required should come from the state, and only from the state. Farmers and foresters need one set of rules. We are against 36 separate regulatory schemes, particularly those that impose outright bans. merica’s farmers and ranchers work hard to produce the food, fi ber and renewable fuel sources we all depend on and enjoy. Their work is noble yet challenging. Always operating in a world of uncertainty, there are no two days the same in ag- riculture. Whether mending a broken fence, penning cows or balancing the books, farm- ers and ranchers have many responsibilities each day. They need a tax code that recognizes the work that they do and the unique challenges their businesses face. The tax-reform frame- work that was released re- cently is very promising, but it is only a start and there is still much work to be done. Reducing effective tax rates is the most important tax reform priority for farmers and ranchers. Typically profi t margins for farm and ranch businesses are tight and rates of return are moderate at best compared to other businesses. This usually puts farms and ranches in lower tax brackets. So as important as lowering tax rates are, it is critical that any tax reform provisions are considerate of all tax brack- ets. The tax-reform frame- work includes lower tax rates for individuals and business- es, both incorporated and non-incorporated. While lower tax rates are wel- come, the tradeoffs associat- ed with how lower rates are achieved cannot be ignored. They may come at the cost of losing certain credits and deductions that are helpful to farmers. To truly bene- fi t agriculture, effective tax rates must be lowered enough to cover lost credits and deductions. Further, farmers and ranchers rely heavily on multiple cost-recovery tools to run their businesses. Tax provisions like business inter- Guest comment Shiloh Perry est expensing, like-kind ex- changes and cash accounting give farmers and ranchers the fl exibility they need to keep their businesses running in good times and bad. In addition to being high- risk, agriculture is capital-in- tensive. Farming and ranch- ing requires large, long-term investments in land, buildings and equipment. Most times, these long-term investments and other major expenses an agricultural business acquires are covered with borrowed money. Deducting these ex- penses gives farmers and ranchers the fl exibility they need to make critical invest- ments to keep their business- es running. Specifi cally, cash account- ing helps offset some of the unknowns farmers and ranch- ers face by acknowledging revenue when it comes in and expenses when they are actually paid. It allows farm- ers to defer tax payment until they receive the money for the products they sell. Cash accounting also helps farmers and ranchers average their in- come from year to year. Agri- culture is a cyclical business. For farmers and ranchers short times of prosperity can be followed by years of loss. Now more than ever, ag- riculture needs tax provisions that help farmers and ranch- ers during the good times and bad. With the right tax reform tools, America’s farmers and ranchers will be able to work hard and be better equipped for the challenges they face. For more on Farm Bureau’s tax reform priorities, check out these resources at www. fb.org: • AFBF Tax Issues page. • AFBF’s statement sub- mitted to the Senate Finance Committee. Shiloh Perry is a com- munications assistant at the American Farm Bureau. As Clean Power Plan is gutted, Congress must step in to price carbon By MARK REYNOLDS For the Capital Press I n its zeal to undo the legacy of our 44th president, the Trump ad- ministration is now undoing the future of our children and grandchil- dren by repealing the Clean Power Plan, a policy designed to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that make our climate more and more inhospi- table. How inhospitable? We’ve gotten a frightening glimpse of an altered climate recently with disasters fu- eled by warmer temperatures: • Hurricane Harvey turned much of Houston into a lake after dumping 50 inches of rain. Damage estimates have ranged up to $150 billion. • After fl attening the Keys, re- cord-setting Hurricane Irma roared up Florida’s west coast, leaving most of the state without power and dam- age estimated to cost $100 billion. • Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, leaving most of the Guest comment Mark Reynolds island’s residents without power or clean water. Recovery costs could easily reach $95 billion. • Out west, wildfi res intensifi ed by hot, dry weather have charred millions of acres, with the most re- cent fi re in Santa Rosa killing at least 41 people. It’s clear our unstable climate is putting bigger and bigger burdens on our economy. It’s also clear that the current White House is determined to remove regulations on the use of dirty fuels contributing to that unsta- ble climate. Those who cheer the EPA’s move should remember that President Obama initiated the Clean Power Plan in 2015 in the face of Con- gress’s inaction on climate change. Without effective legislation to com- bat climate change, a future presi- dent could just as easily go down the path of executive action and regula- tions again. The best answer here is for Congress to pass legislation put- ting the market to work on solving climate change. The policy that fi nds favor across the political spectrum is a steadily rising fee on carbon with revenue returned to households. This ap- proach uses the power of the market to hold fossil fuels accountable for the damage they infl ict on our so- ciety. A straightforward carbon fee will drive investment and consumer behavior toward low-carbon energy and energy effi ciency, thereby re- ducing greenhouse gas emissions. By returning revenue from the car- bon fee equally to all households, we can shield individuals and fam- ilies from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the fee. A study from the well-respected Regional Economic Models Inc. looked at a policy with a fee start- ing at $10 per ton of carbon diox- ide that increases $10 per ton each year. In their models, all revenue was distributed evenly to every household. REMI found that after 20 years, CO2 emissions would be reduced 50 percent below 1990 lev- els. At the same time, 2.8 million jobs would be added because of the economic stimulus of returning rev- enue to consumers. In other words, this policy is a win-win for both our environment and our economy. For those despairing that Con- gress will never address the climate crisis, there is encouraging news. Two Florida congressmen from op- posite sides of the aisle have formed the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Represen- tatives. Membership in the caucus, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, has risen from 18 to 60 since the be- ginning of the year. This bipartisan dialogue seeks common ground be- tween the two parties for legislation that reduces the risks we face from climate change. Across Capitol Hill, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham recently stated the need to address global warming and said his preference is a price on carbon. The Climate Leadership Council, led by former Secretaries of State George Shultz, James Baker and other infl uential conservatives, also advocates for a carbon pricing plan that returns revenues to house- holds. In repealing the Clean Pow- er Plan, the Trump administration shows that it’s bent on removing government regulations around cli- mate change. That means it’s up to Congress to make the market solve this problem instead. Failure to act will lead to the day when climate-re- lated disasters outpace our ability to recover and adapt. Mark Reynolds is executive di- rector of Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Readers’ views Thanks to all you environmentalists ... ... For burning up our forests rather than log, or graze and the Forest Service for total misman- agement of our forests! No chain- saws, no road maintenance, no clearing of trails, no spraying for pine beetles or bud worm and now they do not even fi ght the fi res as they will not endanger fi refi ghters if it is too dangerous! Why do we even need these people? Even the Indians log and graze and they shoot wolves on their reservation. We now have a clean air authority to fi ne us if we use a fi replace or a burn barrel or a wood burning stove, but they can have a forest fi re and then if you want to harvest wood, you have to have a permit and cut where they tell you to. The environmentalists love wolves and grizzlies! Howev- er, they do not want them in their backyard. You have to live in the city for that to make any sense. No one will tell you what the to- tal cost is for this disaster. Such as hiring a helicopter to shoot wolves, as well as the manpower to handle this project and the extra costs to the rancher plus loss of income. Why do we not hear of Weyer- haeuser burning up their forests? When the enviros or the govern- ment are going to help you, you should ask what is your track re- cord? You could also ask a deer or an elk, would you prefer to die with a bullet, or would you prefer to be eaten alive piece by piece by wolves? Don Young Sunnyside, Wash. Pruitt a climate science denier On Sept. 1, your lead editorial approvingly heralded Scott Pruitt’s self-proclaimed “New Day” at the EPA. You also cited 5 instances of what anyone should regard as improper or egregious procedures on the part of the EPA and one in- stance of apparent fraud. You did not attempt to pro- vide any context by contrasting the balance of EPA actions over the previous 8 years, nor suggest what our understanding of human nature tells us about the number of rogue bad apples one should normally expect to fi nd in any very large organization, public or private. You concluded, “All things con- sidered, a new day probably isn’t such a bad thing at the EPA.” This conclusion constitutes a grave betrayal of the farmers, ranchers and loggers you claim to speak for. Scott Pruitt is a climate sci- ence denier whose tenure as EPA administrator poses an existen- tial threat to the livelihood and welfare of their children and grandchildren. To stay in business, agricultur- alists must behave like scientists, basing their plans and production decisions on facts, not ideology. The only signifi cant group of people who don’t acknowledge that burning fossil fuels has con- tributed to the catastrophic warm- ing of the planet are Republican politicians like Pruitt, presumably because Al Gore, a Democrat, fi rst called our attention to that “Incon- venient Truth.” Climate science deniers are on the same moral plain with Holo- caust deniers. When an agency that should operate on the ba- sis of evidence and science pre- tends that the science does not exist, no good policy can come of it! Peter M. Gladhart Owner & Vineyard Manager Winter’s Hill Estate Lafayette, Ore.
