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.