Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Keizertimes. (Salem, Or.) 1979-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 22, 2016)
PAGE A4, KEIZERTIMES, JANUARY 22, 2016 KeizerOpinion KEIZERTIMES.COM Too many families on the edge The stock market is hav- ing its worst January ever. Oil and gas prices are the lowest they have been in almost 10 years. Infl ation is, for all purposes, in check. Unemployment is down to 5 percent as millions of jobs have been added in recent years. The economy as been in re- covery for more than six years. One would think that things are looking. They are, but not for everyone. A recently released report, com- missioned by Rutgers University, uses current data in a new way to identify those who are struggling fi nancially and why. The report, in part, covers each county of the Pa- cifi c Northwest states. The study is titled ALICE, which stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed; it shows that more than 40 percent of Mar- ion County residents live above the federal poverty line but do not earn enough to afford the area’s cost of living and are one unexpected di- saster away from fi nanical calamity. Forty-three percent of Keizer’s 13,500 households fall into the ALICE and poverty income levels. According to the study a household in Marion County with two adults, one infant and one preschooler needs to gross a bit more than $51,000 annually to afford the bare minimums. That might sound like a nice income, but it is for a family of four. The average monthly expendi- tures for a family that size is more than $4,000. Any of us should be able to un- derstand the vicarious of that situa- tion; we have all lived through the Great Recession, many losing jobs and many more losing their homes to foreclosure. Every family can tell their unique story of how the recession affected them, regardless of income. The re- cession increased reliance on gov- ernment programs (SNAP and unemployment benefts, for two). People say the recent economic conditions laid bare the reality of income inequality, which will be one of the main issues of this year’s presidential campaigns. Protests such as the Occupy en- campments allowed people to rail against the so-called 1 percent and demand more equal income which led to calls for an increase in the minimum wage across the country. In Oregon that demand is foster- ing fi erce debate, pitting big cities against rural communi- ties, progressives against conservatives and busi- ness against workers. At $9.25 per hour, Oregon has the sec- ond highest minimum wage in the nation (be- hind Washington); the federal minimum hourly wage is $7.25. Gov. Kate Brown is propos- ing a two-tier minimum wage (one for the Portland and one of the rest of the state. That is unfair; there should be one wage state-wide. Will an increase in the minimum wage help every household in the ALICE category? Probably not. Households at the ALICE level unfortunately are not eligible for most govern- ment programs that require a in- come maximum for assistance. Why should households that are doing economically well care about the ALICE report and the house- holds at that level? Because those households are part of our com- munity. A desirable place to live is only as strong as the neediest of our citizens. The trend of conservative states slashing public programs and assistance is troubling. It’s almost like the leaders of those states are saying “We’ve got ours, you get yours.” A small percentage of recepients of assistance might gloat about be- ing on the dole and not having to work, but we suspect most people who need to seek government help do so under duress. They seek a hand up, not a hand out. The best answer for decreasing households at the ALICE level in our area is action not talk. This re- port from Rutgers should not be an invitation to our public offi cials to pile on with their own reports. The best thing our public offi - cials can do is focus on economic development—recruiting jobs whose wages can support a family; cut bureauracy and rules that im- pede the delivery of assistance; and, know the resources available. Again there are dozens of organizations in our area whose mission is to aid those less fortunate. Let’s lessen the hand outs and extend a hand up. Every family is responsible for its own success but as the recession showed us, sometimes outside forces control our fates. We have the information, let’s use it to give every household that wants the opportunity to do better, as long as they are part of the solu- tion. —LAZ Does Oregon get a say in nominees? elected as the vote from other states have been counted and announced. In order to make ev- ery vote count the results of voting in every state should not be announced until the next day so that the people on the west coast believe their vote counts. It is up to our national of- fi cials to fi x this injustice. Bill Quinn Keizer editorial letters To the Editor: Why should Oregonians vote in the primaries to select presi- dential candidates when the selec- tion has already been made by oth- ers? Why should the people of New Hampshire or Alabama have a great- er voice than the voters of Oregon? Oregon needs to move its presi- dential primary election date up so our votes count for something. It is up to our state political parties to move our primary date. The same is true when we vote for a president. In many cases, when Oregonians go to the polls, the world already knows who has been Have an opinion? Email letters to the editor (300 words) by noon Tuesday. Submitted letters must be accompanied with writer’s name and address. Email to: publisher@keizertimes.com Keizertimes Wheatland Publishing Corp. • 142 Chemawa Road N. • Keizer, Oregon 97303 phone: 503.390.1051 • web: www.keizertimes.com • email: kt@keizertimes.com Lyndon A. Zaitz, Editor & Publisher SUBSCRIPTIONS One year: $25 in Marion County, $33 outside Marion County, $45 outside Oregon PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY Publication No: USPS 679-430 POSTMASTER Send address changes to: Keizertimes Circulation 142 Chemawa Road N. Keizer, OR 97303 Periodical postage paid at Salem, Oregon GOP needs both Trump, Cruz to fall By MICHAEL GERSON The outbreak of hostilities between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz may not be edifying, but it is clarifying. Cruz represents the arrival of tea party ideology at the presidential level. He espouses a “constitutionalism” that would disqualify much of modern government, and a belief that Repub- lican elites are badly, even mainly, at fault for accommodating cultural and economic liberalism. Trump has ad- opted an ethno-nationalism in which the constraints of “political correct- ness” are lifted to express frankly na- tivist sentiments: that many illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists who threaten American jobs, and that Muslims are foreign, suspicious and potentially dangerous. These approaches can overlap, but they are not identical. Cruz is attack- ing Trump as a “fake conservative” on gun and property rights and as a New York liberal on cultural matters. For his part, Trump defends those portions of the welfare state that benefi t the working class, opposing cuts in Social Security and an increase in the retire- ment age. Cruz is the conservative true believer. Trump is the wrecking ball of political convention. They are not only two strong personalities; they demonstrate two different tendencies within the right. Trump’s attacks on Cruz have be- gun drawing both blood and protests from ideological conservatives. “Either cut the crap,” warns radio host Mark Levin, “your accusations ... that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by the banks, etc. ... or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives.” Levin and oth- ers registered no protest when Trump denigrated women, minorities and the disabled. Attacking a favored conser- vative is evidently a different matter. But this is Trump’s great- est political tal- ent—exploit- ing weaknesses like a dentist probing and drilling the most sensitive spot. Trump’s questions about Cruz’s Canadian roots are not primarily about constitutional interpretation. The is- sue is simpler: Why would voters who support the forced expulsion of 11 million undocumented people want a president born north of the bor- der? Trump’s mention of undisclosed Wall Street contributions highlights the contrast between Cruz’s outsider brand and insider resume. And Cruz’s seriously Denmark-like proposal for a value-added tax—as Marco Rubio pointed out in the recent Republi- can debate—may be disqualifying for many economic conservatives. In a Trump-Cruz battle, I would not bet against Trump. Much of the Republican donor class is convinced that Cruz is the political equivalent of Barry Goldwater, in part because of his very conservative social views. A Trump-Clinton contest, however, is beginning to appear more win- nable (particularly as Hillary Clinton appears more awkward and inept). “Donors,” one leading Republican fi gure told me, “are trying hard to get comfortable with Trump.” And Trump, without doubt, has improved his skills as a candidate. But here is the problem. Donors, analysts and media are naturally drawn to the horse-race aspect of politics: establishment vs. anti-establishment, insider vs. outsider. But Trump is pro- posing a massive ideological and moral revision of the Republican Party. Re- created in his image, it would be the anti-immigrant party; the party that blows up the global trading order; the party that undermines the principle of religious liberty; the party that en- courages an ethnic basis for American identity and gives strength and mo- mentum to prejudice. We are already seeing the disturb- ing normalization of policies and arguments that recently seemed un- acceptable, even unsayable. Trump proposes the forced expulsion of 11 million people, or a ban on Muslim immigration, and there are a few days of outrage from responsible Republi- can leaders. But the proposals still lie on the table, eventually seeming regu- lar and acceptable. But they are not acceptable. They are not normal. They are extreme and obscene and immoral. The Repub- lican nominee—for the sake of his party and his conscience—must draw these boundaries clearly. Ted Cruz is particularly ill-equipped to play this role. He is actually more of a demagogue than an ideologue. So he has changed his views on immigration to compete with Trump—and raised the ante by promising that none of the deported 11 million will ever be al- lowed back in the country. Instead of demonstrating the humane instincts of his Christian faith—a faith that mo- tivated abolition and the struggle for civil rights—Cruz is presenting the crueler version of a pipe dream. For Republicans, the only good outcome of Trump vs. Cruz is for both to lose. The future of the party as the carrier of a humane, inclusive conservatism now depends on some viable choice beyond them. Friedrichs v. California Teach- ers Association represents a threat to public employee unions that continue now to represent more than one-third of all government workers. However, regarding all unions in the U.S., as de- termined in 2014, only 11 percent of the population still belong to unions. The issue in this case is free-speech rights of non-union public employees. If the Supreme Court rules in Fried- richs’ favor it will rule that non-mem- bers can contribute nothing to the costs of representation. The anticipat- ed result is that more workers can opt out of fi nancing unions’ activities and become what are generally known as “free riders” with a drop in union membership and revenue. A “free ride” means that those who pay nothing in support of what a union gains through its negotia- tions get something, often a lot, for which they must not pay a single dime. Those who want out and may get out argue that getting out means they do not any longer have to pay for union interests, like, for example, ten- ure, merit pay and class sizes. One of the justices from California, Anthony Kennedy, has been critical of man- datory union fees; he’s said that “the union basically is making the teachers ‘compelled riders.’” A lawyer for the dissident teachers, Michael Carvin, has said that predic- tions of doom from the unions are overstated. He believes that gloom and doom are not real or provable in the real world. It is reported that there are 4.5 million union members nation- wide. The pres- ent state of union dues comes from a 1977 Supreme Court deci- sion that al- lowed public employee unions to collect so-called fair share fees from non-members. This money was based on the argu- ment before the Supreme Court of the need by unions that the collected dues was to be used for the purpose of collective bargaining. One issue that handicaps the Su- preme Court is that not one of them has had personal experience as a pub- lic school teacher. As a result they know little to nothing about the so- cial culture that exists in our schools. Teachers are typically persons of dedi- cation who want to work with chil- dren and youth in a learning environ- ment; meanwhile, they want to earn a decent living and be free from the op- pression of overzealous principals and superintendents who are often much more about ambition to move up than the care and encouragement of kids. Unions protect these people from some people who shouldn’t be in charge of administering schools. Those who don’t want to join a union (but want a union looking after their interests) are quite often those who want to be a principal or administra- tor themselves. A union defends and protects those teachers who are good teach- ers but are not in the school to make the principal feel good. Without a union, the school becomes a horrible place to work unless you are a per- son who seeks constantly to snitch on others and pass along compliments to administrators who’ve not earned them. The same environment in our schools applies also to many govern- ment jobs. In government workplaces, you also have the snitches and the brown-nosers. They too are a huge nuisance to providing services to the people of Oregon because many workers want to please managers who want to please their administra- tor while too many administrators want to please the governor. Again, our Supreme Court justices have lim- ited knowledge of what’s going on in the real world of the public employee workplace. Meanwhile, the only real counter- weight to wealthy Republican super PACs is union money. Citizens Unit- ed and other recent rulings by the Su- preme Court have set in motion a tsunami of take-aways from public employees’ ability to defend them- selves against those billionaires who want to rule America through their all too often “owned” politicians without interference from teachers and public employees of all stripe and kind. All those working folks in service to the nation’s youth and all Americans who merely want to maintain a defensive wall between themselves and a gath- ering dominance, known now as the American oligarchy. other views (Washington Post Writers Group) Court decision could tie up unions gene h. mcintyre (Gene H. McIntyre’s column ap- pears weekly in the Keizertimes.)