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.)