Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 16, 2016)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Tuesday, February 16, 2016 OTHER VIEWS Founded October 16, 1875 KATHRYN B. BROWN DANIEL WATTENBURGER Publisher Managing Editor JENNINE PERKINSON TIM TRAINOR Advertising Director Opinion Page Editor OUR VIEW Rating presidents requires a mirror We take Presidents Day for granted, but it is one of those customs that sets America apart among Western democracies. The British, for instance, do not take a day off to mark the birthday of its remarkable prime ministers such as Melbourne, Disraeli or Gladstone. Nor do the French take a holiday to remember Charles de Gaulle. Today’s holiday has its roots in George Washington’s Feb. 22 birthday, which Congress in 1879 marked with a holiday. A subsequent Congress marked Lincoln’s birthday. When Congress in 1968 moved all federal holidays to Mondays, this became Presidents Day. Marking the ¿rst president’s birthday was born of an era in which the memory of George Washington was nurtured and venerated. Washington’s restraint — resigning his of¿cer’s commission before becoming president and leaving the presidency after two terms — was the essence of how he built our nation, says the historian Garry Wills in the book Cincinnatus. Lincoln was dei¿ed for his heroic labor in saving the Union. The late Oregon Sen. Mark Hat¿eld said “Clearly no other individual could have brought so much good out of the seemingly in¿nite seas of madness and blood with which he was forced to deal.” Americans in 2014 are a far more cynical population than those who sancti¿ed Washington’s memory. Could contemporary Americans venerate anything? With or without emotion, we do reassess our presidents as the decades roll past. It’s a bit like a person who gains new insight into his parents, years after their passing. In other words, presidential evaluation is like looking in a mirror. Americans who are middle aged and beyond have seen the assessment of two presidents — Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower — rise dramatically. President John F. Kennedy’s is being reassessed. JFK is an especially elusive president. In The New York Review of Books, Frank Rich wrote “... as those of us who lived through the 1960s die off — and as the passions of those culture wars, like those of the cold war, continue to erode in a post-boomer America — so too will Camelot’s mythological status as a brief, shining moment before all hell broke loose.” Without the distraction of the Camelot myth, Rich concludes, Kennedy will “at long last (be) in actual human and historical scale.” We are now living in the presidency of a man whose meaning will be reassessed several times as the 21st century heads toward middle age. In 2016 Obama is a polarizing ¿gure, in no small part because of his race. Because he is the ¿rst nonwhite president, historians will always ¿nd him and his presidency signi¿cant. In our day, it is impossible to guess at what Americans 50 years hence will make of Obama. Will they notice the economic plummet that preceded his ¿rst oath of of¿ce? The ending of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Or will the intrusion on Americans’ privacy by the National Security Agency loom large decades hence? By the end of this century, how many other nonwhite presidents will there be? And how many women will have been president? Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of Publisher Kathryn Brown, Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, and Opinion Page Editor Tim Trainor. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. YOUR VIEWS John Turner for mayor We’re fortunate to have someone of this caliber and credibility willing to step forward and run for mayor. John is a “can do” guy who operates with a sense of urgency and is well suited to lead the city through some of the challenges we face. Mike Short Pendleton I am extremely excited to see John Turner run for the of¿ce of mayor of Pendleton. I have known John for the past 12 years. John is a man of passion for his community and a natural born leader. His integrity and work ethic are above and beyond reproach. He is a master of human relations skills as demonstrated in his military career, Blue Mountain Community College, Rotary, Roundup City Development Corporation and many others too numerous to mention. Please join me in supporting John Turner for Pendleton’s next mayor. Thomas A Young Pendleton City Council, Ward III Check Plute’s tax record Al Plute is quick to tell us about all the money necessary to fund various city of Pendleton projects and departments. He is ¿rst to explain why new fees and taxes are a necessary burden to be shared by the citizens. A large portion of city, county and school district funds come from property taxes. A search of Umatilla County tax records shows Mr. Plute has neglected to pay his “fair share.” As of Feb. 9, 2016, he or his various LLCs have not paid property taxes on several properties, including the Bowman and Temple (St. George) buildings. Some of the properties are four years in arrears. A person who is in a position of deciding if new fees and taxes are to be levied on the citizenry should ¿rst pay his own. This is another concern as to his quali¿cation to be a councilor. James Humphrey Pendleton Science above consensus on salmon recovery The February 6 East Oregonian editorial opinion against defunding salmon and steelhead hatcheries and scorning the pending lawsuit might be short-sighted. Further research of current ¿sheries science would reveal that arti¿cial propagation of salmon and steelhead actually impedes repopulating our rivers with self-sustaining ¿sh runs. Some hatchery raised juveniles return from the ocean, but they lack the genetic diversity and stamina to re-establish self-sustaining runs. However, the hatchery jump-started ¿sh out-compete natural born juveniles, which do have the diversity to build self- sustaining runs. Hatchery ¿sh provide a short-term ¿shery, but once started, require annual and costly hatchery supplementation to maintain a ¿shery. Independent audits verify that returning hatchery origin ¿sh often cost taxpayers and power rate payers more than $500 per returning adult. Combining the unbelievable high cost of hatchery operations with the fact that the ¿sh they release contribute to the decline of wild ¿sh runs, it appears that it would be prudent to consider alternatives to hatchery supplementation for salmon and steelhead. Continuing hatcheries because they are a “vital lifeline for the economies of many communities” seems like an argument to fund hatcheries regardless of their effectiveness. It may be that shifting from hatcheries to more river restoration to create larger “natural hatcheries,” would be a reasonable transition that provides better results at a lower cost. The editorial reported that “killing hatchery funding would also mean loss of tens of millions of funding dollars for conservation and recovery.” Fish recovery resources fund both hatcheries and restoration. Reducing the hatchery funding component could free up ¿sh recovery resources for in-stream improvements that increase natural reproduction of salmon and steelhead. Tax and rate payers have provided hundreds of millions and maybe over a billion dollars for river restoration and habitat improvement. Shifting salmon and steelhead propagation from hatchery propagation to natural propagation in our restored river systems appears reasonable. However, competition with hatchery ¿sh has to be reduced or eliminated to assure success. The February 6 editorial concludes with “communities should demand science and consensus-driven management practices.” However, science should probably have more weight than consensus, if consensus is heavily inÀuenced by vested interests. Hopefully, the East Oregonian will continue in-depth reporting on this issue. Patrick Dunham Pendleton How America was lost O nce upon a time, the death of a deep end. Supreme Court justice wouldn’t On the substantive divide between have brought America to the the parties I still encounter people edge of constitutional crisis. But that on the left (although never on the was a different country, with a very right) who claim that there’s no big different Republican Party. In today’s difference between Republicans America, with today’s GOP, the and Democrats, or at any rate passing of Antonin Scalia has opened “establishment” Democrats. But that’s the doors to chaos. nonsense. Even if you’re disappointed Paul In principle, losing a justice should Krugman in what Obama accomplished, he cause at most a mild disturbance in substantially raised taxes on the rich Comment the national scene. After all, the court and dramatically expanded the social is supposed to be above politics. So safety net signi¿cantly tightened when a vacancy appears, the president should ¿nancial regulation encouraged and oversaw simply nominate, and the Senate approve, a surge in renewable energy; moved forward someone highly quali¿ed and respected by all. on diplomacy with Iran. In reality, of course, things were never that Any Republican would undo all of that, pure. Justices have always had known political and move sharply in the opposite direction. leanings, and the process of nomination and If anything, the consensus among the approval has often been contentious. Still, presidential candidates seems to be that there was nothing like the situation we face George W. Bush didn’t cut taxes on the rich now, in which Republicans have more or nearly enough, and should have made more less unanimously declared that President use of torture. Barack Obama has no right even to nominate When we talk about partisanship, then, a replacement for Scalia — and no, the fact we’re not talking about arbitrary teams, we’re that Obama will leave soon doesn’t make it talking about a deep divide on values and OK. (Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed policy. How can anyone not be “partisan” in during Ronald Reagan’s last year in of¿ce). the sense of preferring one of these visions? Nor were the consequences of a court And it’s up to you to decide which version vacancy as troubling in the past as they are you prefer. So why do I say that only one now. As everyone is pointing out, without party has gone off the deep end? Scalia the justices are evenly divided between One answer is, compare last week’s Republican and Democratic appointees — Democratic debate with Saturday’s which probably means a hung court on many Republican debate. Need I say more? issues. Beyond that, there are huge differences in And there’s no telling how long that tactics and attitudes. Democrats never tried situation may last. If a Democrat wins the to extort concessions by threatening to cut White House but the GOP holds the Senate, off U.S. borrowing and create a ¿nancial when if ever do you think Republicans crisis; Republicans did. Democrats don’t would be willing to con¿rm anyone the new routinely deny the legitimacy of presidents president nominates? from the other party; Republicans did it to How did we get into this mess? both Bill Clinton and Obama. The GOP’s new At one level the answer is the ever- Supreme Court blockade is, fundamentally, widening partisan divide. Polarization has in a direct line of descent from the days measurably increased in every aspect of when Republicans used to call Clinton “your American politics, from congressional voting president.” to public opinion, with an especially dramatic So how does this get resolved? One answer rise in “negative partisanship” — distrust could be a Republican sweep — although of and disdain for the other side. And the you have to ask, did the men on that stage Supreme Court is no different. As recently Saturday convey the impression of a party as the 1970s the court had several “swing” that’s ready to govern? Or maybe you members, whose votes weren’t always believe — based on no evidence I’m aware predictable from partisan positions, but that of — that a populist rising from the left is center now consists only of Kennedy, and only ready to happen any day now. But if divided some of the time. government persists, it’s really hard to see But simply pointing to rising partisanship how we avoid growing chaos. as the source of our crisis, while not exactly Maybe we should all start wearing baseball wrong, can be deeply misleading. First, caps that say, “Make America governable decrying partisanship can make it seem as if again.” we’re just talking about bad manners, when Ŷ we’re really looking at huge differences on Paul Krugman joined The New York Times substance. Second, it’s really important not in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page to engage in false symmetry Only one of our and continues as professor of Economics and two major political parties has gone off the International Affairs at Princeton University. OTHER VIEWS Obama’s budget further expands government control The Orange County Register, Feb. 10 When President Obama submitted his proposed budget one year ago, he claimed that he wanted to do away with the “mindless austerity” of the sequestration, which had provided some measure of limitation on government spending. Then in December, aided and abetted by a Republican-controlled Congress, he eradicated those minor restrictions and replaced mindless austerity with clueless proÀigacy. Now he puts forth a budget for the 2017 ¿scal year, which begins Oct. 1, that calls for $4.15 trillion in spending, a $223 billion increase over the current year’s budget. His proposal, curiously released while all eyes are focused on the New Hampshire primary, spans more than 2,300 pages, which, in itself, serves as a testament to the federal government’s bloat and overreach. The president’s budget contains $3 trillion in proposed tax increases over the next 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The most controversial of these is a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax, which would be used to fund “clean” transit projects and low-carbon technologies such a self- driving cars, which the private sector is already rapidly developing. With oil prices currently hovering around $30 a barrel, that is a roughly 35 percent tax, which experts project would translate to a price hike of about 25 cents per gallon at the pump. Fortunately, this is a nonstarter for congressional Republicans. The president’s budget message reads like his State of the Union addresses, espousing his wish list, from “green energy” subsidies to universal preschool to high-speed rail and increased transit funding to $4 billion for a K-12 computer science program to two years of “free” community college to apprenticeship programs to “encouraging” state paid leave policies — none of which is the province of federal, state and local governments. President Obama’s budget would, once again, expand government control over our lives and further burden current and future generations with debt. It is understandable that a lame-duck president with a somewhat hostile Congress would advance a budget sprinkled with fairy dust, but Mr. Obama’s proposal should not be taken seriously with regard to ¿scal responsibility.
