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.