Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Publisher
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
TIM TRAINOR
Opinion Page Editor
MARISSA WILLIAMS
Regional Advertising Director
MARCY ROSENBERG
Circulation Manager
JANNA HEIMGARTNER
Business Office Manager
MIKE JENSEN
Production Manager
OUR VIEW
Brown sets priorities
in inaugural speech
Gov. Kate Brown outlined three
priorities in her inaugural speech
Monday, which — if she and the
2017 Legislature achieve them —
could dramatically improve Oregon:
• Create more and better jobs in
rural Oregon.
• Expand health insurance so all
Oregon children are covered.
• Improve Oregon’s dismal rate of
high school graduation.
Brown’s nearly two-year tenure
as governor has been a decidedly
mixed record, pleasing to liberal and
urban Oregonians and frustrating
to conservative and rural residents.
Monday’s speech could be a welcome
turning point for Democrat Brown,
who now is an elected governor
instead of an appointed one. Her
speech was bipartisan, pragmatic and
focused, avoiding her penchant for
pursuing dozens of ideas.
Much of urban Oregon has
recovered well from the recession. As
Brown put it, “For those living in urban
Oregon, it seems like the economy is
growing like a gangly teenage boy:
overnight and out of control.
“For the first time in almost two
decades, the statewide unemployment
rate dropped below the national
average. News outlets from Forbes
to Fortune to Bloomberg are writing
glowing profiles of Oregon’s
job-producing economy.”
Yet, she said, “there is a disturbing
gap between the unemployment rate
in urban Oregon and rural Oregon.”
One antidote is the Oregon
Manufacturing Innovation
Center, which is being developed
in Scappoose, thanks to the
determination of Sen. Betsy Johnson.
Twelve large manufacturers have
made commitments to the center.
Some are interested in opening their
own facilities in Scappoose.
But Brown also sees other
opportunities for rural economic
development, starting with preparing
for the Big One.
At least 100 coastal bridges would
be destroyed or severely damaged
in that inevitable major earthquake.
Seismic retrofitting of coastal bridges
and roads would create good, family-
wage jobs. So too would improving
U.S. 97, which would become the
state’s major north-south arterial
when the big quake makes Interstate
5 impassable.
Brown also spoke of the
importance of water projects for
agriculture, such as in the Umatilla
Basin, and of increased timber
harvests on U.S. Forest Service land.
All these projects make sense …
if the governor and Legislature will
follow through.
“By leveraging the human,
material and natural resources that
once made our rural communities the
most prosperous in the state, we have
a real chance to tackle the economic
fault line that has split our state in
two,” Brown said.
There is a side benefit as well,
one that Brown did not dwell on.
More jobs and better-paying ones
mean more tax revenue for the state,
not just economic improvement for
families and communities.
State government and schools
face a projected $1.7 billion deficit in
2017-19 — if all programs were to be
maintained at their current level. The
biggest challenge facing this year’s
Legislature is to balance that state
budget, including paying for health
care and education.
A healthy economy throughout
rural Oregon would be a blessing for
the entire state.
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.
OTHER VIEWS
FBI owes better answers
on airport shooting
Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale)
iven that he reportedly suffered
mental health problems, that he
told FBI agents he was hearing
voices about ISIS and that he was held
for psychiatric evaluation in Alaska just
two months ago, how is it even possible
that Esteban Santiago was allowed to fly
with a gun?
Following the bloodbath he is believed
to have caused at the Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport on
Friday — killing five and wounding eight
in a shooting spree at baggage claim
— the FBI said Saturday that Santiago
wasn’t even on the federal no-fly list.
Why in heaven’s name not?
How many warning signs, red flags
and alarm bells does the agency need to
recognize that someone poses a danger,
deserves ongoing scrutiny and shouldn’t
be allowed to possess — let alone fly —
with weapons and ammunition?
At least in the case of Omar Mateen,
the disturbed young man who pledged
allegiance to ISIS as he massacred 49 and
wounded 53 at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub
last June, the FBI had raised its antenna
and tracked his routine for 10 months
before mistakenly closing the case.
But from what little the FBI is saying
in Fort Lauderdale, it appears the agency
demonstrated insufficient attention after
Santiago walked into its Anchorage,
Alaska office in November in a “very
agitated state.”
According to various reports,
Santiago said he wanted to talk about the
government having taken over his mind,
about being forced to watch propaganda
videos on ISIS and about feeling forced
to fight for the Islamic State terror group.
You’d think words like ISIS and
Islamic State would hit agents in the
face. They should have been especially
concerned — if they knew — that the
Iraqi combat veteran had reportedly been
discharged from the Alaska Guard in
August “for unsatisfactory performance.”
But it appears the FBI handed off the
problem and failed to follow up.
Instead, they called local police, who
facilitated a psychiatric review. Sources
told the Sun-Sentinel that Santiago was
G
committed to a hospital because he was
seen as a danger to himself or others.
But no one is saying how long he was
committed, whether he was adjudicated
mentally unfit or why nothing in this
timeline triggered his entry on the
no-fly list, which was created after 9/11
to keep people who present “a known
or suspected threat” from boarding
commercial aircraft.
We have to believe that had the
FBI done a little more digging on the
front end, it might have prevented this
enormous tragedy on the back end.
More will be said in coming days
about airport safety. Already, there’s
debate about whether new security
barriers are needed at ticketing and
baggage claim areas, or whether
alternative screening methods could work
equally well without clogging the system.
Already there’s more sheriff’s deputies on
patrol, and talk of more federal officers
and drug-sniffing dogs, too. The Florida
Legislature is considering a misguided
proposal to let people carry concealed
weapons into airport public areas, like
baggage claim.
For the moment, let’s remember that
Santiago reportedly followed the law in
coming to Fort Lauderdale to commit
mass murder. He locked his unloaded gun
in a hard-shell case and sent it through
checked baggage. His ammo was inside,
too.
After retrieving his case at baggage
claim, he allegedly retreated to a nearby
bathroom, loaded his gun and came out
shooting. Witnesses say the nightmare
lasted about 45 seconds. Broward Sheriff
Scott Israel says deputies were on the
scene within 60 to 70 seconds.
Israel is right when he says no one
can stop every “lone wolf” intent on
doing harm, but one of the lessons of
Fort Lauderdale baggage claim should
be the need for a different process to
reunite traveling gun owners with their
ammunition. Wasserman Schultz is
interested in exploring that challenge, too.
But today, as our grief turns to anger,
we want a better answer.
We want to know why this lunatic was
allowed to fly with a weapon.
The FBI has some explaining to do.
OTHER VIEWS
Deficits matter again
N
ot long ago prominent
more compelling are two facts:
Republicans like Paul Ryan,
Wages are finally rising reasonably
the speaker of the House, liked
fast, showing that workers have
to warn in apocalyptic terms about the
bargaining power again, and the rate
dangers of budget deficits, declaring
at which workers are quitting their
that a Greek-style crisis was just
jobs, an indication of how confident
around the corner. But now, suddenly,
they are of finding new jobs, is back
those very same politicians are
to pre-crisis levels.
perfectly happy with the prospect of
What changes once we’re close
Paul
deficits swollen by tax cuts; the budget Krugman to full employment? Basically,
resolution they’re considering would,
government borrowing once again
Comment
according to their own estimates,
competes with the private sector for
add $9 trillion in debt over the next
a limited amount of money. This
means that deficit spending no longer provides
decade. Hey, no problem.
This sudden turnaround comes as a huge
much if any economic boost, because it drives
shock to absolutely nobody — at least nobody up interest rates and “crowds out” private
with any sense. All that posturing about the
investment.
deficit was obvious flimflam, whose purpose
Now, government borrowing can
was to hobble a Democratic president, and it
still be justified if it serves an important
was completely predictable that the pretense
purpose: Interest rates are still very low,
of being fiscally responsible would be dropped and borrowing at those low rates to invest
as soon as the GOP regained the White House. in much-needed infrastructure is still a
What wasn’t quite so predictable, however, very good idea, both because it would raise
was that Republicans would stop pretending
productivity and because it would provide
to care about deficits at almost precisely the
a bit of insurance against future downturns.
moment that deficits were starting to matter
But while candidate Trump talked about
again.
increasing public investment, there’s no sign
Those apocalyptic warnings are still
at all that congressional Republicans are
foolish: America, which borrows in its own
going to make such investment a priority.
currency and therefore can’t run out of cash,
No, they’re going to blow up the deficit
isn’t at all like Greece. But running big deficits mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy.
is no longer harmless, let alone desirable.
And that won’t do anything significant to
The way it was: Eight years ago, with
boost the economy or create jobs. In fact, by
the economy in free fall, I wrote that we had
crowding out investment it will somewhat
entered an era of “depression economics,”
reduce long-term economic growth.
in which the usual rules of economic policy
Meanwhile, it will make the rich richer, even
no longer applied, in which virtue was
as cuts in social spending make the poor
vice and prudence was folly. In particular,
poorer and undermine security for the middle
deficit spending was essential to support the
class. But that, of course, is the intention.
economy, and attempts to balance the budget
Again, none of this implies an economic
would be destructive.
catastrophe. If such a catastrophe does
This diagnosis — shared by most
come, it will be thanks to other policies,
professional economists — didn’t come out
like a rollback of financial regulation, or
of thin air; it was based on well-established
from outside events like a crisis in China or
macroeconomic principles. Furthermore, the
Europe. And because stuff does happen, and
predictions that came out of those principles
a lot depends on how the U.S. government
held up very well. In the depressed economy
responds when it does, we should be
that prevailed for years after the financial
concerned that the incoming administration
crisis, government borrowing didn’t drive
only seems to take economic advice from
up interest rates, money creation by the Fed
people who have consistently been wrong
didn’t cause inflation, and nations that tried
about, well, everything.
to slash budget deficits experienced severe
But back to deficits: the crucial point is
recessions.
not that Republicans were hypocritical. It is,
But these predictions were always
instead, that their hypocrisy made us poorer.
conditional, applying only to an economy far
They screamed about the evils of debt at a
from full employment. That was the kind of
time when bigger deficits would have done a
economy President Barack Obama inherited;
lot of good, and are about to blow up deficits
but the Trump-Putin administration will,
at a time when they will do harm.
instead, come into power at a time when full
■
employment has been more or less restored.
Paul Krugman is a New York Times
How do we know that we’re close to full
columnist and the 2008 recipient of the
employment? The low official unemployment Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
rate is just one indicator. What I find
for his work on international trade theory.
YOUR VIEWS
Anti-Trump bias on
EO editorial page
I guess the old saying: “the straw that
broke the camel’s back” applies to me!
For me it was the East Oregonian’s
political cartoon, the one of a bird with a
Trump hairstyle, flying over Uncle Sam
and defecating all over him. What thought
process selected that for our local, Umatilla
County, northeastern Oregon, newspaper?
If I thought I was the only one offended by
this paper’s liberal abuse of power I would
shrug my shoulders. But I’m not! Nearly to a
person the people in my circle are abhorred
by the treatment the EO has given this
presidential campaign and the posture the EO
editors have taken in crafting and selecting
editorial items.
The continued selection of the material
published in this newspaper, that we rely
upon for fair and balanced news, has been
slanted by the personal posture of the
editorial staff. Without the EO we would have
no local news. The EO’s liberal treatment of
this past campaign and the selection of other
opinions is akin to an abuse of power.
You, the editorial staff, can shrug and say:
that, not-among-the-elite man doesn’t believe
in a free press. Not true, I just don’t believe
your continued loading of our local paper
with your personal liberal views does your
readership justice. We don’t need a checkout-
line tabloid; we need a newspaper with a
fair and balanced content. Surprise! We can
formulate our own conclusions!
The EO has, in recent issues, tried to
assuage itself by throwing a weakly crafted
crumb.
Again a quote from history: “Me thinks
you protest too much!”
Rather than throw crumbs to camouflage
your abuse of power — do better for your
remaining readership.
Ron Linn
Pendleton
LETTERS POLICY
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues
and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper
reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and
products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted letters must
be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number.
The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send
letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
or email editor@eastoregonian.com.