Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Wednesday, March 29, 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 OTHER VIEWS Reworking state’s education goals The (Albany) Democrat-Herald, B ack in 2011, the Legislature rolled out an ambitious set of goals for the state’s educational system. By 2025, legislators declared, every adult Oregonian would have a high school diploma. Some 40 percent of adult Oregonians would have an associate degree or some sort of post- secondary credential. The remaining 40 percent of adult Oregonians, legislators decreed, would have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. This so-called 40-40-20 goal (in retrospect, a better nickname would have been 40-80-100, but we quibble) was widely seen as aspirational. Realistically, everyone knew that these were goals that never would be completely met. And, more to the point, it was unlikely that Oregon would ever have the kind of money available to reach the goal. (In fact, this still seems unlikely, as legislators battle with a $1.6 billion shortfall for the next two-year budget cycle.) So this year’s session of the Legislature is considering a bill, House Bill 2587, that would make a small but key change to the 40-40-20 goal. Under the terms of the bill, which is backed by the state’s teachers union, the language of the goal would be changed: The state’s education goals now would read that 40 percent of Oregon adults will be “given the opportunity” to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher. Another 40 percent of Oregon adults would be “given the opportunity” to earn an associate degree or a post-secondary credential.” The remaining Oregon adults would have “the opportunity to earn a high school diploma, a modified diploma or extended diploma or any other credential equivalent to a high school diploma.” We are sympathetic to those who argue that the 40-40-20 goals can never be reached. They’re right, of course: For example, we never will be at the point at which every Oregon adult has a high school diploma or its equivalent. (The most recent statistics, for the class of 2015, show that 78 percent of Oregon high school students earned a diploma within five years after starting school.) Similarly, the two 40 percent goals for higher education are, to put it mildly, very challenging for a state that traditionally has underfunded higher education. So, proponents of the bill argue, why should we set ourselves up for failure? We understand that argument. But it’s not as if the 40-40-20 goal, as unattainable as it is, hasn’t benefited the state in some concrete ways. The state’s high school graduation rate has inched upward over the last few years, perhaps in some small way because of the attention that rate has received statewide. And the goal also has put a spotlight on the middle 40 percent — the associate degrees and professional certifications that are awarded by the state’s community colleges. Institutions such as Linn-Benton Community College have been working vigorously over the last few years to make sure that their students complete their courses of study — in other words, that they leave school with that associate degree or certification in hand. Now, certainly, some of that would have happened without the 40-40-20 goal, but it’s clear that adopting the goal helped to highlight the role that the state’s often-ignored (not to mention underfunded) community colleges play in our educational system. So the goal has had, we believe, a practical impact in Oregon. And something just doesn’t feel right about putting it on the shelf. If we believe that education is the key to Oregon’s future, for all of its residents and for the state, why would we choose to say, in essence, well, we know that not everybody will get that key, and that’s OK? Throwing in the towel on the 40-40-20 goal would be setting ourselves up for a much more dangerous failure. 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 ‘People Power’ really just following the law Limit government by cutting Wildlife Services As the organizer of the two People Power events mentioned in a letter to the editor on March 22, I am dismayed at the author’s interpretation of the goals and objectives of the People Power organization. I am writing to respond to that letter to the editor. The ACLU is a non-partisan orga- nization that, until now, has limited its defense of individual rights to litigation through the courts. With the People Power organization, the ACLU is giving citizens, at the local level, the tools to become active participants in protecting those rights. The focus of the movement is currently undocumented residents. The ACLU has distributed a list of nine model immigration rules and policies (9R&P) for local law enforcement. Adoption of these 9R&P is intended to foster trust in local law enforcement and give people, whose only “crime” is being undocumented, confidence that local law will protect them from local crimes. If a person is beaten, or robbed – should they be so afraid of deportation that they do not seek protection or medical care? The 9R&P that have been presented at one public meeting, two town halls and a city council meeting are already in force in Oregon — as explained by Umatilla County Sheriff Terry Rowan and Police Chief Stuart Roberts in sepa- rate town halls. There is nothing new in these nine points, only an affirmation of the law that already exists. The first of the nine points reiterates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, federal agencies, are required to have a warrant if they want a local agency to detain someone for them. That simple. The People Power movement is about protecting the rights of individuals through the application of existing law. It is a venue for citizens, by increasing the awareness of existing law, to take an active part in preserving the civil rights and liberties of their neighbors regardless of immigration status. On Feb. 26, USDA Wildlife Services poisoned a wolf in Wallowa County (“We don’t feel good about that,” said Wildlife Services). On March 11, two dogs were killed by the same device, an M44 cyanide bomb, along a hiking trail in Wyoming (Wildlife Services denies blame). On March 16 a dog was killed by an M44 near a residential area in Pocatello, Idaho, and a boy sprayed with cyanide powder. (“Wildlife Services understands the close bonds between people and their pets and sincerely regrets such losses.”) A second device was yards from the first, both on BLM land, despite a 2016 agreement by federal agencies to ban M44s on federal land in Idaho. Wildlife Services kills millions of animals yearly at the behest of public and private interests. The methods are usually indiscriminate, like M44s, traps and snares. Any animal is a potential victim. Wildlife Services is OK with this; it has been the modus operandi since 1895. Wildlife Services is a sloppy operator. It sets traps where they endanger the public, it forgets to post warnings, or puts them where they’re not seen, or if they’re in the right place it leaves them up long after the traps are gone (like on Wallowa County’s East Moraine) so that folks are afraid to walk a trail. A Wildlife Services agent filmed his dogs attacking trapped coyotes, and another was convicted of intentionally trapping a neighbor’s dog. If pressed, the agency will “investigate” incidents, sometimes apologize (a recent development), but resumes its nasty habits. What’s galling to us who dislike this agency, this behavior, this brutal contempt for animals and citizens, is that we pay the bill. Our federal, state and local taxes fund this agency. If you pay property tax in northeast Oregon, you are paying your county to pay Wildlife Services to set M44s. If people want smaller government, let’s start with USDA Wildlife Services. Miriam Gilmer Adams Wally Sykes Joseph OTHER VIEWS Republicans for single-payer health care W ithout a viable health where the irony begins: He can more care agenda of their own, easily hurt the conservative parts than Republicans now face the liberal parts. a choice between two options: Obamacare increased coverage in Obamacare and a gradual shift toward two main ways. The more liberal way a single-payer system. The early signs expanded a government program, suggest they will choose single payer. Medicaid, to cover the near-poor. The That would be the height of political more conservative way created private irony, of course. Donald Trump, Paul insurance markets where middle- David Ryan and Tom Price may succeed Leonardt class and affluent people could buy where left-wing dreamers have long subsidized coverage. Comment failed and move the country toward The Medicaid expansion isn’t socialized medicine. And they would completely protected from Price. do it unwittingly, by undermining the most He can give states some flexibility to deny conservative health care system that Americans coverage. But Medicaid is mostly protected. are willing to accept. On Friday, after the Republican bill failed, You’ve no doubt heard of that conservative Andy Slavitt, who ran Medicaid and Medicare system. It’s called Obamacare. for Obama, was talking on the phone to a Let me take a step back to explain how we former colleague. “Virtually the only words got here and how the politics of health care either of us could say,” Slavitt relayed, “were will most likely play out after last week’s ‘Medicaid is safe.’” Republican crackup. The private markets are less safe. They Passing major social legislation is have already had more problems than the fantastically difficult. It tends to involve taking Medicaid expansion. Price could try to fix something from influential interest groups — those problems, and I hope he does. Or he taxing the rich, for example (as Obamacare could set out to aggravate the problems, which did), or reducing some companies’ profits or he has taken initial steps to do. Above all, he hurting professional guilds. Those groups can could make changes that discourage healthy often persuade voters that the status quo is less people from signing up, causing prices to rise scary than change. and insurers to flee. But when big social legislation does pass, Now, think about the political message and improves lives, it becomes even harder this would send to Democrats: It’s not worth to undo than it was to create. Americans expanding health coverage in a conservative- are generally not willing to go backward on friendly way, because Republican leaders matters of basic economic decency. Child labor won’t support it anyway. isn’t coming back, and the minimum wage, Politics aside, private markets in many areas Social Security and Medicare aren’t going of the economy have substantive advantages away. Add Obamacare to the list. “Americans over a government program. They create competition, which leads to innovation and now think government should help guarantee lower prices. But private markets in medical coverage for just about everyone,” as Jennifer care tend to be more complicated and less Rubin, a conservative, wrote. Trump seemed to understand this during the successful. And government health care programs turn campaign and came out in favor of universal coverage. Once elected, though, he reversed out to be very popular, among both Democratic himself. He turned over health care to Price, and Republican voters. Medicare is a huge a surgeon and Georgia congressman with an success. Medicaid also works well, and some amazing record, and not in a good way. Republicans have defended it in recent weeks. Price had spent years proposing bills to So if voters like government-provided take away people’s insurance. He also had a health care and Republicans are going to habit of buying the stocks of drug companies undermine private markets, what should that benefited from policies he was pushing. Democrats do? When they are next in charge, Preet Bharara, the federal prosecutor, was they should expand government health care. investigating Price when Trump fired Bharara They should expand Medicaid further into this month, ProPublica reported. the working class. They should open Medicare Price and Ryan were the main architects to people in their early 60s. They should add a of the Republican health bill. They tried to so-called public option to the private markets. persuade the country to return to a more They should push the United States closer to laissez-faire system in which if you didn’t single-payer health insurance. It will take time have insurance, it was your problem. They and involve setbacks, but they are likely to failed, spectacularly. Again, Americans weren’t succeed in the long run. willing to abandon basic economic decency. Until then, the future of socialized medicine But Price may not be finished. This is in the hands of Dr. Tom Price. weekend, Trump tweeted that “ObamaCare ■ will explode,” and Price, now Trump’s David Leonardt is the managing editor of secretary of health and human services, has the The Upshot, an arm of the New York Times, authority to undermine parts of the law. Here’s and an op-ed columnist for the paper. LETTERS POLICY The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and pub- lic 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 let- ters 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 Dan- iel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.