Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (May 11, 2017)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Thursday, May 11, 2017 OTHER VIEWS 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 Spending bill, not Obamacare, reveals deep GOP division f you want to see what divides double the number of so-called H-2B Republicans in Congress, don’t look visas to allow temporary low-wage at the struggle to repeal and replace foreign workers into the U.S. — a Obamacare. Look at spending. move a number of experts said would The House’s narrow passage of a lower wages for American workers. partial repeal of Obamacare dominated “H-2Bs will be an issue and will media for days. Happening at the same cause a loss of conservative support time, but receiving relatively little for the bill,” the member said shortly coverage, was the Senate’s approval of before the vote. “Very un-Trumpian to Byron a $1.1 trillion spending bill that revealed ban border wall construction and fund York — far more than Obamacare — the sanctuary cities while also expanding Comment deep differences among Republicans in foreign labor!” both houses of Congress. Foreign labor was a key factor in the The story is in the numbers. On Obamacare, no vote of Sen. Tom Cotton. In a floor speech 217 Republicans voted for partial repeal, while Thursday, the Arkansas Republican explained just 20 — a little under 10 percent of the House that he recognized the good parts of the bill, GOP conference — voted against it. in particular more defense spending. But he On the spending bill, just 131 focused on the H-2B provision, Republicans voted yes, while not just because it is bad policy — 103 GOP lawmakers — about he explained at length what that is 43 percent of the House GOP so — but because it “shows just conference — voted no. In the how bad this process is.” Senate, 32 Republicans voted yes, “It’s not necessary,” Cotton said while 18 GOP senators — about of the visa expansion’s inclusion in one-third of the Republican side the bill. “It has nothing to do with — Dave Brat, funding the government, nothing. — voted no. Republican, It hasn’t been vetted. It hasn’t gone Lawmakers gave several U.S. Representative through the normal legislative reasons for rejecting the leadership’s spending deal with process, which would be the Democrats. “This bill funds sanctuary cities, Judiciary Committee, where the chairman and funds Planned Parenthood, it funds Obamacare the senior Democrat both have written that and I think that was unfortunate and it’s a real they oppose this measure. I don’t even know missed opportunity,” Sen. Ted Cruz — a no how it got in (the bill).” vote — told San Antonio radio host Trey Ware. And yet there it was. And President Trump “There is a reason Chuck Schumer and Nancy signed it into law. Pelosi are celebrating, because the spending In the end, the spending bill votes revealed measure funds everything they want and funds significant divisions among Republicans about virtually none of the priorities we were elected the amount of spending — more precisely, to fund.” the amount of deficit spending — they can “I think the Democrats cleaned our clock,” tolerate. said Sen. Lindsey Graham, another no vote. Those differences extend far beyond their “I’m for comprehensive immigration reform, conflicts over Obamacare repeal. A grand total but sanctuary cities go untouched. Obamacare of 20 GOP House members split with their continues to be funded in a way that we all say leadership on health care, while 103 did so on spending. In the Senate, where the Republican is illegal.” “Drain the swamp, right?” asked Rep. Dave majority is so narrow they have just two votes to spare, the GOP lost 18 votes. Those are Brat, another no vote, in Buzzfeed. “Where is signs of problems ahead. that in the budget? Nowhere. We fully funded ■ the swamp.” Byron York is chief political correspondent Another House Republican no vote pointed for The Washington Examiner. to a provision in the spending bill that would I “We fully funded the swamp.” Trump and Nixon Donald Trump has always been a have decreased. His hunger for approval has been starved as the little Nixonian. campaign trail has given way to the They share an affinity for Oval Office, and his poll numbers authoritative leadership, the habit of continue their decline. continually attacking the press and Unlike Nixon, however, Trump rivals both in their party and outside has access to a Twitter account, which of it, reliance on a small and always allows him to send his paranoid shrinking circle of advisers, and a scribes out across the world. Yet like lifelong lack of personal friendships. But President Trump took a giant Tricky Dick, Trump in those messages step toward joining his legacy with never forgets the faults of others and Richard Nixon’s never misses an when he announced opportunity to bring Trump, like Tuesday that he them up. had fired FBI Still, the two men Nixon, never director James have their differences, forgets the faults as the Richard Comey. Comey was investigating possible Presidential of others and Nixon corruption and ties Library pointed out. between Trump, his never misses the It tweeted soon after of Comey’s associates and Russia. opportunity to news And we learned firing broke: “FUN Wednesday that just bring them up. FACT: President Nixon never fired the days before he was Director of the FBI fired, Comey asked for additional resources to expand and #FBIDirector #notNixonian.” Still, Oregon’s U.S. Senator Jeff further the investigation. The White House claimed that Merkley saw the similarities. He said Trump fired Comey because of how Tuesday that “Trump’s pattern of the FBI director mishandled Hillary firing people who are investigating Clinton and her email scandal, him is downright Nixonian, and which is so blatantly absurd as to members of Congress of both parties make the whole continent shudder should treat it with the same gravity with laughter. That Trump would that our predecessors did during have empathy for “crooked” Hillary Watergate.” Clinton, who he said during the You can see the words Trump’s campaign should be “locked up,” is opponents want brought back too much to believe. into daily use: Nixon. Watergate. The clear truth is that the White The Saturday Night Massacre. House fired Comey despite having no Impeachment. Investigation. Russia. set replacement, no clear message on Investigation. Russia. Investigation. why they were firing him at this time, Russia. Investigation. and no legal experts or surrogates to Whether Trump will meet the same defend the action. Certainly Trump fate as Nixon — helicoptered away had no explanation, other than a day to infamy — remains to be seen. later saying Comey “was not doing a But what the American people must good job.” demand is that members of Congress When he was let go, Comey was and employees of the FBI and the speaking at an FBI event across the Department of Justice remember country. He found out by watching that their duty and honor is to their television, and later a bodyguard country, not their boss. handed him an envelope and he was Comey should testify before a whisked away. That’s how Nixon bipartisan commission immediately. loved to do it, as do a whole range of An independent investigator and/ authoritarian strongmen. or special prosecutor — someone Like Nixon, Trump has become Trump cannot fire — must take on the increasingly isolated. His family lives dangerous burden of this investigation elsewhere, his public appearances and see it to its conclusion. 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 Suicide bill aims at wrong target The Baker City Herald W e agree with members of Oregon’s Legislature who want to reduce the state’s suicide rate. Indeed, does anybody not share that goal? But we disagree that a law — and in particular the constitutionally shaky bill that the Oregon Senate approved this week — is likely to accomplish, in any meaningful way, this noble objective. Senate Bill 719 passed by a 17-11 vote and is now under consideration in the House. The bill would require people whom a judge deems to be at risk of suicide or of harming another person to surrender all their guns or other potentially deadly weapons to police, a gun dealer or potentially a third party. The law would apply only if a judge approved what the bill calls an “extreme risk protection order.” A police officer, spouse, parent, child or sibling, or anyone living with the allegedly suicidal person could petition the court for such an order. If it’s approved, the person would have 24 hours to surrender guns and other weapons. Subjects of such an order could appeal, but the order would remain in effect until the appeal was decided. The order otherwise would be in effect for one year. Besides its potential conflicts with the Second Amendment, our main concern with the bill is that it focuses solely on the means by which a person might harm himself or others, but has nothing to do with the person’s motivations. And we’re not convinced that those motivations can be addressed through legislation. Not every societal problem can be fixed with a law. The Legislature can, and should, ensure that the state has a robust and accessible system available for people who seek help with severe emotional problems. But we don’t believe that Senate Bill 719, which treats distraught people as though they were criminals, constitutes that sort of help. Moreover, relatives and friends need no law to compel them to help people they’re worried about. That’s why people take the car keys from loved ones who have been drinking. YOUR VIEWS Procrastinators can still help build a new fire station For those of you, who like my family and me have not yet voted, I urge you to vote yes on the Pendleton general obligation fire station bond. Here’s why: The fire station on 10th and Court is over 50 years old (there were 4,000 fewer Pendletonians when it was new), isn’t big enough for modern emergency response equipment, lacks training space for emergency responders, is short on room for emergency responders and volunteers, and is located near two of the busier intersections in town, which causes reduced response times. Most importantly, because it doesn’t meet public health and safety codes, it puts the very people we rely on in an emergency at risk every time they come to work. The new fire station will be located at the old St. Anthony Hospital parking lot. This location was chosen for a variety of factors that includes land availability, site development costs, and faster response times across all of Pendleton (six seconds faster than the current site — and every second counts if you or your family or friends need help). Other discussed sites either are not for sale, would cost more to develop, or don’t improve response times — in other words, would not be smart investments. And, at a total cost of just under $10 million, the new fire station will cost the average homeowner less than $8 per month — less than two bags of potato chips per month. For that you get faster response times, better trained emergency responders with better equipment, healthier and safer emergency responders — and as a bonus, the new station will save taxpayers $50,000 per year in building maintenance costs. My family and I think this is a fantastic deal and we hope you do, too. So if you haven’t yet voted please vote yes today (or at least before May 16) on the Pendleton fire station bond. Scott Fairley City councilor, Pendleton New station needed, but not the one the bond will build Yes, Pendleton, we really do need a new fire station. Our fire and police personnel are the finest and deserve our respect and admiration for the job they do for our community. The present bond we are asking to approve is for a community that is growing vibrantly. This doesn’t appear to be happening. Take a look around at all the homes for sale, the empty buildings and some of the businesses pulling up stakes and leaving. Another observation and concern that I have: Look at the state-of-the-art schools that we just finished building. It appears that school attendance is down and the district is making necessary cuts to its budget, which includes laying off personnel. Those same people are the taxpaying citizens that paid for these schools. This is terribly wrong. Furthermore, not too long ago an expensive street sweeper, which wasn’t too old, suffered a mechanical breakdown. The decision was to purchase another at nearly ten times the amount that it would have cost to repair it. Poor decision? Look at the condition of our streets. A good share of the taxpaying citizens of this community are on limited and fixed incomes. Based on the above-stated observations and concerns on how money is being spent, the current proposal will be difficult to support. Freddy D. Johnson 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. Send letters to 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or editor@eastoregonian.com.
