Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (July 27, 2017)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Thursday, July 27, 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 The drama of politics We don’t often comment on national news in this space. We’re a long way from Washington, and what happens there often doesn’t trickle out our way for many moons. But it’s a fascinating to spy on the beltway every once in a while, and perhaps there has been no better time to do so than this week. The U.S. Senate is debating health care — a monumental issue in the lives of every American — and its future remains dramatically in doubt. Political buffs everywhere have found themselves glued to C-SPAN, reading every newspaper they can find, brushing up on Senate rules, and watching how representatives from both sides of the aisle try to frame the issue and move the debate. Guilty as charged here on the EO editorial board — we’ve been tuned to the C-SPAN livestream nonstop. Along the way we’ve brushed up on the definition of reconciliation, the Byrd Rule, “regular order,” filibustering and the old parliamentarian — the umpire of the Senate, who calls balls and strikes when it comes to protocol. Politics is often a dreadfully dull affair — little more than working on budgets and spreadsheets while following the arcane rules of the parliamentary body. But not at this moment. This week, Republicans are trying to hold their slim majority together with spit and glue, Democrats united in opposition but powerless to stop legislation on their own, and then there’s a wild card president who has taken little interest in crafting legislation but has a keen interest in ripping apart those who “lose.” If that isn’t enough, you have John McCain flying in, fresh off a brain cancer diagnosis, to vote and debate, and also excoriate his fellow senators for their lack of action for the good of the American people. It’s high drama and heady stuff. But to really understand what the heck is going on, you’ll first need to dive headlong into some nonfiction. If the rules of the Senate spark your interest, and you want to make heads or tails of the minutiae, check out “The U.S. Senate: Fundamentals of American Government” by Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota. For a historical perspective, “The American Senate: An Insider’s History,” by Neil MacNeill is worth a read. And if you really want to get into the weeds, “Congressional Deskbook: The Practical and Comprehensive Guide to Congress” is a must-read for every new DC staffer trying to orient themselves to America’s most powerful deliberative body. And a “body” is a good way to look at the Senate. Right now it’s split almost down the middle and you can see how everything works. 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 National parks should be affordable — especially for seniors The Baker City Herald T he National Park Service turned 100 last year, and the venerable agency has not aged particularly well. Park Service officials estimate that the backlog of deferred maintenance at the 417 sites they manage would cost about $11.6 billion. That’s close to four times more money than Congress gives the agency each year. Critics say President Trump’s proposed budget would worsen the Park Service’s fiscal woes but in one important sense that’s not accurate. Although Trump does propose an overall cut in the agency’s budget for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, the president’s proposal actually calls for the government to spend $33.3 million more for construction, planning and deferred maintenance in national parks. And yet, starting Aug. 28, the federal government will boost the cost from $10 to $80 for the lifetime pass people age 62 or older can buy to gain free admission to national parks as well as other recreation sites managed by federal agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM. We understand that the government hasn’t increased the cost of the senior pass since 1994. And we appreciate that people who either fail to lock in their $10 bargain before Aug. 28, or who don’t turn 62 until after that date, can buy annual passes for $20 for each of the next four years, and then convert the pass to a lifetime pass for no extra cost. But $70 is still $70. And we’re skeptical that the benefits the Park Service will realize from the 7-fold price hike will even come close to offsetting the financial penalty it imposes on people, some of whom have fixed incomes. Certainly Social Security payments aren’t rising 700 percent. And it happens that the first $10 million the Park Service collects each year from senior pass sales is deposited in an endowment that might, or might not, be used to actually improve national parks. According to the agency itself, that money must be spent “on projects and activities approved by the Secretary of Interior to further the mission and purpose of the National Park Service.” That’s generic enough a description to include activities other than fixing trails or building new restrooms, to be sure. Nor is there any guarantee that the rest of the money from senior pass sales, beyond that initial $10 million annually, will do tangible work in national parks. Every dollar in excess of $10 million goes to the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund, which can also be used for a variety of projects but also, crucially, requires at least a one-to-one match by non-federal donations. Federal officials estimate the new, more expensive passes will generate $35 million to $40 million annually. The bottom line here is that the people who will have to shell out $70 more for a federal pass might never benefit directly from those additional dollars. The situation is potentially different locally, however. Although there are no national parks in Baker County, both the BLM and the Forest Service also sell senior passes. The key difference is that when those agencies sell passes locally — at, say, the BLM’s Oregon Trail Interpretive Center — at least 80 percent of the money is spent on projects at the site where the pass was sold. Nonetheless, we can’t imagine how the $70 increase in the senior pass fee can reasonably be deemed a bargain for anybody who buys one. At least people who buy one at the Interpretive Center are more likely to see an actual effect than if they plunk down their dollars at, say, Yosemite or Yellowstone. In the meantime, we urge anybody who will turn 62 before Aug. 28 to buy their $10 lifetime pass as soon as possible. The backlog in national park maintenance is $11.6 billion. OTHER VIEWS Why are Republicans trouncing Democrats in fundraising? T he Republican president has congressional race that turned into a job approval rating around a referendum on the president. But 40 percent. The GOP has an the fact is, the passions behind The unfavorability rating around 56 percent. Resistance have not, or have not yet, And Republicans trail Democrats by turned into support for the main vehicle nine points in an average of “generic of opposition to Trump, the Democratic ballot” polls. Party. All of which makes it notable that Democrats have simply not gotten the Republican National Committee over the Hillary-Bernie split that Byron is trouncing the Democratic National plagued the party last year. And they York Committee when it comes to raising have not decided what they will be Comment money, especially from small donors. in the future. Remember, this is a The numbers are striking. In June, party that won the White House in the RNC raised $13.5 million to the DNC’s 2008 and 2012 on the strength of the Obama $5.5 million. coalition of minorities, young people, and the For 2017 so far, the RNC college educated — the has raised $75.4 million to group political journalist the DNC’s $38.2 million. Ron Brownstein calls the The RNC started the “coalition of the ascendant.” year with $25.3 million in It’s not an exaggeration cash-on-hand. Now it has to say that many believed $44.7 million. The DNC demographics favored started the year with $10.5 in them so heavily that they cash-on-hand. Now, that has were virtually guaranteed fallen to $7.5 million. Democratic victories in the As of June 30, the RNC years ahead. And then the reported $0 in debt. The Trump victory reminded DNC reported $3.3 million them that there are still in debt. a lot of working-class A look inside the numbers voters in the country who is even worse for the DNC. aren’t necessarily natural Looking at collections from small donors — Democrats. that is, those who contributed less than $200 This week, Democrats led by Senate — the RNC raised $10.5 million in the months Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House of May and June. The DNC raised $5.3 million Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi rolled out a from small donors in the same time period. new agenda, which they call “A Better Deal,” The RNC’s money total is a record which is designed to appeal to those disaffected — more than was raised in any previous voters. And not a minute too soon. When a non-presidential election year. That is true for recent ABC-Washington Post poll asked, “Do June, and for all of 2017 as well. The $75.4 you think the Democratic Party currently million raised this year compares to $55.4 stands for something, or just stands against million for the same period in 2015; to $51.2 Trump?” — just 37 percent said the party for the same period in 2014; to $41.1 million stands for something, while 52 percent said it for the same period in 2013, and so on going just stands against Trump, and 11 percent had back. no opinion. “It’s definitely a reflection of support for So now Democrats have a huge job in front President Trump,” said RNC spokesman Ryan of them. And it is unclear whether Tom Perez, Mahoney. “Our small-dollar donors are giving the Hillary Clinton-backed candidate who won at a record pace because they believe the RNC the DNC chairmanship in a divisive battle is supporting President Trump, and they like with Rep. Keith Ellison earlier this year, is the that.” man to do it. Last month, in explaining another The obvious reason for the Democrats’ dismal fundraising period for the Democrats, troubles is that they lost the White House, the Perez distanced himself from the problem. “I House and the Senate last year. Now, the party got here on March 1,” Perez told MSNBC, appears to have a particularly bad hangover. “and I was the first to say it, we’ve got a lot of One data point: In 2013, after Republicans rebuilding to do.” lost their second presidential election in a row The new fundraising numbers don’t predict and many believed the party faced years in what will happen in 2018. But they do say what the electoral wilderness, the RNC still raised is happening now. And that is, in spite of his more money in the January-June period, $41.1 problems there is enough support for Trump million, than the $38.2 million the Democrats in the Republican base to set new small-donor have raised so far this year. fundraising records, while Democrats have yet There is much discussion about the intensity another measure of the work that lies ahead. of Democratic opposition to President Trump, ■ and indeed Democrats showed a lot of Byron York is chief political correspondent fundraising enthusiasm in the losing Georgia for The Washington Examiner. Democrats have simply not gotten over the Hillary- Bernie split that plagued the party last year. YOUR VIEWS Affordable Care Act repeal would hurt rural Oregonians As a lung doctor, I spend a lot of time hearing about what it’s like when you can’t breathe. If you can’t breathe, you can’t work. If your kids can’t breathe, they can’t go to school, and someone has to miss work to stay home. That’s dollars out of the family budget. My patients from rural Oregon suffer a great deal from respiratory diseases, whether from high pollen counts and wildfires outdoors to woodstoves or tobacco smoke indoors. Unfortunately, all of these illnesses are treated with avoidance (which can be hard) as well as inhalers. Ask anyone you know who needs an inhaler, and he or she will tell you that there aren’t any generics, and the co-pays can be very high. They are almost impossible for the average family to buy out-of- pocket. If you end up in the ER or hospital, things can be even more expensive. People die from diseases like lung cancer more in rural areas, stage for stage, likely due to difficulties accessing care. These problems are similar for almost every medical problem, from heart disease to diabetes. The Affordable Care Act helped provide more access to medications and care across our state, especially in rural Oregon. The benefits were biggest for many of our rural hospitals, which had been providing a great deal of uncompensated care prior to the expansion of Oregon Medicaid and the individual insurance market. Hospitals were stabilized and Oregon added over 20,000 healthcare jobs after the ACA. It has also allowed for innovation in healthcare, trying to expand telemedicine services further into rural areas to help chip away at those differences in health outcomes based on location. Where you live shouldn’t determine the quality of your family’s healthcare, and it is impossible to have a healthy economy without healthy people. The recent House and Senate bills, as well as any repeal of the ACA without a viable replacement, would be devastating to rural Oregon. It would cause the loss of medication and health coverage for many as well as the loss of healthcare jobs. Rural hospitals and clinics may be closed or scaled back. The Affordable Care Act was not perfect, but it was a good starting point. It needs to be built upon and strengthened, potentially by increasing subsidies, adding an affordable public option or expanding Medicaid or Medicare eligibility, not by destroying all the progress that has been made. Erika Maria Moseson, M.D., M.A. Portland 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.
