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.