Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 13, 2017)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Friday, October 13, 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 Tip of the hat; kick in the pants A kick in the pants to the city of Umatilla for not giving voters there the opportunity to weigh in on a new OSU Extension Service taxing district. All of the other 16 cities in Umatilla and Morrow counties took the democratic approach and let voters decide on a proposed levy to support extension services in the two counties. Even if councilors in those municipalities are not personally in favor of a new taxing district, they know enough to allow the taxpayers the ability to make the decision for themselves. After all, taxpayers are the ones who will use and pay for extension services, so they should have the final say in the matter. But in Umatilla, city government disagreed and kept the decision out of voter hands. Those in the city who do find value in the service will have to pay à la carte for the programs, if the district is approved. That’s still a big if — creating a new taxing district requires a lot of voter education and hard campaigning. But Umatilla took its action without any consult with organizations — like the Umatilla School District — who currently benefit from OSU Extension services. Those programs are now in danger. So too, we argue, should be the status quo in how the city of Umatilla government operates. A kick of the pants to the Oregon State Police Sex Offender Registration Section. As we found in the course of reporting Thursday’s story “Sexual predator sparks Pendleton man to sound alarm,” the state’s sex offender registry is often well behind on timely information about where offenders and predators are living and how people in the neighborhood should protect themselves. It’s disappointing that a service that can help keep Oregon safe so often offers a total lack of information, or information that is outdated and untimely. We can argue the legitimate, complex issues surrounding the nation’s and the state’s sex offender registry system — both in its efficacy and its respect for the rights of people who have served their time for the crime they committed. But we should all be able to agree on the fact that state agencies, paid to enact the law, should do it to the best of their abilities, and to a standard that makes the law useful. 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 State reins in prison spending with new law Albany Democrat-Herald A law approved by this year’s Legislature appears to have made some immediate progress toward one of its goals, fending off for the time being the costly opening of a second women’s prison in the state. But whether the law in the long run improves public safety in Oregon will depend on a large degree on the state’s willingness to properly fund community- based corrections programs. A new report from the state Office of Economic Analysis reports that the state’s prison population is expected to be 11 percent less in the coming decade than previously projected. That’s mainly thanks to House Bill 3078, which made three adjustments to state law to try to reduce the number of female prisoners: • First, it expanded eligibility criteria for the Family Sentencing Alternative Pilot Program to allow more parents to participate. • Second, it increased the limit for a supporting early-release program known as short-term transitional leave from 90 to 120 days. • The third provision was by far the most controversial: It reduces the sentences for first-degree theft and identity theft, from 18 months down to 13 months. Lawmakers targeted those specific crimes because they’re more likely to be committed by women. Many district attorneys, including Linn County’s Doug Marteeny, had serious reservations about that provision. The bill ended up passing mostly on party lines, with Democrats tending to support it and Republicans against. Mostly as a result of the bill, the number of inmates housed in Oregon prisons (14,725 as of the Oct. 1 report) is expected to fall significantly over the next five years and then should grow nominally. The number of female inmates is expected to drop by 8 percent. The overall inmate population is expected to drop by 0.1 percent in the next 10 years, compared to an estimated 12 percent growth in the state’s population. (Over the previous 10 years, the inmate population has kept pace with the state’s population.) One immediate result: Plans to open the second women’s prison, with a price tag of $10 million, have been put on ice for the time being. But it will take years to gauge the full impact of the new law — and whether it makes Oregon communities safer. Tim Colahan, executive director of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, told the Portland Tribune that the law needs “to be judged by the impact on the rates of crime and recidivism ... safety should not be compromised for savings.” One of the bill’s proponents, Andy Ko, the executive director of the nonprofit group Partnership for Safety and Justice, argued the other side to the Tribune: “We know that addiction and mental illness are the primary contributors to many drug and property crimes.” Ko said it makes more sense to invest in drug abuse treatment, mental health care and other services instead of warehousing inmates in prison cells. But it’s essential that the state follow through on this effort by ensuring that community-based correctional programs are properly funded. Prisons, of course, are by far the most expensive stop on the corrections program. Which is why community-based programs, done right and funded adequately, can be considerably more cost-effective than prison and help reduce recidivism rates. But if we’re just releasing offenders back into the community with limited supervision and without access to the mental-health and addiction programs they need, we won’t be doing them any favors. The $10 million saved by not opening another women’s prison helped to plug the state’s billion-dollar budget shortfall. But imagine if we had been able to spend all of that money on community- based programs. It’s another example of the difficulty state officials have in focusing on solutions that will save money and make communities stronger. Weinstein and our culture of enablers O f all of the dismaying and The outrage over Weinstein also disgusting details of the Harvey has a whiff of opportunism. In recent Weinstein saga, none is more years, notes New York magazine’s depressing than this: It has so few Rebecca Traister, Weinstein has “lost heroes. power in the movie industry” and There is a storybook villain, is no longer “the indie mogul who Weinstein, whose repulsive face turns could make or break an actor’s Oscar out to be the spitting image of his chances.” Lame horses get shot. putrescent soul. There are victims, It’s in this context that one can Bret so many of them, typically up-and- Stephens mount a defense of sorts for Weinstein, comers in an industry where he had the who inhabited a moral universe that Comment power to make or wreck their careers, did nothing but cheer his golden touch or bully or buy their silence, or, if and wink at (or look away from) his some allegations are to be believed, rape them. transgressions — right until the moment that But mostly there are enablers, both those it became politically inconvenient to do so. who facilitated his predations Conservatives are trying to and those who found it make hay of the fact that expedient to look the other Weinstein donated lavishly way. to Democratic politicians, The enablers were of backed progressive causes all sorts. Corporate board and distributed films such members who declined to as “The Hunting Ground,” a investigate allegations of his documentary about campus sexual behavior and now sexual assault. claim the news comes as “an But the important truth utter surprise.” Assistants about Weinstein isn’t his who acted as “honeypots,” moral hypocrisy: In movies joining meetings between as in politics, hypocrisy Weinstein and his intended victims to give isn’t just an accepted fact of life but also an them a sense of security — and then leaving essential part of the job. the predator to his prey. Reporters who paid The important truth is that he was just him tribute with awards, did his bidding with another libidinous cad in a libertine culture fawning coverage, or went after his enemies that long ago dispensed with most notions of with hit pieces. A lavishly paid Italian studio personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior. executive whose real job, according to former “I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s, when all Times reporter Sharon Waxman, was “to the rules about behavior and workplaces were take care of Weinstein’s women needs.” (A different,” Weinstein wrote in his mea culpa lawyer for the executive reportedly denies the to The Times last week. “That was the culture allegation.) then.” And then there was the rest of Hollywood. That line was roundly mocked, but it Weinstein’s depredations were an open contains its truth. Like those other libidinous film industry secret, the subject of an onstage cads — Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — joke by Seth MacFarlane at the 2013 Oscar Weinstein benefited from a culture that often nomination announcement. Everyone laughed celebrated, constantly depicted, sometimes because everyone got it. Some of his victims, enabled, seldom confronted, and all-too such as Gwyneth Paltrow, became Hollywood frequently forgave the behavior they so often powers in their own right but never publicly indulged in. rang an alarm until this week. The actor Ben Hyenas cannot help their own nature. But Affleck, who owes his start to Weinstein, is the work of a morally sentient society is to an overnight laughingstock because he acts prevent them from taking over the savanna. surprised by the producer’s behavior. He Our society, by contrast, festooned Weinstein won’t be the only celebrity doing his best with honors, endowed him with riches, and Claude Rains “shocked, shocked” impression. enabled him to feast on his victims without Even some of the ostensibly good guys serious consequence for the better part of 30 in this saga cannot be let off lightly. In The years. The old saw that all that is needed for New Yorker, Ronan Farrow reports that Irwin evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Reiter, a top Weinstein Co. executive, sought was never truer than it was in Weinstein’s to console one of the office assistants harassed case. by Weinstein by saying the “mistreatment of It may be that Weinstein’s epic downfall women” was a long-standing company issue will scare straight other sexual miscreants, or and that “if you were my daughter he would at least those who tolerate their behavior and not have made out so well.” But Reiter never are liable for its consequences. Don’t count went public. on it. Our belated indictment of him now does Perhaps it should come as no surprise that too much to acquit his many accomplices, and an industry built around pretended characters too little to transform a culture that never gave and scenarios could have pretended for so him a reason to change. long that nothing was amiss. Perhaps it should ■ be no surprise, either, that its concept of ethics Bret Stephens won a Pulitzer Prize for is every bit as ersatz and inconstant as most commentary in 2013. He began working as a everything else in Tinseltown. columnist at The New York Times in April. Weinstein is a storybook villain, but this saga has so few heroes. YOUR VIEWS Tax relief for billionaires at the expense of the middle class The proposed tax reform bill under consideration by Congress will reduce the tax rate paid by those making over $400,000 and eliminate federal income tax for those making less than $25,000 per year, and it will eliminate the federal estate tax, which is imposed on joint estates over $11,000,000. The tax rate paid by corporations will be reduced from 35 percent to 20 percent. The bill will also eliminate substantially all itemized deductions other than mortgage interest and charitable donations. This means that you will no longer be able to claim a deduction on your federal income tax return for the Oregon income tax and real property taxes that you pay, and substantially all other itemized deductions will be eliminated except mortgage interest and charitable deductions. If you earn between $25,000 and $400,000 and claim itemized deductions on your tax return, you will probably pay more under the proposed tax reform bill. The richest and poorest and the corporations will pay less. Eighty percent of the income tax benefits will go to people with incomes of more than $740,000 per year. One hundred percent of the estate tax benefits will go to families with estates over $11,000,000. Those of us in the middle class who claim itemized deductions will pay more. Talk to your tax preparer to confirm that the above facts are true. Then call Greg Walden and let him know how you feel about this. You can guess how I feel about it. Allen Drescher Ashland 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.
