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or information that is outdated and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.