Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 31, 2017)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Tuesday, October 31, 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 EO MEDIA GROUP East Oregonian • The Daily Astorian • Capital Press • Hermiston Herald Blue Mountain Eagle • Wallowa County Chieftain • Chinook Observer • Coast River Business Journal Oregon Coast Today • Coast Weekend • Seaside Signal • Cannon Beach Gazette Eastern Oregon Real Estate Guide • Eastern Oregon Marketplace • Coast Marketplace OnlyAg.com • FarmSeller.com • Seaside-Sun.com • NorthwestOpinions.com • DiscoverOurCoast.com OUR VIEW Harassment much too common in halls of power The allegations of sexual as sexist, demeaning or harassing, harassment in the Oregon Capitol are don’t speak it. If you wonder whether disturbing, though not surprising. a hug is appropriate, ask the person. Sexual harassment occurs in too If you want to compliment someone’s many workplaces, and capitols seem a shirt, do so nicely — without praising prime breeding ground because of the the person’s body or letting your eyes linger. inherent power imbalance. Victims Sexual harassment is never of sexual harassment — whether acceptable, never understandable, lawmakers, lobbyists or legislative never tolerable, and certainly not at employees — often are reluctant the Oregon Capitol. Of all people, to speak out for fear of losing their lawmakers have political influence or a responsibility to their jobs. and heed the It took courage Harassment and know rules and laws they for two female state senators — Sara intimidation in create. The Oregon Gelser, D-Corvallis, and another unnamed the workplace is Legislature’s personnel rules senator — to report never OK. clearly state that what they considered sexual harassment sexual harassment can constitute “unwelcome conduct in by a colleague, Sen. Jeff Kruse, the form of a sexual advance, sexual R-Roseburg. comment, request for sexual favors, Kruse has denied the allegations, unwanted or offensive touching or which are under investigation physical contact of a sexual nature, by legislative officials. What we unwanted closeness, impeding or do know, from a letter by Senate blocking movement, sexual gesture, President Peter Courtney stripping sexual innuendo, sexual joke, sexually Kruse of his committee assignments, charged language, intimate inquiry, is that legislative officials in 2016 instructed Kruse “not to touch women persistent unwanted courting, sexist insult, gender stereotype, or other at work. Period.” verbal or physical conduct of a sexual Some Oregonians may argue that nature … ” sexual harassment is an example of Before each legislative session, political correctness run amok. Or every legislator and every legislative that changing generational standards employee — hundreds of people make it difficult for people, men — must attend mandatory training especially, to know how to act. Not on maintaining a harassment-free so. Harassment or intimidation in the workplace and other policies. No one workplace is never OK. For anyone who is uncertain about is exempt from that training. Yet sexual harassment still occurs. what to do, here are tips: If you’re unsure whether a remark will be heard And it’s still inexcusable. 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 leadership needed to combat the opioid crisis The (Memphis, Tenn.) Commercial Appeal A fter months of delay, President Donald Trump has promised to declare America’s opioid abuse epidemic a national emergency, offering a brief and faint glimmer of hope that something might at last be done about the crisis. The White House’s attention is long overdue. The epidemic claimed the lives of at least 64,000 people in 2016, including 1,631 in Tennessee, which ranks second in the country in opioid prescriptions per capita and ninth in drug-related deaths per 100,000 people. Unfortunately, what appeared to be progress on the opioid front was tempered by a report by The Washington Post and CBS’ “60 Minutes” that Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pennsylvania), Trump’s nominee to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy, had been instrumental in pushing through the drug industry-backed Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act. The legislation stripped the Drug Enforcement Agency of the ability to freeze shipments of opioids to doctors and pharmacies believed to be fueling the addiction problem. Marino quickly withdrew his name from any consideration as the drug czar. U.S. Rep Marsha Blackburn, (R-Tennessee) who has declared her candidacy for retiring Sen. Bob Corker’s seat in 2018, conceded that the bill might have had “unintended consequences.” Still, at least for the moment, it appears that Trump’s presidential campaign promise to solve the opioid crisis might finally have been moved up on the president’s priority list. But the president’s commitment must go beyond lip service. If opioid abuse is a national emergency, why has the administration proposed budget cuts for federal agencies and programs that could be brought to bear on the crisis, including Medicaid, which pays for about one-fourth of all substance-abuse treatment? How to justify the president’s petulant attempts to allow or force Obamacare to “implode,” which would take insurance coverage away from millions of Americans with substance abuse disorders? In Congress, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington), are working on a bipartisan agreement that could delay Obamacare’s demise by providing critical subsidies to health insurers that Trump has threatened to cut off. A hearing by Alexander’s Senate Health Committee focused on the opioid epidemic, which, the senators said, is “tearing our communities apart, tearing families apart, and posing an enormous challenge to health providers and law enforcement officials.” Credit the law enforcement community with approaching the opioid crisis from a new angle: Bringing murder charges against the people suspected of supplying a deadly dose of drugs. Much more needs to be done to combat the over-prescription of opioids by medical practitioners, insufficient treatment programs for addicts, and find alternative methods of controlling pain. Police officers need to be supplied with the anti-overdose remedy naloxone. The opioid epidemic is, indeed, a national emergency. It is a health care crisis that is deadlier than any hurricane, fire or terrorist attack. This national crisis must be addressed by strong, committed and consistent national leadership that goes beyond formal declarations and the recitation of grim statistics. Donald Trump wants to raise your taxes T to put a chicken in every pot. Donald he old formula for passing a big Trump’s wants to put a yacht at every tax cut for the rich was simple: private dock. Package it with a modest tax Having lavished so much money cut for the middle class — and talk on the wealthy, the tax package — or endlessly about the middle-class part. at least the vague framework that the President Donald Trump and administration has released — doesn’t Congress are following the formula in have much remaining to spend on some ways. Their plan would deliver middle class and poor families. For an average tax cut of $700,000 to David the nation’s 175,000 richest families. Leonhardt them, the package is a mix of pluses and minuses. Many face a lower tax That’s enough for each to buy a new Comment rate, but some face a higher one, and 50-foot yacht, annually. Meanwhile, many families lose deductions. Trump and other Republican leaders The combination creates a lot of losers. keep repeating “middle class,” “middle class,” Reduced deductions for children, for example, “middle class.” Yet there is also a major difference between hurt large families, notes NYU’s Lily Batchelder. And the deduction for state and the current plan and George W. Bush’s tax cut local taxes — also a target for cuts — now or Ronald Reagan’s. Trump’s plan would not benefits 30 percent of actually cut taxes for many households nationwide. It middle-class families. It was the main reason for last would raise them. week’s House defections, These families are in and the tensions over it the minority, yes. But there haven’t been resolved. are a lot of them. About Then there are the long- 17 percent of households term problems I mentioned earning between $50,000 earlier. First, Trump’s plan and $150,000 would see takes a skimpy approach to their taxes rise immediately, inflation adjustments, which according to the only will push many families rigorous analysis so far, by the Tax Policy Center. into higher tax brackets over Among households earning time. Second, the plan would between $150,000 and radically increase the federal $250,000, the share is about deficit, and when it comes 35 percent. to the deficit, what goes These numbers would up must eventually come grow over time, for reasons down. At some point, the I’ll explain. Ultimately, the government will need to pay plan would be likely to hurt the finances of its bills, through a combination of tax increases the vast majority of Americans. No wonder it and spending cuts. is starting to look politically vulnerable. Last Virtually any future deficit-reduction week, a precursor bill barely passed the House, plan — except for a repeal of the Trump tax receiving 20 no votes from Republicans, many plan — would hurt most families more than worried about the tax increases. his plan helps them. This chain of events Republican leaders certainly have a path has happened before. The Reagan and Bush to passing a tax bill, because nothing unites tax cuts may have at first seemed to help the modern Republicans the way a tax cut does. middle class and poor. But the deficits led But the opposition to the recent health care to later cuts in education, medical research, bills also started as an underdog and managed transportation and anti-poverty programs that to prevail, by relentlessly talking about almost surely erased the benefits of a modest the bills’ effects. When enough Americans tax cut. Already, today’s congressional leaders understood the truth, enough members of are talking about sizable cuts to Medicare and Congress felt pressure to vote no. Medicaid. The same could happen on taxes. It is Trump and his allies are feverishly trying to starting to. Recent polls suggest the plan’s claim their plan really would benefit the middle approval rating is only about 30 percent. class. Their latest talking point is the notion To understand the Trump tax increases, that corporate tax cuts will create an indirect you should first acknowledge the most windfall for workers. Funny, though, how the admirable feature of his plan. It doesn’t wealthy get most of the direct benefits, while aspire to be merely a tax cut. It aspires to be everyone else has to hope for indirect ones tax reform — both cuts and increases. Some somehow to materialize. deductions shrink, while rates fall, in the name The main lesson of this year’s health care of simplifying the tax code. battle was the political power of facts. They But after this promising start, the plan don’t always win the day, but it’s better to have commits its cardinal sin. It places the highest them as an ally than an enemy. Right now, facts priority on huge tax cuts for the very wealthy. are the biggest problem for Trump’s tax plan. They get lower rates and get to keep cherished ■ tax breaks, like the “carried interest” loophole. David Leonhardt is an op-ed columnist for Herbert Hoover’s Republican Party wanted The New York Times. About 17 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see their taxes rise immediately. YOUR VIEWS U.S. should close borders to legal and illegal immigration We have a crisis in the U.S. that is not being discussed in the press. This has to do with the rapid increase in immigration. It’s important to note I mean “legal” immigration where people actually go through the process of becoming U.S. citizens. The Center For Immigration Studies’ recent report is alarming, and no one seems to be discussing it. We gained 1.5 million immigrants in 2014 and added 914,000 just in the first six months of 2015. As of September 2017 the U.S. had 43.7 million immigrants (this does include illegal immigrants). That is an increase of 3.8 million since 2010, and up 12.6 million since 2000. One in five U.S. citizens are now immigrants. The USA population will be 438 million by 2050. It was 286 million in 2005. Eighty-two percent of this increase will be due to “legal” immigration. The entire country will be drastically different by then as it attempts to adjust to this huge increase. Keep in mind, once again, this does not account for the “illegal” immigration, which has added at least 11 million to our population in recent times. Just imagine the burden that will be placed on agriculture, the need for clean water, the huge increase in housing required, schools, hospitals, law enforcement, sewage treatment, air quality — the list goes on and on and on. Do you enjoy the clean air, wildlife, fishing or your national parks? You can forget those as they will be converted to mobile home parks by then. Do you enjoy the wide open spaces in our national forests? Those will be malls and high rise apartments crowded next to each other by then. It is not popular to say, but in addition to controlling “illegal” immigration, we have to do something to slow down legal immigration as well. The desire for people around the world to have a better life and escape poverty, poor diets, lack of freedoms, etc., is understandable. But everything has to have a limit. The U.S. just can not continue to absorb this huge increase in humanity forever. The U.S. simply does not owe every immigrant who wants to come here the right to move in, even if they are legal. Are we really willing to leave this unsustainable burden to our kids and grandkids? David Burns Pendleton
