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