Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 8, 2017)
Page 4A OPINION East Oregonian Wednesday, November 8, 2017 OTHER VIEWS Mueller does what special prosecutors do D 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 Tax reform debate requires sharp eye It’s hard to cover the machinations of Washington, D.C., from the friendly wide open spaces of Eastern Oregon. It’s doubly hard when the issue being discussed in the Capitol is the American tax code, a mess so complicated that most Americans can barely make limited sense of it. Now how in the world could a reader translate the whispers, rumors and actual reports of possible changes to the system — and not just what effect those changes would have on you and your family — but on millions of other Americans, our national debt, the Federal Reserve and the global economic system? It’s near impossible, but that doesn’t mean we intend to give tax reform short shrift. Perhaps nothing is as important to our readers, and to the fiscal strength of our country and its inhabitants. Republicans are in control of all levers of the federal government, having secured the White House and a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives in 2016. Thus far, that hasn’t translated into any meaningful legislative victories, but tax reform is by far the best chance. Most Americans don’t trust Republicans when it comes to health care, but a majority do when it comes to fiscal policies. And tax reform also unites both the Trumpian and traditional wings of the Republican Party (who were divided on health care) as well as many moderate non-affiliated voters who yearn for simpler and lower taxes. “Tax reform,” at its core, is supported by a majority of Americans. But how you slice and dice “reform” moves its acceptability ratings. If a majority of the tax cuts and “reform” is perceived to benefit corporations and the rich, its popularity plummets. Therefore, it’s curious to see the first draft tax packages currently being debated in the House, which are centered around cutting taxes for corporations and the rich. That’s especially disappointing due to the fact that low-income Americans were the voters who swept Trump into the presidency. Republicans argue that those tax breaks will eventually trickle down, but on that fact many economists remain unconvinced and history hasn’t done much to sway them. The bill currently being debated would increase the standard deduction by about $5,500 for individuals and $11,000 for families. But at the same time, it would eliminate the personal exemption for each taxpayer and dependent, which could actually cause large families to pay more. Removing the medical expense tax deduction, as is proposed, would be good for the deficit but bad for many Americans already struggling with high medical costs. The student loan interest tax deduction is a significant help to many young people who pursue higher education. There are hundreds — maybe thousands — of nooks and crannies in these proposals, each of which will have real-world effects on the wallets and budgets of all Americans. And as it wends its way through committees, the bill is sure to change form many times over in ways both obvious and obscure. The Republican party establishment will have their go at it, as will lobbyists and special interest groups, and the Senate and White House hold key powers as well. Americans should remain positive about the possibility of true reform and its ability to improve our broken tax system. But we should demand fairness, simplicity and reasonableness from the tax code. And we should demand that the needs and desires of taxpayers outweigh the lobbyists and special interests, the corporations and the rich. It won’t be easy. But if it’s done, the American people and economy — as well as the political party that ushers it into being — stand to benefit. There are hundreds — maybe thousands — of nooks and crannies in these proposals. o you think Tony Podesta, Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller. the longtime Washington And what was Mueller appointed to Democratic lobbyist, fixer and do? First, “to conduct the investigation brother of Hillary Clinton campaign confirmed by then-FBI Director James manager John Podesta, colluded with B. Comey in testimony before the Russia to allow Donald Trump to win House Permanent Select Committee the 2016 election? on Intelligence on March 20, 2017,” Neither do I. the order said — a reference to the FBI Do you think Vin Weber — the counter-intelligence probe of Russian Byron longtime Washington Republican involvement in the 2016 election. York lobbyist and former member of the As part of that, Mueller was Comment House who opposed Trump and authorized to investigate “any said he would not stay in the GOP if links and/or coordination between Trump won — colluded with Russia to allow the Russian government and individuals Donald Trump to win the 2016 election? associated with the campaign of President Neither do I. Donald Trump.” It seems far-fetched to No one in his or her right include Podesta and Weber in mind would place Podesta or that category. Weber in a plot to help Russia Mueller was also put Trump in the White House. authorized to investigate Yet both men, apparently, “any matters that arose or have fallen into the snare of may arise directly from the the Robert Mueller special investigation.” Does that prosecutor investigation. include Podesta and Weber? Podesta is reportedly in It probably depends on Mueller’s crosshairs because your definition of the word Paul Manafort, the former “directly” — and your sense Trump campaign chairman of basic fairness. who is a key figure in the Mueller was also Mueller probe, brought Podesta into his work authorized to investigate “any other matters for something called the European Center for within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a).” a Modern Ukraine back in 2012. “The work That was a reference to the rules guiding for the European Center, which ended in special counsels, and it specifically referred 2014,” the New York Times reported recently, to a counsel’s power to “prosecute federal “was cited in the (Manafort) indictment as part crimes committed in the course of, and with of a ‘scheme’ by Mr. Manafort and (aide and intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s fellow indictee Rick) Gates to gain support investigation, such as perjury, obstruction in Washington for their longtime client, the of justice, destruction of evidence, and pro-Russian leader Viktor F. Yanukovych, a intimidation of witnesses.” Does that include former president of Ukraine, while evading Podesta and Weber? We don’t know, but it disclosure requirements for foreign lobbying.” seems unlikely. Does anyone know how Podesta’s Finally, there was this in Mueller’s charge: involvement, even if shady and suspect, “If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary furthered the alleged Russia-Trump and appropriate, the Special Counsel is conspiracy to win the White House? authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising Neither do I. from the investigation of these matters.” Now there are reports that Weber has Maybe that is where Podesta and Weber been caught up in the same investigation as come in. Podesta. “Investigators on Mueller’s team Whatever the case, what appears to have asked about what the lobbyists knew be happening is what has happened in about the source of the funding and who was other Washington special prosecutor directing the work in 2012 — long before investigations (and the old independent Manafort became Trump’s campaign chairman counsel investigations). They expand. They in 2016,” the Associated Press reported. ensnare people who might have had nothing Does anyone know how Weber’s to do with whatever the original subject of the work in 2012 — long before he became a investigation was. And they go on and on. NeverTrumper — helped Trump get elected? When Mueller was first appointed, some Neither do I. Republicans nearly tripped over themselves “With the emphasis on the Ukrainian saying what a great appointment it was. lobbying efforts, Mueller’s criminal probe is “Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special moving beyond investigating ties between counsel,” Newt Gingrich tweeted on May 17. the Trump campaign and Russia,” the AP “His reputation is impeccable for honesty and reported, “and is aggressively pursuing integrity.” Other Republicans said much the people who worked as foreign agents without same to me in conversations at the time. registering with the Justice Department.” Some, including Gingrich, later changed Go back to May 17 of this year. Attorney their minds. But the issue is not whether General Jeff Sessions had recused himself Robert Mueller is or is not a good man. The from the Russia investigation, and then issue is the immutable law of Washington President Trump fired FBI Director Comey, special prosecutor investigations, no matter and then Rod Rosenstein, number-two at the who is running them. Of course Mueller Justice Department, appointed Mueller as already appears to be venturing afield from special prosecutor. his original assignment. That’s what special Why did Rosenstein act? “To ensure prosecutors do. a full and thorough investigation of the ■ Russian government’s efforts to interfere in Byron York is chief political correspondent the 2016 presidential election,” according to for The Washington Examiner. Special investigations expand. And they go on and on. 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 Iran a dangerous and aggressive player on the world stage The Marietta (Ohio) Times ranian Revolutionary Guard officials announced Tuesday that the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, has restricted the range of missiles manufactured in Iran to 1,240 miles. Oh. Everything’s all right, then. All that worry over Iran’s missile and nuclear weapons programs was for nothing. Pardon our sarcasm. Analysts have said the Iranian announcement was meant to quiet concern about the country’s arms buildup. It should change nothing. For starters, missiles capable of I flying 1,240 miles from Iran can hit Israel, U.S. military bases and shipping in the region, including oil tankers on which Americans rely. Those are major worries. Then, there is the issue of believing anything the Iranian leadership says. For years, Tehran insisted it was not engaged in an arms buildup. It was. And the regime maintains it has not sent troops, arms and money to help terrorist organizations. It has. At least Iran is not North Korea, where saber rattling is a way of life. That is small consolation, however. Tuesday’s announcement, on the other hand, is no reassurance at all. It’s hard to believe anything the Iranian leadership says. YOUR VIEWS State income tax deduction key for American middle class Like most middle class Oregonians, I rely on itemized deductions to reduce my federal tax burden. The deduction for state income taxes is important to Oregonians because we pay a much higher than average (among the 50 states) state income tax. The elimination of that deduction would adversely impact myself and a lot of other middle class Oregon taxpayers. And who benefits from our loss? The wealthy elite. Currently the top tax rate for couples applies to those making more than $470,700. Under “tax reform,” the top rate will apply only to those making over $1,000,000. A million dollars a year? How many people in southern and Eastern Oregon make that kind of money? So middle class Oregonians will pay more federal income tax due to the elimination of the deduction for state income tax, and people making between $470,700 and $1,000,000 will pay less. What kind of upside-down logic is that — stiffing the middle class so the wealthy elite can pay less? I ask our Congressman, Greg Walden, to protect the deduction for state income taxes and let the wealthy elite pay their fair share. 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.
