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.