East Oregonian
A4
Thursday, January 3, 2019
CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
‘Fixing PERS is Job. 1
— and it’s doable’
A
new legislative report under-
scores that PERS could be
headed for more trouble.
The report from the Legislative Fis-
cal Office reaffirms that the Oregon
Public Employees Retirement System
remains highly dependent on invest-
ment income for its financial stabil-
ity. That is not a surprise. However, it
should concern Oregon officials, espe-
cially in light of the current global
economic swings.
Our federal leaders are not helping,
with their trade disputes and partial
government shutdown. Their lack of
fiscal leadership and political cooper-
ation adds to worries that the U.S. will
fall into a recession. Where the nation
goes economically, so goes Oregon.
The legislative report is based on a
study last year from the Pew Charita-
ble Trusts, which compared state pen-
sion plans for fiscal 2016. PERS had
one of the worst ratios of operating
cash flow.
On the other hand, PERS is one
of the better-funded public pension
plans. Cumulatively, state pension
plans amassed a $1.4 trillion defi-
cit, because they generally are pay-
ing more in benefits than they receive
in pension contributions. Poor invest-
ment returns also are factors, although
PERS has done relatively well.
So … PERS is not in danger of
imminent insolvency, it is in better
condition than many state funds but it
is more subject to market volatility.
It should be of little comfort that
PERS is not as bad off as other pub-
lic pension funds. PERS’ unfunded
actuarial liability forces schools and
local governments to cut current jobs
and services to pay for pensions. The
burden can fall disproportionately on
rural Oregon, as is detailed in the win-
ter edition of The Other Oregon, a
quarterly magazine from EO Media
Group.
Rural Oregon also has proposed
solutions. Mark Mulvihill, superin-
tendent of the InterMountain Edu-
cation Service District in Pendle-
ton, has proposed changing state law
to allow longtime public employ-
ees to collect both their pension and
their salary for several years before
retirement. Schools and government
agencies would benefit from retaining
good workers who were considering
Staff photo by Kathy Aney, File
Mark Mulvihill (right) fields questions after a 2015 presentation at the Oregon Leadership
Summit at the Oregon Convention Center. Mulvihill, the superintendent of the InterMountain
Education Service District, has proposed allowing pubic employees to draw a pension while
working to help pay down PERS liability.
retiring, employees would have more
money in the short term, and they and
their employer would contribute 6
percent of their salary toward paying
down the employer’s PERS liability.
The PERS burden is stagger-
ing, and it’s growing exponentially.
For Clatskanie and Ontario — cit-
ies on opposite sides of the state —
the burden is roughly the equivalent
of six times the city’s annual payroll,
according to 2017 figures from PERS.
That is why the Oregon Business
Plan said in a report last month: “Fix-
ing PERS is Job 1, and it’s doable.”
Among the plan’s recommenda-
tions: Oregon should again require
that public employees contribute 6
percent of their pay to their pension,
similar to what most states do. Ore-
gon could move to a defined-contribu-
tion system, like a 401(k), for future
employees. The state also could give
current employees a choice of staying
with PERS or switching to a 401(k).
All are solid ideas. All are reason-
able. Only one thing is missing so far
— leadership from Gov. Kate Brown
and the Legislature.
OTHER VIEWS
When Democrats embraced the ‘southern border fencing strategy’
n 2006, Congress passed the Secure
Fence Act, which mandated the con-
struction of multilayer pedestrian fenc-
ing along about 600 miles of the U.S.-Mex-
ico border. It passed with big, bipartisan
majorities: 283 votes in the House and 80
in the Senate. Some top
Democrats who are still
in the Senate today sup-
ported the fence: Charles
Schumer, Dianne Fein-
stein, Ron Wyden, Deb-
bie Stabenow and Sher-
rod Brown.
Just the next year,
B yron
Congress
made clear it
y ork
didn’t
really
mean what
COMMENT
it said. The new law was
amended to make fence
building optional.
In 2013, Congress got back into the
fence game. The “Gang of Eight’s” com-
prehensive immigration reform bill
included something called the “South-
ern Border Fencing Strategy.” It called for
700 miles of at least single-layer pedestrian
fencing along the border. It wasn’t a stand-
alone measure; the fence was to be part of
a broader package of border security mea-
sures, alongside provisions that would cre-
ate a process by which the nation’s 11 mil-
lion illegal immigrants would ultimately
gain a path to citizenship.
With citizenship in the deal — even citi-
zenship that would take a decade to achieve
in some cases — Democrats were fully
on board for a border barrier. The Gang of
Eight bill passed with unanimous Dem-
ocratic support in the Senate. Name any
Democrat who is in the Senate today who
was there for that 2013 vote — Schumer,
Durbin, Murray, Baldwin, Bennet, Blu-
menthal, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey,
Coons, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Hirono,
Kaine, Klobuchar, Leahy, Manchin,
Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, Reed, Sand-
ers, Shaheen, Stabenow, Tester, Warner,
Warren, Whitehouse, Wyden — name any,
I
and they voted for the bill that included the
Southern Border Fencing Strategy.
In the House, the Republican leadership
blocked the Gang of Eight bill from coming
to a vote. But the overwhelmingly major-
ity of House Democrats were said to be in
favor of it, so there is no doubt that had the
bill been put to a vote, House Democrats,
like their counterparts in the Senate, would
have supported the fencing provision.
Had it become law, the bill would have
given a provisional legal status to ille-
gal immigrants who did not have crimi-
nal records. But the Gang of Eight said that
border security measures, including the
fence, had to be funded and built before
those illegal immigrants could be given
permanent legal residence in the United
States.
The Department of Homeland Security
could not grant permanent status, the bill
said, until six months after it certified “that
there is in place along the Southern Border
no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fenc-
ing which will include replacement of all
currently existing vehicle fencing on non-
tribal lands on the Southern Border with
pedestrian fencing where possible.”
The Gang of Eight bill passed the Sen-
ate in June 2013, five and a half years ago.
Now, many Democrats say there are no cir-
cumstances under which they would sup-
port President Trump’s proposal for a bor-
der wall proposal — even if it is, in fact, a
fence, or barrier, or whatever Democrats
would prefer to call it. Many observers
have noted that the Democratic Party has
changed dramatically in the last half-dozen
years or so, and one of the areas in which
that change has been most pronounced is
immigration. On that issue, the party has
moved far left.
Today, Democrats will not even sup-
port a relatively small amount of money,
$5 billion, to build a portion of the bar-
rier that Trump wants. A possible deal —
wall funding in exchange for DACA legal-
ization — fell through earlier this year, in
part, because Trump added new demands
to the wall proposal, but also because a fed-
eral judge in California stopped the pres-
ident’s move to rescind DACA. It was at
best a questionable decision — the court
said a president cannot use executive action
to undo an executive action of a previ-
ous president — but it was later backed up
by other courts, and it gave Democrats the
assurance that they might get what they
want from the courts without having to give
away anything in a deal with Trump.
And now the Democratic position
appears to have hardened further still.
Nancy Pelosi recently called a border wall
“immoral.” How could her party make
any deal to support, even a little bit, some-
thing her colleagues believe is immoral? It
is unclear whether Pelosi thinks all the bar-
riers currently in place on the U.S.-Mexico
border are immoral, but it seems clear that
she would never support any new ones.
The U.S.-Mexico border is nearly 2,000
miles long. Significant parts of it are so
rugged that barriers are simply unneces-
sary. According to the Border Patrol, there
are now 354 miles of single fence along the
border. There are 37 miles of double-deep
fence and 14 miles of three-deep fenc-
ing, for a total of 405 miles of pedestrian
fencing. In addition, there are 300 miles
of vehicle fencing, which keeps cars and
trucks from crossing the border but allows
people to move freely.
The Gang of Eight bill would have
replaced that with 700 miles of pedestrian
fencing, some of it multilayer. Now, amid
a partial government shutdown, Trump,
despite his years of talk about a “wall,”
would very likely take such a deal. The
question is whether there are any circum-
stances under which Democrats would ever
agree to what they once supported.

Byron York is chief political correspon-
dent for The Washington Examiner.
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
U.S. PRESIDENT
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
GOVERNOR
Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
whitehouse.gov/contact/
Greg Walden
185 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-6730
La Grande office: 541-624-2400
Kate Brown
160 State Capitol
900 Court Street
Salem, OR 97301-4047
503-378-4582
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of
the East Oregonian editorial board. Other
columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
REPRESENTATIVES
Greg Barreto, District 58
900 Court St. NE, H-38
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1458
Rep.GregBarreto@state.or.us
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. 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.
Greg Smith, District 57
900 Court St. NE, H-482
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1457
Rep.GregSmith@state.or.us
Send letters to managing
editor Daniel Wattenburger,
211 S.E. Byers Ave.
Pendleton, OR 9780, or email
editor@eastoregonian.com.