Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (June 14, 2019)
A4 East Oregonian Friday, June 14, 2019 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner ANDREW CUTLER Editor WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor JADE McDOWELL Hermiston Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW Crisis averted, but farmers need trade stability T he United States and Mex- ico reached a last-minute deal June 7 that prevented the imposition of new tariffs threat- ened by the Trump administration. The president’s mercurial approach to North American trade relations has left farmers in the Pacific Northwest understandably, and unnecessarily, on edge. Just a few weeks ago the admin- istration canceled tariffs on Mex- ican and Canadian aluminum and steel, which signaled that retalia- tory tariffs placed on U.S. farm goods by those countries would come off. Not so fast. Late last month Trump said he was going to place a 5% tariff on all Mexican goods if the government there didn’t do something to stem the tide of ille- gal immigrants moving through Mexico from Central America and into the United States. Migrants fleeing oppressive gov- ernments and unimaginable eco- nomic hardship in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nica- ragua are streaming across Mexi- co’s southern border and proceed- ing — often en masse — north to the United States. Once across the U.S. border they claim refugee sta- tus. More than 100,000 came in May alone. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File President Donald Trump talks with reporters before departing on Marine One in Washington. International convention requires a would-be refugee to stop and take asylum in the first safe coun- try they enter. (Indeed, those entering the U.S. but whose final desired destination is Canada will be turned back by Canadian bor- der guards to make their plea from U.S. soil.) The administration says the first safe country is Mexico and that migrants wishing to enter the United States as a refugee should make their application and await its adjudication in Mexico. The horde of migrants has over- whelmed Mexico’s asylum. Offi- cials there are no doubt reluctant to take on the responsibility of caring for so many hoping to eventually gain refugee status in the U.S. Whether the threat of tariffs prompted the Mexican govern- ment to act, or, as some say, it was merely following through on pre- viously negotiated measures is unclear. The timing seems to sup- port Trump’s view that the tariff threat prompted the action, but we could also assume that Mexican bureaucracy is no different than U.S. bureaucracy and it took sev- eral months to swing into planned action. Either way, action has been taken to interrupt the flow of illegal immigrants from Central Amer- ica and new tariffs that would have caused havoc to the Mexican econ- omy and American farmers have been averted. For now. Whether this was all part of a well-crafted strategic plan or an ad hoc play we do not know. In either case we hope the intended outcome is a stable, predictable trade rela- tionship with Mexico and our other partners. With this latest crisis averted, it’s time for Congress to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement and the administration focus on formalizing deals with China, Japan and Europe. Farmers in the Pacific Northwest are waiting for the deals that were promised and the stability they would bring to agriculture. OTHER VIEWS Public employees’ anger is misplaced Medford Mail Tribune T YOUR VIEWS Backflow testing should be enforced for all Every year like clockwork since I have lived in the city limits of Hermiston, the city sends, in the water bill, an offi- cial-looking paper insert, Notice of Back- flow Testing Requirement For Customers. It almost looks like a legal document, some words in caps, some underlined, some in bold print, with drawings and a state of Oregon Health Authority list of backflow assembly testers. Each year I have paid my $50 to a private contractor to get a piece of paper that keeps me in the good graces of the city fathers. I started asking questions. How do they make sure everybody complies? What is the penalty for non compliance? I talked to the water department of the city. This is what I found: There are about 5,000 residential hookups. Last year about 1,400 households complied and had their systems tested. About 300 households certified that they didn’t have to comply because of the type of system they have. So about 3,300 households 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. thumbed their nose at the city with no repercussions. I talked to several friends around the city and many of them have never complied. As the city water department explains, this is a state law and the city complies simply by sending out the proclamation and sending in a report to the state of the compliance numbers. My point: If the backflow testing is important to the citizens’ health and safety, make everybody that meets the requirement do the test. There are cities around the area that compile lists of hookups that need back- flow testing, hire firms to do the testing and add the fee to the water bills. This seems to be a simple cure if the health and safety of our citizens is threatened by not testing. So for the foreseeable future, my only act of civil disobedience will be to save $50 until the city becomes more invested in my health and safety or turns my water off for not backflow testing. George Koffler Hermiston he Democratic-controlled Legisla- ture finally stood up to the public employee unions, and the unions are furious. They shouldn’t be. Lawmakers last week passed Sen- ate Bill 1049, a package of reforms to the under-funded Public Employee Retirement System that include requir- ing employees to contribute a small amount toward the pension system itself rather than to their personal retirement accounts. From the howls of outrage, you would think the Legislature had canceled public pensions entirely. Far from it. The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that pension payments to those already retired cannot be touched. Neither can pension benefits already earned by those still working. Here’s what SB 1049 did: Going forward, employees will con- tribute to the pension fund a portion of the 6% of income they currently pay into their 401(k)-style personal retirement accounts, ranging from 0.75% of pay for workers hired after August 2003 to 2.5% for those hired before. As a result, employees will see their personal retirement accounts — separate from their pensions — grow a bit more slowly. Ending balances in employees’ personal accounts will be smaller, reduc- ing a 30-year employee’s overall retire- ment benefit by 1 to 2% of pay. That’s hardly catastrophic. And the contribu- tions diverted to the pension fund will help reduce the premiums employers such as school districts, cities and coun- ties must pay every year. That frees up money that can be used for other things — such as hiring more teachers, or increasing pay. Also under SB 1049, the outrageously large pensions earned by a few extremely well-paid state employees such as for- mer University of Oregon football coach Mike Bellotti will be a thing of the past; SB 1049 caps ending salaries eligible for pensions at $195,000 going forward. That’s more symbolic than substantive, because so few state employees earn more than that. But it should help with public perception of PERS. Finally, the bill lengthens the repay- ment schedule by eight years, reducing the amount that must be paid against the PERS deficit each year. That accounts for about three-quarters of the savings of $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion per biennium, and critics are saying it’s kicking the can down the road. That’s true enough, but it’s not much different from a distressed homeowner refinancing from a 15-year mortgage to a 30-year note to lower payments. Oregon is one of only two states that does not require employees to contribute to their own pension benefits. Even the 6% contribution to the personal accounts is picked up by many public employers under the terms of union contracts, so the diversion of money into the pension fund won’t affect those workers’ monthly income. It’s difficult for the public at large to feel much sympathy for public employ- ees being asked to contribute a small amount to their pensions — a benefit few private-sector workers have. Public employees are treated well in Oregon, and it’s not unreasonable that they are asked to help in a small way to stabilize the pension system that bene- fits them. 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. Send letters to the editor to editor@eastoregonian.com, or via mail to Andrew Cutler, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
