KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Should
Oregon
expand
betting?
T
he Oregon Lottery’s mission is contra-
dictory: make money off gambling and
don’t encourage people to gamble too
much.
Launching sports betting was one way the
lottery tried to expand its revenue. It has the
potential to grow. But that could represent some
challenging policy choices.
Lottery officials moved into sports betting
because, well, there is money to be made. And
arguably it helps the Oregon Lottery balance its
competing missions. It would like to have more
people gambling a little than a few gambling a
lot.
And it doesn’t want people to be gambling
away money they should be spending on more
important things. Sports bettors tend to be
younger, male and have money to spend.
When you look at the numbers, sports
betting still is just a fraction of Oregon Lottery
revenues. It’s new. For instance, the lottery’s
monthly net profit for June was $59 million.
Video lottery brought in most of the net
revenue at $98 million. Traditional lottery tick-
ets such as Powerball and Scratch-Its brought in
$10.4 million. Sports betting trailed with $2.8
million.
(It’s not particularly relevant for a discus-
sion about sports betting policy, but we were
curious about how much of the money spent
was returned in prizes to lottery customers.
Video lottery has the highest percentage at
92%. About 65% of money spent on traditional
lottery tickets was returned in prizes. And
sports betting is at 89%. Those are numbers we
crunched based on June 2021.)
You can drill down a bit in the data from
sports betting.
For instance, you can see in August there
was one bet for $30 on a chess match. That was
the only bet on chess.
The profit margin for the state on chess was
10%. There was one bet for $8 on surfing. The
margin for the state -773%.
Most of the bets placed in August were on
baseball with 198,276 bets. The margin for the
state was 4.5%.
The Oregon Lottery tries to walk a tightrope
with sports betting. Take betting on the Olym-
pics. You could not bet on individual events that
included minors. But you could bet on subjects
such as the overall medal counts, which would
include minors.
Still, moving the state into sports betting
made some Oregonians and Oregon lawmakers
uncomfortable. The Oregon Lottery proposed
going into collegiate sports. No dice. Too
controversial. No betting is allowed on high
school sports.
Other states, such as Pennsylvania, allow
more forms of gambling online than in Oregon.
It’s not a casino on your phone. It’s close.
Should Oregon allow betting on college
sports? Should it offer more games on people’s
phones? It would mean more revenue for the
state. Would that be too much? Or is Oregon
already allowing too much?
EDITORIALS
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.
LETTERS
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:
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801
Carbon fee, dividend correct a market failure
STEVE
GHAN
OTHER VIEWS
ur civilization has benefited
greatly from the use of fossil
fuel to power our lives, for
which I am grateful. Unfortunately,
scientific investigation has made it clear
the carbon dioxide emitted as a byprod-
uct of fossil fuel combustion is warm-
ing our climate far beyond the stable
climate in which our civilization thrived
over the last 10,000 years.
As a former editor-in-chief of a major
climate journal, I can say this conclu-
sion is well established.
These changes are affecting regional
agriculture and farmers. Just lately the
Capital Press has reported:
• “Heat shrinks Pacific Northwest
hops yield.”
• “Scorching heat challenges Oregon
pear growers.”
• “Northwest potato farmers clob-
bered by weather.”
• “Severe drought devastates Wash-
ington state’s wheat crop.”
• “U.S. unveils plan to address ‘silent
killer’ extreme heat.”
• “Washington state sets new rule for
farm workers in wildfire smoke.”
• “Washington state sets heat rule for
farmworkers.”
• “Oregon OSHA investigates death
of farmworker.”
• “Convoy delivers hay donations to
Southern Oregon.”
• “The Big Dry: Drought, water
shortage ‘tear at fabric’ of Klamath
Basin.”
• A reader said chickens were killed
by the heat wave.
O
And The Oregonian has reported:
• “Oregon farm worker dies during
heat wave.”
• “Record heat wave scorches crops
across Oregon and drought could
worsen loss to growers.”
• “Receding Eastern Oregon reser-
voir nears record low.”
• “Climate change and hot dry
summers mean big trouble for Oregon’s
trees.”
• “Northwest trees sapped by Oregon
and Washington heat waves.…”
• “Wells run dry in many Klamath
Basin homes.”
• A reader in the The Dalles said half
of their cherry crop was ruined by the
heat wave.
The millennial-frequency drought
and heat wave have hit our region hard.
Fortunately, research and devel-
opment has led to the availability of
competitive technologies that are not
reliant on fossil fuels: heat pumps, air
conditioners, electric and hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles and tractors, and electric-
ity production from nuclear reactors,
hydroelectric dams, solar panels, wind
turbines and more.
A carbon fee, returned to the econ-
omy in equal shares of the total reve-
nue to all Americans in monthly carbon
dividend checks, is an economic method
to correct the market failure whereby
the impacts and costs of carbon emis-
sions are borne by the public — through
heat-wave deaths, drought and heat crop
losses — including loss of irrigation
water, wildfire smoke health impacts
and destruction of property — higher
taxes and higher insurance premiums
to pay for recovery from catastrophic
climate disasters. The carbon fee helps
the public by disincentivizing the burn-
ing of fossil fuels, emissions of carbon
and the associated harm to the public.
The uniform carbon dividend
ensures government doesn’t grow
and is a simple albeit imperfect way
to compensate taxpayers, insurance
premium payers and the direct victims
of climate (and health) impacts.
If the carbon fee is applied near
where it enters the economy, the price
signal spreads through the entire econ-
omy, making carbon-intensive products
more expensive. But since consumers,
businesses and utilities now have alter-
natives to such products, carbon-free
products are more competitive and are
therefore chosen by more consumers,
businesses and utilities. Consumers can
use their carbon dividend to cover the
higher cost of carbon-intensive prod-
ucts, or to invest in carbon-free tech-
nology to avoid paying the passed-on
carbon fee. Most families would receive
more carbon dividend than they pay in
the carbon fee. The carbon fee and divi-
dend is a simple and effective way to
disincentivize carbon emissions without
prescriptive regulations.
In the Energy Innovation and Carbon
Dividend Act (HR 2307), the fee on ag
fuel is rebated. A border adjustment
makes importers pay tariffs on goods if
their country lacks an effective climate
policy, which drives countries such as
China to also price carbon and U.S.
manufacturers to keep production in the
U.S.
The carbon fee and dividend does not
prohibit anything. Freedom of choice is
preserved, the market failure corrected
and our climate saved for us and future
generations.
———
Steve Ghan of Richland, Washing-
ton, leads the Tri-Cities Chapter of the
Citizens Climate Lobby. He meets with
mid-Columbia farmers to discuss agri-
culture and climate change.
editorial board, comprised of then-in-
terim Executive Director Paul Rabb,
then-communications director Matt
Johnson, CUJ publisher Jane Hill and
CUJ editor Cary Rosenbaum, unjustifi-
ably censored my letter.
Yes, my letter included some mild
criticism of tribal policy, but that does
not justify censorship by any means.
Civil rights have never had much prior-
ity for the CTUIR. Back in 2010, as a
member of the Board of Trustees, I led
the successful effort to overturn and
repeal the random drug testing policy
for tribal employees.
The policy allowed tribal government
to drug test employees without probable
cause or suspicion. The policy basi-
cally held the employee was guilty until
proven innocent, in complete contra-
diction to the time-honored principle of
being innocent until proven guilty.
I have been consulting with a local
attorney on this current censorship
situation and we may soon be filing
violation of free speech charges in the
appropriate court.
Bob Shippentower
Pendleton
the homeless off the streets and out of
sight. Put a roof over their heads and
keep them out of the elements.
That is just putting a bandage on a
gaping wound. To effect real change
you have to address the root cause of the
homelessness. This is where you need a
village to address the issues.
I would seek out input from vari-
ous community stakeholders. They
include but are not limited to Veter-
ans Affairs, the Oregon Department of
Human Services, mental health, addi-
tions services, employment department
and faith-based groups. Each of these
organizations can provide support both
in terms of financial assistance and
support services.
I found out years ago that many of
the community stakeholders provide
like services. If we assign a case
manager to each homeless person they
will be able to build a comprehensive
case plan for each individual. The goal
would be to address the issues that
caused the homelessness, find stable
employment and housing.
A good many of the homeless have
mental health issues, some are veter-
ans, some have addiction issues, and
some are hopeless. Most people who are
homeless do it not by choice but they
are out of options. Umatilla County
has a great opportunity to build a good
program if they think outside the box.
Just my thoughts.
Joe Mesteth
Hermiston
YOUR VIEWS
Tribal newspaper censoring
is a violation of free speech
Free speech and free expression are
basic principles and rights of the people
in a democratic and free society.
However, for the tribal people and
citizens of the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation, these
are privileges that will be granted only if
we march in lock-step to tribal govern-
ment doctrine and with the approval of
tribally paid administration employees
who have appointed themselves to be the
gatekeepers of our individual rights.
In July 2021, I submitted an opin-
ion letter to the tribal newspaper, the
Confederated Umatilla Journal, on a
relevant tribal public issue. However,
the de facto CUJ editorial board,
comprised of all paid employees,
wrongfully censored it. The East Orego-
nian newspaper has been the primary
source of news and information for our
tribal community for generations. So
when my opinion letter was refused by
the CUJ, I submitted it to the EO, and it
was published there in a timely manner.
My letter contained no defamation,
slander or libel, no threats, nothing
vulgar, did not compromise confiden-
tiality, nor was otherwise improper or
inappropriate in any way that warranted
censorship. Otherwise, the EO would
never have published it.
Thus, common sense makes it
very clear and obvious the content of
my letter was the reason the de facto
Homeless shelters are a
‘bandage on a gaping wound’
I think it would be in the best interest
of Umatilla County to think in terms
of an it-takes-a-village-approach when
planning the homeless encampment.
Most people take the approach that get