ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
SATURDAY, MAY 21, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
New taxes
may make
single-payer
frightening
N
othing may scare Orego-
nians away faster from the
state moving to a single-payer
health plan than big, fat new taxes.
And the state’s Task Force on
Universal Health Care is talking
about ... big, fat new taxes.
Just how big and fat? Billions.
A new state income tax. A new
payroll tax on businesses. And
maybe even a new state sales tax.
The Legislature set up the task force to
design a single-payer health care system.
The government would create and run a
system with promises of providing better
care, coverage for all Oregonians and
lower cost. Single payer means all the
variety of benefits, policies and networks
would go away and be replaced by govern-
ment. Instead of paying health premiums
or having an employer pay for coverage,
taxes would be paid to the government.
People and employers are frustrated
with rising health care costs. The new
taxes may be less than what Orego-
nians effectively pay now. But there are
no guarantees that single payer will be
the cure everyone wanted. As imper-
fect as the health care system is, it is the
devil Oregonians know. It is not some
new devil with new taxes and change.
The state task force has a deadline
of September to finalize its proposal.
Then Oregonians will have something
firmer they can covet or reject. The task
force is scheduled to meet Thursday to
get more into the numbers. Some big
decisions might be made this week.
The task force needs to pick an assump-
tion for how much will the system cost
to run. The difference is in the billions.
And the decision can lower or raise the
proposed new taxes. A state consultant
backed spending 6% on state administra-
tive costs, so about $3.5 billion in 2026
dollars. Some task force members believe
the state can do it for less, perhaps 4%.
But that 4% assumption is called “aspira-
tional” in task force documents and is not
supported by the state’s actuarial analysis.
How should the new income tax on
households work? Should there be a cap
on the household contribution roughly
in line with what the premium might be?
Or should it be with no cap, so household
contributions increase with income? With
a cap, nobody would pay more than the
projected cost of their coverage. Without
a cap, it would work like a progressive
tax and some households may pay several
multiples of their projected coverage cost.
The task force needs to lay this out
clearly for Oregonians. There is a good
draft FAQ that answers many ques-
tions. There are many it doesn’t, yet.
Oregonians will need to know what they
would pay in a new income tax. Orego-
nians will need to know what employ-
ers would be paying in a new payroll tax.
And, is a new sales tax coming, too?
Give us the numbers. Justify them.
Picking aspirational goals not supported
by actuarial analysis may not help. Only
with justified numbers can Oregonians
decide it is good to essentially destroy
private-sector health insurance jobs and
increase government control for prom-
ises of better, cheaper care. Only then can
Oregonians decide if they should leap
from the devil they know and toward
another who comes making promises.
You can tell the task force your
thoughts by emailing jtfuhc.exhib-
its@oregonlegislature.gov.
YOUR VIEWS
City manager’s new budget
The Pendleton city manager is
currently presenting his 2022-23 oper-
ating budget, and if you haven’t seen
it, you’ll find it on the city’s website in
the finance department section or the
budget meeting agenda.
The first thing you should notice
is that since 2020, expenditures have
doubled with this new budget proposal.
Much of the increase is earmarked for
city streets, a welcome relief for local
residents; the airport in support of the
UAS program, providing a welcome
increase in high paying jobs; and the
latest project, a bus barn for Elite Taxi.
This particular project is designed
to allow Elite Taxi and bus drivers to
perform routine cleaning and vehicle
storage in a controlled environment out
of the weather. The cost for the facil-
ity, originally pegged at $2 million, has
ballooned to $3 million in this latest
budget proposal. Increases in the trans-
portation budget were also needed for
the purchase of an additional bus and
another handicapped van for use by
Elite Taxi.
I’m not quite sure how subsidizing
Elite Taxi fits into any of the new goals
developed by the mayor and city coun-
cil. They may claim that more vans and
buses will create additional jobs, but are
these the type of high paying profes-
sional jobs the city has been promising
with the large investments in airport
facilities?
The city manager now admits
that frivolous spending is a problem
within city government and suggests
that rewards be given to departments
that find ways to conserve funding by
allowing excess funds to remain within
their department and be carried over to
subsequent budgets.
It sounds like a good theory at first
glance, but, in reality, and human nature
being what it is, it will most likely just
postpone the frivolous spending to the
following budget cycle, while limiting
the flexibility to cover funding depart-
ments unable to meet their budget. Do
you suppose this change is an effort to
shift accountability directly to depart-
ment managers rather than city manage-
ment?
Perhaps it’s time to question your
ward representatives on whose best
interests this $3 million bus barn serves.
It certainly isn’t the residents. And it’s
a perfect example of frivolous spending
going unchecked by city management.
Rick Rohde
Pendleton
There’s an ethical
side to the wolf issue
Recent coverage on the wolf/cattle
situation in Wallowa County omitted
significant facts.
It failed to mention that taxpayers
compensate ranchers for confirmed and
probable losses at full fall market value,
and for confirmed and probable injuries.
It failed to mention that taxpayers
pay ranchers for extra work in protect-
ing their stock. This year some ranch-
ers will be paid directly to do their own
range-riding, but taxpayers also pay
for hired range-riders. Last year one
rancher received $11,713 from taxpay-
ers for extra work and was the primary
beneficiary of $5000 paid by a conser-
vation group for range-riders. Orego-
nians also pony up for nonlethal tools
and equipment, including ATVs.
Oregon wolves are not a nonna-
tive species and were not introduced to
Oregon. They came on their own from
Idaho and are the same species as those
exterminated in Oregon.
There’s an ethical side to the wolf
issue. Thousands of wolves were shot,
trapped, poisoned, strangled and blud-
geoned by livestock producers and their
agents until extinct in Oregon. This
savagery lasted 100 years and continues
today. The landscape was denuded of an
apex predator and cattle proliferated at
great cost to the environment. The cattle
are bred for weight and lack horns and
the physical agility for defense against
predators. They are wolf bait. Especially
on public land, common breeds should
be replaced by horned, agile cattle such
as Corrientes, a successful commercial
breed. Putting wolf bait out on public
land and then killing wolves for eating it
is a crime.
Wolves are due thousands of cows
(and sheep) in compensation for the
thousands of slaughtered wolves. In
expiation of their sin, livestock produc-
ers should themselves bear the cost of
compensation. The Oregon and national
cattlemen’s associations should collect
funds from their own members for their
own compensation fund. Taxpayers
should not be responsible.
Wally Sykes
Joseph
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 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.
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
SEND LETTERS TO:
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801