KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
ThURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Fuel tax
‘vacation’ no
panacea, but
worth a look
W
hen you’re watching the dollar
figure on the gas pump display rise
with dizzying speed, as it does
these days, the prospect of slowing that mount-
ing tab has a certain attraction.
This is the idea behind President Joe Biden’s
proposal that Congress suspend federal gaso-
line and diesel tax — 18 cents per gallon —
for three months. The president also is urging
states to enact a similar “vacation” from their
state fuel taxes.
Oregon’s state fuel tax is 38 cents a gallon.
These are not insignificant amounts when
regular was averaging $5.31 a gallon Wednes-
day, June 29, in Umatilla County, according to
AAA.
Suspending fuel taxes can have negative
effects.
Much of the tax revenue pays to improve
highways, roads and city streets, so a tempo-
rary reprieve now could mean bumpier roads
later.
But trimming 56 cents from the price per
gallon — if both the federal and Oregon state
taxes went away for a few months — might
well result in more gas being sold, which would
partially offset the loss of tax revenue.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s reaction to
Biden’s proposal was disappointing.
A statement from her office states in part
that “with gas prices having jumped by several
dollars per gallon over the last several months,
it’s unlikely that Oregonians would see signif-
icant savings at the pump under this latest
proposal.”
Notwithstanding the exaggerated “several
dollars per gallon over the last several months”
reference — in reality Oregon’s average price
for regular unleaded is up by about $2.01
compared with a year ago — Brown’s blithe
dismissal of Biden’s suggestion shows little
sympathy for the plight of her constituents.
Although Oregon’s fuel tax accounts
for about 7% of the current price, and the
combined state and federal tax is about 10%,
saving 56 cents per mile amounts to about $22
for every 1,000 miles driven at an average of
25 mpg. That’s not likely to make the differ-
ence for someone struggling to pay a mort-
gage, to be sure. But at a time when inflation
has elevated the cost for pretty much every-
thing, including necessities such as food and
fuel, Brown’s skepticism suggests she doesn’t
appreciate the cumulative effects of inflation
or the value of even modest relief on the cost of
one product.
The reaction of Brown’s counterpart in
neighboring Washington state, Jay Inslee, was
much more galling.
A spokesperson for Inslee, Jamie Smith,
trotted out the claim oil companies are to
blame, saying if Washington suspended its gas
tax — which is 49 cents per gallon, third-high-
est among states — “the oil companies would
be the ones to benefit from yet another oppor-
tunity to pocket more profit at the expense of
our ability to put people to work fixing our
roads and bridges.”
Oil companies have been making billions
in profits this year, to be sure. But to imply this
is directly related to prices we’re paying at the
pump betrays at best an oversimplification, and
at worst an ignorance, of economics and the
global petroleum market.
As global economic matters tend to be,
this one is much more complicated. Econom-
ics and industry experts say many factors
have contributed to rises in oil prices and the
record-high fuel prices, including supply chain
delays and worker shortages that have reduced
oil production, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,
and rising demand for fuel as the effects of the
pandemic have eased.
The market works both ways. When oil
prices plummeted early in the pandemic,
corporate balance sheets reflected the trend.
Exxon lost $22.4 billion in 2020.
Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission
has investigated allegations of price gouging
in the industry many times, most recently late
last year, and invariably finds no legitimate
evidence for it.
Ultimately, fuel tax “vacations” won’t be a
panacea for drivers. But the savings are no less
real just because they’re modest.
Anti-forestry lawsuit puts
forests and communities at risk
NICK
SMITH
OTHER VIEWS
ix anti-forestry groups are suing to
block a new policy that would make
it a little easier for the U.S. Forest
Service to reduce wildfire risks and
restore forest health on national forest
lands in Eastern Oregon and Washing-
ton. In doing so, their lawsuit affects
several projects that would conduct
hazardous fuel reduction on at least
209,000 acres of land that’s vulnerable to
severe fire.
The lawsuit aims to preserve an
outdated and unscientific rule from
the Clinton-era, known as the “East-
side Screens.” It originally imposed a
temporary rule prohibiting the removal
of trees larger than 21 inches in diameter
on national forests east of the Cascades,
including the Malheur, Umatilla,
Wallowa-Whitman, Deschutes, Ochoco
and Fremont-Winema.
With little public involvement and no
scientific justification, this temporary and
arbitrary rule became permanent when it
was amended into the management plans
as standards for these federally-owned
forests.
In theory the rule was intended to
protect and improve forest conditions
associated with old and mature forest
habitat. But in practice, it made it harder
for the Forest Service to remove tree
S
species that compete with native pine and
are less resilient to fire such as grand fir
or white fir. This compelled the national
forests in Eastern Oregon to pursue
dozens of project-specific amendments to
the 21-inch rule over the past 20 years in
order to meet their desired forest condi-
tions.
This arbitrary rule created an expen-
sive and time-consuming process, and as
a result, the Forest Service has struggled
to keep pace with the growing risks and
restoration needs of these forests, which
places a variety of forest values and uses
at risk.
During the 30 years of this temporary
rule, anti-forestry groups enjoyed the
status quo because it tied the hands of our
public lands managers. They could also
use it to block restoration projects they
did not like, even if the science-based
treatments were supported by collabora-
tives with diverse interests.
Rather than accelerate the trajectory
of forests toward a late-seral structure,
as sound forest management would help
accomplish, this temporary, arbitrary and
unscientific rule created forest conditions
that are unnaturally dense and exacerbate
risk to wildfire, insect and disease infes-
tations, and drought.
Rather than lifting this rule
completely, the Forest Service only made
modest changes to its policy. In Janu-
ary 2021, the agency adopted the “Old
Tree and Large Tree Guidelines,” which
includes diameter limits for tree removal
ranging from 21-inches to 30- inches,
depending on tree species, and an over-
arching age limit on tree removal of 150
years.
In announcing their lawsuit, anti-for-
estry groups labeled this modest change
as a “Trump-era” rule allowing whole-
sale “logging of old growth.” Yet the
new guideline has given our public lands
managers some flexibility to restore
unhealthy forests by implementing
science-based treatments that are appro-
priate to the landscape.
The Forest Service is using this new
guideline to develop several projects on
six national forests. One thing all of these
projects have in common is their primary
objective is not necessarily timber
harvest, but hazardous fuels reduction
and forest resiliency. Some projects are
located in areas identified as Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI) where the wild-
fire threat to communities is heightened.
It’s unfortunate these groups would
sue to block projects that would improve
the health of our forests and reduce the
risks to our public lands and nearby
communities. As climate change
continues to impact our forests, the
Forest Service should be doing every-
thing possible to prevent large-scale,
carbon-emitting wildfires, while maxi-
mizing the ability of our forests to seques-
ter more carbon and store more carbon in
both healthy trees and wood products.
———
Nick Smith is the executive director of
Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities,
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
supporting active forest management on
federal lands.
prosperity and happiness with … great
regions of slaves presenting a desert
increasing in proportion to these retched
beings.”
George Mason, of Virginia, said,
“This infernal traffic originated in the
avarice of British merchants ... Slavery
discourages arts and manufactures ...
Every master of slaves is born a petty
tyrant ... They bring the judgement of
heaven on a country. As nations cannot be
rewarded or punished in the next world,
they must be in this.”
As an economically dying institution
when the Constitution was approved, it
seemed a not intractable problem to settle.
Nolan Nelson
Redmond
never been the issue. Opposing abor-
tion is a reasonable position, and no one
should ever feel obligated to terminate
a pregnancy. But, abolishing the legal
right to do so relegates all women to
second class citizenship.
It is a platitude that if men endured
pregnancy there would be no debate.
Abortion would be the norm. Simply
put, no man could have equal oppor-
tunity if some were required by law
to undergo nine months of physical
upheaval while others were not.
Women cannot be equal to men with-
out the legal right to abortion.
Moral and religious objection should
be heard and respected. Personal opposi-
tion to abortion is reasonable and proper,
but one cannot support laws controlling
reproductive rights for women unless he
or she is also willing to confess a belief
that women are inherently inferior to
men.
Women must have complete control
of their own bodies to have equality in
our culture. It is reasonable to believe
that this is guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I
believe the debate should not be about
abortion, but whether as a society we
recognize equality between the sexes.
Joseph Brusberg
Hermiston
YOUR VIEWS
Founders could not
abolish slavery but came
closer than believed
Celebrating Juneteenth as the end of
slavery also fulfills the aspirations of
delegates to the Constitutional Conven-
tion. The founders could not abolish slav-
ery but came closer than often believed.
Slavery was retained, but delegates only
agreed to suspend congressional initia-
tives until 1808 and expected it to vanish
as a matter of moral obligation.
The philosophical doctrines consulted
for founding this country already placed
master and slave on the same natural
plane of existence and only postponed the
free exercise of conscience. It was reason-
ably believed planters would no longer
be satisfied with luxuries, indolence and
cruelties, but aspire to the profit, energy
and incentives found in Northern meth-
ods of enterprise.
In reading James Madison’s notes,
you find no defense of slavery, but two
firm denunciations during debates that
abhorred the institution.
“It was a nefarious institution. It was
the curse of heaven on states where it
prevailed,” Gouverneur Morris, of New
York, said. “Compare Middle States
where a rich and noble civilization marks
Women cannot be equal
to men without the legal
right to abortion
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is
more than its parts. It is not simply a
reversal of 50 years of precedent on
reproductive rights for women. It is
a repudiation of female equality in
universum. It is a reclamation of male
dominance over more than half of our
population.
The right to oppose abortion has