Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Baker City herald. (Baker City, Or.) 1990-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 28, 2019)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2019 Baker City, Oregon 4A Write a letter news@bakercityherald.com EDITORIAL Gun storage measure confusing No responsible gun owner would object to the basic premise that guns should be stored in a way designed to ensure that nobody who shouldn’t have access to the guns will have. The National Rifl e Association, no fan of restric- tions on gun owners, emphasizes safe handling and storage of fi rearms. One of the NRA’s gun safety rules puts it this way: “Store guns so they are not ac- cessible to unauthorized persons.” This is basically the ostensible purpose behind a ballot measure that Oregonians could vote on in November 2020 if supporters gather suffi cient signa- tures. But that measure, No. 40, also includes some provi- sions that seem intended more to discourage people from owning guns at all, than to prompt them to safely store their fi rearms. Section 1 of the measure requires gun owners to “secure” all fi rearms, or face potential fi nes. The measure defi nes a “secure” gun as one with an engaged trigger lock or cable lock, or that is stored in a “locked container, equipped with a tamper-resistant lock.” The measure also calls for the Oregon Health Authority to adopt temporary rules by Jan. 1, 2021, setting minimum specifi cations for those locks and containers, and to adopt permanent rules for those specifi cations by July 1, 2021. Using locks, or locked containers, is a legitimate, and common, way for gun owners to secure their fi rearms. But the measure would also impose on gun owners a much more stringent, and potentially unrealistic, legal standard. It reads in part: “... a fi rearm is not secured if a key, combination or other means of opening a lock or container is readily available to a person the owner or possessor has not authorized to carry or control the fi rearm.” The key phrases in the preceding sentence are “or other means” and “readily available.” If we’re going to require gun owners to secure guns with locks, it’s sensible to also ensure that they keep track of the keys, or combinations, that open those locks. But mandating, at penalty of law, that gun owners also ensure that nobody can have “other means” to access a locked gun is such a broad requirement that in effect it means if anybody gets your gun, by any means, it’s your fault, legally speaking. What if the “other means” is a pair of bolt cutters, an item that’s “readily available” at any hardware store? The measure also states that “space within a vehicle” does not qualify as a container that meets the requirement for “secure” storage. This ignores the growing availability of lockable storage spaces, particularly in pickup trucks, which could be nearly as secure as a locked container inside a home. The measure’s section regarding transferring fi re- arms to a person younger than 18 is also ambiguous. It requires that “a person who transfers a fi rearm to a minor shall directly supervise the minor’s use of the fi rearm,” yet the same section also states that the requirement doesn’t apply to the transfer of a fi rearm “that is owned by the minor.” It’s not clear how a person can transfer a gun to a minor who already owns that gun — or more to the point, why this would be a “transfer.” Measure 40’s backers have good intentions, but the initiative doesn’t deserve voters’ support as written. — Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor We can afford Medicare for all Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have struggled to explain how they would pay for “Medicare for all.” This is puzzling. A single-payer ap- proach like Medicare for all can reduce overall health spending. Other wealthy countries that have universal coverage spend far less on healthcare than the United States as a share of their gross domestic product. A lack of money is not the problem. That’s why it should not be diffi cult to devise a way to pay for Medicare for all to benefi t the vast majority of us, particularly low- and middle-income earners. Canada has such a system, which should cast doubt on all the naysay- ers who claim that it is impossible or ruinous. Canada, with a single-payer system, spends half of what we do on health care and gets better results. Britain, France, Australia and Japan, all with universal health care, also spend less than half of what we spend per capita and get better results. Medicare for all is widely expected to cost about $3 trillion a year. The gov- ernment — through Medicare, Medic- aid, CHIP and various other programs — already pays more than $1.5 trillion of this health care bill. Private insur- ance and out-of-pocket costs account for another roughly $1.5 trillion. Going to Medicare for all would increase the budget of the government by about $1.5 trillion a year. STEPHEN MARKS Here are some ideas on how to fund it: End the cap on payroll taxes and ap- ply payroll taxes to all income, includ- ing interest and capital gains. This will not have a signifi cant effect on anyone whose income is less than $132,900, the current cap, and will raise about $1.5 trillion. Those making somewhat above the current cap will end up pay- ing a bit more, but they will not have to pay health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket medical expenses and will come out ahead. Large employers now pay on average $6,000 per employee for individual health insurance and $14,000 per employee for family health insurance. Many smaller employers pay similar rates, as do the self-employed. Let’s suppose that we tax all employers $5,000 per year per employee and relieve them of the burden of provid- ing employee insurance. Most come out way ahead. This raises about $650 billion. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal of a 2% wealth tax on wealth over $50 million would raise another $250 billion a year. Her proposed corporate tax on off-shore earnings would raise $100 billion a year by requiring companies like Ama- zon to pay taxes on their worldwide income. Finally, if Canada, spending less than half of U.S. expenditures on health care, has better health outcomes, that suggests there are savings to be had. Let’s be conservative. Suppose a Medicare for all system can help the U.S. cut total health spending by 20%. That would save us $600 billion — and still leave us with the highest per person health care spending in the world. If we add all of these together, that would be more than $3 trillion in ad- ditional revenues or savings per year, well over the $1.5 trillion in additional government spending necessary to fund Medicare for all. None of this would increase the burden on the middle class or the poor. Indeed, without insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, their overall costs would fall dramatically. And none of this puts an excessive burden on the rich. Corporations would reap huge savings. And all Americans would get health care, with enough left to invest in other health, wellness and education programs. Other ideas may be even more at- tractive. These simply demonstrate that we can have Medicare for all without ruining the economy or raising taxes on middle- and low-income earners. Let’s do it. Stephen Marks is an economist and professor of law at Boston University School of Law. Your views Baker City Fire Department should continue as ambulance provider We are gravely concerned with the potential of changing Baker City am- bulance service to a contractor instead of continuing the excellent service pro- vided by Baker Fire Department. We support continuing to use the Baker Fire Department for the ambulance service. We observed contracted ambulance attendants recently in another com- munity care for a family member. They were scheduled for transport from a hospital to a treatment facility and return. They were very late, nearly causing our family member to lose his appointment. He was in a great deal of pain and very cold. They were not respectful of his condition, handled him poorly, did not provide a blanket or protection from the weather (rain- ing) during transport, and worst of all, they did not know where they were going and missed the location several times. We made a complaint, but the community said that this was the only ambulance service available and they were contracted. We have not used the current Baker City Fire Department ambulance service, but know friends that have. They are reported to be very prompt, caring and careful with the patients. They certainly know where they are going as well. Another signifi cant reason to keep the ambulance service with the Fire Department is that it allows the Fire Department to keep the permanent staff they currently have. This helps our community twofold; by keeping qualifi ed fi refi ghters on hand that are also trained as paramedics. We get more bang for our bucks this way plus we continue to employ folks that live in and contribute to our community. Also, if a private ambulance company takes over then the city fi re department will most likely lose much of their capabili- ties for fi re suppression and rescue due to reduced staff. Baker Fire Department staff are dedicated employees that provide important professional services, both medical and fi re suppression, as well as fi re prevention education and other services. Baker Fire Department staff have knowledge of the people who live here and where the medical services are located. Please support keeping the am- bulance service with the Baker Fire Department. Dorothy and Bob Mason Baker City CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS President Donald Trump: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1414; fax 202-456-2461; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov/ contact. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900. Pendleton offi ce: 310 S.E. Second St. Suite 105, Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202- 228-2717. La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov. U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182 Rayburn Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225- 6730; fax 202-225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave., La Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden. house.gov. State Sen. Cliff Bentz (R-Ontario): Salem offi ce: 900 Court St. N.E., S-301, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. District offi ce: P.O. Box 1027, Ontario, OR 97914; 541-889-8866. State Rep. Lynn Findley (R-Vale): Salem offi ce: 900 Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460. Email: Rep. LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049. City Council meets the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers. Mike Downing, Loran Joseph, Randy Schiewe, Lynette Perry, Arvid Andersen, Ken Gross and Doni Bruland.
