TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Oregon’s
bad spot
in business
taxation
Oregon’s corporate activity tax can be a fi scal bo-
nanza for schools. It’s lots of money. The most recent
projected gross revenues from the tax are $1.64
billion for the 2019-21 period and $2.29 billion for
2021-23.
Can you dream up ways to spend those billions to
help students learn? Anybody can.
Is there a cost? What if we told you Oregon was
now ranked almost dead last — we are 49th — in the
country in corporate taxes.
Approval of the corporate activity tax has been a
bragging point for legislators. They brought home the
bacon for schools. State Rep. Jason Kropf, D-Bend,
used former state Rep. Cheri Helt’s vote against the
tax in his campaign against her. He said she “voted
against funding for Bend-La Pine Schools.”
When you bring home the bacon, of course, you
take the bacon from somebody. In the case of this tax,
it takes the bacon from corporations. The tax applies
to taxable Oregon commercial activity in excess of
$1 million. To quote the state, the tax is computed
as $250 plus 0.57% of taxable Oregon commercial
activity of more than $1 million. Only taxpayers with
more than $1 million of taxable Oregon commercial
activity must pay.
Now that doesn’t sound all that terrible, right? Ex-
cept, well, $1 million may sound like a lot of money.
But you don’t have to be an Intel to bring in $1 mil-
lion in revenue. For instance, you don’t have to sell
a lot of new cars to hit $1 million. And the tax only
lets businesses count a fraction of their expenses. So
a business could actually be failing and still have to
pay the tax. Now that is terrible.
If that doesn’t get your attention, how about tax
pyramiding? That’s when a tax applies to multiple
layers of a product’s life cycle. Think about cross-
laminated timber or blueberries. They both can go
through several stages in the production process
and be sold on to the next business at the next stage.
At each stage, if the product stays in Oregon, the
manufacturer could be paying the tax — making it a
tax on a tax.
Many people still would say Oregon legislators
were right to pass the tax. Schools need the money.
Business needs to pay its share! OK, three more
things to think about.
First, if schools need the money, why should only
businesses pay the increased taxes? Shouldn’t all
Oregonians be chipping in?
Second, what about the perception of businesses
who do business in Oregon or who might think about
coming to Oregon? Some may like the tax because it
shows the state’s commitment to education. Others
may wonder what else might be coming if Oregon
legislators are willing to pass a pyramiding tax
that also may tax businesses even if they are losing
money.
And last, look at where the Tax Foundation puts
Oregon’s corporate tax rank. We are 49th. That’s the
second worst in the country. Yes that’s one ranking
by one organization. And in so many other ways,
Oregon is a great place to do business and live. But
for business owners and their number crunchers it’s
a clear signal Oregon may not be the best place to do
business.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald.
Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions
of the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald.
Letters to the editor
We welcome letters on any issue of public interest.
Writers are limited to one letter every 15 days. Email
letters to news@bakercityherald.com, or mail to Baker
City Herald, P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814.
Your views
Recalling a seminal moment
in American history,
246 years after it happened
April 19, 1775. The gathering storm
of growing tensions between colonial
residents and the colonial govern-
ment which represented the British
Crown had come to a head. The rea-
sons were taxation without represen-
tation and increasingly brutal oppres-
sion. Through the night of April 18,
700 British soldiers marched toward
Lexington and Concord, Massachu-
setts. Their purpose was to seize the
purported cache of arms and gunpow-
der belonging to the colonists. The
colonists, also referred to as minute-
men, being the well-armed militia,
responded to the call for assistance in
defense from the Brits. They refused
the British command to “throw down
your arms! Ye villains, ye rebels.”
And then the resounding “shot heard
around the world” offi cially started
the struggle for our freedom and
independence that we continue to
this day.
April 19,1775, stands as a state-
ment of how far a citizen, a well-
armed military, if you will, is willing
to go to preserve our liberty. George
Washington stated this: “A free people
ought not only be armed and disci-
plined but they should have suffi cient
arms and ammunition to maintain a
status of independence from any who
might attempt to abuse them which
would include their own government.”
May God continue to bless America.
Bill Hanley
Baker City
Local historian seeks
memories about Royal Cafe
I’m writing about the Chinese who
operated the Royal Cafe in Baker City
for many years. Many will remember
Jack Eng, who worked in the patron
area. Co-owners of Jack, who worked
in the kitchen and were seldom seen
out front, were Allan Eng, Harry Eng,
Gan Ong, and Jimmy Eng. Later
owners were Henry Wong and Annie
Wong. I’d like persons with memories
about the cafe to contact me. Especial-
ly I would like to here from persons
who had contact with personnel who
worked in the kitchen, plus memories
of serving staff. I may be contacted via
email (tubingen@eoni.com) and via
phone (541-523-6760).
Gary Dielman
Baker City
Court supports religious liberty
By Robert Dunn
For more than a year, the state of
California prohibited my clients, Pastor
Jeremy Wong and Karen Busch, as well
as countless others from every faith
tradition, from meeting with other be-
lievers in their own homes to study reli-
gious texts, pray and worship together.
This is because the state’s “gatherings
guidance” banned all indoor gatherings
in counties where COVID-19 was most
widespread and limited such gather-
ings to no more than three households
in all other counties.
These restrictions strike at the heart
of Christian practice. As Pastor Wong
has attested under penalty of perjury,
“communal worship, congregational
study, and collective prayer are central
tenets of my faith and ministry.” In-
deed, he says, “every description of the
church in the New Testament is that of
a physically gathered people.”
For this reason, house churches and
small-group gatherings have been
a core part of the Christian faith for
two millennia. And while technology
has done much to help us survive the
pandemic, these types of religious
in-person gatherings, Pastor Wong
explained, “are impossible to replicate
in an online format.”
Wong and Busch were more than
willing to hold their Bible studies and
prayer meetings safely — requiring
attendees to wear masks, socially
distance and stay away if symptomatic
— but the state refused to allow an
accommodation for genuine religious
gatherings. Wong and Busch were even
willing to hold these gatherings in their
backyards, but the state’s gather-
ings guidance prohibited (or sharply
restricted) outdoor gatherings as well,
even in counties where viral spread
was minimal or nonexistent.
After patiently enduring these
restrictions for nearly six months, my
clients, with the support also of the
Center for American Liberty, turned
to the federal courts for relief. The
First Amendment protects the “free
exercise” of religion against govern-
ment encroachment — whether that
religious activity occurs in a church,
synagogue, mosque or in the privacy of
one’s own home. Thus, even if the state
can cancel birthdays and Super Bowl
parties, courts must look more closely
at government restrictions that curtail
religious expression.
Under established Supreme Court
precedent, whenever a law burdens
religious exercise the court must ask
whether it is neutral and generally
applicable — that is, whether the law
treats religious activity the same way it
treats comparable nonreligious activi-
ties. If the answer to that question is
“no,” the court will strike down the
law unless it is narrowly tailored to
advance a compelling government in-
terest. In other words, the government
must show that measures less restric-
tive of the free exercise of religion could
not address its interest.
The gatherings guidance, although
applicable to many secular as well as
religious gatherings, is riddled with
exceptions. For example, the state al-
lows indoor “cultural ceremonies”— in-
cluding weddings and funerals that are
entirely secular — to exceed the three-
household limit. The state also allows
dozens or even hundreds of people to
congregate indoors in buses, trains and
airports. Government offi ces and fa-
vored businesses where people gather
in close proximity are also allowed to
operate.
In parts of the state that fall into the
“orange” and “yellow” tiers, even movie
theaters and restaurants can operate.
But Wong and Busch, who reside in
Santa Clara County, which is currently
in the orange tier, were prohibited
from gathering in their own homes (or
backyards) to pray or study Scripture
with more than two other people from
different households.
Thankfully, that all changed on
Friday night, when the United States
Supreme Court, in Tandon v. Newsom,
granted our request for an emergency
injunction. As the court explained,
government regulations trigger strict
scrutiny “whenever they treat any
comparable secular activity more
favorably than religious exercise. It
is no answer that a State treats some
comparable secular businesses or other
activities as or even less favorably
than the religious exercise at issue.”
The court held that the gatherings
guidance was subject to strict scrutiny
because “California treats some com-
parable secular activities more favor-
ably than at-home religious exercise,
permitting hair salons, retail stores,
personal care services, movie theaters,
private suites at sporting events and
concerts, and indoor restaurants to
bring together more than three house-
holds at a time.” Because the state had
not explained — or even attempted
to explain — why “it could not safely
permit at-home worshipers to gather
in larger numbers while using precau-
tions used in secular activities,” the
court issued an injunction permitting
worshipers to once again gather in the
privacy of their homes to worship God
with other believers.
The court’s decision in Tandon sends
a clear and important message to
state and local governments that they
cannot trample religious liberty while
exempting their political allies and fa-
vored industries — such as Hollywood
and big-box retailers — many of which
lobbied hard for special treatment.
Thankfully, Gov. Gavin Newsom
appears fi nally to have heeded that
message. This week, “in response to
recent judicial rulings,” California
not only ceased enforcing restrictions
on private in-home religious gather-
ings, but it also eliminated mandatory
location and capacity limits on places
of worship. Although the state still
recommends limiting indoor worship
to 25% of capacity in some counties
and to 50% in others, religious groups
no longer face criminal prosecution
and civil penalties for exceeding those
limits.
No one disputes that state and local
leaders have faced diffi cult decisions
in responding to the pandemic, but as
the Supreme Court has now reiter-
ated for the fi fth time in fi ve months,
the government cannot treat the First
Amendment’s free-exercise guarantee
as a second-class right.
Robert Dunn represents the plaintiffs in
Tandon vs. Newsom. He is an attorney in
the San Jose offi ce of Eimer Stahl LLP.