TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Earmarks
are back.
Is that bad?
It depends
The big winner when the U.S. House of Represen-
tatives voted this year to bring earmarks back to the
federal budget is K Street in Washington, D.C. That’s
where lobbyists have offi ces.
Is it a win for Main Street, U.S.A.? Maybe.
Earmarks — or as they are now called “community
project funding requests” — can be good. They can be
bad. It depends on how they are used.
A recent article in The (Bend) Bulletin outlined
plans of some of the members of Oregon’s congres-
sional delegation to earmark — or specifi cally direct
federal spending.
Earmarks do boost the importance of lobbyists in
federal politics. Want to tap into the power or ear-
marks? Hire a lobbyist.
Earmarks do create potential for corruption.
People inevitably bring up $233 million for the so-
called “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. That may not
be the best example because it was actually a bridge
to somewhere.
The better example is probably Rep. Randy “Duke”
Cunningham, R-Calif. He spent 8 years in federal
prison for taking more than $2 million in bribes. He
could use earmarks to direct spending toward his
chosen defense contracts. Newspaper journalists won
a Pulitzer Prize uncovering his corruption.
Less dramatic but closer to home is the example
of former Rep. David Wu, D-Portland. He earmarked
more than $2 million in congressional spending to a
company in his district for T-shirts for the Marines.
The Marines could not use the shirts in combat.
Earmarks, on the other hand, did do a lot of good
in Central Oregon. They helped pay for projects at
Central Oregon Community College, a Redmond Air-
port expansion and improvements for the Deschutes
River.
They enable a member of Congress to target
spending to needed areas. They don’t necessarily
add bloat to the federal budget. They aim the federal
budget. And as long as they are properly disclosed,
what is wrong with that? The new plan for earmarks
does require that they are disclosed.
Earmarks also shift the power dynamic in Wash-
ington a bit away from the executive branch and
government workers toward directly elected local
offi cials. They get more say about how the federal
budget is spent.
When earmarks were eliminated after Republi-
cans won midterm elections in 2010, it was celebrat-
ed as a victory for good government. Waste and cor-
ruption would fi nd fewer ways to seep into Congress.
But they are a tool. Some people may try to misuse
them as they do any tool. Eliminating earmarks also
eliminated the power that they have to do some good.
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.
Trump criminal probe could
backfire on the prosecutors
By Noah Feldman
New York Attorney General Letitia
James is playing major league poker
with former president Donald Trump
— and she just raised the stakes. The
AG’s offi ce announced that its civil in-
vestigation of the Trump Organization
for fi ling false tax returns has now be-
come an active criminal investigation.
In response, Trump issued a 900-word
statement denouncing the investiga-
tion as politically motivated.
Trump despisers may be tempted to
take some heart from the news of the
investigation, which will proceed along-
side the until-now separate criminal
investigation being conducted by the
district attorney of New York County,
Cyrus Vance Jr. But this is a high-risk
move by James. Trump’s opponents
would do well to remember the sizable
risk that would come with prosecuting
the one-term president: He could be ac-
quitted. And if that happened, Trump
could use the bounce-back as a highly
effective tool to support a presidential
bid in 2024.
The announcement by James’s offi ce
was brief and opaque — and it didn’t
mention the president by name. It said
simply that the AG’s offi ce had “in-
formed the Trump Organization that
our investigation into the organization
is no longer purely civil in nature” and
that it was “now actively investigating
the Trump Organization in a criminal
capacity, along with the Manhattan
D.A.”
At a minimum, the statement
implies that Trump personally has not
(yet) been made a direct, formal target
of the criminal investigation, or at least
has not been so informed. It’s possible
for prosecutors to go after the corpora-
tion for criminal liability even without
prosecuting all of its principals. So in
theory, at least, the Trump organization
could be criminally charged with fi ling
false state tax returns even if pros-
ecutors didn’t think they could prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump
“ ... from the prosecutors’
perspective, the worst thing that
could happen would be to bring
Trump to trial and fail to get a
conviction. Their own credibility
would be shot. To Trump
opponents, the prosecutors would
look incompetent. ”
himself knew about the false fi lings.
Trump’s reaction, however, suggests
that he is worried about becoming a
criminal target in his personal capacity.
A conviction of the Trump organization
is something he could explain away by
describing it as merely a kind of a fi ne.
Most ordinary people threatened
with the possibility of criminal prosecu-
tion would be well advised not to attack
their potential prosecutors. The offi ces
of the AG and the district attorney
possess prosecutorial discretion that is
almost absolute. It is extremely diffi cult
— even impossible — to intimidate
them out of bringing charges when
they think they can prove that crimes
occurred. It’s a terrible idea to antago-
nize prosecutors who may believe that
it is their public duty to make sure
no one can stop them from bringing a
prosecution by threats.
Trump, however, is in a different
situation. For him, the best way to
attempt to hold off a prosecution is
to try to create conditions that would
make any trial into even more of a po-
litical circus than it would in any case
become. The more prosecutors worry
that criminal prosecution would be
perceived nationally as a political show
trial, the more concerned they will be
with bringing the prosecution.
That’s because, from the prosecu-
tors’ perspective, the worst thing that
could happen would be to bring Trump
to trial and fail to get a conviction.
Their own credibility would be shot.
To Trump opponents, the prosecutors
would look incompetent. To Trump sup-
porters, they would look like partisans
trying to politicize the criminal justice
system. What’s more, Trump could
ride the failed prosecution back to the
White House — and the prosecution’s
failure would no doubt be blamed for
that outcome by many observers.
It follows that, for the prosecutors,
the only plausible decision to prosecute
Trump would be when conviction by
a New York jury would be essentially
certain. And that explains, at least in
part, why Trump is putting such an
effort into insisting that the investiga-
tion is illegitimate. (The idea that the
governor of Florida might be able to
block Trump from being extradited to
New York is far-fetched, legally speak-
ing. A New York state criminal charge
would almost certainly mean he would
have to stand trial.)
Remember that it only takes a single
dissenting juror to hang a jury and
keep a defendant out of prison. It’s
hard to imagine a New York City jury
acquitting Trump unanimously. Yet it is
totally possible that Trump’s depiction
of the investigation as political might
sway one out of twelve potential New
York City jury members.
The truth is that, from a national
Democratic perspective, even James’s
public announcement that her investi-
gation is going criminal should be a bit
worrisome. As Ralph Waldo Emerson
had it, “When you strike at a king, you
must kill him.” Or as Omar Little re-
vised it, “You come at the king, you best
not miss.” Unless Trump ultimately is
charged and convicted, the announce-
ment that he is under increasing crimi-
nal scrutiny will only embolden him.
What doesn’t kill Trump will make him
stronger.
Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion
columnist and host of the podcast “Deep
Background.” He is a professor of law at
Harvard University and was a clerk to
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
OTHER VIEWS
Editorial from Chicago Tribune:
For more than a year, we’ve been
trained to follow the science on
COVID-19 transmission: Stay 6
feet apart, wash your hands, wear a
mask.
So now that science from the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention indicates we can drop
masks if we’re vaccinated, we should
expect to move through our daily
lives maskless in most settings —
and without side-eye. If you’re vac-
cinated, the science says you can’t
spread the disease, and the chances
of getting sick are extremely low.
But can we do it? Trust the honor
system that when we see people
maskless in public, they’ve been
safely vaccinated? For those who
considered mask-wearing a political
statement, this might be a challenge.
It shouldn’t be.
Illinois’ Democratic governor, J.B.
Pritzker, is following the federal
guidelines that say “fully vaccinated
people can resume activities without
wearing a mask or physically
distancing, except where required
by federal, state, local, tribal, or
territorial laws, rules, and regula-
tions, including local business and
workplace guidance,” according to
the CDC website.
June 11 is the target date for a full
reopening of Illinois, but only if cases
of COVID-19 remain fl at. Chicago
is on a slower schedule, aiming for a
full reopening by the July 4 holiday.
In a statement May 17, Pritzker
said: “With public health experts
now saying fully vaccinated people
can safely remove their masks in
most settings, I’m pleased to follow
the science and align Illinois’ policies
with the CDC’s guidance. I also
support the choice of individuals and
businesses to continue to mask out
of an abundance of caution as this
pandemic isn’t over yet.”
So let’s proceed, masks on or off
based on our personal comfort levels,
without disapproval.
In Indiana, most counties have
dropped mask mandates completely.
The state of Michigan is following
the CDC guidelines for mask-
wearing with businesses able to
implement stricter rules. Wisconsin
establishments have been dropping
mask mandates, prior to the CDC
recommendations, after a state Su-
preme Court ruling two months ago
struck down Gov. Tony Evers’ mask
mandate.
In Illinois, the mask rules are
not universal; local governments
and businesses still can implement
their own policies, and many have.
If your gym wants to kick you out
for not masking up, it can. If your
grocery store keeps a mask policy
in place, you still have to follow it.
And if you’re in any health care
setting, the CDC strongly recom-
mends a continuation of face
coverings.
But the shaming — the confron-
tations and the glaring at people
not wearing masks — comes to an
end. Right?
In a letter to the editor published
online May 19 by the Chicago
Tribune, Chicago resident David
Whiteis suggests public health
offi cials encourage unmasking for
vaccinated people as a measure to
protect our mental health.
“Now, though, with scientifi c
data clearly showing that the vac-
cines not only protect us against
contracting the disease but also
lower the risk of transmission
signifi cantly, I believe that we
should begin looking at unmasking
(for most people) as essential to our
public MENTAL health, just as
masking and distancing have been
essential to our physical health and
survival for over a year,” he writes.
Sounds like a plan. We’re making
strides toward a return to normalcy.
Let’s embrace it — safely. Normalcy
is just as important to our well-being
as getting through the pandemic.