A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Climate
rules will
affect how
we live
T
he Legislature was likely to have
been Gov. Kate Brown’s best
friend. It was controlled by her
fellow Democrats.
But it wasn’t on climate legislation. Re-
publicans walked out to block what she
and many of her fellow Democrats had
in mind. Brown responded with an ex-
ecutive order. And this week, key climate
rules for transportation and growth are
expected to be adopted by the state.
They are powerful changes to how Or-
egonians live and get from place to place.
Some of them build on trends that are al-
ready in state rules. Some of it is new. If
you like the proposal or don’t, now may
be your last chance to comment on them.
The proposal changes how cities over
10,000 can grow. They must plan for
what are called climate friendly zones to
accommodate at least 30% of their hous-
ing needs. What does that really mean?
It means more dense development. More
growing up than out.
You aren’t going to be yanked out of
your car. But there is a big shift coming
in prioritization away from passenger
cars. Transportation will be required to
be more oriented toward pedestrians,
bikes and transit. It will be harder to find
a place to park and easier to find a char-
ger for an electric vehicle. Local streets
will be narrow and slow. New city plans
for transportation will have to have the
goal of reducing car trips.
If you like to bike, the rules may make
things better for you. The bicycle system
will have to satisfy most travel needs un-
der 3 miles. There are more requirements
for bicycle parking. Will there be wide,
protected bike lanes enabling bicyclists to
get where they need to go without hav-
ing to worry about getting whacked by a
car and bike lanes that will be cleared of
snow? The rules don’t seem to go that far.
Another important priority is to en-
sure growth or transportation plans are
done equitably. Plans have to be reviewed
through an equity lens. The question is if
the more intense development may spur
gentrification, despite any equity review.
Will these proposed rules lead to a
more climate friendly Oregon? It would
seem so.
Will it make housing more affordable?
That’s difficult to answer. Supporters
would say yes in the long run because the
rules are aimed at being climate friendly.
Will it make more housing of the kinds
Oregonians want available? Homebuild-
ers are concerned it will not create the
housing mix people look for and will put
more pressure on prices for single-family
homes.
Will cities get enough financial support
from the state to easily transition to all
the new requirements? We will see.
There’s more information here, tinyurl.
com/DLCDagendas, about the agenda
for the meeting. And the state has tried
to simplify the explanation of the rules
here, tinyurl.com/Oregonclimatefriendly.
More information about how to com-
ment is here: tinyurl.com/DLCDcom-
ment.
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.
COLUMN
GOP can extend inflation advantage
BY RAMESH PONNURU
Inflation is likely to be the most powerful
issue working for Republicans in this year’s
congressional elections. Public concern over
it has been rising fast. Republicans can plau-
sibly blame the administration of President
Joe Biden for making the problem worse by
spending too much money on a pandemic
stimulus program he pushed through Con-
gress last year, and for not taking it seriously
as it emerged.
But there isn’t much that Congress can do
to affect the course of inflation in the short
term. The Federal Reserve is in charge of
monetary policy. Congress can (in principle!)
pass legislation to make the economy more
productive, but any changes would generally
take awhile to have an effect.
That’s only a small political inconvenience
for Republicans. Voters are more likely to
want to register their anger over inflation
than pore over any candidate’s plans to ad-
dress it. (Elections are a blunt instrument for
public control of the government.)
There are also ways that Republicans can
contribute to bringing inflation down. If they
did, they could both perform a useful service
for the country and increase their political
advantage on the issue, at least a little.
The first is simply to support monetary
tightening. A large portion of recent infla-
tion has been caused by excessive spending
throughout the US economy. During the ex-
pansion prior to the arrival of COVID-19 two
years ago, spending had grown by a bit less
than 4% a year. Over the past year it has risen
more than 10%.
Even after the Federal Reserve’s mid-March
hike in interest rates, spending has been ris-
ing fast enough to keep the gap growing
between actual spending levels and the pre-
COVID trend. By that measure, the Fed has
not yet, in effect, tightened at all.
It should be encouraged to tighten money
both by raising interest rates further and,
maybe more important, by announcing that
its goal is to bring spending levels back to
the trajectory they were on before the burst
of inflation.
Central bankers are sure to face pressure
to ease off, especially if tightening leads to
higher unemployment. Republicans should
exert countervailing pressure, pointing out
that getting inflation under control is the
only way to achieve sustainable high em-
ployment. The Fed has made the eventual
tightening more painful by delaying it,
and should not delay further. Republicans
could also explore legislation to make the
stabilization of spending a statutory goal of
the Federal Reserve, giving that goal more
credibility.
And while no one should oversell how
much or how fast policy changes can address
inflation by expanding supply, some such
changes are worth pursuing. Former Presi-
dent Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and alu-
minum never made much sense as either a
national-security or job-protecting measure,
and his tariffs on China have largely failed to
achieve their objectives. Abandoning them
would, as the Peterson Institute for Interna-
tional Economics puts it, “provide a tempo-
rary downward shock to prices.” (It’s worth
noting, however, that lifting the tariffs on
China would require mounting an argument
to win over skeptics.)
Congress could also remove barriers to en-
ergy production — something Republicans
are already calling for — and to the automa-
tion of ports. Senator Mike Lee, the Utah Re-
publican, has a bill that applies deregulation
to transportation-sector logjams, and an-
other one to increase housing supply. These
measures would probably make the econ-
omy a bit more productive even if inflation
subsides. They would also provide a way for
Congress to show that it is working to bring
prices down.
Finally, Republicans should block propos-
als that would make inflation worse. Many
economists think widespread student-debt
relief would have this effect, and that the
Democrats’ “Build Back Better” spending
legislation would as well.
Congress could also consider delaying the
spending of some of the money it is devoting
to infrastructure projects so that more of it
happens after labor shortages and supply dis-
ruptions ease. That would produce more in-
frastructure improvement per dollar spent.
This is hardly an exhaustive list. The point
is that when Republicans face the question,
“What are you going to do about inflation?”
they can offer many partial answers. Demo-
crats would be wise to go along with some of
these ideas, too, and even to propose them
first. But some of them, such as the ones that
involve taking on unions, are a more natural
fit for Republicans.
All of these political considerations are
meaningful, however, only on the margins.
No matter what politicians in either party do,
the cost of living is going to be front of mind
for voters this fall. They’re going to take out
their frustrations on the party in power.
█
Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist.
He is the editor of National Review and a fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute.
OTHER VIEWS
YOUR VIEWS
Protesting at justices’
homes self-defeating
Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for ranchers’
losses to wolves
Editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
The apparently pending Supreme
Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade
is an affront to women’s rights to bi-
ological self-determination and to all
Americans’ rights to privacy. This is
why wide majorities of the country op-
pose the coming reversal of Roe. But
if that support is to remain strong and
eventually translate into abortion-pro-
tection legislation, pro-choice forces
must quit sabotaging themselves by
engaging in threatening protests at jus-
tices’ homes — and the Biden adminis-
tration must enforce federal law prohib-
iting such actions.
To be sure, the leaked draft of Justice
Samuel Alito’s opinion, joined by four
other conservatives on the court, is in-
furiating. In language berating and dis-
missive of a right that has been a cher-
ished and transformative one to more
than half the U.S. population for almost
half a century, Alito effectively struck
down the entire premise of a right to
privacy implicit in the Constitution.
Were he right (he’s not), other rights
like access to contraception, same-sex
marriage and even interracial marriage
could also be on the chopping block.
Activists lately have staged protests
outside the homes of Alito and other
conservative justices. In response, Govs.
Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Larry
Hogan of Maryland sent a letter this
week to U.S. Attorney General Merrick
Garland demanding that he enforce a
federal law making it a crime to “picket”
judges’ residences “with the intent of in-
fluencing” their decisions.
The protesters argue that law doesn’t
apply in this case because their intent
is to express their fury, not to influ-
ence the upcoming decision. Even if
that’s true, they miss a broader point.
The potential loss of Roe is a huge is-
sue that should be debated as an issue,
not as a personal attack on individuals.
What they’re doing is comparable to
anti-choice demonstrators intimidating
women as they enter abortion clinics.
The key to keeping some legislative or
other form of abortion rights in place is
to convince the broad middle. Polls in-
dicate moderates strongly favor keeping
some level of abortion rights in force.
If pro-choice activists want to keep that
tentative majority alliance in place,
the last thing they should do is present
themselves as radicals who shout slo-
gans at judges’ families in their homes
in response to rulings they don’t like.
Yes, as one protester told The Wash-
ington Post, there is something galling
about the premise that “the Supreme
Court wants to have domain over wom-
en’s uteruses and yet the sidewalk in
front of their homes is somehow sacred
ground.” It may not be sacred ground,
but it is outside the legitimate parame-
ters of debate and protest. For the sake
of both political propriety and strategic
effectiveness, those activists should keep
to the Supreme Court steps.
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 ranch-
ers for extra work in protecting their stock. This
year some ranchers 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 taxpayers for extra work and was the primary
beneficiary of $5,000 paid by a conservation group
for range-riders. Oregonians also pony up for non-
lethal tools and equipment, including ATVs.
Oregon wolves are not a non-native 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. Thou-
sands of wolves were shot, trapped, poisoned, stran-
gled, and bludgeoned 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 prolif-
erated 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 producers should
themselves bear the cost of compensation. The Oregon
and national cattlemen’s associations should collect
funds from their own members for their own com-
pensation fund. Taxpayers should not be responsible.
Wally Sykes
Joseph