Opinion
A4
BAKER CITY
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Saturday, November 5, 2022 • Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Oregon
above
average in
tax burden
O
regon is above average in so
many good ways. We’d say
natural beauty per mile is
one. One of the less good ways Oregon
is above average is in the business tax
burden.
That is according to an Oregon busi-
ness group, Oregon Business & In-
dustry. And it’s pretty much what you
would expect a business group to say.
But if you look at the research of the Or-
egon Legislative Revenue Office, there
is definitely something to it.
The report from Oregon Business &
Industry is based on work by the na-
tional accounting firm Ernst & Young.
It says:
Oregon’s effective business tax rate
is 3% of the gross state product. That’s
above the national average, which was
2.6% in fiscal year 2021.
Add together the state and local total
effective tax rate and Oregon’s rate is at
5.4%. That’s above the U.S. average of
5%. It puts Oregon as the state with the
21st highest tax burden by state.
Now look at what the state’s Legisla-
tive Revenue Office says.
The office does a regular report on
state revenues to see how Oregon com-
pares and how it is changing.
The 2022 report uses 2019 data.
The Legislative Revenue Office has
looked at taxes with more of a people
focus than a business focus. “Over the
most recent years, the tax burden has
been close to or just above the middle of
the states, edging its way back into the
top half,” the 2022 report says.
Maybe the best number to pick is Or-
egon’s taxes in dollars per person. That
was $5,388, putting Oregon in 21st
place by state.
Oregon is also relatively high in gov-
ernment charges for state services, sixth
in the nation at $2,449 per person.
Like we said, Oregon is above average.
Of course, if you want schools, if you
want police protection, if you want fire
protection, if you want clean drinking
water and clean air, if you want waste
disposed of properly, if you want gov-
ernment programs to help the poor, if
you want roads and bridges, and if you
want so many of the other things gov-
ernment provides, government needs
revenue to do it.
States are also different. Compar-
ing across states is not completely fair.
There are going to be different needs for
government services depending on the
situation of the different states.
But there is always reason to look at
state performance with tax dollars. State
audits should be expanded. Deschutes
County government has had a great
program for self-auditing what it does.
Why don’t more local governments
have that?
And there is always reason to, at least,
consider how necessary new or existing
programs, regulations or taxes are.
Among the many things to consider
this election, which candidates that you
can vote for will be the most aggressive
in looking for ways for government to
improve, carefully weigh the benefits
and the costs of any new tax or program
and fight to ensure every tax dollar is
well spent?
█
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.
OTHER VIEWS
When fear meets technology
BY ALLAN RIPP
Walking around my son’s cozy Los
Angeles neighborhood with its Tes-
la-lined driveways and stunning tele-
scopic views of the Hollywood Hills,
I noticed the neighborhood had its
eyes on me.
Stepping from house to house
and street to street, I encountered a
friendly, disembodied voice. “Hi!”
she said, “You are currently being
recorded.” Never mind I was in the
middle of the road.
At night, the same walk triggered
a bright light beaming from ga-
rages and closed front doors, as my
movements tripped motion detec-
tion recorders en route. Fenced dogs
barked furiously and signs warned
of “armed response.” I began to think
of the rising palm trees as guard
towers.
Living in New York, I don’t often
notice the citywide surveillance ap-
paratus but see its effects in scary
news stories of home invasions and
subway assaults, with video cap-
tured by Ring cameras and CCTV.
Afforded the safety of a large apart-
ment building with a doorman, I
keep our front door unlocked. Our
wide-angle peephole has been bro-
ken for years, covered by duct tape.
Our biggest protection is a mezuzah
Torah prayer mounted over the en-
trance.
But in the SoCal enclave where
my son lives, near Culver City,
with hillside cul-de-sacs and only
a trickle of pedestrians, the idea of
smart security devices seems rea-
sonable, even if I felt like a perp
whenever I set foot outside his
house. A forensic video record ex-
ists of my walkabouts, no doubt
catching me adjusting my pants,
cleaning my ears and yes, dou-
ble bagging the garbage after our
family meals. I can also be heard
answering my unseen chaperone:
“You talking to me?”
Los Angeles and New York,
like many major cities, have been
plagued by an uptick in crime, which
has heightened local suspicion, in-
cluding in the racially diverse liberal
neighborhood I was visiting. Add
to that a set of technology tools that
allows homeowners to create their
own virtual and connected security
forces.
The taped footage from smart
door cameras is increasingly de-
ployed by prosecutors in courtroom
settings to prove criminal activity in
plain sight. One of my colleagues in
the Bay Area successfully used video
of a home break-in to convict a lo-
cal thief who was recorded in broad
daylight hiding on his porch, and
later carrying computer equipment
from the house.
Although defense lawyers try to
suppress such “gotcha” evidence
as a violation of an individual’s 4th
Amendment rights against unrea-
sonable or warrantless searches, the
footage has just as often been ruled
admissible for being in “public view,”
that the camera just happened to
have captured.
But in a low-crime area like my
son’s, even modest infractions get
noticed. He was busted for depos-
iting his dog’s crap bag in someone
else’s bin and a tape quickly made
the rounds on the local Nextdoor
app. “Watch out for this guy!” was
the Interpol-like alert. Now a model
citizen, he snapped if I let his dog set
foot on his neighbors’ artificial lawns
or pee on their cactus.
One evening we reviewed some
Ring footage on my daughter-in-
law’s phone — it’s become the latest
version of “America’s Funniest Home
Videos.” There she was return-
ing home tipsy one night, fiddling
with her keys and telling the dogs
to “Shush, my babies.” In another
segment shot from the living-room
camera, my son was caught
face-planting over a laptop cord. My
wife was captured in spooky night
vision cradling our newborn grand-
daughter at 2 a.m.
No one likes being watched, but
absent private sentinels or cops on
the beat, residents rightly welcome
an extra pair of high-tech eyes,
though some window blinds might
help.
I was awakened at 3 a.m. one
night by the San Quentin-strength
security light outside my son’s guest
bedroom. It stayed lit for minutes,
and I thought I heard something
rustling outside. I considered wak-
ing the household, but all went quiet,
and I fell back asleep.
The next morning, we examined
the video and saw evidence of a vi-
olent encounter with an unwanted
guest: A large spider had tangled
with an insect in its web. No arrests
were made.
█
Allan Ripp runs a press relations firm in
New York.
COLUMN
The Beatles’ ‘Revolver’ finally gets the magic touch
T
he Beatles made their last recording 52 years
ago but the quartet continues to delight their
fans in new ways, which is quite a feat consid-
ering two of them are dead.
The sheer brilliance of their music is untarnished
by time.
Even with John Lennon gone since 1980, and
George Harrison since 2001, the songs they made
with Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney have lost none
of their original capacity to thrill, enchant and enrich
listeners.
Including millions who, like me, weren’t yet born
when the group disbanded in the spring of 1970.
Technology, which can make past achievements
seem plain, or even irrelevant in their quaint sim-
plicity, has had precisely the opposite effect on the
work The Beatles produced in the latter half of
their career.
(Their output is prodigious in quantity as well
as unsurpassed in quality. Compared with modern
pop music, when artists frequently let several years
pass between albums, The Beatles were incredi-
bly prolific. During eight years of recording they
released 13 albums, including two albums each in
1963, 1964 and 1965. They also put out multiple
standalone singles in each of those years.)
Since 2017, the 50th anniversary of The Beatles’
most famous album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts
Club Band,” producer Giles Martin, son of the
band’s original producer, George Martin, has re-
mixed five albums, starting with Sgt. Pepper’s.
The basic concept with remixing is to start with
the original tapes — actual magnetic tapes in this
case; the emergence of fully digital recording was
far ahead — and use computer tools to burnish the
songs so they’re as close as possible to the sounds
the band actually created in London’s Abbey Road
studio.
The changes Giles Martin wrought are subtle yet
revelatory.
He didn’t introduce any new sounds.
Rather, he used modern production techniques
to enhance what was always there on the aging
tapes — for instance, making McCartney’s me-
lodic bass lines and Starr’s inventive drum fills more
prominent, or doing the same with the group’s
peerless vocal harmonies.
When I first listened to the remixed Sgt. Pepper’s
Jayson
Jacoby
more than five years ago I marveled at how these
songs, all of which I’ve heard many dozens of times,
rang in my ears with a new potency despite their
familiarity.
I wouldn’t have believed I could enjoy The Beat-
les’ music more than I had.
But I was wrong, and rarely so happy to be wrong.
In the ensuing years I have enjoyed the subse-
quent remixes of “The Beatles” (1968’s double al-
bum, better known as the White Album), “Abbey
Road” from 1969 and “Let It Be” from 1970 (re-
leased after “Abbey Road” but recorded before).
Yet ever since Sgt. Pepper’s came out I have been
preoccupied with one question: What about “Re-
volver?”
That’s the 1966 album which for many fans —
including me — marks the apex of The Beatles’ re-
cording career.
Sadly, the consensus seemed to be that “Revolver,”
due to the comparatively rudimentary four-track re-
cording techniques The Beatles and George Martin
employed in 1966, was not suited to Giles Martin’s
audio alchemy.
For the same reason the band’s earlier albums, in-
cluding such achievements as 1965’s “Rubber Soul”
and “Help!,” were likely to be poor candidates for
remixing.
Then Peter Jackson got involved.
Thank goodness for hobbits and orcs and the
prodigious financial resources they afforded Jack-
son, the film director.
He’s also an avowed Beatles aficionado.
Jackson created “Get Back,” the three-part docu-
mentary that chronicles the January 1969 recording
sessions that eventually resulted in the “Let It Be” al-
bum a year later.
While working on that project during the pan-
demic, Jackson’s company, WingNut Films Produc-
tions, and engineer Emile de la Rey devised a pro-
cess known as “demixing.”
The technology befuddles me — it involves artifi-
cial intelligence, for one thing — but I can grasp the
basic concept.
In effect, the process separates each part of a re-
cording — down to individual guitar parts and even
individual drums in Ringo’s kit.
Jackson’s team employed the technology in “Get
Back” to make dialogue audible.
The director also offered the proprietary process
to Giles Martin, who suggested that it might make
possible to remix “Revolver.”
To my eternal gratitude, it was indeed possible.
A CD of the new “Revolver” remix showed up in
my mailbox on Tuesday, Nov. 1. Less than an hour
after I got home from work I was listening to the
songs and marveling, just as I did five years ago with
Sgt. Pepper’s, at The Beatles’ inimitable ability to craft
songs that, to my ears, will never sound anything but
fresh.
I had, I suppose, become accustomed to hearing
The Beatles’ old songs in a new light — the audible
equivalent of looking through a pane of glass that’s
just had its layers of dust rubbed away.
But “Revolver” was different because, until re-
cently, I had presumed its songs would not be re-
freshed like those of later albums.
To reiterate, Giles Martin didn’t change the origi-
nal recordings. He honed them, bringing listeners as
close as possible to an experience none of us can ever
have, which is to be with The Beatles in the studio.
Martin’s deft touch revealed details I had either
never heard, or that were difficult to distinguish
among the other sounds.
On “For No One,” Paul’s gorgeous but melancholy
ballad, I hear a piano figure that I never noticed be-
fore.
There’s also a brief, recurring electric guitar riff in
“She Said She Said” that I didn’t remember.
Those are just two examples. I suspect all fans will
discover their own bag of riches from this kaleido-
scope of sounds.
The remixed “Revolver” package includes a bonus
that I appreciated far more than the usual selection of
alternate takes of songs. Giles Martin also performed
Jackson’s demixing magic on the classic double
A-side single The Beatles released in 1966 — “Paper-
back Writer” and “Rain.”
That single, along with “Revolver,” would consti-
tute a credible career for most bands.
For The Beatles it was only one year.
█
Jayson Jacoby is editor of the Baker City Herald.