THE BULLETIN • SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 2021 B5
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Did Cliff Bentz
fail Oregonians?
I
f you have been reading the paper, you know Rep. Cliff Bentz,
the newly elected Republican representing Oregon’s 2nd
Congressional District, objected to the certification of electors
from Pennsylvania.
Should Bentz have done that?
The state’s Democratic Party says he
failed Oregonians. Did Bentz have a
point? If he did, was it the right thing
to bring it up?
Almost anything that happened
in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday
has been drowned out by the pres-
ident of the United States inciting
an attack by a mob on the legislative
branch. Even before that, it was dif-
ficult to take any of the Republican
challenges to the November election
seriously. Most were not backed by
the slimmest of facts. Courts re-
jected them. The challenges also
threatened to disenfranchise mil-
lions of Americans, if not imperil the
democracy.
Bentz was concerned about what
happened with what’s called Act
77 in Pennsylvania. It passed the
Legislature there in 2019. Among
other things, it established univer-
sal mail-in voting in the state. If
Pennsylvanians wanted to vote with
a mail-in ballot, they could. They
didn’t need an excuse. Other states
have not been as swift as Oregon to
allow that.
In September 2020, the Pennsyl-
vania Supreme Court extended the
deadline to accept absentee ballots
in that state by three days after the
Nov. 3 election to Nov. 6. The Penn-
sylvania secretary of state and others
argued additional time was needed
because of postal issues and back-
logs related to COVID-19.
Bentz’s complaint was Pennsylva-
nia’s secretary of state “and the state’s
Supreme Court did not adhere to
the statutes set forth by the legisla-
ture when they extended deadlines
for the return of absentee ballots.
This action violated the principles of
Article II of the (U.S.) Constitution
because the state legislature had not
previously delegated broader au-
thority to the secretary (of state).”
Lawyers with the support of Pres-
ident Donald Trump’s campaign
effectively asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to take up this particular
Pennsylvania question twice. The
court declined.
At least four conservative justices
on the U.S. Supreme Court were,
though, concerned about what the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court did.
“The provisions of the federal Con-
stitution conferring on state legisla-
tures, not state courts, the authority
to make rules governing federal elec-
tions would be meaningless,” Justice
Samuel Alito wrote, “if a state court
could override the rules adopted
by the legislature simply by claim-
ing that a state constitutional pro-
vision gave the courts the authority
to make whatever rules it thought
appropriate for the conduct of a
fair election.” Bentz made a similar
argument.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who
is also a conservative, did not side
with those justices. He has made a
different argument that state courts
have the right to interpret the state’s
constitution and laws. Others on
the Supreme Court have believed
voting accommodations could be
warranted during a pandemic. New
Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not
participate.
So Bentz did bring up an argu-
ably unsettled constitutional ques-
tion. But was it then correct for him
to object to the election results for
Pennsylvania?
The voters spoke. The election
was not close. The U.S. Supreme
Court also spoke. It did not reach a
clear conclusion in agreement with
Bentz. Bentz could have let it go. It’s
not as if the issue would be forgot-
ten if he did not raise an objection
on the House floor. He chose to
stick to his convictions. Did he fail
Oregonians?
Historical editorials:
Don’t condemn city
e e
Editor’s note: The following editorials
originally appeared in what was then called
The Bend Bulletin on Dec. 22, 1905.
N
ow comes Bull Creek flat
with a sugar beet showing
of unusual merit. Evidently
the whole Deschutes country is
naturally the best sugar beet coun-
try in the United States. Nature
having done her part fully, what
will man do to improve the sweet
opportunity?
…
It is a mistake to suppose all the
people of Prineville are in sympa-
thy with lawbreakers. Prineville
does not differ greatly from any
other American community. It has
many excellent people — people
of intelligence and character and
fine sensibilities, who love justice
and a square deal. That other ele-
ments frequently come into prom-
inence is true of Prineville as it is
of other towns. It is a mistake to
condemn the town or the county
because of occasional acts of dis-
order. Human society everywhere
must struggle with such facts.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
Here’s how the riot at the Capitol unfolded
BY DAVID WEIGEL
The Washington Post
W
ASHINGTON — On
Wednesday morning, when
I heard people chant “storm
the Capitol,” I didn’t take it seriously.
It was 11:42 a.m., and I’d arrived on
the East Lawn of the White House,
where Vice President Mike Pence
would enter, to check on the “Stop the
Steal” protests. The crowd consisted of
less than a thousand people, smaller
than rallies I’d seen in the same place
for opposing the Affordable Care Act,
or blocking the Iran nuclear deal or,
eventually, opposing the repeal of the
Affordable Care Act.
The president had begun his mara-
thon speech outside the White House,
and I was listening to a dozen people
pray before an image of Jesus Christ
when I heard a shout: “We love the
Proud Boys!”
As I moved out of the way, a gang of
Proud Boys, a male-chauvinist group
with ties to white nationalism, marched
past. “They can’t stop us!” yelled the
march leader, through a bullhorn. “I say
we storm the Capitol!”
“Storm the Capitol!” someone else
shouted, through another bullhorn.
“Seventeen-seventy-six!” yelled
someone else.
It took 90 more minutes for me to
grasp the significance of that. A career
covering politics, much of it spent on
the conservative movement, had con-
ditioned me to revolutionary rhetoric
that nobody acts on. Yet here they were,
acting out the plan they’d screamed into
reality, walking right past me.
I usually avoid first-person writing.
My initial plan for Wednesday was to
talk to supporters of the president as
the plan to throw out the results of the
election foundered. But events have
made that impossible. Although Joe
Biden was officially declared the pres-
ident-elect early Thursday morning,
that moment was delayed by an attempt
to overthrow the government. I’m call-
ing it that because it’s what a critical
mass of rioters believed they were do-
ing.
It was clear, early yesterday morning,
that the usual work of approaching po-
litical activists, asking for their names
and writing up their opinions was not
going to be easy. The first person I
talked to, a man from Delaware hold-
ing the state flag, would only give his
name as “Chris.”
“What are you expecting to happen
today?” I asked.
“To be honest, I’m just kind of hold-
ing my breath here, waiting for some-
one to make a (expletive) move,” he said.
“If they don’t start (expletive) arresting
people and hanging people real soon,
they’re going to be burning and hanging
off these (expletive) trees out here.”
I laughed awkwardly, and stopped at
his next sentence: “We have the Consti-
tution in this country. It defines the re-
sponsibilities and the limitations of the
government.” A few minutes later, I saw
a reporter for the BBC being harassed
by two activists, moving back with his
camera as they moved toward him.
When I walked over to help him, one
of the activists began screaming for us
both to leave.
“He has a right to be here, as do you,”
I said.
“No,” she said. “You’re communists.
You’re bought by China. Get out.”
The whole day went like that, only
worse. I never planned to enter the
Capitol itself, due to restrictions on how
many people could be inside at once.
Instead, I watched thousands of people
psych themselves up into crashing po-
lice barricades, cutting fences and even-
tually smashing windows to halt the
certification of the election.
For about an hour, I positioned my-
self on the West Lawn near a wall that
activists were climbing over as they
marched from the president’s speech.
One group of men shouted “build
the gallows” as they looked for a path
to the Capitol. A man egging on the
wall-climbers shouted “military tribu-
nals,” trying to get a chant going, with a
few people joining in. When there was
a bang near the Capitol itself, there was
a loud cheer: People assumed that the
invasion was on.
The events of Jan. 6 will be with us
for a long time, from the immediate
political consequences to a criminal in-
vestigation that will make use of count-
less photos and videos, often taken by
the people committing federal crimes.
I don’t know what effect it’ll have on
campaigns. But it felt like the end of
something.
Everything I heard, from the threats
to murder members of the government
to the snarls meant to scare reporters
away, was familiar from the rhetoric I’d
seen online. I’d been conditioned to see
it all as hyperbole, intentionally provoc-
ative trolling.
But when these rioters said “storm
the Capitol,” they meant that they would
storm the Capitol. When they said “Hil-
lary for prison,” they meant that they
wanted to jail the president’s 2016 oppo-
nent. When they said “Biden’s a pedo-
phile,” they meant that they thought the
president-elect was either a member of
an international ring of child rapists, or
a freelancer with the same predilections.
When they said “1776,” they meant that
the incoming government was illegit-
imate and tyrannical, and should be
overthrown by force.
e e
David Weigel is a national political correspondent
covering Congress and grassroots political
movements.
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no more
than 250 words and include the writer’s
signature, phone number and address
for verification. We edit letters for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons. We re-
ject poetry, personal attacks, form letters,
letters submitted elsewhere and those
appropriate for other sections of The Bul-
letin. Writers are limited to one letter or
guest column every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words; they must be signed;
and they must include the writer’s phone
number and address for verification. We
edit submissions for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject those
submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted
columns alternate with national colum-
nists and commentaries. Writers are lim-
ited to one letter or guest column every
30 days.
Please address your submission to either
My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and
mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email
submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
Why should Oregon work so hard for single-payer health care?
BY DR. SAMUEL METZ
T
he Bulletin’s editorial, “Single-
payer plan in the works for Ore-
gon,” identifies major challenges
confronting the SB 770 Task Force. As
a task force member, I can confirm
that changing Oregon’s health care in-
dustry is a heavy lift. Health care is the
largest industry in Bend. It’s the largest
industry in the US. It’s the largest in-
dustry in the world.
So in the face of this challenge, why
is our task force investing so much
effort to create a single-payer health
care plan?
Because single payer provides bet-
ter care to more people for less money.
Every single-payer plan in the U.S.
and the world confirms this. Single
payer examples like TriCare for the
U.S. military, Medicare for seniors, the
Oregon Health Plan for those unable
to afford private insurance and the
national plans of many European and
Pacific Rim countries achieve more
with their health care dollars than our
American multi-payer private plans.
Single payer is so effective that most
large U.S. businesses offer private-sin-
gle payer plans. We usually call them
“self-funded plans,” but they use key
principles of single payer: Everyone
participates in a single comprehensive
plan with a single provider network. In
Oregon, 60% of employer-sponsored
health care plans reject private insur-
ance policies in favor of single payer.
Oregonians are no stranger to sin-
gle-payer health care. In Oregon’s
2nd Congressional District, 80%
of residents already receive health
care through a private or public sin-
gle-payer plan. This includes everyone
who participates in Medicare, Medic-
aid, Children’s Health Insurance Plan,
and an employer single-payer plan.
Our SB 770 Task Force wants ev-
eryone in Oregon already enrolled
GUEST COLUMN
in these many sin-
gle-payer plans to
join one statewide
plan, and then bring
in everyone else. The
economies of scale,
especially the dra-
Metz
matic reduction of
administrative costs
to patients and providers, save enough
money to expand care to everyone in
Oregon for less money than we spend
now.
But The Bulletin editorial identifies
our challenges, which are significant.
First, multiple federal laws (especially
ERISA) prevent any state from mar-
shaling all public and private health-
care spending into a common fund.
Remedying this requires Congress to
pass a states’ rights health care super-
waiver, much like HR 5010, the “State-
Based Universal Health Care Act.”
(Four of Oregon’s U.S. representatives
co-sponsor this bill.)
Working around federal law with-
out such enabling legislation will leave
Oregon with multiple health care pay-
ers, sacrificing the efficiency of a sin-
gle-payer system.
Second, the editorial asks “How
would Oregon pay for it?” Oregonians
already pay more than enough for
universal health care. We don’t get it
because our multi-payer system is the
most inefficient in the world. Single
payer in Oregon requires less money,
not more.
Third, the editorial implies that
radical improvement requires radical
change. This is correct. Our dysfunc-
tional health care system is as efficient
as it can be. Small tweaks will not
bring big results. We need big change.
Lastly, the editorial asks a key ques-
tion: When many Oregonians have
lost trust in all institutions, both pri-
vate and government, how can we ask
them to accept publicly-administered,
tax-funded health care?
This question is absolutely criti-
cal to our task force. The answer lies
with everyone in Oregon who wants
sustainable, affordable, quality health
care for themselves, their families,
their employees and their community.
I ask the editors of The Bulletin, the
readers of The Bulletin and Orego-
nians everywhere to be advocates for
single-payer health care: better care to
more people for less money.
e e
Dr. Samuel Metz lives in Portland and is a member
of Oregon’s SB 770 Task Force on Single Payer Health
Care. He is vice president of Oregon Physicians
for a National Health Program and a founding
member of Mad As Hell Doctors. He was a member
of Oregon’s 2018 Universal Access to Health Care
legislative work group and of the Oregon Medical
Association’s 2018 Universal Healthcare Task Force.