Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Bulletin. (Bend, OR) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (May 21, 2021)
The BulleTin • Friday, May 21, 2021 A5 EDITORIALS & OPINIONS AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Heidi Wright Gerry O’Brien Richard Coe Publisher Editor Editorial Page Editor Earmarks are back in D.C., which isn’t necessarily all bad T he big winner when the U.S. House of Representatives voted this year to bring earmarks back to the federal budget is K Street in Washington, D.C. That’s where lobbyists have offices. 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 Bulletin outlined plans of some of the mem- bers of Oregon’s congressional dele- gation to earmark — or specifically direct federal spending. Earmarks do boost the impor- tance 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 fed- eral prison for taking more than $2 million in bribes. He could use ear- marks to direct spending toward his chosen defense contracts. Newspa- per 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 congres- sional 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 Cen- tral Oregon Community College, a Redmond Airport expansion and improvements for the Deschutes River. They enable a member of Con- gress 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 Washington a bit away from the executive branch and gov- ernment workers toward directly elected local officials. They get more say about how the federal budget is spent. When earmarks were eliminated after Republicans won midterm elections in 2010, it was celebrated as a victory for good government. Waste and corruption would find 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. The ‘prevailing wage’ becomes highest wage M any people praise the idea of a prevailing wage. It’s the wage and benefits paid to hourly workers that Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determines is paid to the majority of workers in a specified trade. Contractors and subcontractors are required, in turn, to pay that pre- vailing wage to workers employed on public works projects. The idea is it guarantees public money goes to ensure workers are well paid in an area, and that can ripple outward in a number of positive ways. Detractors say it raises the cost of public projects. And it can, though supporters say that’s worth it. This session, Oregon legislators passed Senate Bill 493. In certain circumstances, it changes how the prevailing wage is calculated. If, for instance, there is more than one col- lective bargaining agreement in an area for a trade or occupation, the bill specifies that the highest wage rate is the one to pick. That isn’t necessarily the prevail- ing wage. It’s just the highest. State Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, tried to stop the bill, as did state Rep. Jack Zika, R-Bend. State Rep. Jason Kropf, D-Bend, backed it. What would you have done? 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. How can we improve policing? Get police to talk about the videos BY CHUCK WEXLER Special to The Washington Post I f you spend your nights lying awake wondering what it will take to change policing in America, you’re not getting much sleep these days. The viral videos — one after another — are overwhelming and exhausting, and each new one seems to expose dif- ferent issues and challenges. In one, a cop pepper-sprays an Army second lieutenant as he sits in his vehicle after being pulled over. An- other video shows officers wrestling to the ground and handcuffing a 73-year- old woman with dementia who had allegedly taken items worth about $14 from a store. And one year ago next week will be the anniversary of a sear- ing video of George Floyd dying under the knee of former police officer Derek Chauvin. As a police reformer, I find myself caught between good cops who feel misunderstood and activists who want to defund police departments, or at least reimagine what policing looks like. I see a flurry of legislative propos- als at the local, state and federal levels, but most of them scratch only the sur- face of what is truly needed. So what can be done? How do we change not just the operations but also the culture of policing? And how can we generate the sense of urgency that this issue deserves in all 18,000 police agencies in the United States? The key to answering these ques- tions may lie in the very technology that brought these issues front and cen- ter in the first place: video. The explosion of video — both offi- cers’ body-worn cameras and bystand- ers’ cellphone footage — presents a unique learning opportunity for police, but police have to be willing to take ad- vantage of it. One barrier to changing U.S. polic- ing has been an unwillingness to ques- tion the actions of officers in another city. But to move policing forward, that reluctance has to be turned on its head. The notion that you shouldn’t “Mon- day morning quarterback” other offi- cers is simply wrong. Worse, it is hold- ing us back. The existence of so many videos al- lows police departments everywhere, of every size, to do something right away. Here is what I propose. Select a video of a recent officer-in- volved shooting or other use-of-force incident from anywhere in the coun- try. Assemble your command staff and play the video. Then start the con- versation by asking a simple question: “What would our department have done if this situation occurred here?” These conversations are difficult, so it’s essential to ask the right ques- tions. Typically, the first question that police ask in these situations is, “Were the officer’s actions justified?” That’s important from a narrow, legal stand- point. But the larger question needs to be, “What could we have done differ- ently that would have prevented this outcome?” There are other questions that need to be asked: • Were the actions of the officers appropriate and proportionate to the incident or any threat they faced? • Were the police even the right agency to handle this call? • Did the officers’ communications, tactics and decision-making escalate the situation? • Could other officers have stepped in to prevent a bad outcome? • Did officers render first aid if the subject was injured? • Have we developed a culture rooted in the sanctity of human life, in which the goal is for everyone to go home safely? Those are all questions that police personnel are not accustomed to con- fronting. But that’s why they are so im- portant to ask. After police chiefs have this discus- sion with their department leaders, they need to bring in their street cops and first-line supervisors. Ask them the same questions. Have the same un- comfortable conversations with them. The goal is to create a culture in which police agencies encourage open and honest discussions on controver- sial topics. Then, chiefs need to meet with members of the community and other city agencies to get their input as well. Think about what a powerful mes- sage that would send — asking the community for its perspective on how police officers in another city acted, and how they would like their own of- ficers to perform in a similar situation. And asking other parts of the govern- ment what they could have done to assist. Only by involving all stakeholders in these conversations can we get the results we are looking for. This process also needs to be ongoing. Police chiefs should never let a tragedy in another location pass without trying to learn from it. And these reviews need not be limited to incidents with bad out- comes. Police and communities can analyze success stories, too, such as the recent incident in which Newark, N.J., officers rescued a suicidal man who was threatening to jump from an over- pass. Video cameras have exposed a side of policing the public rarely saw in the past. But video technology has also cre- ated a library of incidents that police agencies can learn from. Our police culture can begin to change immedi- ately if police are willing to use the dif- ficult incidents of today to prevent the tragedies of tomorrow. e e Chuck Wexler is executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. Don’t pay people to get the coronavirus vaccine; shame them BY JAMES HOHMANN The Washington Post A spoonful of sugar helped the medicine go down, but policy- makers did not need to bribe anyone to take the polio vaccine. Peo- ple recognized Jonas Salk’s 1953 break- through against the virus that crippled Franklin D. Roosevelt and countless others for the miracle it was. Parents raced to inoculate their kids to spare them from the iron lung. Most Americans felt similarly when scientists quickly developed multi- ple safe and effective vaccines against the coronavirus. Sixty percent of U.S. adults have now received at least one dose of these modern marvels. Pres- ident Joe Biden’s goal is to hit 70% by July 4. Alas, amid a surplus of shots, de- mand continues to slow. Fresh poll- ing shows 1 in 4 Americans say they definitely or probably will not get im- munized. For a variety of reasons — deeper political polarization, declining trust in government, mounting skepti- cism of science, a diminishing sense of obligation to the common good — this is not Jonas Salk’s America. As a result, well-intentioned poli- ticians in both parties are frantically trying to coax constituents to protect themselves by offering increasingly desperate giveaways. Private sec- tor nudges are one thing, but these taxpayer- funded handouts send a troubling message to holdouts. Even if they’re marginally helpful, the incen- tives feel increasingly off-putting and potentially counterproductive. Ohio’s governor announced he will use federal COVID-19 relief money to give five $1 million jackpots to adults who get vaccinated and five full-ride scholarships to in-state public univer- sities for teenagers who do so. Ken- tucky will hand out 225,000 coupons for free lottery tickets across 170 vac- cination sites. West Virginia’s governor plans to use $27.5 million in federal funds to give $100 saving bonds to residents between the ages of 16 to 35 who get a shot. Maine will give away 10,000 li- censes for hunting and fishing. New York gives free seven-day unlimited MetroCards to residents who come to subway stations for vaccinations. The county that includes Houston ear- marked $250,000 in taxpayer funds for gift cards and other vaccine incentives, including Astros second baseman José Altuve bobbleheads. Memphis has sponsored a sweep- stakes to raffle off new automobiles for the vaccinated. Seattle offers free food at pop-up clinics. Detroit gives $50 debit cards to people who drive others to vaccine appointments. The District of Columbia handed out flowers and plants at vaccine sites on Mother’s Day. Think about how entitled and spoiled this must look to the develop- ing world, desperate for access to vac- cines. As states and cities sweeten the pot, India is recording more than 4,500 COVID-19 deaths per day. Public health officials in Ohio cite a modest rebound in vaccination rates as evidence the lottery is work- ing as intended, but interviews on the ground show most people being tar- geted by the campaign seem unmoved. Spending $5 million may not seem like much when trillions of federal dol- lars are sloshing around the economy like funny money, but it’s more than many Ohioans will earn for a lifetime of work. Behavioral economists tout research that shows people are more likely to get inoculated if offered cash. Duh! You don’t need a control group to tell you that. Human subject research suggests, however, that gimmicks such as these can backfire. Sometimes offering pay- ments to do something makes peo- ple more suspicious and the behavior seem riskier. Moreover, scientists say people will probably need booster shots to protect against new variants. Handing out cash now may habituate segments of the population to hold out for more perks in the future. Freebies also don’t address mistrust or misin- formation about the vaccines. Employers should accommodate workers by giving them paid time off in case of side effects. Private busi- nesses can nudge customers to make the right decisions by offering promo- tional giveaways for beers, crawfish, doughnuts, fries, pizza or sports tick- ets. It’s wonderful that Uber and Lyft are offering free rides to vaccine ap- pointments. This is corporate respon- sibility — and good business. Government has other levers to pull. Politicians have relied on car- rots because they’re overly reluctant to use sticks that could prompt a pub- lic outcry, such as requiring vaccine passports to travel or attend sporting events. Government exists to protect its citizens, and it is clear that the greater public good is to vaccinate as much of the population as possible. Members of the military, public employees and students should all be required to get vaccinated, absent legitimate excuses for opting out. Yes, there might be backlash, but in some ways politicians have invited that, by using euphe- misms such as “vaccine hesitant” to describe people who — let’s face it — selfishly ignore experts. This contagion has killed more than 586,000 Americans and infected more than 33 million. Countless vic- tims report long-haul symptoms. This alone should instill sufficient fear in the holdouts to roll up their sleeves for a jab. After all, the vaccine is a free return ticket to normal life. People shouldn’t need to be paid to take it. e e James Hohmann is an opinion columnist for The Washington Post. Letters policy: 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 reject poetry, personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and those appropriate for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
