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