Letters to the Editor 12/20/2017

To the Editor:

In the latest installment of what has been aptly called the "Bunkum Chronicle," the writer takes on the topic of the status of wolves in wildlife "management." True to form, he throws up a cloud of words which rain down in no coherent fashion. He has no thesis. Or, apologies to Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there."

Here are two points he should have addressed: 1. Who "owns" the wildlife in Oregon? and 2. Should the state subsidize ranchers and farmers by killing predators?

With respect to the first point, it seems to me that the wildlife in Oregon, like its water and air, belong to all the citizenry, not to a select few who can determine an animal's fate based on their pocketbook. Yet, the citizenry have no say in this matter. As for the second, to my mind, if a wolf or other predator harvests a calf or chicken, that is simply part of the price of doing business. There is risk in every business. Why should the state intervene here to ensure that a few business people make additional profit, especially at the expense of the resources of the entire citizenry?

Killing wolves so ranchers and farmers make more money is a state subsidy or welfare. What is the justification for this?

Dr. Gary Leiser

•••

To the Editor:

With Congressional Republicans rushing to place a new tax bill on President's Trump's desk before Christmas, here comes the respected British publication The Guardian suggesting a new source of tax revenue - meat. Yes, a tax on meat, to beat the health and climate crises.

The concept is hardly radical. We already pay taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugary sodas, plastic bags, and other consumables that afflict the public health and other social costs.

The revenue would reimburse Medicare, Medicaid and other government healthcare programs for treating victims of chronic diseases that have been linked conclusively with consumption of animal products. It would contribute to the costs of restoring air and water quality and wildlife habitats that have been devastated by production of these items.

Benjamin Franklin noted that nothing is certain except death and taxes. However, death can be deferred substantially by taxing the very products that make us sick.

Skyler Nash

•••

To the Editor:

I would like to support Phyllis Lewis' letter regarding the single ballot measure vote in January (November 29, 2017).

It is important to note that the current policy for funding Medicaid in Oregon has been in place since 2003 and was renewed and budgeted for by our bi-partisan legislature this past spring. The assessments paid by hospitals and insurance providers is reimbursed at a higher rate than the assessed fees, by the Federal Government, and 48 other states also utilize this program successfully. The effort by Republicans to repeal this would deprive 350,000 people of healthcare, including some 66,000 children or more. This program returns an estimate of millions to our state each year.

Hospitals, health providers and insurers, as well as dozens of credible non-partisan groups, like The League of Women Voters, support keeping this system because it literally saves Oregonians money! Insurance rates may decrease and medical costs will not have to escalate to cover the loss, if the measure fails.

It is vital to the health of all Oregonians and the economy of our state to vote "yes" on Measure 101. Please take the time!

Wendie Vermillion

•••

To the Editor:

The congressional Republicans and their propaganda machine Fox News want you to believe that all politicians (but mostly Democrats) are corrupt and the press is biased against them.

Craig Rullman's "The monkey's fist" (The Nugget, December 6) is a perfect example of this. He reminds us of what Nancy Pelosi said in March 2010 about the Affordable Care Act, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Mr. Rullman uses this out-of-context quote as shorthand for the supposed dodgy process through which the ACA was passed and the "elitist mentality" of our government. He doesn't mention the fact that the bill had been publicly available and publicly debated for months when she made that comment.

After the initial writing of the ACA in July 2009, the House added 160 Republican amendments to it. The Senate Health Committee then spent nearly 60 hours working on the bill. The Senate Finance Committee held 53 meetings, considered 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. There were 44 hearings and public events about the plan in the Senate alone. Compare that process with the GOP's tax bill, considered the most sweeping rewrite of the U.S. tax code in three decades. It was made public, even to most Republicans, just hours before it was to be voted on.

Instead of being angry about Ms. Pelosi's comment, as Mr. Rullman says we should, we should feel encouraged and heartened by that entire process and all the hard work done by our representatives making ACA the law.

We should expect our politicians and media to tell the truth, and we should hold them accountable when they don't. Notice that when Democrats are caught doing wrong, they're asked to step down. When the press makes a mistake, as did ABC's Brian Ross, the error was acknowledged and Ross was suspended four weeks without pay. Contrast that to Fox News, a fake news agency that lies daily with no apology and is rarely held accountable.

Democracy doesn't work in a culture of cynicism, lies and without accountability. As citizens of this democracy we have an obligation to be informed, discover the truth and be more discerning when it comes to our news sources.

Terry Weygandt