Swart: House has accomplished very little in the last six years

To the Editor:

It is fine for the La Grande Observer to endorse Greg Walden or whomever you care to endorse. I happen to think Jim Crary would make a fine representative, but that is not my point.

What about this fuss about term limits and how long should someone hold public office? Or is that about other people’s representatives, but not the one we always vote for? Also, what about the complaints regarding the do-nothing Congress? Regardless of the accolades you give Walden for accomplishments, the House of Representatives has accomplished very little in the last six years.

If we are going to complain about lack of term limits and a do-nothing Congress, why do we keep on reelecting the same person year after year? As the old definition of insanity goes, “Doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results.” At least we need to remember that if we elect the same representative over and over, we have no right to complain about the work Congress does or does not do.

Evelyn Swart

Joseph

Cimon: Clements the right choice for mayor

To the Editor:

I hope everyone takes the time to vote. When you do, please consider returning Steve Clements as mayor of La Grande. Steve has made a point of insisting that good business planning be part of the Urban Renewal process. That oversight has been sorely lacking both in city and county government in my estimation.

Local officials should not be in the business of handing out large amounts of money without that oversight. Those are public funds, and we all have a stake in how they are used. There are highly qualified business professionals that can help in evaluating those plans and their probable success. That includes market analysis, sales strategies, overall funding, and the location and how safe it is perceived to be. All of those elements come into play and should be considered before the money changes hands.

Any candidate who feels it’s not the role of government to involve themselves in how the funds are used should stop handing it out. It really is that simple. Steve has the right take on this, in my view, and I’ll be casting my vote for him.

Norm Cimon

La Grande

Miesner: Mark your ballot for Bozarth for La Grande mayor

To the Editor:

We urge La Grande citizens to vote for John Bozarth as mayor of the City of La Grande. He has demonstrated his leadership and commitment to create a strong and prosperous business center for our city.

Urban Renewal has come under a lot of scrutiny over the past several years, but John has been a staunch supporter of the program. There are many misconceptions surrounding the Urban Renewal dollars and how these funds are spent. Our central core business community and our downtown area over the past 10 years have declined. Without a doubt, many businesses have invested millions of their own dollars to build and/or improve their business within the Urban Renewal boundaries. Through John’s insight, tenacity and perseverance in seeing and securing the best use for Urban Renewal funds, we now see evidence of a stronger business community.

John is always open to visiting with community members and taking their concerns, interests and opinions into consideration before making any decision that affects the city. His passion and drive to help make La Grande a vibrant community that will attract investments by new businesses and in the future is evident in his years of hard work.

John has the needed leadership skills to move us forward. We encourage you to mark your ballot for John Bozarth for mayor of La Grande.

Arlan and Mary Ann Miesner

La Grande

Tyvand: Measure 97 does not guarantee where sales tax money will actually be spent

To the Editor:

Oregon voters have said no to a state sales tax nine times in the last 83 years. When you look beyond the election-season hype and examine the actual wording of this initiative, Measure 97 is simply the latest iteration of a bad idea. The tax on corporate sales in Measure 97 will mostly be passed on to you and me in the form of higher prices for everything from groceries to housing to internet services to costs of transportation and beyond.

The state’s own Legislative Revenue Office (a nonpartisan economic research agency of the Legislature created in 1975) estimates that on average these goods and services will now cost each citizen an additional $600 per year if Measure 97 passes. For the families and individuals whose personal finances are already a challenge, this is not a modest amount.

Despite assurances by its sponsors, Measure 97 does not guarantee all of your sales tax money will actually be spent on health care, education and senior services.

Truly, the office of the Legislature’s own top legal authority (Dexter Johnson, legislative counsel) has written, “If Measure 97 becomes law, the Legislative Assembly may appropriate revenues generated by the measure in any way it chooses.”

The thing is, the meaning of “in any way it chooses” can be very squishy. Especially to a gang of politicians and Salem bureaucrats.

Join me in voting no on Measure 97.

Jim Tyvand

Sunriver

Hopkins: Davidson has necessary experience for commissioner job

To the Editor:

I attended the commissioner debate and evaluated the performance of the two candidates. They are both strong contenders for the office.

However, I feel Mark Davidson has by far the best experience for the job.

Mark now has the seniority to chair a number of statewide committees dealing with land use and water issues. He has fought hard for our right to access our national forest lands. People at the state and national level listen to Mark because he has the experience and knows the issues. Only those who are recognized for their service and expertise are selected for these committees. Two years ago we elected a freshman commissioner. We can’t do it again. As a rural county we must have commissioners who can compete at the state level for limited resources.

A small group of individuals in our community are using the Shelter From The Storm issue to defeat Mark. There are bigger issues at stake. Think about forest access. Think about water resources. Think about our timber resource and our constant fight with the Feds to harvest timber. These are the issues that affect employment and our quality of life.

Vote for Mark Davidson for Union County Commissioner.

Doran Hopkins

Summerville

Adelsberger: Bozarth is a relentlessly driven encourager and motivator

To the Editor:

As a concerned member of our community, and as an investor who has considered it a privilege to contribute to the economic fabric of our downtown, I would like to share a few words on the positive impact and progressive nature that John Bozarth has extended to the vibrant catalyst needed in sustaining and empowering the revitalization of our downtown.

It has required an army of local contractors, architects and engineers, and the material support of many local suppliers to build The Market Place and The Market Place Underground of New Town Square, The Market Place Family Foods project of Town Square, the exterior renovations made to Foley Towers, and the new and recently acquired planned student housing project. It has also required the courage and engaging undertaking of several retailing entrepreneurs who could choose to invest their business capital and talent anywhere; however, out of a love for their community, they chose to do it here.

Understanding all this, please know that if it were not for the continued encouragement of John Bozarth, who reinforced the desire of this developer to continue investing his retirement fund into this community, it might not have happened. Know all things begin with a dream, are built with a vision and see their fruition with purpose. It helps when a local councilor takes ownership of his community with endless hours of service and commitment. And that’s what John, a dedicated and relentlessly driven encourager and motivator, has accomplished.

Thank you, John Bozarth, for your love for your community, the commitment to creating a positive financial impact to commerce in our downtown, the risk applied to your reputation by partnering with Urban Renewal to restore and revitalize our community’s future, and the God-given talent to be persuasive in having many of us invest our hard-earned money to see your vision, share your dream and join your team.

Alfred Adelsberger

La Grande

Naughton: Stick with Davidson for commissioner

To the Editor:

I supported Mark Davidson in the last election and feel it’s important to elect him for another term. He has lived and worked in this community for 45 years. He is a partner in a successful local business, and he understands the importance of the local resource-based industries, timber, grazing, farming and associated service industries.

Much of Union County is in public ownership (state, forest service and Bureau of Land Management). The management of these lands and the laws dictating their management and our everyday lives will determine if our way of life will survive. He is on more than 20 boards and committees ranging from tourism to wolf depredation. I have worked with him on the Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla Forest Collaborative. He does an excellent job of protecting Union County’s financial interests and associated land management businesses while respecting environmental concerns.

It takes years to begin to get a handle on the laws and politics associated with the various industries and government agencies. Steve McClure has two more years and will probably retire. Loss of years of history, connections, knowledge and started projects will be at risk. Rural county values are especially at risk in this election cycle. It is hard to watch the loss of common sense continue in Salem and Washington, D.C.

We need to stick with someone who has the school of hard knocks experience and will make feasible fiscal decisions supporting our current businesses and encourage practical agency administration.

I feel Mark will do this.

Vince Naughton

Retired Forester

La Grande

Rademacher: Employees ‘marginal, at best’

To the Editor:

Marginal definition: “of secondary or minor importance, not central.”

Marginalized definition: “treat a person or group as insignificant or peripheral.”

Corporations need to understand that when employees and the product of their labor are referred to as “marginal, at best” it creates an atmosphere of conflict, rather than cooperation. When corporations marginalize their employees and their contributions, morale suffers, production suffers and companies struggle.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1978 to 2014 CEO compensation has risen 997 percent. While in that same time span, worker’s wages increased only 10.9 percent. Workers have to scratch and claw for every wage increase and benefit. The State of Oregon instituted mandatory paid sick leave. Some businesses are expecting their workers to take benefit reductions and pay freezes, putting profit margins above the well-being of their employees and their families.

When employees don’t have to worry about their bills, or how much overtime they will have to work to make up for stagnant wages, they are more productive. Many businesses are beginning to understand that paying competitive wages and providing good benefits packages are actually increasing their productiveness. Higher wages and better benefits attract more and better employees. Companies thrive when employees feel they are being fairly compensated for their labor, skills and contributions. When companies start to value the workers who make their product as much as they value their brand or product itself, we will see a resurgence in the American labor force.

Jeremy Rademacher

Elgin

Bailey: Measure 97 is bad policy and bad for Oregon

To the Editor:

I am writing in opposition to Measure 97, the gross receipts tax. The measure, if passed, will tax corporations that have gross revenues over $25 million at a rate of 2.5 percent. The supporters of the measure would have you believe that this will only impact the corporate giants. They are wrong. Basic economic principles and, more important, basic common sense will tell you that the costs associated with this additional expense will be passed along to the customer. That’s right — to you and me.

The supporters also want you to believe that the added revenue this thinly veiled sales tax puts in the state of Oregon’s coffers will be used to fund education, emergency and senior services.

Do not be fooled. The measure does not say that it will go to any of these areas. It goes into the general fund and will be discretionary funds for the Legislature.

Measure 97 proponents claim that it will add $6 billion per biennium to the state coffers. This is in addition to the existing $18 billion budget. Does it make sense to increase by one-third the funds available for the Legislature to allocate as they see fit? I say no. If the state needs a 33.3 percent increase in revenue to remain viable, there isn’t an income issue, there is a spending issue.

The measure is yet another example of solving fiscal problems by piling more taxes on the citizens and businesses of Oregon. If approved by voters, Measure 97 would have the heaviest impact on those who can least afford it. According to an OPB article, “The Legislative Revenue Office has estimated that the measure would eventually cost Oregon households between $372 and $1,282 a year, depending on their income level. Most of that would be in higher prices, although some would represent lost wages.” The average estimated by the LRO is $600 per year per household.

Measure 97 will limit economic growth opportunities within Oregon. Why would a company that is looking to expand operations and add jobs to a region come to Oregon when their costs will be at least 2.5 percent higher than locating in Washington or Idaho? They won’t. More critically, given the choice, what will keep existing corporations from leaving Oregon in favor of a more business-friendly state?

No matter how frustrated you are with the political landscape of Oregon and our great nation, no matter how tired you are of picking between candidates who don’t reflect your own principles or ideals, please do not simply ignore your ballot.

The fight against Measure 97 cannot be “someone else’s” issue. It is an issue for every Oregonian. Please do not be complacent. You must vote and I strongly urge you to join me in voting no on Measure 97. It is bad policy, a bad idea, bad for business and bad for Oregon.

Jeff Bailey

Heppner

Lorts: Clinton is the right person for the job

To the Editor:

It seems like the election season has gone on forever, but now it is time to make our decision on who will be our next president. Over the past few months, the choice has become clearer and clearer. One of the candidates, Hillary Clinton, brings a lifetime of relevant experience to the position, having served as First Lady of Arkansas and as First Lady of the United States, as a U.S. Senator and for four years as our Secretary of State. All of her life, she has worked for the betterment of our country.

The other candidate, on the other hand, brings his own rather spotty business experience as a real estate developer and reality TV star. During the campaign, he has shown a questionable temperament, which should worry us all. Is this really the man we want to put forward to our children as a role model and to represent us before the world? A man who coins phrases like “Lyin Ted” or “Crooked Hillary,” and whose behavior would have him sent to the principal’s office in any elementary school I ever worked in.

The proudest moment of my public service career was representing the voters of Eastern Oregon as a Hillary Clinton delegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. She was the right person for the job in 2008, and she is the right person today.

I urge you to cast your vote, when your ballot arrives, for Hillary Clinton for president.

Jack Lorts

Wheeler County Democrats

Fossil

Sundin: Voters stuck with clown or crook

To the Editor:

Hillary Clinton recently got some flak for describing half of Donald Trump’s supporters as “racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic and irredeemable.” Mrs. Clinton is far from the only politician who thinks poorly of her political opponents. When running in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008, Barack Obama described his opponents thusly: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

These two politicians and others who think like them do not make these comments to the general public. They say such things only when they are speaking to a like-minded audience, who then can preen themselves and bask in the thought that they certainly are neither racists nor sexists, nor cling to their guns.

The progressive philosophy of government is not democratic, but is the administrative state. The running of the government is best handed over to pragmatic experts, who will govern efficiently and prudently. Modern life is so complicated that the average American is incompetent to manage his or her own life, and so needs that expert assistance. Since the above is so obviously true to progressives, anyone who opposes them is necessarily stupid, evil or both. This feeling is why Mrs. Clinton described Trump supporters as “irredeemable.”

Politicians have to have a certain amount of ego to run for office in the first place, but statements like those quoted above seem a bit over the top. And Americans have good reason to doubt that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are the experts we can trust to manage our government efficiently and prudently. Consider the disastrous rollout of the insurance exchanges for Obamacare or Mrs. Clinton’s stumblefooted and illegal use of a private email server in place of the Department of State system.

Donald Trump obviously has a super helping of ego in his makeup, despite the fact that he keeps shooting himself in the foot while campaigning. It’s too bad that we Americans are so limited in our choices for the next president of the United States. We’ll be stuck with the Clown or the Crook.

Pete Sundin

Baker City

Carnahan: Better to take risk on Trump

To the Editor:

Fellow voters, we have to vote for Donald Trump. If we don’t, Hillary Clinton will become our next president. It’s as simple as that. You can’t sit out, not vote, or fail to vote for president. The outcome is far too serious for that.

If Hillary becomes the next president she will be the one nominating one Supreme Court Justice and possibly more. Because Justices can remain on the Court for decades, changing the balance from conservative to liberal will have far longer negative consequences than her four, or eight, years as president.

If Hillary becomes the next president she will be coming after our guns. She publicly stated that an Australian-style confiscation would be a good idea and she has supported every gun control possibility. Although she has said she supports the Second Amendment, her actions demonstrate otherwise.

If Hillary becomes president she will be promoting a liberal, socialist agenda.

It’s better to take a risk on Trump than end up with Hillary, because we know what she will do. Those Republicans who aren’t supporting Trump are making a big mistake.

Jim Carnahan

Baker City