Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

FERC Denies Jordan Cove, For Now.

by

Jordan CoveOn a scale of 1 to 10 for the complexity and divisiveness of issues, Jordan Cove is off the charts. The project, a proposed pipeline between Malin in Klamath County eastern Oregon and Coos Bay on the coast, would pump liquefied natural gas (LNG) to be exported at the International Port of Coos Bay. The pipeline would be a continuation of the Ruby pipeline that stretches from Malin out to Opal, Wyoming which currently serves the natural gas needs of California, Nevada and the Pacific Northwest.

On March 11, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) denied Pacific Connector’s and Jordan Cove’s proposal for the pipeline extension. One could reasonably infer that such a decision was a disappointment to those who stood to benefit from construction contracts and other employment associated with its building and operation. Private landowners who faced eminent domain and environmental activists stood in opposition.Coos.bay.gas_map

To make matters more complicated, the Coquille, Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw tribes had taken a firm position against the pipeline, despite their standing for monetary gain in the form of increased business at their Coos Bay casinos. The tribes reported confusion with government agency oversight and the need to take into consideration the cultural integrity of the lands as well as native soils and burial grounds.

Did the public interest of having a natural gas export terminal and pipeline outweigh the adverse impacts on local landowners and the community? FERC apparently did not think so and Jordan Cove LNG backers will seek a rehearing on the issue. In the meantime, environmental opponents have an opportunity to reinforce their positions as the project was rejected principally because Jordan Cove LNG backers did not substantiate demand for the product abroad – the environmental claims were dismissed as moot.

Initially, proponents of LNG pipelines in Oregon supported LNG imports to increase demand and drive down prices. However, since the United States has proved to be a producer, these proponents have flipped to pursue exporting the product.

Many factors are at play as to whether a pipeline will be built between Malin and Coos Bay. A different federal administration tied to different billionaire interests may seek to reverse the policies disfavoring the building of such pipelines to export gas and oil. Nevertheless, Oregonians have a moment to think, for themselves, about what an export terminal would mean to them and to the future of their state.

Is this a project worth the jobs, investment and manufacturing opportunities that could arise, or is natural gas a doomed product whose potential will dry up? Is eminent domain and individual liberty of the utmost concern in this matter? Or perhaps our looking at Oregon’s environmental future is most crucial. Whatever, the question, every Oregonian has an opportunity to engage, weigh in, and be heard.

Ebola versus Islamic State

by

Ebola_1The possibility of facing an epidemic of over a million people infected with the Ebola virus by January 2015 is startling, yet the current crisis has failed to harness the degree of attention the public should be paying to the outbreak.

While the Islamic State has been a formidable competitor for headlines across the world, Ebola poses a far greater immediate threat than IS. Our current political reactions, however, have not reflected this fact.

The beheadings of Richard Foley and Steven Sotloff have captured American attention and were graphic enough to then lead to a bi-partisan resolution to commence ongoing military intervention. Yet the use of force against a group that has demonstrated minimal, if any, violent reach outside of its limited geographic region is cause for questioning, especially when the U.S. just recently wrapped up a decade-long conflict in Iraq and is now attempting to do the same with its conflict in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, plenty of local actors have a vested interest in seeing IS’s demise. U.S. involvement should be focused on more immediate and credible threats to the U.S. population.

Ebola has already killed 3000 people in West Africa and Wednesday marked the first case of the virus diagnosed on U.S. soil. . The virus has an incubation period of 2 to 21 days. That means that someone with the virus may not know he or she has it until he or she has infected multiple others.

West Africa has certainly shown us the regional difficulties of managing a disease of this magnitude. Beliefs the disease does not exist, lack of education and sanitation, and lack of medical resources including lack of health care workers all contribute to the high rate of infection and mortality. As of September 23, 211 health care workers had died from the disease. Perhaps the greatest issue is the number of dead that continues to rise. The bodies are highly contagious and require teams to come in for their extraction. People are dying faster than the bodies can be handled.

So far, the outbreak in West Africa has principally affected Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Guinea. However, an unrelated outbreak is now confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 42 people have died. A diagnosis here on U.S. soil is a great concern.

Our administration recently announced contributing $780 million to fight the spread of the disease. Yet the U.S. has already spent this amount in its fight against IS. There are reasons to suggest a re-prioritization of priorities is in order.

 

A Quiet Diplomacy: Syria, Iran and the future of U.S. foreign policy

by

Iran Nuclear DealWith a deal struck to lighten sanctions on Iran in exchange for access to and observation of the Iranian nuclear program, and a political resistance to entering another foreign entanglement in Syria, it appears the United States has entered into a new era on foreign policy.

The truth is, that when it comes to the Middle East, relationships are tenuous and the ground ever-shifting. Such a dynamic is a natural cause for hesitancy to involve oneself in the region’s disputes. Syria represents an extraordinarily complex patchwork of alliances and feuds. Hezbollah, the predominant militant group in Lebanon, supports Syrian President Bashar al Assad and the government. Al Qaida has taken up arms in resistance to Syria’s regime.

And yet our hands-off approach with Syria has proved advantageous from the standpoint that we have not entangled ourselves in a drag-out conflict where sides are blurred and resources are squandered. In fact, the fighting between opposition forces and the Syrian government has resulted in steps towards the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons. The tragedy of 100,000 dead and the creation of nearly three million refugees was very nearly one that would have been shouldered by the U.S.

With uncertainty as to Egypt’s future, pressure on the Iran issue from the hawks in Israel, and an ongoing siphon of U.S. resources just to the east in Afghanistan, there is no question why the U.S. is playing its cards with caution.

And as far as the U.S. is concerned with Iran, frankly, the Iranian nuclear interim agreement represents the absolute best case scenario for the U.S. under current circumstances. A war with Iran would result in tragic levels of debt at the least, and a massive humanitarian tragedy at the most. Iran has emphatically stated it will never stop enriching uranium so, short of war and with no agreement, Iran would find a way to obtain a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has bargained for a higher vantage point in its relationship with Iran. While the deal might seem like a short-term failure given that Iran appears to have given up relatively little in exchange for $7 billion in sanctions relief, the truth is that the U.S. stands to gain a long-term position as one of the foreign overseers of Iran’s domestic nuclear program. If anything goes wrong in the interim, the United States along with its allies can impose even harsher sanctions (or even go to war if one wants to take it that far).

Israeli’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has not stifled any disagreement with the plan labeling the move as an “historic mistake.” And Israel’s concerns are valid. An Iran with nuclear military capabilities poses a threat to Israel’s security. But a war with Iran, over a program Iran agrees will be overseen by international observers for domestic production, would be premature to say the least – especially since the U.S. would be footing the cost.

All of this begs the question: What now is our nation’s role in the Middle East and in international affairs more broadly? While we are reducing our military presence in Europe we are only expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. How are we to take into account the nearly one trillion dollars scheduled in Defense cuts over the next decade?

The answer may lie in the kind of wait-and-see diplomacy demonstrated by our exercise of restraint in Syria and the Iranian nuclear interim agreement. Certainly it makes sense when looking at the bill.

Veterans: A “Thank You” Solution

by

MarinesWe all know at least one: A grandfather, mother, friend, or sibling. These folks have served our nation, committed themselves selflessly for the preservation of American ideals and have sacrificed their health and well-being to bring folks on the home front a sense of security and an enjoyment of peace in their daily lives.

Yet American Military Veterans are also a segment of our population that, aside from the tributes and parades adorning Veteran’s Day, are often forgotten in the daily routine. And yet there is so much we stand to learn from our women and men in uniform that greater attention, love and care may help to surface.

We stand at a threshold of American military return from overseas as we wrap up our dealings in Afghanistan. What we take away from the last ten years of war must be a growing awareness of and response to the tragedies of war and its cost on the bodies, minds and spirits of these folks that battled the threat of extremists on the front lines. We are facing the return of a veteran population that will bear the scars and burden of these years of fighting. How will their struggles on their return to the United States become our struggles?

National Public Radio reported a shocking figure last week: there are twenty-two deaths from suicide amongst the veteran population every single day. In the wake of each of these deaths, is a line of family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances left questioning why, after all of the warfare, such a tragedy must befall this person.

With 23 million veterans in our nation, we must think everyday how to successfully bring these people back into civilian life. With such a sizable group making up 8.1 percent of our population, it is no wonder that so many go without care or face incessant bureaucracy and an endless paper chase. How can we possibly balance the budget and improve our care for veterans? Something must be altered.

Returning our soldiers to American soil and having them work and spend their money stateside is a start. Our assets must be restored and retained. Whether through border security or disaster relief, there is no shortage of useful efforts our military could engage in here in the United States. A smaller, more dynamic military could be a corresponding solution. This would boost the quality of care for veterans over time as more resources could be devoted on a per capita basis. Tax and entitlement reforms would also provide savings to the federal government that could allow us to focus more on the promises we have made to those who have served our nation.

Today we thank the veterans of our nation. Let us thank them equally tomorrow. Let us thank them by remembering their service not only by providing them the care they need to deal with the trauma of warfare, but also by being cognizant of the true losses of warfare and the true costs of war’s aftermath. Let us act and vote accordingly.

Youth and the Republican Party: An American Recovery

by

Republican Elephant and Democratic DonkeyParty warfare and polarization of ideologies may be significantly to blame for the finger-pointing and squabbling in Washington D.C. Open primaries, term limits, and policies that suspend Congressional pay if shutdowns occur are just some of the answers to questions of how we must reform the internal mechanisms of our government in order to get back on track for being a proud and confident nation.

Yet, these policies may be some time away from now until young leaders are put in power that are willing to limit their own power for long-term objectives. Until that time, we must ask serious questions about how all of us – Republicans, Democrats and Independents – can come together to help shape the new Republican Party and bring back a balance of power to the system to check the unprecedented spending and waste in our federal government.

Every dollar our government spends today is a dollar that young people will have to pay back in their future. This is inherently unfair and unjust. Entrenched leaders in Washington D.C. continue to waste the money of future generations for their own political short-term gain. Our interests, the interests of those in their thirties, twenties and younger – are not being represented.

Young people have an opportunity to take over the Republican Party here in Oregon – be you Democrat, Republican or Independent. We have the opportunity to shape the party for ourselves and take back what is our future to spend – not theirs.

And conservative and progressive values, the real kind that is (as opposed to the kind promoted by the media), may be the kind we younger generations can embrace. We know what it is like to be under the weight of massive educational debt, not to have the employment opportunities we were told would be waiting for us on the other side, and to find ourselves unable to fulfill our American Dreams.

Our current leaders have failed us. We must now take up the torch and lead with real principles. That is, with self-sacrifice, courage, and pride in a future America we can own and love.

Entitlements are wasting our money. Military ventures are wasting our money. Centralized corporate-sponsored federal programs are wasting our money. Congress is wasting our money. This is our future. We want this future to be green, healthy, productive, and local.

To get back in the game we must go to work. We must find work in any sector. If it means working in an area we perceive to be below our educational level, we must work. We must reject anything handed to us. Only then can we hold our heads high. And we must hold our heads high in order to lead.

We will bring jobs back from overseas. We will go to the ports, find out what China is shipping to us, and make those products here. We will make them better and less expensive. We will encourage entrepreneurs. We will educate. We will stockpile. Our future will be one of great influence.

We will put our money into credit unions and keep our organizations nimble, flexible and local – like Privateers. We will execute a trade surplus and pay down our deficit. And we will not be reckless with the future of our next wave of youth.

We will reform Congress. We will take only one term in any given political office and will condemn political entrenchment and the establishment. We will limit our salaries because what we do is a service to our Great Nation, not a pillage of our Great Nation. We will give back, we will pay the way forward, we will unite, we will overcome and we will live mightily on our principles, work and love.

Timothy Crawley, a native son of Oregon, is a candidate for the 2014 United States Senate seat for Oregon.

Government Shutdown: The Poison of a Partisan Perspective

by

Capitol HillOur federal government has ground to a halt. Again. Republicans and Democrats were unable to meet a deadline to fund the government Monday night. While a group of “combative” Republicans are largely bearing responsibility for the impasse in Congress due to their hawkish advocacy to defund the Affordable Care Act, the reality is the factions in Congress are more varied and deeply divided than ever.

Both parties are to blame for this stalemate, and the result may very well be an ever-divided Congress where each party will blame the other for their unwillingness to negotiate. On the one hand, Republicans are claiming they want to reign in spending but are unwilling to compromise when it comes to military budgets and spending on our overseas police power – a capacity that is becoming increasingly disfavored by the public. And, indeed, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest contingent that will be affected by the shutdown. On the other hand, Democrats spearheaded a bill that is not feasible to fund given the current economic crisis because the government is strictly not generating enough revenue to support such a program short of spending our future away.

Our government’s sole focus right now should be on economic improvement. While the Affordable Care Act promotes a noble purpose, the fact of the matter is that our government cannot afford to pay for it. Our federal programs, such as Social Security, are already failing for lack of funding and mismanagement. There is little support for the idea that the Affordable Care Act would face any more promising future.

Economic improvement will come from taking military spending and re-investing those dollars here on the home front where our infrastructure and education are sorely lacking. Economic improvement will stem from creating a positive climate for small business and entrepreneurship by removing barriers to entry and by encouraging smaller, more flexible entities. These entities will, in turn, create the types of jobs we want in our society – the types based on relationships and accountability. And, finally, at the heart of economic improvement, is the idea that we decrease the stratification of wealth in our society. Simplifying the tax code is essential for leveling the playing field for all people. Complexities in the code create the types of loopholes that allow for corporate exploitation and tax shelters for the wealthy.

There are very certain and definite roles for our federal government. The services Washington D.C. provide through the unification of essential interstate laws and international treaties should be primary but focused. We must be realistic in what we can and cannot sustainably afford at that level. And let’s be honest, Cover Oregon is doing and would do a better job at providing health care for our citizens than any federal program. If our federal government is unable to afford Social Security and Medicare, then what good will the Affordable Care Act do for us when we ultimately cannot afford to pay the doctors?

Will it take a nationwide default to provide the political impetus to reform?  That is a possibility. But blaming one party or the other is only fuel for a divisive fire. The stopgap just may be to practice viewing this shutdown from an opposing point of view.

 

Syria: Not Another War

by

SyriaAgain we face military intervention in the Middle East, this time from a President who has come to Congress for authorization. 

There is no doubt that action by the United States, absent the formation of a coalition or joint resolution with other nations, would be an act of war against the Syrian government. We face no imminent threat from Assad nor from the chemical weapons he has chosen to unleash against his own people – horrific as these events are.

An act of war, at this time in our nation’s history, is perhaps the last thing we need. Who amongst us is still advocating international intervention of this kind? Are we not able to honestly reflect on our current capabilities as a nation? We have borrowed money to spend it again on our policing powers. Our trade deficits show we are now importing security. So what should our leaders do?

Any proposed military action by the Obama Administration or by Congress should be outright rejected. Our economy, while having shown signs of slight recovery, still drags its feet with 7.4 percent unemployment. The government programs that are still functioning drastically underserve their stated objectives – despite many of their objectives being too broad, too deep, and too overlapping. Our infrastructure is wearing and outdated. John Kerry’s words heard around the world two days ago declared “This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter.” Mr. Kerry: By an act of war against a non-aggressor, you will be slaughtering our Nation’s future.

If strikes against the Assad regime were intended to be limited, as Obama suggests, then striking their chemical weapons capabilities would not be a scenario where “the punishment fits the crime.” On the other hand, a strike that cripples the regime and tips the balance of power in favor of the rebels (as the United States did for Libya) means the United States would be ushering into the power vacuum a proxy regime likely made up of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

For now, as the G20 Summit wraps up, world leaders are tremendously divided. China and Russia remain opposed to action against the Assad regime, while only France and the United States have committed to using force. Even the Pope has weighed in, urging leaders to put aside prospects for military action.

To make a dire situation enormously worse, Yale law professor Stephen Carter points out the “limiting lanaguage” in the Senate’s Syria Resolution is deceptively broad.

Finally, authorizing a strike to oppose Assad’s use of chemical weapons to massacre his own people is not morally superior to opposing Assad’s use of conventional weapons against his own people. The propensity of chemical weapons to inflict greater indiscriminate harm on civilian populations than their conventional counterparts originally led to their condemnation in the international community. However, in his use of both chemical and conventional weapons, President Assad has proved indiscriminate towards the killing of civilians and rebel fighters.