Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

Communist Republicans

by

Red ElephantIn Oregon, the Secretary of State allows people to change their party affiliation or unaffiliation. If you change your affiliation to Republican you can vote in the Primary in May. Then change back right after. It’s an easy guerilla in a hot minute.

Register to vote.

Change your party.

We are so disheartened, so discouraged, and so disenfranchised that we do not vote in the Primary. And what we are left with is what the PACs and the Corporate elite push through to the General.

Republicans have forced us out of their dialogue. The Democrats are entrenched. And they are both so focused on what divides them that they have failed to see the unified voice of a generation rising up to put these children into place.

We encourage sharing.

The Bureau of Land Mismanagement

by

Sage GrouseDuring the 1870s, the federal government adopted policies encouraging the killing of the North American buffalo in order to deplete the food source of the Native Americans, a tactic used to expand the government’s authority across the West.
Today, in a continued effort to promote and secure its relevance, the federal government, in breach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, has authorized the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to spend $3.5 million massacring 3600 barred owls in Oregon under the auspices of spotted owl protection – an animal listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The news of this federal action and the government’s “above the law” response to control natural fluctuations does not come as a surprise to many of us Oregonians who everyday perform the balancing act of providing for our families, sustaining our businesses and ranches, and acting as stewards for sustainable future use of our land. Over the years and centuries, federal responses to local issues have resulted in wasteful spending, irresponsible action, and the decimation of people and animals alike. Yet a concentrated majority in this state has decided that Washington D.C. is best suited to handling our business, ranching and local environmental affairs.
Oregon’s counties and communities face a new federal intervention: an effort to protect the sage grouse. An environmental impact statement is currently being pushed through federal court to determine whether the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) should cordon off hundreds of thousands of acres of land usually reserved for ranching activities.
There is clear consensus among the experts and the BLM that sage grouse numbers are not a problem in Oregon. The disappearance of the bird has predominantly occurred in Idaho and Utah. Many ranchers in Oregon are aware of the bird’s habitat and steer their herds clear of areas where their dwelling is probable.
Yet the federal government has advertised that it is the most effective source for balancing interests – that somehow the sage grouse’s viability must be protected at the federal level from cattle-ranching activities (which actually have a positive impact on sage grouse habitat as well through soil regeneration that aids habitat growth, much like the buffalo herds’ contribution to the fertility of the Great Plains).
Eastern Oregon, prior to the pioneers, was a large swathe of grassland. With the covered wagons clung the sage seeds that spread their roots across the land. Our ever-changing ecosystem has seen the rise and fall of species across the span of earth’s history. Yet our government is attempting to play God and legislate control over a single element to an incomprehensible equation – a futile and wasteful task that does more harm than good, as we saw from the carcasses of buffalo, and see from the slaughter of an owl.

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.

 

A New Feudal America

by

Statue of LibertyThe top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago, according to an updated study….The top 1 percent took more than one-fifth of the income earned by Americans, one of the highest levels on record since 1913, when the government instituted an income tax. –As reported in the on-line New York Times, September 11, 2013

I’m a Matt Damon fan, so I’m looking forward to seeing his latest film, Elysium. The movie takes place in a future time when the entire Earth has become a slum so that the very wealthy have taken up residence in an exclusive retreat in space, visible from Earth, but inaccessible and forbidden to the mass of humanity.

The irony of Elysium is that it is not really a film about the future: it is a metaphor for the present economic situation in the United States of America, a situation that should shame us. (And bravo to Matt Damon and the Elysium writers for their political sensibility and boldness!)

The idea of an America of economic democracy—not Socialism, mind you—in which middle class prosperity is virtually guaranteed to anyone willing to labor with earnest ingenuity for the fruits of modest wealth has died.  The reigning economic culture is a throwback to the late 19th century and the era of the robber barons. The rich deserve to get richer and those in the underclass must learn to accept their suffering if they have not been lucky enough to design (and patent) a jackpot computer app or a chance to buy a loaded security with adequate insurance for its failure.

Wealth is accumulating in the pockets of the corporate magnates, money taken out of the pockets of the former middle class. The very rich now do live in a separate society prohibited to the ordinary masses. Traditional means for righting the inequities between the very wealthy and the working class—such as strengthening organized labor—have fallen into disrepute. The 1990’s taught the young they have a right to aspire to great wealth before they turn 30 and if they don’t achieve that, well, they’ll have to accept that they’re just losers.

There is no longer any community sensibility advocating a continued American aspiration for the wider distribution of wealth.  Moreover, with the help of our advanced technology, the corporations have acquired and are employing the means to make its customers—us—their servants.  By reducing personal services and compelling us to accept more efficient automated alternatives to increase the corporate bottom-line, they substitute our labors for services we used to take for granted. (Consider, for example, the nightmarish recorded message option menus that now often prevent access to real human beings when we try to do business or file a complaint with a corporation or, for another example, the growing self-checkout lines in supermarkets.)

America has apparently become a new kind of feudal state: a plutocratic regime run by and for the benefit of the already rich.  What can we do about it?

Harrison Sheppard, San Francisco, CA

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.

Tax Reform: A Simple Solution

by

Capitol-SenateThe current tax code has become a convoluted knot of deductions and credits. In Tennessee this week, President Obama hinted at his interest in seeing that code change. The President’s attention to the issue immediately drew a hailstorm of debate in Washington over tax reform.

The biggest problem with our tax code is that it has been used and abused by politicians for political agendas rather than as a simple method for raising the basic revenue for the function of our state. Along this line, politicians are able to solidify their constituency by carving out exemptions for the business interests that support their candidacies. Additional deductions, credits and rebates have added to the size of our nation’s operating costs for reviewing increasingly complex tax returns.

This is one place where our system is broken. President Obama and Congress are offering only more of the same. Conventional attitudes have proposed that any future solution must address income tax reform separately from corporate tax reform. In order to mediate a solution between Democrats and Republicans, tax reform must be dealt with as a whole. Parsing through the code in a piecemeal approach will render a piecemeal solution – not a holistic solution.

Any tax reform solution must occur at the highest level with a complete overhaul of both income and corporate taxes.

Currently, our society has awarded size of institutions rather than innovative, low-impact operations that encourage accountability. Because of the deduction maze, overweight entities can hire a legal tax team to navigate the tax return process, find loopholes, and increase profit margins. These tasks are disproportionately expensive for smaller businesses. The problem with overweight corporations, their ownership over the federal government, and their propensity to promote wealth inequality and waste may be solved through a proper corporate regressive tax.

A corporate progressive tax would tax revenue, not profit, such that the tax would be more akin to an income tax. Moreover, the tax percentage would increase as a corporation expanded revenue. There are a multitude of reasons why corporations deserve a progressive tax.

Corporations are considered by law to be fictitious persons. However, persons cannot balloon to the size of the moon; corporations can. A progressive tax ensures that as corporations expand, their exponential use of resources, amplification of waste, and propensity to marginalize labor comes with a higher price tag to be paid to society. As shareholders in our nation’s resources, we should all be paid when a corporation is able to capitalize clear-cutting a copse that provides us air, shade, food, and a nice view. It should not be allowed to deduct its way out of this cost.

Finally, a corporate progressive tax would be a treatment for the problem of growing wealth inequality in our nation. A large corporation or bank would not have the luxury of paying a windfall to its board and officers, particularly when such an entity is provided an incentive to remain smaller and more nimble.

Income taxes, however, should be flat. Unlike corporations, human beings have a maximum capacity for productivity and waste.

The answer to tax reform is simplicity. Deductions and credits create complicated arrangements where certain industries are rewarded and certain industries are punished – often for little reason other than politics. Simple solutions with simple revenue projections will make the function of our federal government more clear and concise.

And ultimately, to prevent politicians from usurping the tax code once again for their own political gain, Lawrence Lessig and David Segal’s suggestion to convene a modern-era Constitutional Convention would have to occur. Short of that, we would only see more of the same.

The Morrow Pacific Project: Killing the Columbia

by

BargeJobs that promote the destruction of our environment are not jobs for the future. Jobs that fit us into a more rhythmic balance with nature are integral for our future. The Morrow Pacific Project will further entrench the barging industry and create further dependence upon the dams that block our most precious river. The proposal is a proposal that runs counter to the interests of our local communities and the Native Americans.

The Morrow Pacific Project, a proposal to transport coal from Wyoming and Montana to Oregon for shipment to China, Korea and Japan, must be altered. The coal would be shipped via rail to Boardman, Oregon where it would then be loaded onto barges for transport down river to the Port of St. Helens. The project would result in an additional 12 barge tows on the Columbia. Such a proposal would further entrench the barging industry and make them all the more powerful in a bid to keep dams operating on our rivers.

About two hundred dams (http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/salmondam.html) were built along the Columbia between 1930 and the late 1970s. This helped foster the barging industry that used the slowed river to advance goods up and downstream and created an artificial reliance upon this form of shipment. Since then, the industry has trucking and training beat for offering the best prices on shipment of goods and has boasted that its power blocked proposals to lower the river to expose the beauty of Celilo Falls.

Oregonians face an uphill battle to alleviate the strain upon our river systems. Bonneville alone is a behemoth that no one really believes can be broken. However, Congress authorized to build the Bonneville dam in 1930, emphasizing the “taming of the Columbia.” This dam will soon run its lifecycle. In order to replace a dam of this size and magnitude with low-impact technology that leaves the river partially open for fish passage, effort must begin now to build awareness regarding Oregonians and Washingtonians’ options.

For those seeing such an effort as a lost cause, it may be helpful to think about how large corporate interests can also be on the side of freeing the Columbia. Oregon company and outdoor recreation outfitters Columbia Sportswear, among others, would benefit tremendously from a river that teemed with fish and rapids.

Oregon must put in place leaders in Washington willing to promote the proper industries to make this dream a reality. Additional rail lines are needed to support a shift away from barging to carry wheat and other agricultural products across the state to Portland.

The Bonneville dam and many others on the Columbia River including the John Day dam are referred to as “run-of-the-river” dams, meaning that they do not back water up to create a reservoir. If electricity can be generated in such quantity from these operations, how could “run-of-the-river” technology be utilized to construct dams that do not impeded the full width of the river?

Portlanders have the option on their energy statement from Portland General Electric to source their energy from Green Source and Clean Wind resources. See www.greenpoweroregon.com. Choosing these local options is the first step. Putting the right folks in Washington D.C. is the second step.