Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

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 Our infrastructure is wearing and outdated.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.

Monsanto Thunder, Merkley Blunder

by

MonsantoPresident Obama signed into law H.R. 5973, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act on March 26, 2013. The nationwide controversy that followed its passage was the result of section 733, the “Farmer Assurance Provision” that was notoriously nicknamed the “Monsanto Protection Act”, that included a rider added by the House of Representatives and passed by the Senate.

Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, a member of the Appropriations Committee, voted for this bill and played a significant role in its passage. He attempted to cover his tracks by leading its repeal. When the repeal was blocked, he made an excuse that Republicans were to blame – a false excuse that continues to drive the wedge of divisiveness between the parties and fuels the lack of productivity in our nation’s capitol.

The rider, introduced by those in Washington D.C. with deep connections to the massive genetically modified seed corporation Monsanto, expands executive powers by allowing the U.S. Department of Agriculture the ability to override judicial proceedings invoked to protect the health and safety of American citizens. Furthermore, the rider grants growers of genetically modified seeds, the ability to continue to market and sell, fruits and vegetables that are potentially poisonous to our society.

First, Senator Merkley should have known of the rider. Back in December 2012, his fellow Oregonian House Representative Peter DeFazio authored a “Dear Colleague” letter opposing the Monsanto biotech rider.

Second, and furthermore, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Merkley should have had every legislative aid on his staff scouring the bill for suspicious language. Instead, the Senator, in failing to repeal the rider, drummed up the excuse that the Act was a “must-pass bill under tight time constraints.” He further explains in his statement to the President that the bill escaped the U.S. Senate “with no debate.” As a member of the Appropriations Committee, a debate should not be necessary for him to be aware of these riders.

As if excuses were not enough, he blames the GOP for blocking the repeal while ignoring the fact that fifty-one (51) democrats in the Senate voted for the Monsanto Protection Act as opposed to twenty (20) republicans – this was a bill favored by his party. Only one (1) democrat voted against the bill.

Attention to detail is certainly a necessary quality of a member of Congress. Accountability for mistakes is another such quality. Senator Merkley’s democratic colleague, Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) owned up to her role in H.R. 5973’s passage by making a public apology.

Partisan politics are to blame for the Sequester and much of the other government inaction plaguing the current system – not one particular party. We must seek to elect senators and representatives who are capable and willing to work with all members of Congress – not just those amongst their party ranks. These types of candidates are those trained to identify conflict and mediate towards a positive outcome.

Senator Merkley stands for reelection in 2014. His reliance on Oregon’s shade of “blue” is misplaced and unfounded. More folks now than ever are willing to cross their traditional party platform to vote for candidates who are conscientious, progressive, and balanced.

Josephine County: The Governing Conundrum

by

Josephine County Sheriff's officer -- Photo courtesy Josephine County

Josephine County Sheriff’s officer — Photo courtesy Josephine County

Last week residents of Josephine County, Oregon rejected a levy that would increase property taxes in order to provide more funding for an increasingly resource-starved Sheriff’s Department. The voting results sparked conversation nationwide  regarding local, state and federal governing entities and their role in administering the duties of the state. The issue took a particularly emotional turn as news organizations focused in on a sexual assault committed against a woman who had called 911 last August but was unable to reach any authority

for lack of funding. Politicians at all levels offered their responses.

Josephine County, a mountainous and wildly beautiful swathe of land located in Southwestern Oregon is seventy (70) percent owned by the federal government as Oregon and California Revested Grantlands (O&C Lands). Cuts in federal subsidies (such as those provided under the Secure Rural Schools Act) resulting from the sequester is one reason for the County’s under-resourced Sheriff’s Department. United States Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has proposed that sequestered funds be payed immediately through an amendment to the Farm Bill. At the state level, Governor John Kitzhaber is considering legislation to declare a public safety emergency in counties similarly affected by these federal cuts.

Should issues such as public safety be left to the local population when their self-determination results in choosing not to fund such services? On a different but connected issue, should the federal government be managing the lands of the county at all or, for that matter, providing subsidies to the local population to support the local bureaucracy? While these questions are difficult to answer, an even tougher issue for those such as Commissioner Simon Hare who advocate solely for local control is voter turnout in the county. Only fifty (50) percent of registered voters took action in the special election on May 21st that included the proposed levy – hardly a showing of democratic support against the tax. The levy itself lost by less than 600 votes.

Oregon residents should not be left to fund Josephine County’s policing practices. Josephine citizens’ voice, however unrepresentative, must be recognized and local politicians like Simon Hare should practice their preaching by rejecting such federal and state funding (something easier said than done but within their prerogative) and, rather, focusing on increasing voter awareness and turnout. Dependence on subsidies and emergency measures hurts everyone.

As for the federal government exercising control over much of the county, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) are gathering support for a bill that would alleviate some of the gridlock on logging in the area by putting certain previously logged areas in trust to the state for harvesting. The federal government, however, is uniquely situated to help mediate the use and protection of environmental resources given the cross-border effects of logging runoff, erosion, air quality and habitat destruction. We have witnessed how local practices of an industry (i.e. logging) can operate at the expense of other industries (i.e. salmon) where eco-systems are more organically inter-connected than the bright-line boundaries of local, state and federal territories. Managing the resources, businesses, and environmental organizations requires a neutral practitioner. So, while DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden are well-intentioned in their efforts to confer control over land-management to state authorities, they should not relinquish their position of being able to provide appropriate protections for more vulnerable parties.