Ackerman Hall, EOU, La Grande, OR
March 15, 2014
Pre-Blog, skip down a couple paragraphs to cut to the chase.
During the
National Guard presentation of the colors. The boys presented the colors, the
girls caried the guns. I liked
that. Before the meeting, Thomas from
Oregon Rural Action passed out “No Fast Track for the TPP,” stickers. I liked that, too, mostly only because I am suspicious of
anything the government wants to fast track.
That’s not their style of play.
They take forever to make easy decisions, much less significant
ones. If they are going to take the time
to get something done, they better at least do what Ron Wyden does and talk to
as many people, all of their constituents, whoever they are, wherever they are.
There were
some interesting questions raised, there were some less interesting ones. Mr. Wyden had some great responses, and a
couple dodgy ones. He did not have all
the answers, not even most of them, but he certainly had an approach to solving
problems. The reactions of the audience
showed an interesting dichotomy of La Grande citizens. In principle, the fact that so many people
gathered together to share their feelings, or at least have them heard, is a
sign of openness and a chance to exchange.
However, there seemed a relative unwillingness to take Wyden’s ultimate
message to heart: in order to make change, you have to be willing to make
concessions. Anytime, you remain hard line and need every single aspect solved,
you ruin the chances to get anything solved.
Life is always about give and take.
Transparency
was the most passionately charged topic, hallelujahed by all, with scathing
critiques of current unexplained injustices in federal government. The feeling was that when we, as common
people, do something wrong, we have a huge penalty to pay, but when elected
officials do something wrong, they suffer no consequences. For example, who holds the secretary of state
accountable? Wyden gave some responses,
which we will come to, but he is a huge believer in transparency and
accountability, which was why he holds such meetings.
The real blog.
Ron Wyden has
been in civil service since at least 1980 and has been a U.S. Senator since
1996. He also served fifteen years in
the House from Oregon’s Third District. Wyden is originally from
Witchita, Kansas, where his parents fled from Nazi Germany. He grew up in Palo Alto, and then studied at
Stanford, before he received a law degree from Oregon. He founded the Oregon chapter of the Gray
Panthers in the 1970s. Wyden is the
current chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, which he was appointed to
only 10 days ago. Prior to that, Wyden was chairman of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. He is a big fan of transparency in government and
makes it a priority to hold at least one town hall meeting in each county, each
year. These meetings date back to 1996. La Grande
hosted town hall meeting #691 on March 15, Wallowa and Malheur Counties hosted
meetings on March 16. In addition to
Wyden’s very open internet presence, he has tried to be more accessible to
everyone. “The reason I do this is to
listen, follow up. Coming up with practical answers is what civil service is
all about.” He is the only current
politician that kid yoshida has found worth following on twitter.
Early
questions included early intervention with learning starting from birth. Wyden admitted that even people with hearts
of concrete can agree that, fiscally speaking, it is extremely prudent to have
as many people as educated as young as possible.
Lonnie Myers
from the American Legion Post #43 mentioned Veteran’s Secretary Shinseki’s move to cut
veteran’s service offices. Wyden
expressed strong opposition to that and expects bi-partisan support for
blocking any such effort.
Wyden’s most
favored comments came during questions that Mayor Pokorney raised about
proposed military cuts to pre-world war two levels with lots of threats out
there. Wyden was forthright that cutting the national guard with new bills is a
mistake. His main avenue for reform was
in weapon’s systems. “Some weapons systems are a rip off, not advancing
security…We need good accurate intelligence for big savings.” Also, “we don’t
need boots on the ground” in the middle east.
The fate of
the U.S. postal service was questioned, including preserving the pensions of
the workers, protected by the constitution.
Wyden acknowledged it was the only entity with a guaranteed pension,
though the future of the post office would depend on public interest and values
as a community. There is “a new bill that
helps protect rural areas, which have different communication needs than urban
areas.” Whatever happens, “there will be
plenty of communication in every area.”
The question then became, wouldn’t we want to save the post office
altogether instead of focusing on rural vs urban areas. I did not get all of Wyden’s answer,
but he said yes, the he “wanted to be a part of that solution.”
Chantell
Cosner, executive director of the Liberty Theatre, brought up the issue of
restoration efforts and the economic impact on downtowns. Wyden said that these efforts are a real
magnet for business. In the short term,
they employ people on the construction.
The venues then bring more people into town for more community
involvement. Wyden also connected tax
reform debate to claim that, “charitable donations are a big part of surviving
projects.”
Shelter Fromthe Storm had three representatives to ask questions. One requested some transparency that hasn’t
been there in terms of the agency knowing of their impending displacement years
ago, when the discussions on the new courthouse began. Shelter From the Storm
could have positioned themselves according to changes that have now been more
suddenly dropped upon them. Executive
Director Teresa Crouser brought up the Violence Against Women Act and how the
courthouse funding decisions have affected the ability to provide services and
placement. Wyden is not an expert on
building spaces and deferred to his assistant Kathleen Cathey, a La Grande
native to help with that aspect, while also pledging support for the cause and
the importance of Shelter From the Storm work. Everyone at least can be pleased
that funds were secured for Shelter From The Storm.
Several
environmental questions came from the back of the room from District Ranger
Bill Gamble, Hell’s Canyon Preservation Council President Brian Kelly, and
others. The audience, as the region in
general seems to be, was divided on the significance. Responses ranged from stone-faced
disinterest, to vehement head-shaking opposition, to all arms together call of
duty support. At that point, Wyden
admitted that, in politics, “every bill, every request, must have some
compromise. Nobody gets everything they want, but…can we get what we
need?” Wyden thinks that himself, GregWalden and Peter DeFazio are well-positioned to move in positive directions on
these issues, but “we cannot be allergic to compromise.”
Wyden did give
some direct and insightful responses, however. “Climate change arguments need to be taken more seriously. 400 parts per million is alarming” in carbon dioxide concentrations and well above recommended safe levels,
higher than in the last few million years. With concerns about carbon sequestration, bio-mass and forestry
interests, Wyden cut straight to the chase in pointing out that acceptance of
renewable energy is the only way to proceed. Old growth forests are important as
huge repositories of carbon for the future, this cannot be debated. Plus, “more changes regarding our policies on
wildfire prevention,” mainly cleaning up undergrowth, is critical.
“The east side
forest bill is looking for funding…but big challenges with an economy $17
trillion in debt.” The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan that Wyden never supported
“take money away from these types of projects.”
Oregon did get money for schools and roads, so there is no reason to not
hope the farm bill can come through, for starters, and more preservation
efforts continue. Wyden also expressed an outlook that, while he is an
opponent, Oregon still has a viable timber industry. The insinuation seemed to carry that would be
a good avenue for compromise, as business involvement can also aid restoration
efforts at the same time. I can only
surmise what others opinions might have been toward much of that talk.
Charles Lidle [?] started with the national hot button issues in questioning Wyden’s role on the
NSA committee. Wyden gave a pretty
balanced approach and viewpoint. He said, “technology used to be incapable of
many things and personal rights were secured by default, but this is not the
case anymore. We now have to imbed rights into tech laws. I am a Ben Franklin
guy, who says that those who wish to cede liberty for security, deserve
neither. There are a lot of people that think that “the government can’t
possibly listen to every conversation and this is true…but the NSA doesn’t need
to listen to specific conversations to gather a lot of information about
individuals.” While it is true that
government intelligence and surveillance is necessary to protect military
interests, there is still “a culture of misinformation…there are new discussions
aimed at government involvement, pushing hard for a bi-partisan bill to secure
both liberty and security.”
A woman in the
third row posed the question of second amendment violations in taking guns away
from law abiding citizens, which shows correlations with increased gun
violence. Wyden said he strongly
supports the second amendment and his focus of opposition has been toward
armed criminals. He, as a parent,
understands that “parents are stunned over the events of the last year and a
half” (though actually much longer), and that “background checks to keep guns
away from mentally ill and career criminals” is only responsible. Wyden doesn’t want to keep guns from
deserving citizens for protection. The
woman attacked Wyden’s support to restrict gun rights as a second amendment violation and Wyden told her
that he would be open to any exchanges if she could highlight any divergence
from the second amendment in the bills he supports, “you mark the provisions
and we’ll correspond.” He offered the
same after the meeting had ended to a man who brought up similar concerns about the UN shifting to a privilege stance rather than a seeing guns as a right.
The real
fireball struck when a man named Jack stood up to attack integrity, dishonesty
and lies in the administrations. He said
the “Affordable Care Act is totally off base with what we had been told. We’ve
seen insurance cuts doubled. The program has only added 400,000 people, none of
them have paid anything for it. There are so many freedoms being taken away by
the ACA, EPA, IRS, DOJ, there is no honesty in any of that. Who are conducting the
investigations?” Jack blasted the blasé
approach to the borders and expressed a dire need to protect our lands in the
southwest. He was especially passionate about Benghazi and wanted to know who
stood down the rescue attempt?
Wyden chose
the first and the last of the issues for focus. “Being inaccessible is not OK.”
Wyden continually used his willingness to travel to people to exchange
questions and answers as a move toward transparency. He hedged the Benghazi question in so much as
it is “classified information.” He
admitted that “the State Department had a huge role in the breakdown…An
exceptional amount of activity went wrong. Hillary Clinton has acknowledged it
as the huge regret of her term in office. It will be debated for the next 20
years. I am more interested in making sure it doesn’t happen again.” kid yoshida is of the opinion that we can’t
make sure something doesn’t happen again if we don’t know what even happened in
the first place. Openness and transparency, not sealed documents, are key to
that security. The easiest question
regarding accountability, “don’t you have friends that can get something
done?” Wyden replied, “I wish I had more
friends.”
Late in the
meeting, came the points that both Wyden and myself share as being the most
significant, politically speaking at least.
Diane Gregg, a
Grande Ronde nurse, broached the cost effectiveness and sensibility of leaving
open beds in hospitals. Wyden came straight out, “we
need more critical access facilities...cutting services creates bigger
problems.”
A woman who
drove over from Pendleton complemented the nursing question with more involved
scenarios that drew plenty of reaction.
“We need more family wage jobs.
The service industry is just depressing...not cutting it for rural
America.” This problem is exasperated by the fact that “we have decimated the
school system…and cannot approach what the TAA recommends as a $16 per hour
wage.” In short, there are no offers,
nor enough qualified applicants, for livable wage jobs.
Wyden referred
the audience to his website and his post on “innovative ways to sustain middle class.” He took the inspiration from
Henry Ford, who maintained that workers needed to be able to afford to purchase
his cars. Wyden thought the forest industry would “raise up the middle class
in rural areas.” Also, health care will
be a major employer, considering the demographics in rural areas, we will need
“good quality care with technicians.”
Renewable energy and agriculture can also save rural America. He ended by making sure that people
understood that politicians do not create jobs.
When they boast that they created 5000 new jobs, only to be countered by
a claim that the next guy created 10,000 new jobs, are all just baseless
bickering. Politicians may be able “to help set the right economic conditions...but they do not create more jobs.” If they do, I can only presume that becomes more of the
bureaucracy that create all the problems we are trying to solve.
I skipped my
chance to interact when my number was called and could not wait in the line
afterwards, but I did take the opportunity to correspond.
Dear Senator
Wyden,
Thank you for bringing another town hall meeting to La Grande the other day. I was fortunate to attend, though I was the person who declined the chance to speak, primarily because I was not aware of the meeting very far in advance and had no time to prepare a thoughtful response. I have two main concerns; one big concern inspired by the meeting itself and one even bigger concern of modern society.
I have worked in various
parts of the health care industry (as more and more of the population does) and
volunteer in media at KEOL-FM. I do see
the benefit of having more jobs being created, but I am not sure more jobs correlate
with standard of care, sort of like more educational opportunities do not necessarily correlate with more educated people. There are many
opportunities to get involved in the health care field and not always well-trained staff to fill the
posts. When we begin paying minimum wage to health care workers, people who make important decisions, we are not guaranteeing the
security of the system.
My job in the
health care industry is pretty desirable for me. I have plenty of experience and
training. I don’t make all that much given my responsibilities. In fact, $11.50
per hour is probably underpaid, but I manage because of my simple lifestyle. I don’t understand how most people
doing similar work around me are supporting families on lower hourly wages. When it comes to health care, more is
not always better. Health care is not
like fast food, cheaper being better.
When I go in for a condition, I feel better knowing that someone is
well-trained and well-paid to take care of me more so than someone with a free six-week community college course that qualified for a $10-per-hour position
to do the same job. I worry about the future quality of health care, even if many jobs are opening. I can only hope the ACA holds the key. It does at least seem as good as anything we have tried thus far.
My main
concern in life right now is student loans.
It’s not the best question perhaps in a university, where the
audience contains a disproportionate number of students yet to suffer the
repercussions of debt and number of faculty and administrators that don’t want
to open up any cans of worms that may lead to more financial cutbacks. This is a deep subject to be sure. We have to consider what value is received for
our cost of education in terms of relative bargaining power.
I
had a fairly good experience in my first degree program that enabled me to work a well-paying job for a few years to pay off the entirety of a relatively low loan debt. My next
enrollment at college for a behavioral science qualification, and attempt at a masters degree, was a much less
positive experience and left me, albeit a little bit high for most, in an
endless debt trap. At the wage of
$11.50, I go more into debt everyday.
What was $58,000 of debt in 2010 is now $64,000 in 2014. What’s more is that there are lots of people
in the same position, just in La Grande.
What cumulative effects will fall on the work force required to pay back impossible amounts of money? And is the quality of education as high as the cost? Does a college education really
mean much nowadays? In terms of bargaining power, it is basically
worth what a high school diploma was worth in the 1980s. Certainly my mother was hired for a state job in the 1980s, while it was my second degree that enabled me to be hired for a state job in 2010. A college degree is a good thing to attain, almost a necessity, but high school is free, college is not.
In 2012, according to Forbes, the
average student loan debt was $27,253, which was 58% higher than 2005 and might
help explain why I got more for my money on my first trip through
university. Now we have student loans as the most defaulted loans in the nation at over 11% of $1.08
trillion. Credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and every other aspect of
American debt is more under control than student loans. The new generation has a one-third support for the idea of going to work straight out of high school, instead of going to
university. That paid off for Kobe and
LeBron, who are also all the kid’s role models. Even
a person that has no family, and no other debt, will struggle to pay off $27,000 on
a $10-per-hour job. The math isn’t that hard to figure out on that one. What is it going to take to fix this situation
that is obviously continuing to spiral out of control?
And what can the millions of people getting hoodwinked into perpetual
debt do in the meantime?
daniel “kid” yoshida
genki.tenki@gmail.com
An extra for
blog readers that want to see what variation of the question, I most likely
would have given had I taken my opportunity on Saturday.
In recalling the
man supporting the post office, a cold
reality that may need to be considered, as with the post office, the university
system seems to be approaching a public that can do without their services. A business that raises prices to extreme
levels while cutting services is not setting itself up for
success. I am never in huge favor of
government bailing people out. I don’t know where the answer lies in there. If
institutions facing problems can get the correct approach to solve more with
less money, they control their own survival.
I don’t believe that something like a university cutting media arts
programs, as this one must keep doing is beneficial in any way. Financially speaking, it is suicide to have
poor media outlets because that is the core of the information people outside
the institution receive. It is basically
buying bad advertising. Pop culture may value bad advertising; an educational
institution cannot afford it. I
certainly am having a pretty hard time paying my part of the entire mess. You have got to be able to appeal to people
if you expect to do business with them.
You need to be consumer friendly.
In any other business, except transportation and education, I can take
my receipt back for a refund if I don’t like the product. The question is how can I even buy a good
product as far as transportation and education are concerned?
No comments:
Post a Comment