Letters to the Editor for Jan. 11, 2010

Tax measures will affect everyone

To the editor:

I have lived in Oregon and Idaho my whole life. I, like most loving parents, want my kids to have the best education, experiences and opportunities. I also recognize that money is a major contributor to these experiences. It seems to me, though, that we are trying to a fix a long-term problem with a short-term solution.

The long-term problem, simply stated, is poor fiscal management in our state capital.

The short-term fix with damaging effects would be a tax increase. I work in a small business that will have gross sales over the $250,000 mark which will make us eligible for the new taxes. The trouble is we make nowhere near that much; by the time I have paid employees, utilities, insurance, and all the other costs it is plausible that if we had another year like last year our company might not be able to cover the new taxes.

Many people are in the same situation, so to say not many will be affected is a lie. This tax will affect my family and everybody I work with. The tax will also affect our customers. This tax would leave us with two alternatives: 1) Raise our prices to cover the cost of the taxes which is not possible because 33 other states have lower taxes, and although many won’t admit it they price shop on the Internet before going into stores; or 2) Fire an employee since our patrons would not be willing to pay the additional costs of the taxes. Which would you choose?

If these taxes pass and close many of our little companies that are just getting by, that would ruin our town.

Will you vote yes to tax increases, yes to continued spending without management, yes to further hurting Oregon’s fragile economy, yes to opening the door so more taxes will be passed when the politicians want more money? Or vote no to bigger government, no to wasting money, no to government raises while we are all struggling?

Please vote no on Measures 66 and 67; don’t be fooled, these taxes affect us all. 

Ken Gross

Baker City

Road plan offers middle ground

To the editor:

David Mildrexler’s Jan. 4 letter stating 2,500 open miles of roads would be adequate for multiple-use management on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest was a thought experiment. Mildrexler wants us to be linked to pristine environments by unlinking us to the beat-up landscapes and environmentally degraded past resource extractions.

The WWNF management has been devoted to sustaining the ecosystem, protecting water, wildlife habitat and other resources. The landscapes are hardly “beat up” and our neighbors and friends have worked on the forest to prevent abuses. The community has not sat idly by and let the forest get “beat up” over the years while saying nothing. I disagree with a lot of things the federal agencies do on public land, and fully expect them to work for people and not against people, but they have not created a damaged landscape. If that is all HCPC can see on the WWNF, then they should get busy, prove and justify their complaint rather than cherry-pick a low number for the road system.

Stating road mile reductions will provide more fish and elk fails to recognize that the public has given billions of dollars in taxes to the federal and state governments for clean water, fish protection and wildlife habitat restoration. And now HCPC claims it was the WWNF road system and we haven’t given enough?

Fewer roads won’t keep the elk off private land when it is in prime condition due to decades of management that produced quality habitat for wildlife all year. Elk management decisions by ODFW controls the elk population number’s and not the roads.

HCPC makes emotional appeals, practices land management using “look and see” methods, and tries to change society through litigation. Mildrexler offers fewer routes for management and pleasant visits, but fails to mention how we get to the “pristine” areas without roads. Will we pay forest employees to hike the closed 11,100 miles for fuels reduction so the “pristine” landscape doesn’t become a hazard zone due to wildfire?

The WWNF offered reasonable middle ground options for public consideration and avoided crowding us in or locking us out.

Pat Larson

La Grande