Author: DevAdmin

Posted on

Heart-warming or Dirty?

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, February 5, 2020 by devadmin

I recommend that you read a couple of paragraphs from President Trump’s State of the Union:

“As the world bears witness tonight, America is a land of heroes. This is a place where greatness is born, where destinies are forged, and where legends come to life. This is the home of Thomas Edison and Teddy Roosevelt, of many great generals including Washington, Pershing, Patton, and MacArthur. This is the home of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Harriet Tubman, the Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, and so many more. This is the country where children learn names like Wyatt Earp, Davy Crockett, and Annie Oakley. This is the place where the pilgrims landed at Plymouth and where Texas patriots made their last stand at the Alamo.”

“The American nation was carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and women ever to walk on the face of the Earth. Our ancestors braved the unknown; tamed the wilderness; settled the Wild West; lifted millions from poverty, disease, and hunger; vanquished tyranny and fascism; ushered the world to new heights of science and medicine; laid down the railroads, dug out the canals, raised up the skyscrapers. And, ladies and gentlemen, our ancestors built the most exceptional republic ever to exist in all of human history, and we are making it greater than ever before.”

“This is our glorious and magnificent inheritance. We are Americans. We are pioneers. We are the pathfinders. We settled the New World, we built the modern world, and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God. America is the place where anything can happen. America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true. This nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American adventure has only just begun.”

“Our spirit is still young, the sun is still rising, God’s grace is still shining, and, my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America.”

President Trump’s message should have been heard as a heart-warming tribute to all Americans and our collaborative efforts to build a nation where people are free to pursue individual liberty. But all is not well in DC because the final scene from the televised event was Nancy Pelosi tearing up her copy of the speech.

I’m not suggesting that Trump’s speech should have been gold-leafed, framed and placed in Pelosi’s living room. Yet, we know that her purposeful televised shredding of those papers was meant to be divisive. When questioned about her actions she responded that she thought the speech “dirty.” Pelosi said, “I tore it up. I was trying to find one page with truth on it. I couldn’t.”

Given these two contradictory views for America, how do you think Speaker Pelosi would answer the following question? Which form of government would she prefer? Which would you prefer? Choose one, A or B:

A) People should govern government; or,

B) Government should govern people.

Now, back to Oregon, how do you think our Democrat-party super majority enclave would respond?

The reason I ask, is because of a much larger battle that is being waged across America.  It is a battle for ultimate control – control over the life of the individual.

Will the individual (AKA – the smallest possible minority) be allowed to run their own life? Or, will the powerful continue to manage, control, regulate, fine and tax that life for their own benefit?

Based upon the initiatives that were brought up during Oregon’s 2019 legislative session and the wave of new bills scheduled during this 2020 short “fix-it” session, the super majority’s appreciation for big government is undeniable.

The onslaught facing Oregonians is similar to a scene described by Homer, in his legendary masterpiece, the Iliad. He writes, “It is as when the ass breaks into a field and eats the standing corn, and the children of the village beat him with sticks. Their arms are weak, and the sticks are broken on the beast’s back, for he is slow in going, nor do they drive him out till he has eaten his fill.”

I wonder if this donkey will ever be full. Probably not…

Oregon’s super majority appears unconcerned about the growth of government and its own internal agencies that multiply faster than rabbits. Every session new organizational units are conceived on a bed of Utopian ideals. While each of these agencies has a limited scope and function, when administered in concert with thousands of other rules and regulations liberty becomes debauched.

The tangled web of controls, economic dislocations, and market interventions are skillfully crafted to lavish rewards on one group while taking from another. This is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. The well-connected receive their rewards in the form of projects, contracts, licensure, subsidies, protective regulations and monopolistic franchises that ensure the well-connected stay gorged at the honeypot.

Aided by well-heeled experts and powerful special interests, the onslaught of government growth is slowly dismantling our private property rights, local jurisdictional autonomy, independent decision-making and free-market choices. The result is a more virulent collectivism which demands higher tax rates, subservience to needless regulations and sacrifices of our individual freedom in the name of safety and security.

The aftereffect of this degraded liberty forces other businesses to lobby for their own legislative protections, or advantages. In turn, you, I, our families and our businesses are being slowly divided into groups of rulers or ruled, taxers or taxed.

Remember, Thos. Jefferson, cautioned the majority of his era with this message, “to be rightful, [they] must be reasonable.” Because, “the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

Now the question facing us is, how reasonable is the super majority?

Are they being reasonable with regard to gun control (must be locked at all times, can’t hand to another user, etc.), cap and trade (11% utility rate increase; 72¢ gas tax), mandatory vaccinations (for restrictable diseases), gross sales taxes (CAT), mattress taxes (for the homeless), auto-sales  taxes (for carbon-offsets), privilege taxes, hotel taxes (20% increase while renting a pillow), home-sales taxes, and new construction taxes?

Does the state of Oregon need more revenue? On the contrary, Oregonians need more freedom! Freedom from excessive taxation, regulations, fees, redundant licensure requirements and government agencies interfering in their families and businesses.

Our Oregon Constitution echoes this thought claiming, “all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness.” Government’s charter is for the expressed defense, support and protection of the individual along with all of his undeniable, self-evident natural rights and human dignity. The state, in our Founder’s conception, is meant to be the servant of the individual.

Join me and thousands of hardworking, law-abiding, Oregonians at the Capital building, all-day tomorrow morning, Thursday, February 6th.

Join with us to rally peacefully, stand up for our 2nd Amendment Rights, our private property rights, our right to run our own lives and businesses, our rights to earn an honest living for our families and our futures without punitive taxes, fees, and regulatory burdens.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense… No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Dispensing Favors; Wielding Power

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Tuesday, January 21, 2020 by devadmin

Big problems are on the horizon with the Democrat super majority’s Short Session Swindle, otherwise known as the Cap and Trade Bill (LC19). The most troubling is the unrelenting control and absolute authority that will be handed over to non-elected bureaucrats over the 30-year life-cycle of the program.

Bureaucracies are most irksome and troubling when agency and department heads pursue agendas that vary from the goals of those elected to office. Elected officers can be held accountable whereas bureaucrats are free to reign. Administrative agencies become another branch of government. They exercise vast amounts of power and authority. They write rules, compliance obligations, sanctions, penalties and the methods for adjudicating discrepancies.

These issues will explode with exponential fury when the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) agenda is set for the next three decades by people who will be long-since gone. The alphabet soup of agencies chartered to control Oregon’s productive economy may outlive as many as 7 future governorships. These agencies will saddle businesses with untold complex, capricious and unachievable goals while dispensing favors and wielding power. The bill’s effectiveness will not be judged by the stated emission targets but by the underlying controls handed to the bureaucracies and the dizzying tax revenues.

Cap and Trade schemes are attractive to governments because of a contemptible contrivance that generates revenue through bureaucratically set goals, taxes and penalties. These arrangements become “pay to pollute” virtue signaling efforts. Oregon will make money regardless of GHG emissions compliance. In essence, companies are free to pollute as long as they pay the state’s ransom.

LC19 states, “it is the goal of this state to achieve a reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions levels in Oregon:

(a) To at least 45 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2035; and

(b) To at least 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050. … to prepare for the effects of [global warming] climate change.” [strike-out in original text]

Global cooling went out in the 80’s. The global warming ‘hockey-stick’ was a disgrace. Now climate change is the new toxically undefined term that is being used to scare our children. Additionally, what scientific evidence proves that an 80% emission level below 1990 levels is the right target for a date 30 years into the future? Why was 1990 chosen?

The date arises from AGENDA 21, a worldview which captured the minds of the statists in Oregon leading up to United Nations Conference on Environment & Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The AGENDA 21 preamble states, “Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving [its goals].”

Disguised under the global banner of foremost government responsibility, we can see the easily abused keywords: “plans”, “processes”, “strategies”, and “policies.” All of which combine to mean that you and I, as individuals, no longer count. It is the bureaucracies and their goals that matter.

If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty or business, then LC19 is a perfect storm of statism. It does not represent a new approach to government. It is not consensus government. It is merely a continuation of political absolutism where those with power keep their power and the rest pay their dues. It is no different than the absolute governments, monarchies, or random tyrannies that have plagued most of human history.

Our Founders, the Declaration and our constitutionally federated Republic argue for the individual, with Jefferson noting, “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride.”

But the super majority sees things differently–they believe it is not up to you to decide whether vaping, vaccines, plastic grocery bags, straws or firearms are appropriate tools for your life and happiness–the government should make that decision for you.

Am I being over-zealous and bombastic?

Here are some recorded statements of AGENDA 21 policy promoters:

  • “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the U.N. Earth Summit, 1992.
  • “Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single-family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment are not sustainable.” – U.N. Biodiversity Assessment Report.
  • “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions of acres of settled land.” – Dave Foreman, Earth First.

Do you wonder why the four dams on the Klamath River have been slated for removal; why the Pelican Butte Ski Resort was never approved; why your farm and water rights are under constant attack; why your electric rates are climbing higher; or, why there are new bike-lanes instead of new auto-lanes?

The current mindset has been in the global-socialist kettle for more than 70 years and has been percolating within Oregon for the past three or four decades. Governor Goldschmidt (D) created the Oregon Task Force on Global Warming in late 1988. The task force was composed of 12 state agencies charged to review current scientific knowledge and assess how global warming could affect the state.

In 2004, an advisory group created by Governor Kulongoski (D), chose the global warming target date, 1990, based on recommendations from another United Nations organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The advisory group notes, “This target is based on limiting CO2 to double the level that existed prior to 1750.”

Doubling the colonial population would get us to a US population of 8 million. This is far below today’s population where 320M people produce nearly $20T in GDP and export food, goods and services to the world.

Despite the hype, there are no renewable technological solutions that can get Oregon’s economy to a carbon neutral, carbon free, or fossil free state. Without high net-energy fuel sources, which solar and wind sources are not, our capabilities will quickly regress toward the past, perhaps, circa 1750.

In their mad rush for money, Governor Brown (D) and the super majority appear unwilling to acknowledge the technological constraints facing top-down bureaucracies. A free-market approach, where men and women can exercise their entrepreneurial spirit and sequester innovative breakthroughs, is the best hope, along with carbon sequestration through good forest management. Good stewardship comes from private resources combined with clear and well-structured property rights. Mobs and crowds are not good stewards, individual are.

Therefore, Oregon should preserve capital accumulation for businesses and families so that our collective prosperity can lead to better stewardship for Oregon and our planet. Otherwise, you and I, our businesses, our jobs, our families and our communities will no longer be welcome in Oregon.

Stand with me and other steadfast Republicans in stopping this bill or be prepared for the “the re-wilding of our communities.”

 

If we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense…  No one will?

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Short Session Swindle

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, January 9, 2020 by devadmin

A recent Wall Street Journal book-review, When the Earth Had Two Moons, by Erik Asphaug, starts with,

“If you visited the surface of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, you wouldn’t recognize it. The newly formed planet was still cooling from its recent coagulation. There was a hot rocky surface (probably; we don’t know for sure), volcanoes (again, probably) and a steamy atmosphere (maybe). It seems unlikely that even the smallest thing resembling life was yet present, though, really, we don’t know. … We can be forgiven for not knowing what the surface of the Earth was like before this moment, as nothing survived that day intact.”

The reviewer’s thoughts are remarkable because, 1) there is a frank admission of uncertainty and 2) there is a profound recognition that our planet is always changing.

This WSJ book-review affirms my argument that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd and the tax and spend proposals we see cascading through various legislatures have put too much weight into stasis. The environmental balance that we witness today will not be the balance of tomorrow. The T. Rex and Mastodon are proof of that. It is one thing to recognize that the barred owl is a more successful survivor than the spotted owl but does this warrant shot-gunning the former to preserve the latter? This policy is not rational or scientific, it is a moral argument that demands an appropriate moral response.

Scientists have extensive knowledge of the Earth’s most recent 4,000-year period of glacial expansion and retreat. Historical references to the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, are quite robust. Documentation particularly notes the improvement in mortality rates, farming, horticulture, livestock management, population growth and cultural achievements across most known cultures during the warmer periods of human history.

If this is fact, then why the political clamor? Why does the public at large expect the state, or federal government, to control or dictate the best type of energy that should be available? All our choices – nuclear, ethanol, diesel, low-octane rotaries, natural gas, fuel oil, solar, wind – all have drawbacks and benefits. Why not let the market decide?

Government mandates are blunt force instruments that shrewdly coerce compliance through costly fines, penalties and taxes without having the bandwidth to assess alternative technologies and innovative approaches that might solve our problems. Unlike the private sector, government is not an ingenious inventor. Economic data suggests that government is too costly, too inefficient and bureaucratic while being prone to corruption, misdirection and fraud.

The results seen on the street rarely match the political hype. Missed targets and cost overruns abound while with every election cycle the public gets promised newer, bigger, grander and longer-term, yet, more costly and unsustainable programs.

I would prefer an approach which more closely resembles the paradox witnessed throughout world history. A situation where free people enjoy the rewards of their hard work and where disseminated freedom leads to increased human well-being, societal growth and creative problem solving. Free people are creative people.

So, why the relentless drive to force Oregonians into a new proposal for a look-alike HB2020 Cap and Trade Carbon Management scheme? I am convinced it is nothing more than scare-mongering in order to tax Oregonians. It is nothing more than a cleverly worded grab and run, tax and spend, swindle.

The proposed legislation will grow the state, empower the political elites, raise taxes and redistribute the wealth of the most productive without even slightly impacting worldwide carbon emissions.

If you think I’m out on limb, look at this map with regard to existing, planned and currently under construction, coal-fired electrical production facilities and ask yourself, “Given the world’s population demographics, will taxing Oregon families and businesses impact the behavior of the heaviest carbon polluters?” Can Oregon’s population make up for emissions from expansive fires in California, Russia, or Australia, or, volcanic activity through-out the world?

Clearly, no.

The Democrat super majority should have asked this same question when they outlawed plastic straws and single-use plastic bags, “will it make a difference or is it just a costly hassle?”

People and their personal choices can make big differences. Personal responsibility and stewardship are the appropriate tools for each of us to use in our personal and public lives. I’m not making the claim that everything is peachy, and people aren’t wasteful or thoughtless when it comes to environmental concerns. Instead, I’m making the claim that government mandates never represent a balanced, efficient or rational choice due to the conflicting interests that guide public policy.

For example, I can remember when paper bags were outlawed to “save the trees.” The legislated solution was a floppy, thin, shapeless, “single-use” bag that never had any groceries in it by the time you got home because they were strewn about the car.

These constantly changing perspectives on right, wrong and which bag is the correct bag, shows that government policy can be irrational. Politicians make decisions based on limited knowledge with biased information. Paper bags were banned because legislators believed the environmentalist rhetoric about diminishing forests. Now there is a new emergency because people have been so diligent in following the law and not using paper.

Yet, the real solution would have been to allow free choice in the marketplace. Some folks would have used paper, others plastic, some would tend toward variations on recycled products while clever stewards would have developed the inexpensive reusable bag two decades sooner. Was it helpful to force people to use nothing but plastic only to berate them and force a nickel charge for buying the next version of the correct bag?

Yet, reality does not appear to inform the super majority. Free market solutions are lost to AGW fanaticism, as though state power is the only goal. Thus, we see the ‘politicizing’ all areas of our lives and society. Success hinges on being able to implement all-encompassing and ever-more complex social experiments where results become difficult to recognize and evaluate.

Additionally, the true societal costs are never properly accounted for as profound economic and community distortions, dislocations, and malinvestments pile onto the balance sheets of families and businesses.

The Climate Policy office holders will not be the people’s representatives as they will be appointed by the Governor and represent the statists’ interests, instead. They will have near universal control over Oregon businesses through rulemaking, unlimited taxing authority, penalty assessments, discretionary enforcement and other extensive economic burdens that will never make headlines. Oregonians know better, as we’ve seen unfettered giveaways and compliance incentives before, like the $1.2 billion Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) scandal.

The super majority continually reaches for near-tyrannical mandates that are wasteful and extremely expensive to Oregonians without ever accomplishing any measurable goals. Therefore, I will do everything in my power to stop any HB2020 look-alike  which will subvert our individual liberty and bankrupt businesses, whether small or large, in the metro area, or in the rural heartland of Oregon.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense, no one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

What is this Oozing Behemoth?

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, April 19, 2018 by devadmin

In my last article I shared from Whittaker Chambers’ autobiography, Witness. Today, I will pick up another observation from Whittaker that I will apply to most government institutions–federal, state, county, regional and municipal. Chambers discovered inconsistencies and discrepancies within the New Deal which puzzled him. He noted that the stated purposes of the policy initiatives did not necessarily match with the final results.

Chambers summarizes the tangled nature of the bureaucracy,

“It’s coalition of divergent interests, some of them diametrically opposed to the others, its divided counsels, its makeshift strategy, its permanently shifting executive personnel whose sole consistency seemed to be that the more it changed, the more it remained the most incongruously headed hybrid since the hydra.”

Anyone who has attended a “public meeting” knows the truth of his summary. There are always opposing views, some worth hearing, others not. How will the juggernaut be navigated? Who will guide the discussions? Which compromises will be investigated, which ignored?

The seeming contradictions and purposeful inefficiencies create tensions that would hamper any problem-solving exercise but, in a sense, it offers hope. People hope they can make a difference; they chime in to express their policy preferences. People board the bandwagon to have their voices heard or to get a seat at the table.

As Chambers mentions, the organizational dynamic of these bureaucratic shenanigans becomes quite advantageous for the state. The confusing agenda items and internal conflicts allow the   bureaucracy to shield itself from any close scrutiny while always drifting toward the collectivist panacea–socialism.

As a pluralistic society our culture extols the virtue of many pathways and the value of many interpreters with myriads of opinions.

However, if the goal of collective action is known to be compromise, then all parties must willingly accept compromise before coming to the table. By implication, it also means there is no truly correct path, no right or wrong, good or bad. All pathways may or may not get us where we need to go. Consensus decisions get accepted, however, because we have shifted our value system in favor of compromise over correct action.

Yet, how many of us compromise when doing the laundry, changing our motor oil or shaving our under-arms or faces? Do you find yourself arguing for compromise or doing the job correctly?

Do you leave a couple of quarts of dirty oil in the crankcase to avoid being dogmatic about your auto maintenance habits? Do you throw two scoops of detergent into the wash along with two scoops of dirt? Do you shave under one arm, but not the other? Why not?

Why don’t we approach science, education, math or healthcare with hearty doses of compromise?

Although this collectivist mentality has continually surfaced throughout man’s history, in the US it was perfected by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Amity Shlaes, author of the New York Times bestseller, The Forgotten Man, documents that in 1936 Pres. Roosevelt systematically figured out how to establish the modern political constituency.

This was the wedge in the door that has been so meticulously exploited in the identity politics movement. Roosevelt knew that he could promise something to small groups without creating animosity among others. He could strengthen unions in order to get union member votes. He could also appeal to artists, senior citizens or railroad workers by establishing specific offices, programs or bureaucracies to meet the needs of each constituent group.

In fact, Roosevelt’s federal spending, during the peacetime period of 1936, outpaced state and local spending for the first time in US history.  Shlaes notes that the results created, “the Roosevelt landslide of 1936 –but also the modern entitlement trap.”

However, our problem is not entirely an entitlement trap. Our real problem is that the bureaucratic machine has been engineered to live an immortal life. Government service industries live longer than presidential administrations. They live longer than governors, commissioners, supervisors or regional directors.

The leviathan doesn’t require any new ideas or agendas. It only needs more resources–men, women, money and machines. In other words, it needs continual feeding. Like Frankenstein, its agenda was laid out in statute at creation. It knows its job and knows what demands are at its doorstep. The leviathan only needs to stay warm and dry. It accomplishes this by fostering an environment that serves its survival.

The question comes down to us and our individual families. Are we willing to continue to fund and demand government services that don’t live up to their promises? Everyone should be willing to abandon those failed attempts, curtail the spending and focus our efforts in other directions. This would immediately slash the ever-consuming growth of the bureaucratic machine which needlessly absorbs more and more of our lives and resources.

Popular author and political journalist, P. J. O’Rourke, forcefully asks a similar question. He wonders,

“What is this oozing behemoth, this fibrous tumor, this monster of power and expense hatched from the simple human desire for civic order? How did an allegedly free people spawn a vast, rampant cuttlefish of dominion with its tentacles in every orifice of the body politic?”

The progressive-left’s answer comes directly from the progenitor of Marxism, German philosopher G.W. Friedrich Hegel,

“The State is the march of God through the world… The State must be comprehended as an organism… To the complete State belongs, essentially, consciousness and thought. The State knows what it wills… The State…exists for its own sake… The State is the actually existing, realized moral life.”

As the May Primary Election approaches, remember, the future is in our hands. Make your vote count. Vote against bigger government, excessive taxation and outlandish regulations.

Fight for the right things – Vote for Liberty. Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense, No one will.

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Zoon Politikon

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, January 4, 2018 by devadmin

I hope you enjoyed your holidays and had a Merry Christmas season and are looking forward to a Happy New Year!

Today, I want to wish the best for you and your family, as you start the New Year afresh, with new goals, positive objectives and good things to accomplish.

It is entirely natural that men and women will reach for the stars in their efforts to achieve their best and broadest personal development. After all, we were born to create. It is in our spirit and our makeup. Aristotle identifies humans as zoon politikon – political animals, or social beings. We are that, but we are more.

We are creative beings. We put our noses to the grindstone. We use the sweat of our brow combined with the strength of our backbone and the innovation of our minds to invent, achieve and produce prosperity out of the natural resources in our environment. We are, quite literally, beings made in the image of the Divine.

We know this intuitively. Most of us find a sense of great accomplishment and joy in getting things done. In fact, work is often more rewarding when we are tackling big projects. Each of us takes great pride in carving out a living, by achieving what few others thought possible, by striving against all odds because we have an idea that we believe in.

We also know, that Man’s natural rights are not limited to the political sphere, but his natural rights have something to do with his place in the world and the stretching power of his spirit and talent.

The end of government, therefore, is to secure an individual’s freedom and provide each person with an opportunity to translate that freedom into his or her own creative growth.

Free-markets are marvelously successful because of this constant striving. There is no coercion in a free market where all transactions are voluntary. If you want tacos, t-shirts, or a Toyota, then, you get to choose.  The market provides the mechanism. Additionally, there is always room for another vendor to produce a better taco or a higher quality car at a lower price and gain additional market share.

Unfortunately, over the last 50 years, occupational licensing requirements have grown dramatically in both scope and scale. Across America, nearly one in three Americans needs the government’s permission to work.

This trend has not resulted in dramatically improved safety and quality standards, or in higher consumer satisfaction. The only thing it has accomplished has been to limit access to employment opportunities based upon needless government policy that limit competitive opportunities.

If you think about it, you don’t see consumers advocating for more stringent education and licensing schemes when a new taco truck shows up in town. Most people are just happy to see another option on the corner.

Well then, who advocates for such things? Answer: government agencies, occupational and trade associations, and professional lobbyists for business who don’t like the idea of tough, street-level competition or new market innovators.

Legislators respond by granting state boards and commissions the ability to determine licensing, education and training requirements. Yet, this doesn’t actually help people get ahead. Instead, it makes it more difficult for people to get a leg up.

In an effort to give people more freedom for advancement, more opportunities in the workplace and create more productive and prosperous environments for themselves and their families, Republican’s garnered enough momentum to pass legislation that became effective law on January 1, 2018. My Republican colleague, Senator Kim Thatcher–District 13 was a chief sponsor of the bill.

This law now designates various professional licensing boards the responsibility of considering relevant work experience in place of a high school diploma, or any other equivalent education requirements.

It also allows those licensing boards to substitute OJT – on the job training, in lieu of school attendance or class-work.

In other words, if someone without a high school diploma has been working a job for many years and the licensing or certification requires a certain education level, this bill directs the licensing board to consider their real-life experience.

There is no benefit to the state’s needless saddling of individuals or in the burdening of businesses with its intricate licensing schemes.

This bill, which is now Oregon law, recognizes the dynamic circumstances of Oregonians. We all know folks in our community who never completed high school but went straight into the workforce. They have been in their trade for quite some time and have a deep knowledge of their specific craft.

They should not be barred from advancement because they unfortunately could not finish high school or couldn’t afford college training. This new legislation will help them reach their full potential without being hampered by needless regulatory constraints.

This coming year, I hope to solve more of these regulatory roadblocks where I can gather the needed Bi-Partisan support for common-sense legislation that will allow the citizens of our state to achieve their full potential.

I look forward reducing the unseemly roadblocks that have been erected in the path of those looking for an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work in the year ahead. Please keep me informed whenever you see some unnecessary rule blocking your path. I will strive to tear-down those obstacles to make life better for you and yours.

The purpose of government is to, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” I will continue to strive for that end, in the Senate, during 2018.

Wishing you a happy and prosperous New Year for 2018.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Lump of Coal?

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, December 20, 2017 by devadmin

A pair of economists recently summarized Venezuela’s current economic situation. They noted that while Venezuela’s embrace of socialism began in the 1950s, it grew quickly during the new millennium. Their summary ended with, “Over time, the destruction of economic freedom led to more and more impoverishment and crisis.”

Will our economic future be linked to this same unbridled appetite for socialism that has destroyed the Venezuelan economy?

I hate to raise this question during the Christmas season, but as I survey this past year, it is a question that deserves an answer. Given Oregon’s current fondness for tax and spend, welfare-state politicians, will the Democrat majority give it’s citizenry lumps of coal for Christmas, or their economic freedom?

Economic freedom for entrepreneurs, companies and small business owners is being  needlessly throttled by state agencies claiming the moral high-ground. That’s what socialism does. The fictional pretext for social control is always, “for the good of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.” Yet, as we see with Venezuela, it is the poor and needy who are ravaged by impoverished conditions, not the politically well-connected.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) is one of the sledgehammers for the progressive-left and the ruling elites in Oregon’s capital. The agency appears far too powerful for any public benefit.

You may recall the profound bias and vengeful aggravation which BOLI thrust upon Aaron and Melissa Klein, co-owners of the Portland-area bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The Kleins were forced to pay $136,927.07, by the inventive administrative bureaucrats at BOLI, for choosing not to decorate a wedding cake.

That incident is still pending appeal and the US Supreme Court recently heard testimony on a nearly identical case in Colorado where the same issue is at stake – an individuals right to serve his or her own conscience.

While there must certainly be some give and take, or a balancing act for accomplishing the ordered liberty we all desire – it does come with some friction. What must be surrendered and at what price? Our constitutionally federated Republic can only flourish when we preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Our founders knew this, first and foremost. In a pamphlet dated November 1, 1787, we can see the teeter-totter balancing act expressed by Brutus as he writes a for second time. We read:

“So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, … that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc. … To surrender them, would counteract the very end of government, to wit, the common good.” 

From Brutus’ viewpoint, individuals surrender their lone state in nature by establishing aids for securing their lives, liberties and property. Brutus continues to note that governments are made up of human beings who suffer common impulses like ambition and greed.

Meaning, the common good can be plundered by elected officials abusing power and pursuing their own self-interested gain. Brutus concludes with arguments for a Bill of Rights, to ensure that the proposed government would not forego its responsibility in securing the liberty of the people they serve.

An example: HB 3279 – Sexual Harassment and Cultural Competency

Last week, a constituent wrote to me in an e-mail describing new rules that are being placed upon her janitorial service business, which is now legislatively known as a “property services contractor.”

These rules are draped with false care and fictitious concern for her employees who, in the future, might be tormented by either serious sexual abuse, or, by simple potty mouth and sophomoric locker-room style braggadocio.

Let me be clear, from my conservative perspective, neither, the locker-room antics nor genuinely abusive behavior is acceptable. However, my worldview is antithetical to the  mind-numbing psychology of individual determinism swaddled in the modern language of former beatniks.

My worldview is based upon my, apparently, old and antiquated Biblical perspective, where respect for all persons is a given due to the fact that all people are created in God’s image and that they have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

The statists, who desire power and control more than truth and justice, know these truths–just like you and I. They are, after-all, self-evident truths. Yet, hypocrisy reigns supreme as these grand ideals are distorted and twisted to gain political power and temporary fame via news-hour sound-bites, photo-ops and editorials of the fake-news empire.

Question – If sexual harassment and cultural competency are the foremost goals in the marble halls of Salem’s capital, then why is the educational agenda littered with the masquerade of “value-less” education within our government schools?

Additionally, why would HB 3279 exempt specific large-scale organizations from required compliance with these rules? Look at who is exempt:

What!?   Why not?

It strikes me as entirely disingenuous that the sanctimonious scolds among the liberal elites are not sticking up for the thousands who will NOT be protected. Their double-standards and naked hypocrisy is both frightening and appalling.

Indeed, there is more going on here than protecting Oregon’s janitorial service employees from the potential of atrocious sexual harassment in their workplaces. Part of this rule-making effort is to continue the same old lie that those in lower echelons of the economic strata need the State to care for them–because their employers won’t.

This is simply not true.

These workers are not the gray-haired and toothless washer-women out of a Dickens’ novel. Nor, are they the down-trodden and starving from some black and white propaganda piece about Lenin’s Ukraine. No, these folks are the hard working, salt of the earth type of people who keep our service centers, retail shops, accounting offices and shopping malls attractive, organized and presentable.

And, their employers are not the tawdry, despicable, vile and perverted power-brokers occupying the headlines of Hollywood. No, their employers are also hardworking Americans. They are the entrepreneurs and business owners who contract, employ, arrange, schedule and perform right beside the rest of their crew members.

The telltale signs of BOLI’s sulfurous and petty political bias shows up in their Handbook for Oregon Property Services Contractors – Labor Contracting in the Janitorial Services Industry, you will find this on page 39:

Does the highlighted remark reflect the genuine and sincere concern of a state agency focusing on workers and their well-being? Or, does this represent the arrogant, guileful and mendacious attempt at a petty political joke?

The deceit runs deeper, too. The HTML – online version has different names in the same example so that Web Search Engine Results won’t expose the putrid disrespect and hypocrisy. The PDF version and any printed copies should be immediately redacted.

Did any of these smug bureaucrats who are filling agency documents with this trash ever consider including petty jokes about Harvey, Matt, Hillary or Barack?

Why doesn’t HB 3279 focus on sexual harassment within Hollywood production companies and their studio enterprises while they are filming in Oregon? Because… there is too much money to be succored from Hollywood.

Flyover America–the red colored counties on the electoral map–is fed -up with the relentless abuse coming from these tax and spend bureaucracies. Our communities contain the hard working folks who are drowning in the swamp of deception bubbling from the left’s unbending allegiance to total control. Agencies lobby to get vague, purely partisan, feel-good concepts passed through the legislature. (For example, HB 3279 was passed without a single Republican vote in the Oregon Senate.) Agencies then write absurdly complex rules, complete with untenable deadlines, exorbitant fees, needless paperwork and reckless disrespect for the citizens who pay their salaries and fund their benefits.

So, what are we getting under our Christmas Tree? Here, in Oregon, we are all getting stuck with a lump of coal!

Merry Christmas and Best Wishes you and your family during this Christmas Season…

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Well-Intentioned but…

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, November 22, 2017 by devadmin

Just before leaving Oregon for Bonn, Germany and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Governor Kate Brown issued a couple of Executive Orders which she claimed would, “drive the state’s efforts forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The governor’s first executive order, would require new homes built after September 2020 be equipped and ready for solar panel installation. Commercial buildings must meet the same mandate by October 2022. Additionally, by October 2022, all parking structures for new homes (this means your garage or car port) and commercial buildings must be wired for at least one electric vehicle charger.

Then, by October 2023, Gov. Brown directed the state’s Building Codes Division to require all new homes to be “zero-energy ready.”

Wow … How will this impact new home prices in a state where our “affordable housing” fuel gauge already reads, “Empty.”

These are two excellent examples of seemingly well-intentioned Executive Orders that actually harm poor, under-privileged and middle-class households while squandering valuable resources at the same time.

These building requirements impact all new construction not just new construction in prime solar gain environments. Every new home, even those shaded by tall, near-by buildings, tall evergreens, or situated on north-facing slopes will be required to purchase and install features that will never be utilized.

For the countless other homes with moderate solar gain potential, what percentage of those will utilize these “solar-ready” features? These mandates force substantial resource waste while harming a disproportionate number of poor and lower middle-class families by saddling them with associated direct costs that they cannot afford and will never use. Will Moms be forced to give up a year’s supply of bread and milk to buy a feature they’ll never use?

The Founding Fathers knew, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. So, why don’t we allow voluntary, free-markets to work? To wit, if you are building a new home and want it to be “solar ready,” then make that choice, if not, then no one should force that decision on you. Why would the Governor want to force someone to buy something they don’t want or need?  This reminds me of Obama’s healthcare requirement that all males purchase maternity and prenatal health insurance even though they will never need or use this coverage.

It appears Gov. Brown’s policy interventions were made without considering the unintentional waste stemming from the one-size fits all standard. Additionally, this policy neglects simple things like possible technological innovations and market supply/demand constraints.

Meanwhile, the agencies tasked with implementing these policies will be ever diligent in doing their best to follow the rules. This becomes a situation where bureaucrats are hard at work following the flowchart and checking the boxes to ensure that they adhered to the letter of the Executive Order. All the while, the ill-defined terms of this executive mandate will lead to practical implementation problems via obtuse rules and opaque administrative procedures.

With regard to “driving the state’s efforts forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” these two Executive Orders don’t really drive anything, anywhere. Rather, they will make new housing and construction more expensive, waste precious resources, and tighten existing housing markets which will adversely affect people lower on the socioeconomic scale.

As I mentioned earlier, these orders were announced just before the Governor left for the UN conference for climate initiatives in Germany.  Apparently, this was the point.

Unfortunately, the governor has fallen prey to empty sophistry and these executive efforts resemble meaningless rallying points for her gubernatorial campaign and for all  like-minded Democrats rebelling against President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

Looking at news releases, the latest Bonn meetings didn’t accomplish much, either.

The greenhouse emissions from the eruption of Mount Agung, Bali weren’t addressed. Nor, were the forest fires that raged across the Western United States, or elsewhere on the planet. Additionally, the talks reported 273 gigawatts of worldwide coal capacity which is currently under construction, with another 570 gigawatts in planning stages. This would be a whopping 42 percent increase in global energy production from coal. This building boom will be necessary because the electric vehicle charging stations will have to be powered by coal, hydro or natural gas – solar power can’t meet the battery demand.

Besides, this year’s stated goal continues to be a target of keeping global temperature rise to well below 2-degree C, and 1.5-degree C if possible. This 2-degree global warming metric is the same 2-degrees that renewable energy cronies and government elites have bandied about for over 30 years.

In the US, it started with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings on June 10, 1986. The event featured testimony from numerous researchers, one of whom was James Hansen, a leading climate modeler with NASA.

In essence, Hansen, “predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years” and “the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”

Note, none of these predictions came to pass. Nor, is there substantial evidence that these conditions are imminent. Luckily, there is a nice escape hatch for being undeniably wrong.

The errors are explained away by, “the natural variability of the temperature in both real world and the model are sufficiently large that we can neither confirm nor refute the modeled greenhouse effect on the basis of current temperature trends.”

In other words, “We don’t know what we are talking about but we are here to save you; so, give us your money!”

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense, No one will.

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Citizen Heroes

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, November 8, 2017 by devadmin

This week we mourn alongside the community of Sutherland Springs, in Texas. This past Sunday, in a Baptist Church – 26 Christian men, women and children were senselessly murdered. My prayers are with those dealing with this horror and the loss of their loved ones, while my admonitions apply to everyone

A week earlier, we read stories of people randomly killed while on a popular bike-only path in lower Manhattan. The terrorist murderer drove a rented truck for nearly a mile down the path in the shadow of the World Trade Center, shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” In New York, the Islamic Terrorist was stopped by police as he was fleeing on foot.

However, in Texas, a brave, quick-thinking, law-abiding gun owner jumped up to save lives in his own neighborhood.

Stephen Willeford quickly rose grabbed his firearm and engaged the murderous assailant who was shooting and killing Christians while they attended a Sunday morning church.

Stephen Willeford, is not a police officer. He is not a Seal Team 6 member with advanced weapons training and skills. He is a plumber who knows how to shoot well enough to injure the killer, even though the fiend was wearing body armor.

When the killer fled the scene, at high speed, a second citizen, a rodeo bull-rider, named Johnnie Langendorf, picked up Willeford and the two of them gave chase.

These two average citizens kept the 911 dispatch officers informed as they hit speeds of 95 miles an hour.

Eventually, they directed deputies to the place where the killer had finally crashed his escape vehicle.

In a news interview, Johnnie stated that it was approximately 5 minutes before the police arrived on the scene. While awaiting the arrival of law-enforcement Willeford had his firearm trained on the killer until the police arrived.

Stephen & Johnnie are the heroes in this tragedy. These two citizen heroes saved lives, of that there can be no question.

But you know what else? — Stephen Willeford, the plumber, was also an NRA member.

He’s a card-carrying member of the NRA, while the murderer was not. Imagine that!?

So, a man who obtained a gun illegally and was not a member of the NRA attacked a church full of Christians and was stopped by an NRA trained citizen using his own personal firearm, for its legitimate purpose –– stopping evil.

This is the good-guy-with-a-gun scenario.

A trained, certified, legal gun owner intervening against a bad guy who illegally obtained a weapon he is not permitted, by gun laws, to have, or own.

It seems obvious that when a bad guy with a gun shows up the answer is always a good guy with a gun (whether that good guy is an officer of the law or a private citizen makes little difference.) The point is good guys with firearms are needed to stop bad guys with firearms.

Thankfully, two good guys showed up yesterday in Sutherland Springs.

The background check system (NICS) failed, because somewhere, somehow military records and court martial information never made it into the NICS. Even if the information had been placed into the NCIS in a timely and efficient manner, there is still no guarantee that some other avenue of illegal firearm trade wouldn’t have provided the means for the murderous ends that the perpetrator wished on these Christian Brethren.

Our 2nd Amendment rights must be protected and preserved to combat evil intentions. We must not make it harder for good people like Stephen Willeford to keep and bear arms.

Here in Oregon, we must be careful because the totalitarians in our midst will launch a full-scale gun control effort because of this tragic mass murder of 26 Americans who were enjoying church last Sunday.

In truth, our government ought to be encouraging every able-bodied citizen to not only own weapons, but be skilled and prepared in using them! In the old days, this was the case.

How many of you can remember attending classes for shooting sports on your high school campus? How many of you had your rifle or firearm in your car or hanging from the back window of your pick-up truck while you went to class?

Our American heritage as documented in our Constitution’s Second Amendment did not spring into existence from another galaxy. It has a long history, founded in natural law, experience and philosophy. Across the old and new worlds, the notion of an armed populace as a means of securing human freedom was well documented in historical fact and legal tradition.

Many of our nation’s Founders were well studied in legal tradition and most of them would have read William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769). Blackstone’s first volume elaborates on the three grand, absolute rights. First, every human’s right to life and personal security. Second, an inherent right which consists of the power to act as each one thinks fit – personal liberty. The third grand right is the “sacred and inviolable rights of private property,” the ability to own and use private property for one’s own purposes.

Blackstone covers several means of securing and protecting these rights, noting, “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, … is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.”

In closing, historical experience tells us that, “when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression,” our natural rights for freedom and self-preservation cannot be denied. These basic rights belong to everyday, average citizens. Citizens just like Stephen, Johnnie, you and I.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Smoking Marshmallows

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, November 8, 2017 by devadmin

When you think about Thanksgiving, what is the first thing that enters your mind?

For most people, it is probably some sort of food – moist turkey breast, buttery mashed potatoes, brown sugar-glazed sweet potatoes (you know… with smoking marshmallows on top,) or pumpkin pie with a dollop of whipped cream.

Or, you might have thoughts about family or friends that you haven’t seen for a long time, how to decorate the house, or how to get where you’re going without getting stuck in traffic.

Once Thanksgiving Day is here and family and friends begin to arrive, then, there will be conversations, topics of discussion, stories to share and catching up to do.

However, I’ll guess that too few of us have our immediate thoughts turn toward being thankful.

Being thankful should be an all-consuming attitude, but it rarely is. Our lives are too busy for that. And, there is so much work to be done. We get tangled in the tyranny of the urgent while ignoring the simple things that fill our days and give purpose to our lives.

A thankful attitude begins with our own humble recognition of where we came from and what our short-comings might be. During moments of reflection, thankfulness shows up as the genuine respect and heartfelt gratitude for those who have impacted our lives.

While we are thankful for the material things we possess we should be most thankful for the people and the intertwining relationships that they bring into our lives.  Although we might say, “I’m thankful for my car,” what we mean is, “I’m thankful to those who purchased, repaired, provided for, or loaned me the car that I drive.” This is true even if you bought and paid for your own car, because you are employed by someone (even yourself), you provide for your customers who purchase the goods or services that you supply. They, in turn, reward your life with the results from their endeavors.

In Johannes Althusius’ famous treatise of 1614, Politica, Althusius describes his understanding of the community as a harmonious ordering of natural associations. Certainly, the family comes first in this community, but there is a host of dependent associations that can’t be overlooked. He identifies God as the first cause of all our relationships and the family as the most natural and important of all human associations. Any other associations or unions grow from these first relationships. He writes,

“Truly, in living this life no man is self-sufficient, or adequately endowed by nature. For when he is born, destitute of all help, naked and defenseless, as if having lost all his goods in a shipwreck, he is cast forth into the hardships of this life, not able by his own efforts to reach a maternal breast, nor to endure the harshness of his condition, nor to move himself from the place where he was cast forth. By his weeping and tears, he can initiate nothing except the most miserable life, a very certain sign of pressing and immediate misfortune.”

Althusius continues,

“Bereft of all counsel and aid, for which nevertheless he is then in greatest need, he is unable to help himself without the intervention and assistance of another. Even if he is well nourished in body, he cannot show forth the light of reason. Nor in his adulthood is he able to obtain in and by himself those outward goods he needs for a comfortable and holy life, or to provide by his own energies all the requirements of life. The energies and industry of many men are expended to procure and supply these things.”

It is no accident that this continent’s first settlers joined together with their immediate community to offer thoughts of thanksgiving to their God, their families, their friends, co-workers, and associates. These celebrations of old are simply the natural outgrowth of a moment of common reflection. Any reasonable assessment of our own skills, abilities, and habits would lead each of us to a thankful understanding for those who daily intervene in our lives.

This is a small variation of the circle of life, where each person voluntarily contributes to the health and well-being of the community through open and free access to the marketplace.

Adam Smith described this in his book, the Wealth of Nations, (1776). Smith mentions the useful efforts of workmen and women in the marketplace. He then jolts us with the realization that the market place does not need altruistic motives to meet the needs of the community. Smith’s narrative explains that it is not from sheer benevolence that the butcher, brewer or baker provides us with our steak, beer and bread. But, rather, they provide these services from regard for their own family’s interests. Their goods and services are needed and enjoyed by the community and in return, these entrepreneurs receive monies to supply their own family’s needs.

In one of President Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamations for Thanksgiving, he states,

“The year that is drawing towards its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.”

I hope this year, you too, get the opportunity to reflect and share in a bountiful Thanksgiving celebration.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values, common-sense and our great American Traditions – No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

My Dam Letter to Ryan Zinke

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, November 1, 2017 by devadmin

Recently, Congressman LaMalfa (CA-R) hand-delivered constituent letters to a meeting with Secretary of Interior, Ryan Zinke. The bundle of letters expressed strong opposition to removing the four Klamath River hydro-electric generating facilities.

You may also submit your own comments regarding dam removal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

1. Go to https://ferconline.ferc.gov/quickcomment.aspx

2. Enter your information including e-mail. Open automatic e-mail from FERC, follow link from there to submit comment.

3. In the Docket field, enter P-2082-062 to specify the project.

My own letter to Secretary Zinke is included below, for your perusal:

Department of the Interior

Secretary Ryan Zinke

1849 C Street, NW

Washington DC  20240

Re: Klamath River Dam Removals

October 20, 2017

On October 17, 2016, President Obama’s Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), Sally Jewel, submitted a recommendation to the Secretary of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) advocating for the removal of four hydroelectric facilities on the Klamath River.

Jewel’s recommendation is diametrically opposed to the opinions of my constituents, in Southern Oregon. Nearly 80% of voters in Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California, where the dams are located, expressed their strong opposition to destroying these four important facilities. These dams currently provide a consistent supply of low-cost, renewable, hydro-electric base-load grid-power.

Jewel writes, “While these dams brought prosperity to many, their construction came at a steep cost to tribes and fishing communities. The returning runs of salmon repeatedly bludgeoning themselves against the new dam walls were a harbinger of a declining fishery that cast a cloud over those who, for millennia, have called the Klamath home.”

These statements are all misleading. First, the dams not only brought prosperity to the region, but they continue to bring prosperity to all people groups throughout the Pacific Northwest. Throughout Oregon and the Northwest, enormous percentages of electrical grid supply is provided by the inexpensive, run-of-river hydro-electric generation facilities in the region.

Second, I would suggest that salmon are not “bludgeoning themselves” against existing dam structures that have been in place for over a half-century. School children know that salmon return to the place where they were hatched to spawn. This means that scores of generations and millions and millions of salmon have never tried to swim past the dams. Also, fish ladders currently exist to help native fishes return to their spawning grounds and they have been successfully navigating these waters for decades.

Third, the problems associated with enormous volumes of sludge accumulated behind the dam structures ought to be a genuine concern for future generations of salmon, trout, aquatic wildlife and river habitat. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement did not address or investigate mitigation efforts that might be required to handle the potential damage from the estimated 20 million cubic yards of accumulated sediment. This issue is not easily side-stepped because it is an equivalent 2 million ten-yard dump truck loads of silt, sediment and sludge which will be dumped into the river system. Surely, the existing downstream salmon fisheries will bear the burden from this harmful sludge.

Fourth, “the greatest harbinger of a declining fisheries which might cast clouds over” those who live, work, and play in the Klamath region needs to be correctly identified. It isn’t dams. Rather, like the rampant wolf population explosions in Montana, the salmon declines are directly related to federal policies.

The passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972 committed the United States to long-term management, conservation, and moratoriums on taking marine mammals, like the seals, sea lions and porpoises. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have documented the enormous growth in sea lion populations and the negative impact that seals and sea lions have on free swimming salmonids in rivers and estuaries in the Northwest.

This is no small matter. The sea lion population has ballooned to over 300,000 mammals in the Pacific Northwest. Each adult lion consumes nearly 18 pounds of fish per day. This equates to a take of nearly one million tons of fish annually.

Additionally, salmon are a transpacific anadromous species that spends between three and five years in the Pacific Ocean migratory patterns before returning to their spawning grounds. During this time in the open ocean uncontrolled foreign fishing fleets have years of unfettered access to these fish populations.

Therefore, the dams are not the problem.

The salmon populations have been thriving while the dams have been in place. The dams provide inexpensive, renewable electricity, flow control for watershed volume and temperature, recreation and agricultural reservoir capacity, and Forest Service fire suppression storage in the extremely remote regions of Northern California and Southern Oregon.

Decommissioning and removing the dams owned by PacifiCorp is not about the river, its cultural significance, jobs, race, ag-business, or water. Rather it’s a potpourri of special interests, rent-seekers disguised as noble businessmen, enlarged bureaucratic dominion and strategically manipulated environmental emotions

I humbly ask for your consideration of the items I have enumerated here and the evidence that has been accumulated by the investigating agencies. I also suggest that a willingness to listen to the constituents who have lived, worked and invested their lives in the Klamath River watershed should play an important role in your determination.

In closing, as a State Senator representing Southern Oregon, my constituents have made their voices clear. The dams are viable economic assets that taxpayers have funded. Destroying these resources will not contribute to Making America Great Again.

Therefore, my request is that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) deny the decommissioning of the four dams within the Klamath River system.

Sincerely,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28