Your voice: July 9, 2025

Bev Elsner

Husum

Winners and losers

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a gift to the “winners” and a bane to the losers.

Corporations are winners. This legislation will permanently lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

High income households can claim victory. “The bill will greatly expand the amount of state and local taxes households are able to deduct from their federal taxes from the current cap of $10,000 to $40,000. Also, a permanent reduction in the estate tax will exempt the payment of taxes for an estate valued at less than 15 million dollars. (Shannon Pettypiece, “Who wins and loses in Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill,” NBC News, June 30). Lower income households lose. The Congressional Budget office states that provisions in the bill “…would cause nearly 12 million low-income individuals to lose their health insurance over the next decade by cutting around $1 trillion from Medicaid.” (Pettypiece, “Who wins and loses in Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill,” NBC News, June 30).

The loss of healthcare insurance is devastating. In Washington state alone, 1,860,000 children and adults are enrolled in Medicaid. Thirty-nine percent are children. Seventy percent of adults are working. Should the remaining 30% lose their coverage as part of the waste, fraud and abuse Republican leaders cite as rationale for their cuts? A national report by independent health policy research group KFF.org found that, in 2023, three in 10 Medicaid recipients were unable to work due to caregiver responsibilities, illness, disability, or school attendance, all of which qualify as exemptions to the work requirement.

Finally, these cuts will affect rural medical facilities. When rural hospitals and clinics shut down for lack of funds, critical care is lost to everyone, healthcare workers lose their jobs, and services that our community depend on are no longer available, requiring long distance travel for care and appointments.

This is the future of healthcare if our Republican leaders pass this bill. Winners and losers.

April George

White Salmon

Responsible?

Is a “great” nation one whose leading party professes to stand for fiscal responsibility while at the same time pushing policies that will grossly increase our nation’s debt?

Forbes, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Bipartisan Policy Center all report that the INTEREST PAYMENTS ALONE (on the national debt) are now roughly equal to the annual cost of Medicare, and now exceed our nation’s military spending.

The president’s “Big Bill” includes big tax cuts for wealthy Americans (while gutting Medicaid and other essential programs); this will mean fewer taxes collected from those who can afford it while forcing the government to borrow more money to pay its bills.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House version of the president’s bill would INCREASE interest payments on the debt by $55 billion a year over the next ten years.

That amount, apparently, is enough to “fully repair every bridge in the United States” (New York Times).

Hmmm. I know a loyal old bridge that could use some of that repair money!

Kathy Pickering

Hood River

Medicaid funding

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that states can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Let’s be clear: by law, Medicaid cannot fund abortions. Planned Parenthood uses that funding for essential health services like contraception, cancer screenings, and STI (sexually transmitted infections) testing — for both women and men.

In many areas, especially for low-income and working-class families, Planned Parenthood is the only provider of these critical services. Blocking access doesn’t reduce abortions — it increases unintended pregnancies, late-stage cancer diagnoses, and untreated STIs that can cause infertility or even death.

The Republican-led reconciliation bill aims to ban Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood nationwide, not just state by state. And this ruling goes beyond reproductive care: Medicaid law guarantees access to any qualified provider, but the court’s decision lets states limit that access based on ideology — not medical qualifications.

This is a direct attack on healthcare freedom, and we should all be alarmed.

Sandy Montag

White Salmon

American values?

Several years ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to visit the National Socialism (Nazi) Documentation Center in Munich (www.nsdoku.de/en/) — a German museum that traces Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s. We learned that Hitler was elected by voters after convincing them that 1) the traditional German way of life was under attack and had to be preserved at all costs and 2) pure Aryan (white) bloodlines were being polluted by “degenerate” non-Aryan people. Once elected, he skillfully worked his way to the position of chancellor. Then, to consolidate power, eliminate resistance, and carry out his agenda, he:

• Promoted fear and hatred of non-white, non-Christian German residents and citizens by publicizing false stories to dehumanize them;

• Got the collaboration of many churches in promoting his views;

• Attacked judges and lawyers who challenged his decrees;

• Took over cultural institutions and museums to rewrite history and redefine German culture;

• Ordered the banning of books he considered dangerous;

• Demanded personal loyalty from civil servants and military personnel;

• Discredited and persecuted legitimate journalists while fostering propaganda masquerading as legitimate news;

• Blamed a particular group of people (Jews) for most of Germany’s problems, then took away their rights, sanctioned violence against them, and imprisoned them in detention centers (concentration camps) or otherwise removed them from society.

Ironically, our current administration seems to be implementing policies more in line with the values of the Third Reich than with the values of the nearly 300,000 Americans who fought and died in World War II to defend democracy from authoritarian tyranny. We can reclaim the America our parents and grandparents fought and died for — the one that stands for freedom and justice for all — only if enough of us stand up and vote for change. The choice is ours.

Tom Pierson

Glenwood

‘Government science’

Living as we do in the West, it is an easy thought to think that the federal government disregards our domestic tranquility in a hundred ways. In a small celebration of our nation’s birthday, let’s celebrate a couple individuals who voiced the voice of the West and our divergent ways from the East: writer Wallace Stegner, and scientist and bureaucrat John Wesley Powell. Both these men argued for the integrity of the lands of the West, acts for which we all continue to benefit today.

In the 1996 biography on Stegner, author Jackson J. Benson writes of Stegner’s biography of Powell, “In the broadest sense it was Powell’s efforts to establish the principle of government science, as essential to our form of government and prerequisite for our cultural advancement and physical well-being, that was his greatest contribution. Government science today is still under attack from vested interests, but we have to a great extent lost the consciousness of how very important such science is in preserving the democratic foundations of our republic.”

We live in an ebb and flow of forces, and as such, the more things change, the more they remain the same. And yet, are we preserving the democratic foundations of our republic?

Jim Tindall

Husum

Not working for working class

I’m writing out of concern for what’s packed into the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” now moving through Congress.

Supporters say it helps working Americans, but rural communities like ours stand to lose the most. This bill would add red tape to Medicaid — requiring paperwork and proof of work hours that people in cities may have the time and internet access to manage, but that folks out here often don’t. That means more neighbors getting kicked off their healthcare, even if they’re working or caregiving or just between jobs.

Our small-town hospitals and clinics rely on Medicaid funding to stay open. If the bill passes as written, we could see real cuts that hit our ERs, our nurses, and our neighbors.

Meanwhile, billionaires and big corporations are getting permanent tax breaks. That’s not what we voted for. We were promised support for working families — not another round of giveaways to the wealthy while rural America gets squeezed.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill — supposed to cut waste and save us money — will add more than $3.4 trillion to the deficit over 10 years (www.cbo.gov/publication/61537). That debt will need to be paid, and rural areas — often hardest hit by tight budgets — will bear the burden.

I hope Rep. Newhouse and others in Congress think twice before voting for a bill that punishes people just for living in a small town.

Kathleen Bennett

White Salmon

 Editor’s Note: The “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed on July 3, after this letter was submitted.

Somos Inmigrantes

Every day, I have the pleasure of working with immigrants. In fact, I chose to become a social worker specifically to be able to work with new arrivals to this country. I enjoy meeting them, hearing their stories of strength and perseverance, learning from them, and witnessing their resilience.

Like many people in the United States, I am a descendant of immigrants. Both sides of my family experienced persecution and economic hardship in their home countries before deciding to move to the United States. Once they settled here, they also experienced difficulties and persecution. This is specifically true of my Japanese-American ancestors, including my citizen father, who was incarcerated in a concentration camp during World War II solely because of his race, not because he was a threat to this country at the age of 5 years old.

What is happening in our country right now to immigrants hurts me to my core as it reminds me that we haven’t learned from our mistakes.

It is simply not fair to vilify immigrants and claim that all people who arrived here without documents, or as parolees, asylees, on student or work visas, or who even have green cards, are criminals and worthy of deportation. Most people come to this country seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Unfortunately, due to our broken immigration system, which hasn’t been fixed in over four decades, there are few ways to come here legally. But their desperation and hope bring them here as it did for my other great-grandparents, who were Jewish in Eastern Europe, and had a true fear of persecution. Newly arrived asylum seekers and refugees are simply trying to stay alive.

I am pleased to display a “Somos Inmigrantes/We Are Immigrants” sign in my window because I want people to know that in our community of Hood River we stand in solidarity with our hard-working, law-abiding immigrant neighbors. For these are the same strong, determined people who make our community productive and vibrant. If you’d like one of these signs for your window or yard, please contact Riverside Church.

Janet Hamada

Hood River

USAID ‘new approach’

Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, described the new approach to the former USAID (United States Agency for International Development) as “prioritizing trade over aid, opportunity over dependency, and investment over assistance.”

I certainly hope that the starving children and adults of the world will gobble up the magnificent trade and tariff packages that will replace the former food aid in the new U.S. priorities. (Maybe they are more tasty with a little ketchup?)

I also hope that poor people appreciate this new chance to shout, “Hooray for the opportunity for healthcare that I can’t afford!” as the U.S. prioritizes “opportunity over dependency” and health issues remain untreated.

And those folks whose homes, villages and roads are destroyed by natural or human disasters will be certainly be pleased to know that there are “investments” somewhere instead of “assistance” for immediate housing needs. Could any of the investments please include blue tarps?

USAID will now be a part of the state department. USAID was formerly a functionally independent executive agency. So what won’t be done because USAID is gone? Some possibilities based on USAID history:

• Estimates have been reported that USAID funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030. Nearly a third of those deaths — more than 4.5 million — are estimated to be among children younger than 5.

• Loss of former USAID energy programs in 20 countries that installed renewable energy capacity — enough energy to power 3.4 million first-world homes for an entire year

• Increased malaria deaths. From 2007 to 2017, the former USAID saved 6 million lives.

• Reduced or no food assistance. In 2016 alone, the former USAID provided food assistance to more than 53 million people in 47 countries.

• Cutting global efforts by the former USAID to eradicate polio.

(Source: “Comment: Here’s the good USAID did and what it won’t do now,” Everett Herald, March 31.)

As happens often with this federal administration, I am now sad to be an American. I want my U.S. to take care of basic needs for food, housing and healthcare, and support democracy, at home and abroad. I am sad.

Pat Evenson-Brady

Hood River

Salmon restoration

After years of bipartisan work by the states, federal government, Tribes and interested parties, President Trump halted the recovery agreement (“Trump withdraws from $1 billion Columbia River Basin agreement with tribes, states,” Tribal Business News, June 15). It stopped habitat restoration, climate assessments, hydro power operations and forestry research, which all impact the survival of the salmon and other life. This negates the promises to protect biodiversity for the Tribes, farmers, fishers and all who call this home. We cannot afford to return to the era of ignoring science and sidelining sovereign nations. This is more than an environmental policy — it’s a moral and legal responsibility. Salmon are vital to Oregon’s identity, economy and to Native Americans.

Lark Lennox

The Dalles

Dictatorship closer

The process towards dictatorship is accelerating! First, the tax cut he is pushing for most is just a continuation of the tax cut he made in 2020 while the billions in tax cuts for the rich is in addition to the tax cuts he gave them in 2020.

This is simple to explain: First, the tax cut for the masses was temporary while the tax cut for the rich was permanent. He is trying to get credit for one tax break for the masses two times.

The billions he is giving the rich will be paid for by kicking millions off of Medicaid. His “Great New Bill” actually provides proof of this. The requirement that many people on Medicaid would have to work 20 hours a week assumes that these jobs are available. Every time this has been attempted, the jobs have not been available, so the people lost their Medicare for a period of time.

Do not vote for any Republican who backs this bill. They are allowing this move towards a dictatorship to continue.

Leonard Hickman

Hood River