Featured Stories

Other Pamplin Media Group sites

Letters to the editor

Beware of asset-linked CDs

I would like to warn people about supposedly insured FDIC insured asset-linked CDs. This type of CD guarantees a very small amount of interest with a chance of making more interest if held until maturity.

What is not readily obvious, because it is buried in masses of paperwork, is that these CDs — if not held until they mature — can lose a lot of money and you may not be able to redeem them, even at a loss, if the bank can’t find a buyer.

They don’t seem to be a true CD, and I am very doubtful if they are backed by any assets. Unlike a stock, it appears that you may not, even at a loss, be able to unload them until their maturity date.

My belief is that even if held until the maturity date and interest increased, you still might end up with only the original amount invested in the CD. I suspect that any interest, aside from the small guaranteed amount, will be calculated from how much the CD has lost, not from the original purchase price.

This is a devious product that should not be legal.

David Haskew

Forest Grove

Oregon needs campaign contribution limits

I’m saddened that Senate Joint Resolution 5 died during the last legislative session. I cannot believe Oregon is among six states that don’t have campaign contribution limits.

We as voters deserve the chance to send a message that the Citizens United ruling does not protect free speech; it simply commoditized the time and focus of our elected officials. Legislators and statewide candidates spend an inordinate amount of time raising funds rather than meeting with constituents, reviewing legislation or doing anything else they’re actually elected to do. We cannot blame them for this. The sad truth is, those who spend more on campaigns are more likely to win to repeat the same process in their next term.

We need to break this vicious cycle and take money out of politics by amending the Oregon Constitution to enact campaign contribution limits.

Matt Koehler

Cedar Mill

How does Jeb Bush define ‘safe’?

In the recent GOP debate, Jeb Bush came to life when he claimed “we were safer under his brother.”

It depends on your definition of “safe.” Why was there no challenge to this, given that the largest attack on America since Pearl Harbor happened under his brother?

Jeb also left out that President Obama carried out justice for Osama bin Laden after promises of doing this. Additionally, Jeb omitted the fallout of Isis and other groups that stemmed from his brother’s invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Jeb saying that we were safer doesn’t make it so, and the fact is we have had no attacks under President Obama.

Furthermore, the last picture taken — showing Jeb standing on tippy toes to appear larger than his peers in the group photo — shows his own lack of confidence in his leadership abilities.

Shannon Olsen



Local Weather



Forest Grove


Humidity: 97%

Wind: 0 mph

  • 10 Oct 2015

    Rain 64°F 49°F

  • 11 Oct 2015

    Partly Cloudy 68°F 44°F