|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
GOP Lawmakers Join Democrats in Aiding Enviro Left Wes VernonWASHINGTON - About half the Republicans in Congress are joining a united Democrat party in promoting the interests of a left-wing movement that is also (not incidentally) out to defeat the GOP majority in Congress. "A multilayered fraud” is the way Mike Hardiman, lobbyist for the American Land Rights Association (ALRA), describes the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) in an interview with NewsMax.com. The bill, H.R. 701, is better known among its critics as the "Condemnation and Relocation Act.” The legislation now making its way through Congress is a pork-barrel land grab and a burden on the taxpayers. Democrat support of the legislation is not at all out of character. That party has fronted for the anti-property-rights environmental movement for years. But what motivates Republicans, including heartland Western conservatives, to support this measure, which flies in the teeth of everything the much vaunted "sagebrush rebellion” is all about? More than one conservative activist has made the observation that while the Democrats may be "the evil party,” they don’t call the Republicans "the stupid party” for nothing. Slush Fund As described by Henry Lamb, a property rights activist who has attended all United Nations meetings regarding property and environmental issues, CARA creates an off-budget slush fund of $45 billion over 15 years, which would bestow upon it the sacred cow status of being out of the reach of annual appropriations. Taking the money "off-budget” is what Hardiman sees as the first layer of fraud because there’s little accounting as to where taxpayers’ dollars are going. It doesn’t count in the budget where you can see it. Lamb tells NewsMax.com columnist Diane Alden that "it does little good to focus on any specific detail at this point” because the measure is constantly changing "with every meeting of the [House Resources] Committee.” More than half the money, supposedly for "conservation” (and every heartland property owner understands the meaning of that code word) would go to only two states: Alaska and Louisiana. It surprises no one that the main sponsors of the bill in the House are Reps. Don Young, R-Alaska, and Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairmen of the House Transportation/Infrastructure and Commerce committees, respectively. That gets us to another one of the layers Hardiman describes: Pork, much of which is dispensed by these two powerful House panels. The pork is generously distributed to other states. That is the source of the bill’s attractions to lawmakers who are willing to sacrifice their principles and "go along to get along.” Another layer of fraud, as described by ALRA, is the claim that the bill protects property rights. Lamb tells NewsMax the funding "is primarily for the acquisition of private property and development rights. The money may be used by the feds, state, and local governments, and by NGOs" - non-government organizations such as the Sierra Club. 'Willing Sellers' "It does not provide for condemnation of private property,” Young’s spokeswoman Amy Inaba told NewsMax.com. "It provides money to the state and local governments who buy property from willing sellers.” On closer inspection, the term "willing sellers” turns out to be a disingenuous "selling point” on the part of CARA’s advocates and causes nothing short of purple rage among many opponents. The "land grab” rebellion in the Western states was prompted by the come-on that said, in effect: "Oh, sure, you can make the decision as to whether you’re willing to sell your property and the amount of money you are willing to accept. No problem. Of course, if you don’t make the right decision, well, you can get along without roads or water, can’t you? Or perhaps you won’t mind if we take actions that zap your property values down to zero. You won’t mind that, will you? After all, there are trade-offs in life. But, hey, it’s your decision.” The many horror stories connected with that will have to await another article. Moreover, while the bill does purport to protect property rights, ALRA lobbyist Hardiman says the legislation is so riddled with "exceptions” as to make that stated protection nothing more than "a fig leaf.” Among the exceptions are historic preservation, wildlife, urban parks, and land and conservation purposes. Any government official who cannot find a reason to go after private property and justify it under one of those "exceptions” probably has an inactive imagination. But, true to the tradition of congressional "log-rolling,” it is the "pork” angle that lures many lawmakers to CARA. Just ask House Resources Committee Chairman Jim Hansen, R-Utah, normally an arm-waving conservative who understands that Young’s committee holds purse strings for dollars to pay for transportation conveyances for the 2002 Olympics, which his state will be hosting. Or ask Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, who reportedly submerged a dislike for the bill and voted for it in committee so as not to embarrass his fellow Utahn who chairs the panel. That rumble you hear in Salt Lake City is not an earthquake. It is the late populist maverick Utah governor and Salt Lake City mayor J. Bracken Lee turning over in his grave. But at least Hansen gets something in return. How does one explain the "yes" vote of Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont.? "He’s just dazzled by the bright lights of Broadway,” Hardiman told NewsMax.com. He just "caved” to the "schoolyard bullies” (Young and Tauzin). Chuck Cushman, executive director of ALRA, charges that "instead of standing up and fighting for Montana, Rehberg chose to take the easy way out. He voted in favor of a 15-year trust fund, which hands over $3 billion, guaranteed every year, to the liberal elite Big Government crowd. And now he is trying to double-talk his constituents into believing he is actually helping them!” Years ago, one of Rehberg’s predecessors, Orvin Fjare (R), paid a political price by opposing a popular pork-barrel project known as Yellowtail Dam. The issue made him a one-term congressman. But he was respected in Montana for standing up to pork, even in his own backyard. Rehberg, on the other hand, caved to simple old-fashioned arm-twisting to vote for pork, his critics say. "It’s as if he was thinking: ‘Oh, wow! These important committee chairmen want my vote!’” Hardiman told NewsMax. There were also some heroes from Western "sagebrush rebellion” states: Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., is on Hansen’s Resources and Tauzin’s Commerce committees. The latter, says ALRA’s Hardiman, dispenses as much pork as any panel on Capitol Hill. According to ALRA:
The committee vote total: All 17 Democrats present voted yes. Seven Democrats were absent. As for the Republicans, their vote count was 12 yes, 12 no, four absent. This is why the House Republican leadership does not want this bill to come to the House floor. Last year, when the measure was up before the chamber, viewers of the proceedings on C-SPAN were treated to 11 hours of Republicans tearing each other apart over this issue. The essence of party leadership is keeping this kind of bitter family feud from seeing the light of day. But while the Democrats are having a good laugh at the GOP’s dirty laundry being hung out to dry, some Republican strategists are plotting to ask their Democrat friends if they are willing to forgo the CARA slush fund in the interest of "preserving the surplus.” After all, it has been the Democrats’ holy grail that the budget "surplus" is diminishing because President Bush pursued a tax cut that gave Americans a small amount of their own money back. If the problem is that ordinary taxpayers are actually getting to spend more of their hard-earned dollars, then surely the Democrats would be willing to help fill that gap by giving up the $45-47 billion pork project. No? Congressman Young goes back home and tells his constituents in Alaska that he’s just "bringing home the bacon” as a good congressman is supposed to do. But Hardiman, the ALRA lobbyist, notes that there is rising opposition to CARA in Alaska, a state of fiercely independent souls on America’s last frontier. The Alaska GOP opposes the legislation, according to Hardiman, as do many property owners in the state. So too do members of the state Legislature, who regard the matching-funds provisions of the bill as "budget busters” on the backs of Alaskan taxpayers. As for Congressman Tauzin’s "bringing home the bacon” in Louisiana, the colorful Hardiman told NewsMax that if you "take away oil, all there is left in that state are gambling, extortion, prostitution and fishing.” Last year, the measure got through the House but was stopped dead in its tracks in the Senate, where a companion bill this year is co-sponsored by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska. Right now, the goal of property rights supporters is to keep it from reaching the House floor before it ever gets to the Senate or a conference committee.
A product that might interest you: |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |