A little history of the growing push back against an out of control, debt ridden government that cannot bring itself to make rational, economically sensible decisions.
Taxpayer Rebellion Expands in Suburbs of Portland Metropolitan Area | Red County.
We have a WINNER! There were many, many contenders.. all of them worthy of their regulatory “chops”.. but in the end.. only one regulatory roustabout could be deemed “Most Maddening”. Read all about it here!
Elected officials must learn what Agenda 21 is before opening their
mouths and revealing their ignorance. Henry Lamb explains why.
Henry Lamb
California Representative Wally Herger offered an article on Agenda 21
which, unfortunately, reflects a lack of knowledge about Agenda 21 –
shared by far too many elected officials. In the first instance, he
said that Agenda 21 is a document developed at a U.N. Conference in
1993.Wrong!
Agenda 21 was developed over a period of time, traceable from the
1972 U.N. Conference on the Environment, which identified “environmental
protection” as the world’s greatest problem, and gave the world the
U.N. Environmental Programme, followed almost immediately by Nixon’s
Executive Order that created the EPA.Then came the 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements, signed by the U.S., which proclaimed that “Public control of land use is…indispensible.”
The next major step was the creation of the U.N. World Commission on
Environment and Development in 1983, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland.
The commission issued its final report in 1987, called Our Common Future.
This document produced the concept and defined the term “Sustainable
Development” to be: “Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.”This rather ambiguous definition was spelled out in great detail in a
40-chapter, 300-page document titled Agenda 21, signed and adopted by
179 nations in 1992 (not 1993) at the U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro.Herger goes on to say:
“While this document was agreed to by the United Nations, the United
States is a party to the agreement only by our membership in the U.N.
For the agreement to become legally binding, it would require submission
to the U.S. Senate for ratification by the President. This has not
occurred. Again, ‘Agenda 21’ is not legally binding on the United
States.”Wrong!
Actually, the document was adopted by 179 nations, including the
signature of George H.W. Bush. A nation’s signature on a U.N. document
obligates the nation to do nothing in opposition to the goals of the
document, and to promote implementation of the document’s
recommendations. Agenda 21 is not a treaty subject to Senate
ratification. It was never intended to be a treaty. (Bill Clinton
signed the Kyoto Protocol. Because his signature obligated the U.S.,
George W. Bush took the unusual action to have the U.S. signature
removed from the document.) At the same conference, however, two
treaties were adopted by the U.N.: The framework Convention on Climate
Change, signed by Bush and ratified by the Senate; and the Convention on
Biological Diversity, not signed by Bush, signed by Clinton, but not ratified by the Senate.Nothing in Agenda 21 is legally binding on any government until a
government – at any level – adopts an Agenda 21 recommendation as a law
or ordinance, or as an Executive Order such as EO 12852 issued by
President Bill Clinton in 1993 in response to Agenda 21 recommendation
8.7:“Governments, in cooperation, where appropriate, with international
organizations, should adopt a national strategy for sustainable
development…”Bill Clinton’s EO created the “President’s Council on Sustainable
Development” expressly for the purpose of implementing the
recommendations in Agenda 21 throughout federal, state, and local
governments. The EPA and other federal agencies offered challenge
grants to state and local government to promote the implementation of
the recommendations in Agenda 21. The federal government gave more than
$5 million to the American Planning Association to produce “Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook,”
which provides model legislation for states that, when adopted,
requires counties and cities to adopt recommendations found in Agenda
21.Herger says further: “There are innumerable reasons to be concerned
about the United Nations, but I don’t believe the toothless “Agenda 21″
is one of them.”Sadly, Herger’s lack of knowledge about Agenda 21 is shared by most
elected officials. The recommendations in Agenda 21 are presented as
Smart Growth, Sustainable Communities, Greenways, and a host of similar
buzz words. Agenda 21 is toothless until a local government
incorporates Agenda 21 recommendations into their comprehensive land use
plans. Then the recommendations have the force of law.A U.N. accredited non-government organization called ICLEI
(International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) exists at
the behest of the U.N.
for the purpose of helping local governments implement the
recommendations in Agenda 21. ICLEI has contracts with more than 600
U.S. cities and counties and is working diligently to spread its gospel
even further.Rep Herger, and all elected officials, should learn more about Agenda
21 and its effect on communities where it has been implemented. People
in Los Angeles County are being removed
(17:35) from their own private property for non-compliance with Agenda
21 recommendations included in recently adopted building codes. People
are being forced to live where they do not want to live because of Urban
Boundary Zones, and arbitrary and, unreasonable acreage requirements
for a single dwelling. The free videos available here
are a great place for elected officials, and everyone else, to begin
their education on Agenda 21 and sustainable development. This same
site offers a wealth of detailed, well-documented information on Agenda
21, its source, history, and effect.Elected officials must learn what Agenda 21 is before opening their mouths and revealing their ignorance.
Originally published at The Moral Liberal by Contributing Editor, Henry Lamb, who is also the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” Chairman of Sovereignty International, and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc.
Did you like this article? Be sure to share it with your friends, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, and subscribe to our RSS feed to stay up to date on problems with Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.
‘);
- Articles In This Category
- Related Articles
- Latest Articles
- Most Read Articles
Next >
It’s hard to believe… but many public officials STILL don’t have a clue concerning the United Nations Agenda 21 and the stated intentions and goals. Clueless is the word that comes to mind. This article explains once again the source of tremendous efforts to use “the environment” as cover for a far more sinister effort to bring America to it’s knees via regulation, taxation, and destruction of it’s sovereign status.
Emac’s Bottom Line
Published March 29, 2012
FOXBusiness
The rest of the country may be waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, but the Internal Revenue Service is wasting no time.
It wants to add new agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303.5 million building a system to oversee the effects of the health law even though its future is unclear.
As for the new IRS workers, the Government Accountability Office said the total will be about 4,500, with nearly 4,000 (3,997) slated for enforcement.
On the $303.5 million for health care, the GAO said the IRS will “continue the development of new systems and modifications of existing systems required to support new tax credits,” as well as other IRS enforcement systems for health reform.
And that’s where the health reform law gets really tricky for taxpayers.
IRS WATCHDOG: HEALTH REFORM RAISES PRIVACY ISSUES
Nina E. Olson, who runs the Taxpayer Advocate Office {TAO}, a federal IRS overseer, has warned the new health law may require more IRS intrusions on taxpayer privacy, to determine whether individuals got appropriate health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage, all of which is defined by the government.
That’s because the health-reform law’s individual mandate requires almost all legal residents of the United States to have “adequate” health-care coverage, as determined by the federal government. And it requires businesses of all sizes to provide “affordable” coverage as defined by the federal government.
Health reform’s insurance mandate says if you do not have “adequate” insurance, you’ll have to pay a fine as part of your tax return. If your business doesn’t provide “affordable” coverage, you’ll have to pay a fine to the IRS, too, as part of your tax return filing.
The IRS must collect these mandate penalties, as well as determine whether individuals buy “adequate” health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage to workers under the new law.
WHAT YOU NOW MUST TELL THE IRS UNDER THE HEALTH LAW
The TAO has noted Americans must now tell the IRS under the new law, according to a report obtained by FOX News analyst James Farrell:
*Insurance plan information, including who is covered under the plan and the dates of coverage;
*The costs of your family’s health insurance plans;
*Whether a taxpayer had an offer of employer-sponsored health insurance;
*The cost of employer-sponsored insurance;
*Whether a taxpayer received a premium tax credit; and
*Whether a taxpayer has an exemption from the individual responsibility requirement.The TAO has warned: “This is different from the type of information the IRS typically deals with, and some taxpayers may feel uncomfortable about sharing it with the IRS.”
Olson added: “As a result, some taxpayers could be tempted to not file a tax return or file a return with incorrect or incomplete information, creating problems for both the taxpayer and the IRS.”
WITH WHOM THE IRS GETS TO SHARE YOUR INFO
In the TAO report obtained by Farrell, the TAO has also reported that “obtaining this new information will also require the IRS to communicate with entities and government agencies that it may not deal with now,” including:
*New state-run insurance exchanges;
*Employers;
*Insurance companies; and
*Government insurance programs.CAN THE IRS HANDLE IT?
The TAO has warned that the IRS may not have the necessary skill sets, budget, or staffing to adequately enforce the new health reform law.
Olson notes that the federal tax code is already so complex that even the IRS makes numerous mistakes in administering it. In the TAO’s 2010 annual report, the service’s overseer says that Congress has been forcing the IRS to oversee more and more social benefit programs, including the Affordable Care Act.
“As part of the recent health-care legislation, the IRS will face a number of decisions and guidance projects unrelated to its employees’ traditional expertise and skill set,” the TAO has said, and now, with the new law, “the IRS must administer the following health care provisions: the Premium Assistance Credit, the Individual Penalty for Lack of Coverage, the Employer Penalty, and the Small Business Tax Credit.”
The IRS should revise its mission statement to make it clear that it is administering social benefits as well as collecting revenue, TAO said. Already, the IRS enforces and collects Medicare and Social Security taxes, making those federal programs’ overhead costs appear lower than they are.
NOT JUST YOU, BUT YOUR ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD
What does the IRS base your mandate penalty on? This is where it gets hairy. The TAO says that the “IRS will need to determine a taxpayer’s compliance with the individual [insurance purchasing] mandate and assess a penalty if coverage is inadequate.”
And the penalty isn’t based on just your personal net income. The penalty will be based on an entirely different number.
“This determination is based on a concept of ‘household income,’” TAO has said, adding, “this may differ from the income reported on the taxpayer’s return, because it is a composite of all of the income reported by members of a taxpayer’s household — information that may not be readily accessible to the IRS.”
HOW THE HEALTH-REFORM PENALTY WORKS
If the IRS finds you have fallen short of the law, it would hit you with a penalty tied to your household income (which may be that of an individual or several family members). But this is more than just your paycheck earnings. Under the new health law, the IRS penalty would be based on “modified adjusted gross income,” not adjusted gross income that you normally report at the bottom of the first page of your tax form 1040, before you take deductions or personal exemptions.
The modifications add back in things like non-taxable interest and excluded foreign income to this number.
Next, to assess the fine, the IRS would take the total household income divided by the number of household members who must have insurance under the law. This raises questions of responsibility for your other household members to abide by the new health reform law.
All of this could mean a heavier enforcement hand at the IRS.The IRS will need more training in privacy requirements, in order to avoid a drop in tax compliance, the TAO said, as taxpayers may feel they need to protect their confidential household income information for everyone who lives under the same roof.
WHAT THE NEW REFORM PENALTIES LOOK LIKE
And what would your health reform penalty look like?
The IRS penalty is either a fixed dollar amount, or a percentage of income above the filing threshold, whichever is greater. The law sets the fixed dollar penalty at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and indexed to inflation thereafter (capped for a family at 300% of the individual amount).
The percentage of income penalty rises at a lower rate than the fixed dollar amount, from 1% in 2014, to 2% in 2015, and to 2.5% in 2016 and after, and then is capped at the national average premium for what’s called “bronze” coverage, which provides the least amount of coverage under the new law, 60% before the patient must chip in for co-insurance, deductibles and co-payments.
There’s more. Small businesses may get hit too. Less than half of small businesses insure workers, says a House Committee on small business. About 60% of America’s uninsured — or 28 million — are small business owners, workers, and their families, it says, adding insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129% since 2000.
The IRS and Treasury have put out for public feedback a new rule to help small businesses contend with a big penalty under health reform that could potentially smack them with tens of thousands of dollars in costs, a fine that could hit already cash-strapped small businesses.
Submarined in the new health-reform law is this big onerous penalty, called a “shared responsibility payment,” that the government can slap against businesses with more than 50 workers if they don’t provide “affordable” health benefits to their full-time employees, which the government gets to define.
The health-reform law exempts all small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the law’s “shared responsibility requirement,” which begins in 2014. But beginning in 2014, employers with 50 or more employees that do not offer health insurance coverage will pay a fine of $2,000 per full-time worker if any of their employees turn around and get premium tax credits through the new health insurance exchanges.
Even if the small business has 51 workers, and that one worker gets a tax credit to help them buy insurance — a tax credit provided under health reform — the small business still has to pay a fine.
And beginning in 2014, the government will slap businesses with a higher, $3,000-per-employee penalty if the government finds they provide workers “unaffordable” health insurance.
WHO DEFINES “UNAFFORDABLE” HEALTH COVERAGE?
And who gets to define “unaffordable”? The government. How is it defined?
The government will assess the $3,000 penalty if any worker has to take a tax credit or has to enroll in state health exchanges because his or her boss pays less than 60% of the full value of the coverage, or the premium the employee pays is more than 9.5% of household income.
This means more IRS intrusion into small businesses. But the Treasury Department and the IRS have asked for input from the public on a proposed “safe harbor” for 2014 that says small businesses would not have to pay the new fine, so long as they can prove to the government their health insurance is really “affordable.”
So how can companies qualify for this safe harbor? Watch this – because again health reform has raised serious privacy issues about how much the government can know. The small business has to prove to the IRS that its insurance is affordable by showing the government the wages that it paid to employees, instead of reporting to the government the employee’s household income.
Meaning, the IRS would deem a business’s coverage affordable so long as a worker’s premium costs did not exceed 9.5% of his W-2 wages.
The IRS said in a statement: “By allowing employers to base their affordability calculations on each employee’s W-2 wages (which employers know) instead of each employee’s household income (which employers generally would not know), the safe harbor could provide a more workable and practical method for measuring the affordability of an employer’s coverage.”
Want to see the headaches the small business has to go through to figure out the penalty owed to the government? The penalty is $2,000 per employee, but the business must first knock out from the math here the first 30 workers — part-timers don’t count.
Example: If you have 51 full-time employees and 15 part-time employees throughout the year, and one full-time employee is receiving a tax credit to help them buy health insurance, your business will have to pay:
51 (the number of full time employees) – 30 (the first 30 employees are excluded)
21 x $ 2,000 = $ 42,000
Government intrusion into private affairs of American citizens makes the story, “1984”, seem to be a watered down version of the future reality. Is this the direction we want America to go? A police state? Really?
An extremely important movie is coming this summer – Dinesh D’Souza – Obama & 2016
Dinesh D’Souza is author of many New York Times best sellers. The movie is from Gerald R. Molen, producer of Academy Award Winning Schindler’s List, and Brave Heart.
It explains in plain language who Barack Obama really is, what he stands for, and the dangers of him being reelected for another four years.
Watch this 14 minute video preview of this movie which came out only yesterday (Feb.28, 2012) and share it with others. It has already been seen by over 10,000 people. Within a very short time it will have been seen by millions!
https://www.youtube.com/v/Z6QOscKvUjU?version=3&feature=player_embedded
The White House and its liberal allies are planning a comprehensive public-relations campaign for the second anniversary of Obamacare and the Supreme Court oral arguments that will take place later this month. A four-page strategy memo obtained by The Heritage Foundation outlines the strategies and messaging planned for the coming weeks.
The memo, which is published below, includes a day-by-day breakdown of how the White House and liberal advocacy organizations want to frame the debate. The New York Times first reported on the Obama administration’s coordination efforts, including a White House meeting last week with more than 100 people present. The Center for American Progress, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, and Protect Your Care are among the groups mentioned on the memo.
As the two-year anniversary approaches on March 23, the memo urges advocacy groups to stress these two points:
• “Remind people that the law is already benefiting millions of Americans by providing health care coverage, reducing costs and providing access to healthcare coverage. This message will include the ideas that these are benefits that politicans/the Court art (sic) are trying to take away from average Americans.”
• “Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned. While lawyers will be talking about the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precdedence, organizations on the ground should continue to focus on these more tangible results of the law.”
During the three days of oral arguments, the groups plan to provide space for a media filing center as well as radio and TV broadcasts at the United Methodist Building, adjacent the U.S. Supreme Court. The court will begin hearing arguments on March 26 and conclude on March 28.
Liberals aren’t the only ones with plans to mark the anniversary and oral arguments. Americans for Prosperity will hold a “Hands Off My Health Care Rally” in Washington, D.C., on March 27, the second day of arguments at the Supreme Court.
The four-page memo is below.
Now you know. Tell your friends about your advance knowledge of the leftist playbook and how Obama plans to manipulate the “news”, and by extension, America. Remember the true “COSTS” of this Obamanation kick in HARD after the elections. Funny the coincidence, eh?
Many will say that it is half time and we are in the locker room trying to figure out a game plan to make a comeback. I will now tell you that it is really late in the 4th quarter and we are in serious trouble. It is time to pull the scrubs and put in the A-team. It is now time to use our trick play. While you are scratching your head and trying to figure out the trick play, I will say that I will not tell you the play. I will tell you where the play is written. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
Ever had the urge to tell the Internal Revenue Service “None of your business”?
Most tax counselors probably would advise against that response, but it’s exactly what the federal tax-collecting agency soon will be hearing from a list of tea party organizations it has sent letters demanding information that is protected by the First Amendment
The situation developed recently as the local tea party groups submitted paperwork for their federal status designations, in some cases as nonprofits. The IRS responded in what apparently is a coordinated campaign with questions including one for the names and contact information for relatives of board members.
The result is that the American Center for Law and Justice has agreed to represent the groups in their responses to the IRS.
There already are dozens of groups involved, and ACLJ chief Jay Sekulow told WND that he expects that total to rise quickly.
“There are certain questions that are outside the bounds,” he told WND. “They’re invasive, they violate free speech and association. Those questions will not be addressed.”
He said it appears the demands for such information from an agency supervised by Barack Obama is a “coordinated attempt.”
“Basically, we’re objecting to information that the IRS is requesting that is beyond the scope of its legitimate inquiry.”
On the ACLJ website, several questions from the IRS were quoted:
“The quoted requests are merely the tip of the iceberg,” the ACLJ said. “We’re still reviewing the IRS letters and will have more information as we complete our review.”
The report continued, “Critically, the demands we’ve seen are made not in response to complaints of wrongdoing but instead in response to applications for exemption. In other words, the IRS appears to be conditioning the grant of exemptions on the extensive violation of the tea party’s fundamental First Amendment freedoms.”
Stephanie Scruggs, who works with The912Project as well as United in Act, helped coordinate the information for the ACLJ.
She said the demands for information are incredible, citing one for copies of every single post to every single organization website page, Twitter feed and Facebook feed.
Another request demanded contact information for family members of each board member. And yet another wanted the name and contact for every person who ever had attended one of the group’s meetings.
The ACLJ said the intimidating letters implicated both free speech and free association issues.
Tea party groups earlier asked Congress to look into whether the Internal Revenue Service was following a political agenda by flooding them with demands for information before granting tax-exempt status.
One request came from Jamie Radtke, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Virginia, who asked Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to look into the unfair treatment she believes tea-party groups have been getting from the IRS.
According to the Daily Caller, Radtke reported that after two and a half years of processing, the IRS “recently communicated a new set of overly burdensome and invasive demands for information that exceed the scope of the IRS code.”
Radtke, the Daily Caller reported, is a former president of the Richmond Tea Party. She said the latest demand includes 12 more questions in 53 separate parts, requiring copies of Facebook pages, names of donors, information about exactly how grants are spent and many other details.
The requests demand copies of Web pages “that are accessible only to your members.”
A similar situation developed for the Ohio Liberty Council, which asked Congress to investigate.
Spokesman Tom Zawistowski told the Daily Caller, “I defy any American to read this list of demands by the IRS and not be outraged.
“This is the kind of personal information that this government is going to be demanding from your church, your doctor, your hospital, your business and your favorite charity going forward,” he said.
“This has nothing to do with tax status,” Zawistowski told Fox News. “It has to do with political affiliation. The questions are too close to home.”
According to a letter posted online by Fox News, the IRS is demanding printed copies of organization Web pages, newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters, social networking sites, officer rosters and revenues and expenditures.
“Have you expressly endorsed or oppose (sic) candidates for public office or slates of candidates at public events, on your website, on your radio show or You Tube page, in your literature or in any other forum? Do you plan to do so in the current election cycle? If so, provide a list of candidates for political office you have expressly endorsed or opposed, and describe the occasion on which you made each endorsement,” the letter states.
“Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship. Provide copies of any agreements you have with others for provision of goods or services, sharing of facilities or other cooperative arrangements, or anything else.”
At Hot Air Green Room, columnist Howard Portnoy questioned, “Is someone out to intimidate the tea party movement, and if so, who?”
An IRS official told Fox, “When determining whether an organization is eligible for tax-exempt status, including 501(c)4 social welfare organizations, all the facts and circumstances of that specific organization must be considered to determine whether it is eligible. … To be tax-exempt … they must be primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare.”
The spokesman continued, “Career civil servants make all decisions on exemption applications in a fair, impartial manner and do so without regard to political party affiliation or ideology.”
But the Weekly Standard documented the situation of the Richmond, Va., tea party.
The organization said: “On December 28, 2009, RTP applied to become a 501(c)(4) organization. After nearly 10 months, the IRS finally responded with a letter (dated September 17, 2010), requesting detailed documentation to satisfy 17 questions, giving RTP only a two-week window in which to finish. (As the response was curiously due on the opening day of the inaugural Virginia Tea Party Convention, for which RTP was a central organizer, we requested and received a two-week extension.) We fully complied, providing over 500 pages of documentation. We received no response for over a year. Eventually the IRS sent a letter dated January 9, 2012, thanking us for our ‘complete and thorough responses’ from the first request, but then asking us to answer 12 additional questions in 53 separate parts, including the totally inappropriate request for a full list of our donors and volunteers.”
|
On Medicare Reimbursement Regulation Overload:
|
|
|
“Never underestimate the brilliance of our federal bureaucracy. “The Department of Health and Human Services has announced that it must delay implementation of new reimbursement codes for Medicare. Those new regulations would have increased the total number of reimbursement codes from the current 18,000 to more than 140,000 separate codes. The delay will undoubtedly come as a relief for physicians who will have additional time to try to understand the bureaucratic complexity of rules that, for example, apply 36 different codes for treating a snake bite, depending on the type of snake, its geographical region, and whether the incident was accidental, intentional self-harm, assault, or undetermined. The new codes also thoroughly differentiate between nine different types of hang-gliding injuries, four different types of alligator attacks, and the important difference between injuries sustained by walking into a wall and those resulting from walking into a lamppost. “And Democrats wonder why Americans still resist having the government control our health care?” |
Who’s Holding Whom Hostage?
Jim Huffman | Feb 25, 2012 | 0 commentsGOVERNOR AND FELLOW DEMOCRATS STONEWALL REPUBLICANS’ JOBS INITIATIVE –
The Oregonian editorial board continues to pound away at Republican legislators and particularly House Co-Speaker Bruce Hanna. On Wednesday of this week the editorial board railed against Republican failure to rush through education and health care reforms pushed by the Governor. Today the editorial board expresses astonishment and outrage that Republicans are demanding action on their jobs package in return for action on the Governor’s health care and education initiatives. “Even in politics, friends don’t take friends hostage,” they write.
OK. Fair enough. But who is holding whom hostage? On Thursday the Governor “invited” business leaders to a press conference at which he plead for quick action by the legislature on health care and education. Are those folks going to stiff the Governor? Of course not. They understand that they have to get along with the guy who happens to hold the office. But let’s hope those who agreed to serve as props for the Governor’s show and tell have also picked up the phone and let the Governor know privately that there needs to be action on the jobs package as well.
The Oregonian describes GOP leaders as having “crashed Kitzhaber’s news conference.” So were not all business leaders invited? Bruce Hanna, Kevin Cameron and Tim Freeman are all successful businessmen and business leaders. Dennis Richardson is a successful lawyer who represents businesses. And these are business people who not only show up when the Governor calls a news conference or when they are looking for something from government, but also impose significant costs on their businesses by volunteering to serve in the Oregon Legislature. Of course, they are all from outside the Portland-Salem-Eugene power center, so perhaps that explains why they weren’t invited.
And the fact that these individuals and most other Republicans represent rural and small town Oregon gets to the heart of the apparent stalemate in Salem. The Oregonian expresses sympathy with Republican job initiatives, but says “it’s wrong and dangerous to pretend that this kind of legislation is of equal importance to creating a new accountability system for schools, or reforming an early childhood education system that every year leaves an estimated 18,000 Oregon kids unprepared to learn when they show up to kindergarten.”
Maybe it’s wrong if you live in the Valley and can’t see past the Cascades or the Coast Range. But if you live in eastern or central or southern or coastal Oregon, a dozen jobs here and a hundred jobs there make an enormous difference to the future prospects of your community. Although many urban Oregonians have persuaded themselves that rural Oregon can survive on tourism and the “new green economy,” the reality is that we live in a resource rich state and if we refuse to responsibly develop and use those resources we condemn many Oregon communities and Oregonians to continuing economic decline.
The effects of that decline are not confined to rural Oregon. They slowly, but steadily, trickle over the mountains and into Salem. Did anyone notice that the state economist’s revenue projections are consistently wrong on the high side? That’s a sad commentary on the sorry condition of the economy of the entire state.
Rather than condemn Republicans for holding hostage the Governor’s health care and education reforms, The Oregonian might more reasonably have asked why the Governor and his fellow Democrats are holding the Republican jobs initiatives hostage. Of course health care costs and education are important to the future of business in this state. But so too are jobs in the near term which will result from making greater use of the resources of the state. Oregon could be a national model for responsible development of state controlled resources – if only the Governor and Democrats were willing.
If the jobs package is of such limited importance relative to the health care and education reforms, why don’t Democrats happily accept them. According to The Oregonian they would be getting a lot in return for giving up very little. Though one has to wonder what it is they think they would be giving up by encouraging a little job growth.
So who’s holding whom hostage?
@COPYRIGHT Northwest Free Press 2012. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Clackamas Point of View 