http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosters_news/20000509_xnfos_massive_la.shtml
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Massive land-acquisition
bill before House
Analyst: Democrats get $3 billion to
spend, 'Republicans commit fratricide'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sarah Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Despite all-out efforts in opposition by property-rights advocates and groups like the National Taxpayers Union, a highly controversial, multi-billion-dollar land acquisition bill -- which opponents have managed to stall for six months -- has garnered over 300 co-sponsors and is on floor of the House. It could be voted on as early as tomorrow.
"It's a miracle we've been able to hold this bill up this long," says Mike Hardiman, a consultant and lobbyist for the American Land Rights Alliance -- a nonprofit organization based in Battleground, Wash., which has spearheaded the opposition.
HR 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA, is essentially a vehicle for giving coastal states a 50 percent cut of the $4 billion to $6 billion in oil and gas revenues generated annually from drilling on the outer continental shelf -- money which at present goes into the nation's general fund.
Under CARA, part of these revenues -- called the Land and Water Conservation Fund -- would be distributed to various state and local governments throughout the United States and territories to buy private land, develop conservation programs, and fund construction of recreational facilities like tennis courts and Little League fields.
"The most comprehensive conservation and recreation legislation the Congress has considered in decades," is how its author, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska., described HR 701 when he filed it Feb. 16 with the House. "[It] provides permanent funding for valuable conservation and recreational opportunities that will benefit the lives of all," he said.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska
"It's $3 billion of guaranteed money every year to buy land and other things. And it's off budget," Hardiman counters. "Here you have a conservative Republican teaming up with most of the Democrats to push a bill that'll take a huge amount of money off budget, which means there will be that much less for tax cuts and services."
The most controversial part of HR 701 -- Title II -- enables the Big Four federal land management agencies -- the National Parks Service, Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service -- to buy up private land in and around existing parks and other federal land areas. Opponents say this will lead to forced sales and possibly condemnation.
Not so, say proponents, who point to provisions that sales must be only to willing sellers.
The "willing seller" argument hasn't convinced Hardiman, who, when he isn't walking the halls of Congress on behalf of the American Land Rights Association, is an avid rock climber and "desert hound." He says he is one of the tens of thousands of people who own property in a federal area and will be "cleaned out" at some point. About 13 years ago he bought five acres of land in the California desert to use as a base camp for his rock climbing activities.
"I figured if I wanted to keep going into the desert, I had better buy a piece of land before they cut off access -- which sure enough, they're doing," he said.
"Here's what they'll do," Hardiman explained. "The federal government will come around -- offer me so much for my land. If I refuse to sell, the state of California will be able to come in and threaten condemnation -- say for a wildlife sanctuary -- unless I agree to sell to the federal government as a willing seller. Some states can do that at the present time, but they don't have the money to back it up. With CARA, you'd have power of condemnation combined with the money to back it up. They're going to clean out people like me."
Hardiman said that so far the "fiscal-responsibility groups" have made a strong pitch to the House leadership and delayed the bill. But despite this, as Young pointed out, HR 701 has over 300 co-sponsors.
"The Democrats are loving this," he added. "They get $3 billion for land buying and other projects, and they get to watch Republicans commit fratricide on the House floor."
Fratricide? That's been a major concern of Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Alliance, for whom Hardiman has been working.
"This bill spells a fundamental social change in America," Cushman warns. "It will guarantee the Republicans will be the minority party forever."
As Cushman sees it, "Most Republicans get elected through the rural vote," he said. "If they're lucky, they'll break even in the cities. They get strong votes in the rural areas and that puts them over the top. This bill targets the Republican core areas and will damage the economic ecosystem. It will buy out the farmers. Buy out the ranchers. Buy out the miners. It will force all these people into cities.
As the economic ecosystem is undermined, the average citizens in those areas will move -- people who aren't engaged in grazing, mining, or farming," Cushman said. "They just know they don't have good schools and libraries any more. The cable company closes because it doesn't have enough business. As people move to the city, they lose their touch with resources and with Republicans. That'll be the end of the Republican Party."
Also, according to Cushman, some states that are among the bill's strongest supporters will actually lose money in the long run.
"What's really amazing is that some states are actually going to lose under this bill," he said. "They aren't going to get any money at all. Right now they're getting money from offshore oil revenues. But when this bill passes, that money is going to stop and the money will be distributed through CARA. So the net result is that a bunch of states are going to lose money. That's something people haven't talked about much, but if a congressman in Pennsylvania supports this bill -- his people in his state will lose per capita. This is just another piece of pork for Alaska."
Ray Kreig, an engineer living in Alaska, has been closely involved with Cushman on opposing HR 701. He and Lee Ann Gerhart -- a CPA and retired financial analyst for the TransAlaska pipeline -- have developed several charts, posting them on the Internet, showing where the money will go. Analyzing figures posted by the House Resources Committee, Gerhart and Kreig have concluded that "77 percent of Americans live in states that are CARA losers."
Kreig explained how under CARA some states are winners, while others are losers.
"They become losers ... because this money comes out of the federal treasury. Right now, about $6 billion a year goes into the treasury from offshore revenues. It's actually one of the few things the government makes money on. It's used for Social Security, veterans programs, welfare, deficit reduction, and other federal programs. If that money no longer goes into the treasury, then either taxes have to be raised, money has to be printed, or the programs are cut. There is no other way."
Using Texas as an example, Kreig described how that state comes out not a loser, like Pennsylvania and Illinois, but certainly not a winner.
"Texas is a state that's being told they're getting this fantastic CARA largesse," Kreig said. "They're expecting $236 million a year. The Fish and Game agencies and local governments are in hog heaven to get that money. But right now, Texas is getting the benefit of that $3 billion a year that goes into the Treasury just because they have almost 20 million people in Texas. They have a share in that as part of the general government revenue. If you look down the chart you see that that $236 million amounts to only $11.95 per capita -- and look, it'll cost them $10.57 to be made up through income taxes or lost federal programs or whatever.
"So what's the net?" he asked. "Potentially what they're getting is $1.39 a year. Much, much less than they're being told to expect."
And it's not as if no money has been allocated for land acquisition by the federal government. According to Kreig, "The [Land and Water Conservation] Fund has always been authorized to spend up to $900 million on land acquisition, but Congress each year -- as they look at the nation's priorities and the need for funds for all the different programs -- normally Congress does not appropriate anywhere near the authorization."
Generally about $200 to $300 million is appropriated for that purpose.
"That money from the oil revenue is being used by the federal government," Kreig said emphatically. "If you take that away, then 270 million Americans are going to come up with a replacement for it. It's infuriating to me to hear self-professed conservative Republicans talking like tax-and-spend, print-money liberal Democrats. There's no 'free money' here; in the end it is the taxpayers' money," he concluded.
[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Massive land-acquisition
bill before House
Analyst: Democrats get $3 billion to
spend, 'Republicans commit fratricide'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sarah Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Despite all-out efforts in opposition by property-rights advocates and groups like the National Taxpayers Union, a highly controversial, multi-billion-dollar land acquisition bill -- which opponents have managed to stall for six months -- has garnered over 300 co-sponsors and is on floor of the House. It could be voted on as early as tomorrow.
"It's a miracle we've been able to hold this bill up this long," says Mike Hardiman, a consultant and lobbyist for the American Land Rights Alliance -- a nonprofit organization based in Battleground, Wash., which has spearheaded the opposition.
HR 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA, is essentially a vehicle for giving coastal states a 50 percent cut of the $4 billion to $6 billion in oil and gas revenues generated annually from drilling on the outer continental shelf -- money which at present goes into the nation's general fund.
Under CARA, part of these revenues -- called the Land and Water Conservation Fund -- would be distributed to various state and local governments throughout the United States and territories to buy private land, develop conservation programs, and fund construction of recreational facilities like tennis courts and Little League fields.
"The most comprehensive conservation and recreation legislation the Congress has considered in decades," is how its author, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska., described HR 701 when he filed it Feb. 16 with the House. "[It] provides permanent funding for valuable conservation and recreational opportunities that will benefit the lives of all," he said.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska
"It's $3 billion of guaranteed money every year to buy land and other things. And it's off budget," Hardiman counters. "Here you have a conservative Republican teaming up with most of the Democrats to push a bill that'll take a huge amount of money off budget, which means there will be that much less for tax cuts and services."
The most controversial part of HR 701 -- Title II -- enables the Big Four federal land management agencies -- the National Parks Service, Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service -- to buy up private land in and around existing parks and other federal land areas. Opponents say this will lead to forced sales and possibly condemnation.
Not so, say proponents, who point to provisions that sales must be only to willing sellers.
The "willing seller" argument hasn't convinced Hardiman, who, when he isn't walking the halls of Congress on behalf of the American Land Rights Association, is an avid rock climber and "desert hound." He says he is one of the tens of thousands of people who own property in a federal area and will be "cleaned out" at some point. About 13 years ago he bought five acres of land in the California desert to use as a base camp for his rock climbing activities.
"I figured if I wanted to keep going into the desert, I had better buy a piece of land before they cut off access -- which sure enough, they're doing," he said.
"Here's what they'll do," Hardiman explained. "The federal government will come around -- offer me so much for my land. If I refuse to sell, the state of California will be able to come in and threaten condemnation -- say for a wildlife sanctuary -- unless I agree to sell to the federal government as a willing seller. Some states can do that at the present time, but they don't have the money to back it up. With CARA, you'd have power of condemnation combined with the money to back it up. They're going to clean out people like me."
Hardiman said that so far the "fiscal-responsibility groups" have made a strong pitch to the House leadership and delayed the bill. But despite this, as Young pointed out, HR 701 has over 300 co-sponsors.
"The Democrats are loving this," he added. "They get $3 billion for land buying and other projects, and they get to watch Republicans commit fratricide on the House floor."
Fratricide? That's been a major concern of Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Alliance, for whom Hardiman has been working.
"This bill spells a fundamental social change in America," Cushman warns. "It will guarantee the Republicans will be the minority party forever."
As Cushman sees it, "Most Republicans get elected through the rural vote," he said. "If they're lucky, they'll break even in the cities. They get strong votes in the rural areas and that puts them over the top. This bill targets the Republican core areas and will damage the economic ecosystem. It will buy out the farmers. Buy out the ranchers. Buy out the miners. It will force all these people into cities.
As the economic ecosystem is undermined, the average citizens in those areas will move -- people who aren't engaged in grazing, mining, or farming," Cushman said. "They just know they don't have good schools and libraries any more. The cable company closes because it doesn't have enough business. As people move to the city, they lose their touch with resources and with Republicans. That'll be the end of the Republican Party."
Also, according to Cushman, some states that are among the bill's strongest supporters will actually lose money in the long run.
"What's really amazing is that some states are actually going to lose under this bill," he said. "They aren't going to get any money at all. Right now they're getting money from offshore oil revenues. But when this bill passes, that money is going to stop and the money will be distributed through CARA. So the net result is that a bunch of states are going to lose money. That's something people haven't talked about much, but if a congressman in Pennsylvania supports this bill -- his people in his state will lose per capita. This is just another piece of pork for Alaska."
Ray Kreig, an engineer living in Alaska, has been closely involved with Cushman on opposing HR 701. He and Lee Ann Gerhart -- a CPA and retired financial analyst for the TransAlaska pipeline -- have developed several charts, posting them on the Internet, showing where the money will go. Analyzing figures posted by the House Resources Committee, Gerhart and Kreig have concluded that "77 percent of Americans live in states that are CARA losers."
Kreig explained how under CARA some states are winners, while others are losers.
"They become losers ... because this money comes out of the federal treasury. Right now, about $6 billion a year goes into the treasury from offshore revenues. It's actually one of the few things the government makes money on. It's used for Social Security, veterans programs, welfare, deficit reduction, and other federal programs. If that money no longer goes into the treasury, then either taxes have to be raised, money has to be printed, or the programs are cut. There is no other way."
Using Texas as an example, Kreig described how that state comes out not a loser, like Pennsylvania and Illinois, but certainly not a winner.
"Texas is a state that's being told they're getting this fantastic CARA largesse," Kreig said. "They're expecting $236 million a year. The Fish and Game agencies and local governments are in hog heaven to get that money. But right now, Texas is getting the benefit of that $3 billion a year that goes into the Treasury just because they have almost 20 million people in Texas. They have a share in that as part of the general government revenue. If you look down the chart you see that that $236 million amounts to only $11.95 per capita -- and look, it'll cost them $10.57 to be made up through income taxes or lost federal programs or whatever.
"So what's the net?" he asked. "Potentially what they're getting is $1.39 a year. Much, much less than they're being told to expect."
And it's not as if no money has been allocated for land acquisition by the federal government. According to Kreig, "The [Land and Water Conservation] Fund has always been authorized to spend up to $900 million on land acquisition, but Congress each year -- as they look at the nation's priorities and the need for funds for all the different programs -- normally Congress does not appropriate anywhere near the authorization."
Generally about $200 to $300 million is appropriated for that purpose.
"That money from the oil revenue is being used by the federal government," Kreig said emphatically. "If you take that away, then 270 million Americans are going to come up with a replacement for it. It's infuriating to me to hear self-professed conservative Republicans talking like tax-and-spend, print-money liberal Democrats. There's no 'free money' here; in the end it is the taxpayers' money," he concluded.
[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com