 |
Kathleen
has a unique message for many markets.
|
|
Payments
to Peasants
-
Casper Star Tribune, April 1997
Assume
the position-kneel, cast eyes down, hands in prayerful position! Ok-you're
almost there-now admit guilt and ask forgiveness. There - you've done
it. You've achieved the politically correct position and attitude as
required by the social engineers among us if you want to wear the title
of American citizen.
Let's get REALLY
politically correct. Let's make a global apology to the global village,
and then get on with working for a living without guilt. The first part
of this suggestion would go over really big with the cultural elitists.
The second part, however, would be totally unnecessary and frowned upon.
The second part----about working for a living----well that isn't part
of our future. Anybody living in or around our national parks, national
forests and other public lands can feel secure under the Clinton administration's
latest "I feel your pain" proposed economic strategy.
This PAYMENTS TO
PEASANTS proposal, masquerading as the Agriculture Reform and Improvement
Act of 1998 would eliminate funding to counties and states under the
current Twenty-five Percent Fund. This fund (established in 1908) returns
25 cents of each dollar earned on federal land for various commodity
activities back to the states and counties from where it came. These
monies are to be used for roads and schools. The more money earned the
more revenue to roads and schools. Now, however, the Clinton crew is
proposing to eliminate the Twenty-five Percent fund, and delink it from
any commodity production. They propose that the government simply write
those states, with such federal properties within their borders, checks
each year for a fixed amount.
Perhaps the spin-doctors can sell it to the public as part of the national
welfare program---which it is!
Now, unless you're
on the BACK TO NATURE train headed for "pre-settlement conditions",
or your personal goal is to be a feudal peasant or surf you might question
the motives behind this proposal. You would be wise to. You would be
even wiser to contact your congressional delegation and dig into the
details.
The "gutting"
of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 is at the heart of this
effort. While much of what you will read/hear about this effort refers
to "lower timber revenues" make no mistake, more activities
than timber receipts go into this fund for roads and schools. Glossing
over that point helps to misinform the public about the broad ramifications
of this proposal.
Grazing, recreation
user fees, timber, etc. are all part of this fund. The nice thing about
the current situation, is that the more money that is generated, the
more that comes back for roads and schools. There is no limit on the
dollars, and production is guided by compliance with environmental laws.
The dollars generated from the Twenty-five Percent Fund have a direct
bearing on Payment in Lieu of Taxes commonly referred to as PILT payments.
Acreage of national parks (which don't produce commodities) are still
part of the formula used in determining how much PILT money is returned
to states and counties. Clinton/Gore's proposal however, would be a
flat/fixed amount with no increases possible. I guess that while the
rest of the world prospers, we're supposed to be content with the luxuries
of "pre-settlement conditions".
The proposed shutdown
on road building fits nicely into this welfare scenario. Why do you
need roads if the multiple use of your federal lands is eliminated?
You're not going anywhere, and you are not doing any thing. What a coincidence!
The cumulative
effect of yearly reductions in timber harvests is showing up in less
money for roads and schools. To "ease our pain" Clinton/Gore
suggest that we gratefully take this living allowance, and be certain
things are postcard perfect when the world comes to visit. Carnival
culture is the role we are to play.
How insulting that
this Administration would think that such an ENTITLEMENT program would
be an acceptable livelihood for rural America. Contributing to our national
wealth, not consuming it, is what we are about. If the Administration
did not hold all that we stand for in contempt, it would know and take
pride in this.
Unfortunately, the
ethnic cleansing of rural America is the ultimate goal
of this Administration. It just goes by names such as reinvention of
government, restoration of watersheds, reform of agriculture
and ultimately removal of the peasants!
Permission granted
to reprint in full or part with full credit given to author.