LAR: Senate transporta
Inbox x
Inbox
12:47 PM (52 minutes ago)  | | |||
 |
March 19, 2012 The federal government already owns almost 650 million acres of land in the U.S. Why does it need more? They are both off the mark and it's for a reason. Check out this infomercial that explains how these two world leaders can be so out of it or just plain wrong. Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling tells Politico: "The first lesson you learn as a pollster is that people are stupid." Will: Union business, on the taxpayers' dime"[P]ublic-sector unionization, which began in the 1950s, may have passed its apogee." Senate transportation bill funds more federal government land grabs By Rebekah Rast  The U.S. Senate has approved of a $109 billion bill that provides two years of funding for transportation and transit projects around the country. Why does the LWCF need such a boost from Congress? This Fund helps purchase and protects lands across the country. Evidently the line of thinking within the Senate is more U.S. lands are in need of being purchased and protected by the federal government. The federal government owns almost 650 million acres of land in the U.S. That's about 30 percent of all the land area in the nation and includes national parks, forests and wildlife refuges. In other words, it's equivalent to 1 out of every 3 acres in the U.S. - 1 out of every 2 acres in the West, says Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), a member on the Natural Resources Committee and ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. And now the Senate thinks the government needs even more land. Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Association located in Washington State, has dedicated his life to stopping federal land grabs and limiting trust funds such as the LWCF. He says this big boost of funds from the Senate endangers all land owners in or near federally protected lands. "Inholders, owners of private property within federally owned areas, will be threatened first," Cushman warns. "This is no Smokey the Bear coming in, this is heavy-handed, land-buying gangsters that don't care how many landowners get hurt." Get full story here. Harry Reid's Magical Glasses and Whatever Joe Biden Is On Sweep The Nation! Video by Frank McCaffrey  Get permalink here. Are voters uninformed? By Adam Bitely  Political scientists and perhaps some politicians are usually surprised that more people do not participate in elections. A high turnout for an election in the U.S. is around 50 percent of the eligible population, or a little more. Many economists, though, are surprised that so many people show up to vote. When considering the likelihood that any single vote will be decisive in deciding the result of an election, the odds are incredibly low. In a presidential election, the odds that any one vote cast will impact the results are very close to 0 percent. But all that is beside the point when you look at how informed voters are on the issues and candidates that are up for election. In an article last week in Politico titled "How much do voters know?", Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling said, "The first lesson you learn as a pollster is that people are stupid. I tell a client trying to make sense of numbers on a poll that are inherently contradictory that at least once a week." Jensen seems to be in the camp that would be surprised by low voter turnout on Election Day. He also seems to believe that if you don't conduct thorough research on candidates for public office and the issues of the day then you are "stupid", as he put it. Get full story here  ALG Editor's Note: In the following featured column from the Washington Post, George Will makes the case that public sector unionization is on the decline:  Union business, on the taxpayers' dimeBy George Will Sal DiCiccio says he's sorry. It is, he says, no excuse that the complex labor contracts that he, as a member of the city council, voted to ratify for city employees were presented to the council less than a week before the vote. He says he should have seen that the contracts contain some indefensible, not to mention unconstitutional, provisions, such as those pertaining to "release time." Read on, and then find out if similar things are occurring in your community. They probably are. The "gift clause" in Arizona's Constitution and similar provisions in some other states' constitutions are supposed to prevent the state government or municipal governments from conferring special benefits on "any individual, association, or corporation." The proscribed benefits include gifts, loans of state credit, donations, grants or subsidies. This clause has been largely vitiated by Arizona courts' decisions allowing entanglements of government and private interests that supposedly serve a "public purpose" or provide a "public benefit." These are loopholes large enough to drive a truck through - a truck carrying $900,000. That is the estimated value of the release time taxpayers are funding just for the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA), the police union. The $900,000 pays union officials to work exclusively performing undefined union business, including lobbying, on the city's time and the taxpayers' dime. Get full story here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment