Taxpayers Stuck with Forest Road Maintenance

Environmental News Service ^ | 07/16/2002

[cogitator]

Taxpayers Stuck with Forest Road Maintenance

WASHINGTON, DC, July 16, 2002 (ENS) - Hundreds of millions of dollars in logging and road subsidies are going to the timber industry while American taxpayers are stuck with a road maintenance backlog that has ballooned to more than $100 million in each of 16 states, according to a new report by a national budget watchdog organization..

"Corporate welfare for the timber industry is out of control," said Jill Lancelot, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, as she released the report Thursday. "Taxpayers are shelling out big bucks for new road construction to facilitate commercial logging. To add insult to injury we are left with an eight billion dollar road maintenance bill."

During a year long investigation of fiscal mismanagement at the U.S. Forest Service, Taxpayers for Common Sense analyzed information obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, and uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in new road and timber subsidies that have not previously been disclosed.

The report, entitled "Lost in the Forest: How the Forest Service's Misdirection, Mismanagement, and Mischief Squanders Your Tax Dollars" alleges that taxpayers have provided more than $116 million in direct subsidies to the timber industry for the construction of logging roads.

The report states that only 21 percent of the 382,000 roads in the national forest system meet "adequate road maintenance standards."

"Roads in our national forests are crumbling, while the administration just sits on its hands and ignores the problem," said Lancelot.

Instead, the administration's response to this growing road maintenance crisis is to increase timber subsidies in the 2003 federal budget. "This spending only fans the flames of waste, fraud and abuse at this mismanaged agency," she said.

The Forest Service has been unable to provide data on the cost of its timber sale program since it reported a $126 million loss for fiscal year 1998. An independent analysis found losses to be more than three times that amount.

According to the General Accounting Office, the investigative branch of the U.S. Congress, it will be at least 2004 until the Forest Service has a new accounting system in place, making it difficult, if not impossible, for Congress and taxpayers to hold the agency accountable for the costs of its timber sale program.

"There is no difference between the fiscal abuses at the Forest Service and recent corporate scandals," alleged Lancelot. "Lawmakers should be climbing over each other to hold hearings on why billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted."

To view the report or to access additional state specific information on subsidies to the timber industry and the road maintenance backlog, visit: http://www.taxpayer.net/

[cogitator]

Somebody has to pay for it -- why not us? (That's sarcasm, folks.)

[Real Cynic No More]

I thought it was better to have these access roads for fighting forest fires?

[Real Cynic No More]

Also, maintenance of these areas needs to be considered when the Federal Government takes them out of private hands. That's a price we pay.

[cogitator]

I thought it was better to have these access roads for fighting forest fires?

I don't know. I'm sure they're useful for fire-fighting in areas with high fire potential, but there are a lot of areas where that doesn't apply.

[Black Agnes]

Tax payers pay for most roads. Industries of all kinds use those roads. Their beef is with the Forestry Industry. Should we saddle 'industry' for the cost of all roads since they use those roads to make profit?

[mrsmith]

"Let 'em burn- we're not paying any thing for roads maintenance!" (That's parody folks!)

[narby]

The forest service used to be a money making proposition. But thanks to the enviro-nazis, they can't sell a respectable amount of timber, and we thus have to subsidize the roads.

So the enviros created the problem, now they want to gripe about it like they had nothing to do with it.

Typical stupid leftist trick.

[cogitator]

Tax payers pay for most roads. Industries of all kinds use those roads. Their beef is with the Forestry Industry. Should we saddle 'industry' for the cost of all roads since they use those roads to make profit?

The other industries that could use forest roads are probably mining, oil, gas, etc. Should they be charged part of the cost of road maintenance if they're making a profit? It seems that road maintenance is just another form of subsidy for agriculture in the case of the timber industry.

[Black Agnes]

Silly. The 'evil profits' the timber company makes employ lots of people that pay even more than that in taxes. If the roads enable people to be employed and earn money/support their families/build communities the money is more than returned. I ask again, should 'industry' anywhere be made to exclusively bear the cost of 'roads' because 'industry' anywhere makes a profit using those roads? Should UPS pay a special tax? Should Ford/GM pay an extra tax because their products use those roads?

[Free the USA]

fyi

[The Electrician]

"Taxpayers for Common Sense" is a clever fraud. It is a radical-enviromentalist, anti-corporation, anti-capitalism, anti-freedom, anti-taxpayer communist front organization masquerading as a taxpayer advocacy group. They think that tax cuts are bad for you. They like big government, as long as it's not giving its benefits to corporations, "the rich" (which means anybody who pays taxes), etc. Read between the lines - it's not so hard to figure out their ruse.

[RonF]

Conservation doesn't have anything to do with this. Government subsidies of this kind have been going on for a long time, well before environmental activists got involved in opposing logging. Similar to sweetheart deals that have been given to ranchers for grazing cattle on public land.

In both cases, compare the costs that the government charges to what private landowners charge for the same rights.

[tortoise]

Where my ranch is, the Federal government won't fix their roads, but you have to pay the Feds for the "privilege" of fixing the damn things yourself. Of course, I quickly learned that the SOP out there is to fix them yourself and hope you don't get caught doing the govts work for it without paying them first.

[Always Right]

The article is confusing as heck. First they bitch about the cost of road maintenance than they bitch about how poorly maintained the roads are. It is not clear if the roads are used exclusively for logging or what. Some roads in our national parks are needed if the parks are ever gonnna be used. The fact that it may help out logging companies shouldn't be considered a bad thing, although they should pay for what they take out, which I think they do in most cases.

[stainlessbanner]

So the Feds are grabbing up land, making taxpayers fund roads, and banning the OHV & recreational users?

This is no good!

[cogitator]

First they bitch about the cost of road maintenance than they bitch about how poorly maintained the roads are. It is not clear if the roads are used exclusively for logging or what.

It's two different kinds of roads. The direct subsidies were for the building of logging roads. The roads in need of maintenance are National Forest roads, which can be used by logging vehicles but which are also used for public access to campsites, scenic areas, etc.

[cogitator]

If the roads enable people to be employed and earn money/support their families/build communities the money is more than returned. I ask again, should 'industry' anywhere be made to exclusively bear the cost of 'roads' because 'industry' anywhere makes a profit using those roads? Should UPS pay a special tax? Should Ford/GM pay an extra tax because their products use those roads?

Well, in general, "subsidies" get a bad name here, but I agree with you if you think that subsidies in general are acceptable practice. Subsidies in many cases allow people to continue production in an industry that doesn't make a profit (or which wouldn't make enough profit without them). Roads are subsidized by the Federal government; state gas taxes don't pay enough for maintenance. So subsidies are a way of life in the US of A. How much is too much?

[cogitator]

Do you disagree with what they say here?

COOKING THE BOOKS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE

Sounds like reasonable concerns to me. And the Army Corps of Engineers in particular has been fingered for pushing lots of projects that aren't really needed. How much money that could be better used elsewhere is being wasted there?

[The Electrician]

I am well aware that on occasion even communists can be correct on various isolated issues, but when all is said and done they're still communists, and the basic thrust of most of their actions is destructive and odious. For example, while I forget the specific issue that was involved, I was amused to find in the past week that Barney Frank (of all people) was on the same side of an issue that I was - a rare showing of common sense on his part. I welcome the occasional gleam of sense out of such people. But that does not blind me to the fact that a world where the majority of his ideas reigned would be a hellish one indeed. So, my characterization of "Taxpayers for Common Sense" as a clever fraud is accurate, despite any occasional display of reason on their part or other fortuitous alignment of ideas on a specific issue.

[madfly]

ping