Posted on 01/11/2003 7:46:43 PM PST by Mark
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Oregon workers pay big price for environmentalism
Remember how in the 1990s the environmental radicals claimed only a few workers in the timber industry would lose their jobs because large areas of our national forests were closed to logging to protect the environment? And how they claimed even the relative few who did lose jobs could be retrained for good replacement jobs? But a review by the Oregon Employment Department and Oregon State University of state employment records for the past decade indicates that more than half the 60,000 workers in the wood products industry in that state alone in 1990 had left it by 1998. And almost half of those who left disappeared from work rolls, probably moved to another state, retired or remained unemployed. About 18,000 of the more than 30,000 who left the timber industry found a job in Oregon, but most of those were in service and retail businesses where their wages were lower than nearly a decade earlier. And most of the more than 30,000 workers who lost their jobs did so not because of computerized sawmills and depressed timber market but because environmentalists and the federal government shut down huge areas of national forests in Oregon to timber harvest to protect spotted owls, other species and old-growth stands. Not even hugely scaled back timber harvest levels allowed by the Clinton Forest Plan have been attained since then, in large part because of obstructionist environmental lawsuits. The same trend in our Gifford Pinchot National Forest has eliminated many timber industry jobs in East Lewis County and in other Washington communities dependent on national forest timber. These job losses are part of the reason our state and Oregon have among the highest unemployment rates nationally. Not only the workers have suffered; so have the communities they lived in and had to leave, with reduced or lost payroll and tax revenue to support local services, such as schools. All of these are part of the economic cost we are paying these days for environmental protection, some of it considerably out of balance with our economic needs.
INITIATIVE PROCESS: One of the five initiatives filed this week by Tim Eyman basher Steve Zemke, a political strategist, would establish a commission to review initiatives’ constitutionality before any vote on them and require sponsors to identify where there should be budget cuts if tax-limit measures pass. Regarding the constitutionality issue, currently that is decided by the state Supreme Court on initiatives challenged after they’ve been approved by the voters. It may not be good government to declare an initiative unconstitutional before a vote of the people rather than after they’d expressed their will, when the burden to prove unconstitutionality would be higher. And would the commission preempt state court review? However, perhaps give Zemke the benefit of the doubt on this one — maybe it would compel initiative sponsors to more than ever ensure their measures are constitutional and save election and court costs later if they aren’t. As to the provision in Zemke’s initiative requiring identification of budget cuts on tax-limit initiatives, why doesn’t he also apply that measure of accountability to sponsors of initiatives that require more spending? An example is initiatives 728 and 732 passed by voters in 2000. I-728 mandates smaller class sizes and I-732 mandates an annual cost of living increase for teachers. They have no provision to raise revenues to pay for them. Zemke’s initiative should also address this issue. If people want more from government, they should show how they would pay for it. Zemke and others complain about the loss of revenues from the tax-limit initiatives. But initiatives such as I-728 and I-732 create at least as much problem for legislators seeking to balance the state budget, especially this year with a $2.4 billion revenue shortfall. Meanwhile, initiatives to control excessive state spending, taxation and growth of government will continue, whether it’s Eyman or someone else leading the way, as long as the Legislature and governor fail to make state government operate to the maximum efficiency and accountability. Finally, it’s a bit ironic that Zemke and others so critical of the current initiative process are using it themselves in part to stem initiatives they don’t like.
The greed is astounding. They don't care if the rest of government goes down the drain, as long as they get their $$$. Teachers, on average, are getting raises at double the rate of inflation.
"The Decade of Fraud(s)..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.