Walden Blames Dem Leadership
Paulie Brading
Greg Walden voted against a bill sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D - Ore., that would have continued the timber payment program for four years. Walden chose to protect oil companies instead of road building, schools and libraries with his NO vote on county payments. He voted NO on June 5, 2008.
Rep. Walden is quoted in the Medford Mail Tribune this morning, stating he's "tried every angle, every option, every tactic available" to get the timber payments extension through the House. "I've been blocked at every turn by a Democratic leadership that is pushing rural counties off a cliff."
Greg Walden voted NO on county payments because the payments would have been paid for by collecting back royalties from oil companies. Greg Walden chose to protect oil companies.
Greg Walden voted against schools, libraries and road building and hurt 33 out of 36 counties in Oregon. Walden voted against Oregonians in favor of big oil companies. He is the the one who is trying every angle, every option and every tactic to hide his No vote on county payments.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Sep 27, '08
Yes, Paulie, Walden voted against paying for the Timber Payments on the backs of the oil companies - back in June.
Why don't you focus more on the duplicity of Pelosi and the democrat House leadership that just gutted Timber Payments from a bill passed by the Senate 98-2 (and that Bush said he would sign?). DeFazio and Wu supported Walden's efforts to get the 4 year extension of Timber Payments back into a bill assured of passage. But the Pelosi lead posse wouldn't even consider it.
Where was the rest of the Oregon delegation on this one? Were they serving Oregon and the West, or were they bowing to partisan politics (just as you continually accuse Walden?).
Face it Paulie, the county Timber Payments are nothing more than a political football at the national level. It is more a complex game of "gotcha" than anything else. If you want to retain any objectivity call out anyone who pulls a stunt like this regardless their party.
10:33 a.m.
Sep 27, '08
Actually Kurt, the stripping appears to be a failure on both sides in the House. It was apparent the bill wasn't going to pass as written (even with Bush's promised signature) because too many House members were hand wringing over the cost. Given the babbling right wing gobbledegook eminating from Boehner and his posse, its reasonable to note that his group is in the thick of that revolt.
What's more, Democratic Senator Wyden is set to put the payments back into the budget, leading the way on this (as usual). And as usual, Republican Gordon Smith is MIA.
Sep 27, '08
Paulie Brading has just one thought on her mind, "Greg Walden voted NO." Seems to me it's a typical case of a simple mindedness. Only one thought can roll around her brain at a time. If you add another piece of the puzzle, the first one she was working on falls out. Hey Paulie any thoughts on the Dem's performance?
Sep 27, '08
If you Walden supporters have such insight to this county payments issue, care to explain why the House Republicans objected to adding county payments to the legislation they were hearing yesterday?
DeFazioOnFloor
Sep 27, '08
I was under the impression the Democrats had the majority in the senate. Personally, I would have cut those payments off years ago. Fire up 4 to 5 log mills. Hire loggers, and cut down a sustainable resource, TIMBER.
6:18 p.m.
Sep 27, '08
I think Carla has it about right, which means that Kurt has half a point at least.
From the Wyden link, it isn't clear if this is something that would go to conference & that's how it would come back? Bush vetoing the House bill if that's what goes forward doesn't actually get the payments in.
throowrocks, just because a resource is in some sense renewable doesn't make all practices relating to using it sustainable. If the logging practices that were stopped by the Endangered Species Act lawsuits & subesequent political compromises had just continued, we'd be looking at a logging industry facing collapse about now because they were going through the trees a lot faster than they were being replaced, and in ways that ripped up other aspects of the land and its processes. The big old growth trees would all be gone, we'd be looking at a lot of stumps and little trees, and the companies would have closed up shop and moved to Canada (just as they did coming out here after taking out the great midwestern forests last century). Also a whole lot of what was being cut was being shipped out raw, and if we opened up cutting tomorrow without any restriction I'm not at all convinced it would lead to milling.
Sep 27, '08
There's plenty of blame to go around here. Both sides are using the county payments as a wedge to get something they really want more: drilling for oil (R's) and "environmental protection" at the expense of rural communities (Dems).
You can spin part of this to claim that Walden "protected oil companies." On the other hand, the Dems wanted to recover amounts from old, completed contracts where bureaucrats made mistakes in the calculating the amounts owed by the oil companies. In some cases, these amounts had been determined more than a decade ago. The oil companies didn't make the mistakes; the government did. There's a certain point where it only makes sense to acknowledge the errors and move on.
However, Walden has also been the only one to introduce language aimed at ending the "cash grab" made by Oregon's urban politicians that has resulted in the much of the funding that was intended for school districts in rural, timber-dependent communities being redirected to the state's biggest, wealthiest, most-stable (and certainly not formerly "timber-dependent") school districts. (See the SEA Act, HR 6779, Sec. 105, "SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DISTRIBUTION OF SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS TRANSITION PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE COUNTIES.") The bill he introduced, for all its flaws, at least makes it clear that the money should end up with the school districts for which it was originally intended. Neither of our senators, nor the Democratic members of the House, have shown even the slightest interest in correcting this problem as they've maneuvered to reinstate the program.
Both parties have had ample opportunity to extend and/or reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program. More partisan finger-pointing and shrieky accusations doesn't do much to shed light on the shortcomings of the process.
Sep 27, '08
Cut down a tree and put people to work Plant a tree and put people to work
That was simple
Sep 28, '08
Posted by: Pdx632 | Sep 27, 2008 10:53:42 PM
There is a long history of distrust of logging given excesses. Cutting down younger trees and underbrush could prevent forest fires and maybe soon such cuttings could contibute to woody biofuel.
But it does no one any good to cut down old growth under the cover of "thinning". Tourism is an industry just as forestry is, and clearcuts where old growth once lived don't encourage tourism.
<h2>There are a number of wonderful books on the subject. One with historical background is TREEHUGGERS by a former Oregonian reporter.</h2>