Walden Votes Against County Payments and then....
Paulie Brading
Back in early June R-Greg Walden voted against county payments and then on July 1st in a press conference he made this statement.
"Enough is enough. I have a different vision for America's economy and energy future. We need to change federal law to access our great oil and gas energy reserves. The Departments of Energy and Interior say there is enough oil and natural gas under federal lands to power 60 million cars and 160 million households over the next 60 years. Nonetheless, more than 85 % of the oil and gas resources off the continental United States have been locked up by federal laws. Consequently, we import 60 percent of our oil, sending over $1.6 billion every single day out of the county, mostly to countries who don't like us very much."
Just two and a half days' worth of the money we ship off to counties like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil would fund county payments and PILT for five years. I repeat, just two and a half day's worth of the money we ship off to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil would fund county payments and PILT for five years. We can, and should, produce American energy.'
And here comes Walden's curve ball right over the strike zone, "And we can, and should, fund county payments and PILT and in doing so ensure the federal government maintains the committment to rural communites it made a century ago." But Greg, you voted against the county payments back in June remember?
Walden then launched into his "solution" allowing oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf beyond 75 miles off shore. "Between 0 and 75 miles from the shore, states would control all energy development, giving unprecedented powers to the states, " Walden concluded.
Then I read the statement issued by U.S. Rep. D-Bart Gordon who sits the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources that says the federal government has issued thousands of leases that oil and gas companies are not using to drill on public land. According to the report there are 68 million acres of federal land that is leased but not drilled that could nearly double U.S. oil production and could increase gas production by more than fifty percent.
Gordon's statement is instructive. " If companies used the permits they are holding and increased domestic production, the United States could cut oil imports by one-third. Congress needs to send a message to oil companies and tell them they can't just stockpile leases to artificially inflate oil prices. We need legislation that will force companies to use their drilling permits or lose their leases and let someone else drill on that land." But Greg, you voted in favor of big oil by voting against the county payments. Is that why your presser was staged at a Pilot station surrounded by semi-trucks filling their tanks?
And finally, Sen. Ron Wyden demanded that the Commerce Department release detailed reports on which companies are exporting U. S. oil, how much and where it went. The latest numbers I could find go back to 2005 when the U.S. exported 268 million barrels of oil, according to the Department of Energy figure. That is about equal to the amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2001, the year before the Bush administration launched the preemptive war that was ginned up to get cheaper oil for the U.S. Meanwhile, Senator Wyden is still waiting for the U.S. oil exportation figures.
Walden has developed a convoluted relationship with his Oregon rural Republicans in the 2nd CD. It must be an uncomfortable feeling to be so careless as to vote against the county payments. I sat in a public meeting a year ago with the County Commissioners from Josephine, Klamath and Jackson counties and listened to Walden reassure them that he would do all he could to protect the county payments. Well fella's he voted against the county payments, must feel like a stick in the eye. Elected Republican's were lined up like a chorus line behind Walden at his fake press conference implying thier support for a shortsighted illusion to prop up a way of life that can never be sustained.
 |
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
Jul 10, '08
I don't follow Walden; he's not my congressman. But this seems a bit odd. So I looked and it appears his vote was partisan. He says he disagreed with HOW to pay for the county payments, not on the payments themselves.
"While last week brought about a division on the House Floor among advocates for reauthorizing the county payments program for an additional four years, I want to make sure that you know our differences over how to pay for the renewal of the program should in no way be interpreted as a lack of support for the goal of reauthorizing and funding the program, or as a lack of support for the one-year extension of emergency funding in the new supplemental." http://www.oregonwatchdog.com/pressrelease/index.php/540
hr3058. Paid from BLM fees and/or the Treasury. Who does he expect to pay them?
Jul 10, '08
It is up to Rep. Walden's constituents to hold him accountable for betraying our rural schools and governments. Here's my effort, published in the Wallowa County Chieftain:
Dear Editor:
The Chieftain did a good job explaining the dangers to our community's roads and schools posed by the demise of the $1.2 million federal "county payments" funding. The Chieftain did less well explaining how that safety net was cut. The original vehicle for renewing the payments this year was HR 3058, a bill co-sponsored by our Representative Greg Walden last October, and by the other Oregon Representatives. When the bill came to a vote in the House of Representatives on June 6, it attracted a majority of votes, 218-193. But the House rules in effect for the vote required a 2/3 majority, so the minority opposition was enough to stop the county payments. All of the Oregon Representatives voted for the county payments except Rep. Walden.
Rep. Walden justified his reversal on the county payments bill with concerns that the bill's funding mechanism (closing loopholes in federal oil and gas leases) was an illegal breach of the leases. But the Congressional Research Service had issued reports concluding that closing the loopholes was not illegal. Several Senators, including Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, had promised to find another funding mechanism at the Senate level if the House passed the bill. Rep. Walden's last-minute alternative financing proposal- raising revenues by increasing offshore oil drilling- was too controversial a measure to propose that late in the game, and it predictably failed.
Rep. Walden might have a good explanation for why he chose to support the interests of oil and gas lessees in other congressional districts over our schoolchildren, our roads and our local government. The Chieftain should ask him.
Sincerely,
Brian Concannon Jr. 600 East Fourth Street Joseph, Oregon, 97846 541-432-0597
Jul 10, '08
Walden is my representative. While I am disappointed in his "NO" vote; I understand it.
Paulie Brading falls into the misleading prose of "gotcha politics". She conveniently leaves off the salient fact that the full act called for the fees to come from new or renewed oil company royalty fees on drilling leases. Now, I agree that both sides do it; just this time it was the democrats who deliberatly inserted a poison pill in a bold election year gambit.
Had this bill passed the county payments would have resumed - for a time. Oil costs also would have gone up more. Is the oil lease program in need of repair? Maybe, I don't know. But inserting it here in this needed federal bill was political cynicism at its boldest.
The real fix is to allow reasonable and sustainable timber harvests on federal lands so that the revenus from that activity once again assist the counties in over 33 states with their needs. Then there would be no issue.
1:17 p.m.
Jul 10, '08
She conveniently leaves off the salient fact that the full act called for the fees to come from new or renewed oil company royalty fees on drilling leases.
Um... wasn't Walden himself connecting oil and county payments in the cited speech?
I don't understand why the fact that county payments were once funded by timber harvesting means that they should always be funded by timber harvesting.
1:34 p.m.
Jul 10, '08
Congressman DeFazio said it best regarding Walden's vote against county payments, "When you are faced with tough choices, the well-being of your constituents must always take precedence over the interests of your political platform."
The master of "gotcha" is Representative Greg Walden. "At no time did Walden ever indicate that the offset in HR 3058 was a deal breaker to DeFazio while they worked closely together on county payments. Walden was aware that funding county payments would be funded by closing loopholes in gas and oil leases even thugh Walden voted two years ago to expand offshore drilling and to close the oil and gas loophole," wrote DeFazio in his rect column on BlueOregon.
Instead Walden proposed a bill with only Republican co-sponsors to increase drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and to develop liquid coal technologies.
Walden's paradoxes of calculation and arrogant disregard for his constituents, while soothing those same constituents with one of the lamest stacked illusions in his proposed Security and Energy Act is a move that may cause Republicans in the 2nd CD to reconsider supporting him.
Jul 10, '08
Kevin, its probably not clear because you don't live in a timber county.
Historically the timberlands of much of Oregon and the PNW were deeded lands to the railroads. In southern Oregon those lands were Oregon & California lands (O&C). The lands provided timber, revenue and resources to the counties among other things. When the federal government federalized thos lands and created federal forests, they allowed timber harvest tax receipts to be made in lieu of the lands taken of private tax rolls and the private revenues for the counties.
This was all well and good until the federal forests were all but shut down to logging in the early 90's. Interestingly enough, the Clinton Forest Managment Plan, which allowed only a fraction of the previous cut, would have had sufficient revenue generated for the counties to remain self sufficient. Unfortunately, ardent environmental activists have been successful in blocking the majority of the small amount that would have been allowed under that plan, hence the federal county payments.
2:56 p.m.
Jul 10, '08
The forests only have so much to give. It's not just the "ardent environmentalists" that recognize this. In 2007, a decline in the habitat of the endangered steelhead trout along the John Day River caused an Oregon judge to rule against the Bush Administration’s plan to allow for additional grazing and logging by the river.
In 2006, the (Bush Administration's) Environmental Protection Agency ranked Grant County as one of the worst in the state for clean or unimpaired waterways due in part to the sometimes extreme level of logging that has taken place in contradiction of the official Forest Service plan for the area.
Some are suggesting that the forests be weeded out in order to protect them from destructive fires. Even if one believes in this science (not all forestry folks do), those trees will only last for one or two years.
There are other areas of hope that should be supported by the federal government -- the Strawberry Mountain Beef Company in Eastern Oregon provides an excellent living to the ranchers that raise cattle according to a strict list of environmental standards. Wind power is bringing amazing opportunities for resource extraction communities, providing some folks with thousands of dollars extra every year simply for allowing a windmill on their property.
Also, there are consortiums of environmentalists and loggers that have developed collective management plans for a particular area to ensure that the destruction doesn't continue.
The rural communities need support until these efforts, and others like them, are given a chance to succeed. Walden should have voted for this support. Rural counties cannot be forgotten.
2:59 p.m.
Jul 10, '08
Kurt,
Timber has long been and continues to be a principle source of income in my county, particularly on it's western end - where I live. There are several lumber mills within 5 or 6 miles of my home. But that's just where I've lived since I was a teenager. Before that I lived in counties even better known for timber than where I live now.
You were saying?
Jul 10, '08
Would it be stating the obvious for me to say that Walden sucks as a Rep for OR 02? The Fed takes our tax base and I really don't care how they fund it and neither should the Waldenbush. He as big buck pals that do care, outcome should be obvious.
Jul 10, '08
Timber harvest in Oregon is less than that of the previous year. Home construction has declined due to the deregulation of lending practices. A crisis in energy pricing and housing is a result of the deregulation bildge that Walden and his fellow Pirates preach as gospel. This return to the era of Robber Barons is what Walden is all about. In supporting Walden you support George Bush's grandfather, Prescott. They were guilty of treason when they plotted a violent takeover of the Capitol and had recruited General Smedley Butler to carry it out. The Bush family plan was to create a fascist state. To carry that out today they must first destroy the economy and they are well on their way. As Rush says,"Roosevelt is dead. And we are doing something about his policies."
5:09 p.m.
Jul 10, '08
Yes, it would Chuck, but sometimes the obvious can't be stated too many times. Especially since we outside of D2 need to press the DPO to see that a real 36 county strategy also means a 5 CD strategy and take on the task of making the DP competitive everywhere.
Part of this is down to ridiculous budgeting rules that subject domestic spending to constraints from which military spending & the "black budget" secret ops spending is exempt.
If we can get Obama in and raise the D majorities, the premises of those budgeting rules need to be re-examined. The military budget needs to be subject to more rigorous scrutiny -- how much is being outsourced to super-paid contractors that could be done internally? Foreign wars and occupations need to be on the books of the regular budget.
And, of course, we need to raise revenues by allowing the Bush elitist payoffs to his superrich pals ("Some call you the elite, I call you my base") to expire.
5:53 p.m.
Jul 10, '08
Yes, it would Chuck, but sometimes the obvious can't be stated too many times. Especially since we outside of D2 need to press the DPO to see that a real 36 county strategy also means a 5 CD strategy and take on the task of making the DP competitive everywhere.
Well, given the non-campaign being waged by Noah Lemas in 2008, I would suggest that the best thing we can do right now to win CD2 is to support the legislative candidates running in that district.
Among them, potential seat-flippers include Suzanne VanOrman in Hood River and Judy Stiegler in Bend.
Jul 10, '08
Kurt I used to live in an O + C county in the 90's and I can tell you they never shut down logging on those lands (BLM lands). They're still logging the shit out of the remaining old growth.
Jul 10, '08
This would be a 2 cycle effort with a lot of money thrown at it, at the very least. Walden keeps his head down, mostly. Anybody know a rich hick Democrat with way more money than sense?
I don't.
Lemas put his name on the ballot and D's have somebody to vote for, that is something.
We can help some State Reps.
I had some idea about a type it would take and the how to win this CD, I still think I was right but persuading the CD's Dems is another thing and money is a huge issue. This place is so big and spread out with so little media or other access points for a small campaign to grow...
Jul 11, '08
Although apparently it will come as no surprise to Kevin, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act was never intended to be a source of county funding forever. It was a simply a plan to help counties (780 counties in 38 states) who were facing diminishing lost timber revenue transition to other means for county funding. The timber companies did their part by cutting down everything they were allowed, then left town. But while this was happening, a lot of counties didn't do a very good job of securing other sources of revenue to fund county services; some simply thought the $$ would keep flowing and used the federal monies for essential services. The specious argument that Rep. Walden makes about funding counties by opening up more areas (OCS, ANWR, etc ... ) to drilling, however, is just another right-wing red herring. (Check out CSPAN late afternoons and watch the republican gas and oil glee club singing the praises of drilling anywhere they can to a nearly empty House chamber.) Rep DeFazio's plan to close the lease loopholes was a good one and everyone associated with defeating it should be ashamed that this windfall for oil and gas companies still exists.
8:18 a.m.
Jul 11, '08
Edison makes a valid point about rural counties perhaps foolish choices. I don't dispute that. But on the other hand rural counties face distinct and permanent disadvantages in that they are squeezed between smaller tax bases (compared to more populous counties) but typically have to cover a vastly larger geographic area.
County payments may have been conceived as a short-term measure but it seems to me that the need for addional funding is much more long-term in nature... and has precious little to do with timber harvesting or the lack thereof.
As an example - A dozen cops patroling a small city of 20K residents is going to have significantly lower transportation costs than a half dozen deputies patroling the same size population but spread over 50 or 100 times the geographic landmass. And fuel is only one aspect of it. Wear and tear would also be a big difference.
Harvesting more timber wouldn't alter those fundamental differences between rural and urban governmental funding needs. Which is why I don't see the original premise of County Payments as terribly relevant to the needs that exist today in rural counties.
Jul 11, '08
Walden is my congressman, but things are changing in our district, and the Democratic Party of Oregon seems to be oblivious. I live in Central Oregon, and I think Deschutes County will go for Obama as will Jackson County in Southern Oregon, yet the Democratic Party still continues to put up sacrifice candidates and doesn't support them financially. The Democrats can defeat Walden if only they put up a strong candidate AND invest a little in him or her. Carol Voisin actually was a good candidate in 2006 and without any support managed to pull over 30%.
Jul 11, '08
You may have forgotten the point here which is that Greg Walden voted against funding county payments because he did not want Big Oil to pay ONE RED CENT for the oil that they have been extracting. Getting off without having to pay for what has been taken is a sanctioned theft which he did not want to end. He relies on people blaming the counties. Shame on you Edison for your groundless slur.
Jul 11, '08
Kevin is correct when he states that rural counties nationwide face unique economic and social challenges. They are squeezed by smaller tax bases. That being said, some of them are also not picking up their own share of the tab.
Property taxes in Josephine County are $.80/ thousand dollars of assessed value.(http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/06/24/ap5147508.html)
In Multnomah they are $5.27 / thousand. (http://www2.co.multnomah.or.us/County_Management/Assess_Tax/Documents/PropertyTaxPressRelease.pdf)
While there's no doubt a lot more private property to tax in Multnomah, we have chosen to pay up to support roads, law enforcement, education, etc. (As for the Sellwood Bridge, well, that's another story).
I have no problem sharing the wealth with our brothers and sisters in the 541, but I truly resent the continuous drumbeat call to unleash the chainsaws and get them back into the federal forest clearcutting business.
1) They are federal forests, and like other federal assets (national parks, buildings, waters) they should be managed for the benefit of all Americans. 2) The reason the O and C forests are federal is that the Oregon and California railroad lands were refederalized after the railroad was convicted of fraud and violating the terms of the land grant. 3) If Greg Walden had acted to renew County Payments AND tried to help the counties wean themselves from the federal stumps, they might now have a much rosier future. Instead, Walden drove federal legislation that helped create the train wreck we're faced with today. His latest vote against county payments renewal was just an attempt to prolong the train wreck in the hope it will benefit his political cronies in the GOP.
11:24 a.m.
Jul 11, '08