Month: September 2017

Posted on

Federal Leviathan Harms Oregonians

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Tuesday, September 26, 2017 by devadmin

Recently, the Trump Administration reached an agreement to increase the debt ceiling. The new debt limit expires in December 2017, but using the fuzzy math of the Fed it could continue to grow endlessly.

The Washington Post tells us that Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960. The debt ceiling is supposed to be a backstop against runaway check-kiting but it works better in theory than in practice.

Technically, the national debt declined in absolute terms by about $100 billion during the first six months of Trump’s presidency. But it did not take long to undo those savings.

CNSNews.com reported, “After President Trump signed the legislation suspending the debt limit, the total debt immediately jumped to $20,162,177,000,000.” Meaning, on the day it officially topped $20 trillion, the debt jumped $317,645,000,000.

The status quo machinery churning in every nook and cranny of D.C.’s bureaucratic hallways is an underlying source of this debt. This debt doesn’t include any future obligations from Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. It is the result of ongoing government business and budget deficits across the board, from increased spending under Obamacare to an enormous panoply of programs that just keep growing.

For instance, the United States Forest Service (USFS) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which administers a system of 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands in 44 States and Puerto Rico. The National Forest System includes specially designated wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, national monuments, research and experimental areas, and other unique natural and cultural treasures. These lands encompass 193 million acres, an area almost twice the size of California, or 270 times larger than Rhode Island.

The USFS motto is, “Caring for the land and serving people,” and their mission is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” However, I wonder if this agency’s leadership has misplaced their high calling because this is not what we have been experiencing this summer across Oregon’s federally managed lands.

USFS literature informs us, “the Forest Service is spending more than 50 percent of its budget to suppress the Nation’s wildfires.” As the costs of fighting wildfires have grown, the agency must shift staff and resources from nonfire to fire-related programs. This process, known as “fire-borrowing,” erodes its ability to serve Americans with clean air and water, protected watersheds and wildlife habitat, and opportunities for outdoor recreation. As these financial resources get whisked away, timber management backlogs occur in harvesting, fuel reduction, forest thinning and timber sales.

The USFS recognizes they have budget woes. They also acknowledge that fires have worsened and monies are being diverted from important budget line-items to fight mega-fires. Yet, the USFS allows their presuppositional preference for fires as “beneficial and natural” to persist as their go-to policy tool. The agency is even mandated to, “create an organizational climate that supports employees who implement a properly planned program to reintroduce wildland fire.“

Unfortunately, this tragic policy preference is wasting our tax dollars, destroying our natural resources, and increasing our deficit spending.

Our forest and grassland resources are now at risk due to the USFS’s acceptance of this faulty fire management policy. In fact, “Forest Service scientists predict that fire seasons could return to levels not seen since the 1940s, reaching 12 to 15 million acres annually.” This quote is quite telling.

While claims abound that Oregon’s current explosion of mega-fires stem from drought, invasive species, and severe outbreaks of insects and disease exacerbated by a changing climate, it apparently isn’t true. After all, 1940 was eighty years ago.

Where are the global warming statistics from the 1940’s or 1950’s? Is there historical evidence from the 1940’s that global warming caused significant stress and disturbances across America’s forests, grasslands, and watersheds?

The answer is NO.

However, policy changes over this time have been significant. Instead of focusing on suppression or containment, USFS policy has shifted towards fire management complete with “restoring the natural role of wildland fire as an ecological process.”

I’m beginning to think that agencies, such as USFS, BLM, NOAA, EPA, USFW, BIA, ATF, CEQ, etc., are the intestines, or the digestive tract of the federal leviathan. In the digestive process the host consumes, prospers and grows while nothing remains but the waste and byproducts on the surrounding landscape.

These agencies spawn numerous other parasitic organizations which benefit from the funding stream. In the interest of self-preservation each of these agencies promote environmental activity under the color of “saving our planet.” Environmental activist groups and other non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) mask and multiply policy decisions across the landscape. All of this is funded by taxpayer dollars.

In addition to the enormous growth in government spending, Americans also bear the costs associated with lost opportunities in the marketplace. We loose access to widely available natural resources. We suffer the destruction of our forests, land and productivity, while we bear the burdens associated with unnecessarily complex regulatory schemes.

As a former County Commissioner for Klamath County, Oregon, I continually faced federal bureaucrats who thought they knew more than the people who live, work and play in Oregon’s neighborhoods and communities.

Could it be possible that somehow Oregonians are not capable of managing their pristine and bountiful landscape? Does anyone really believe that Oregonians lack the knowledge, skill or intelligence necessary to manage their own local resources? Are the people of our state incapable of exerting the proper levels of care, precision, and rigor that might be necessary for keeping their own homes, forests and communities prosperous?

These are purely rhetorical questions that highlight the deeper issues associated with federal dominance in local issues. Remember, the federal government is $20 trillion in the hole because it will not follow a stewardship model that would allow these natural assets to pay their own way. Oregon can do better.

The members of our Joint House and Senate Wildfire Caucus will be working through details and drafting solutions. The real question is one of authority, jurisdictional power and control. Each of these issues deserves prompt, thoughtful and appropriate answers.

Fabius, the pen-name of one of our nation’s prominent founders, John Dickinson, gave us some insight. He wrote, “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”

Remember – If we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common sense – No one will!

Best regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

A Flanking Maneuver Against…

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, September 26, 2019 by devadmin

At the beginning of the new year, in 1776, Thomas Paine published a Pamphlet to support the Patriot cause,  Common Sense. He wrote with clear, concise and beautifully simple word pictures that successfully rallied American colonists against the over-reaching rule of the British crown.

First, Paine set the stage by noting that the public often mistakes society with government.  This happens in our era, too. We mistake laws flowing from our state’s bureaucratic agencies as cultural or societal necessities, but they are not. Paine paints a picture where people are allowed to freely engage and work together to accomplish private tasks that improve the community, without requiring central planning or authority. He notes society and government are different, and,

“… they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.”

I recommend reading Paine’s small booklet because you will see similarities between what Paine describes from 250 years ago and what we experience in Oregon today. Namely, Oregonians are continually pounded by an unrelenting tide of laws, rules and regulations that burden the average farmer, rancher, forester, timber hauler, accountant, retailer and entrepreneur beyond measure.

For example, during the Legislature’s 2019 session, there were 2,768 bills introduced, with about 700 laws signed by the Governor. The several hundred, or more, rules and regulations which have not yet been spawned will soon be flowing downstream from the agencies which are tasked with enforcement.

No doubt, our errors in self-governance partially stem from our own failings. I know this because I often get letters, emails and phone messages where people suggest their version of a great legislative idea. You already know the refrain, “There ought to be a Law…”

These ideas, might be wonderful, but there are always trade-offs and other issues to consider: what does it cost, who makes the rules, how many rules will get created, what sanctions will be imposed, who governs enforcement, how will discrepancies be judged, are the desired outcomes accomplished, what are the unintended consequences that will seep through the fabric of our communities?

To illustrate, my wife was recently at a large retail outlet standing in line with 6 individuals ahead of her and 5, or more, behind her. They were all waiting for service, with some exhibiting more patience than others. The two young men at the counter were doing a great job of helping each customer and did so with courtesy and efficiency. As one of the clerks finished his task, the next customer moved forward.

With clear frustration, the clerk said, “I’m sorry but I have to take my, ‘legally mandated’ break now.” While he was closing his station, he added sympathetically, “I know it’s busy, but I have no choice, I have to take this break.”

My wife said she thought this, “young man could have carried an elk carcass back to camp all by his lonesome.” So, although he could have continued to service the queue, he was required to follow the legislated mandate and leave his customers hanging.

Review, Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 653,  which deals the employment conditions my wife encountered. I would bet most of us will struggle to understand it and its implications. Today, Oregon has so many laws on the books, with countless defined terms, caveats, exemptions and carve-outs it is hard to know what is appropriate and what is outlandish.

To analyze this unnerving trend, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University created a tool known as State RegData – a platform for analyzing and quantifying state regulatory text by looking for words and phrases like “shall,” “must,” “may not,” “prohibited,” and “required.” These are the phrases typically used to signify legal constraints and obligations. The tool identified 167,401 restrictions in the 2017 Oregon Administrative Rules containing roughly 14.8 million words.

It would take an individual about 821 hours—or almost 21 weeks—to read the entire Oregon code. That’s assuming the reader spends 40 hours per week reading and reads at a rate of 300 words per minute. For comparison, in 2016 there were over 1.08 million additional restrictions in the federal code. Individuals and businesses in Oregon must navigate all of these restrictions to remain in compliance.

These rules represent a flanking maneuver against private, consensual, free-market capitalism. Capitalism is defined as private ownership and control over the means of production, where the surplus product becomes a source of income for its owners. By contrast, socialism is defined as social ownership of the means of production so that the surplus product accrues to chosen groups within the larger society.

If “ownership” means the right of an owner to organize and dictate the application of various resources – be it capital, equipment, or labor – then today, we have surrendered that decision-making authority to the state. The state now has the power to rule, organize, and manage (or own) nearly every business.

Agencies can subtly control the means of production through their regulatory requirements – employment, emissions, wages, schedules, margins. Government can over-see and run a business through rules and regulations without suffering from unsightly legal or economic issues that would typically surround a hostile takeover. In this way, bureaucrats and commissions can execute ghostly control over all aspects of any business via the machinery of the state.

As our last budget cycle proved, this has immediate benefits for the state enterprise. However, in the long-run, it is terrible for businesses, their customers, employees, futures, longevity and prosperity.

Daniel Webster, a statesman, lawyer, orator, and Secretary of State for three Presidential administrations recognized our problem and summarized our dilemma like this,

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Well said!

If we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense…  Who will?

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

Readers Respond to My Thoughts…

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, September 20, 2017 by devadmin

Recently, I wrote an article proposing a “Thought Experiment” where I suggested reverting back to managing our forests as a viable natural resource instead of as a random, chaotic and untamable wilderness.

My premise was that the “preserve the wilderness” experiment which has been foisted on the public is a natural disaster in the making.

I received tons of e-mail responses and I appreciate the stories that were shared with me. Today, I will share some of the thoughtful responses which I received:

  • “Your article is spot on. In Arizona, we have lost 29% of our forests due to forest fires, primarily in Wilderness Areas where you can’t even take mechanized equipment in for anything.  We have data where a thinned and managed forest butts up to an unmanaged forest and a fire virtually stopped.” – Mike
  • “No one at the city, county, state or federal level is responsive to what the public, who has to endure the absolute destruction of their timberlands and the subsequent suffocating smoke, thinks or wants from their public lands. The USFS mantra that fire is a good and natural ‘tool’ has seemed to have taken firm hold in the minds of those who hold absolute control over our public lands.” – Jeff
  • “Thank you for writing what several of us have been discussing for a while.  I raise cattle in both the valley and my ranch, which borders the Crooked River National Grass lands outside of Madras, on the side.  I also enjoy hunting and fishing where I’ve seen exactly what you wrote in your editorial.” – Mike
  • “Having family land in South Dakota devastated by out of control fires and almost an entire forest destroyed by the bark beetle (which the forestry dept. refused to deal with until half (?) of the Harney national forest was dead) we know the frustration of ill-thought out policies.” – Jackie
  • “Now that is a breath of fresh air. Having worked in the timber industry and as a firefighter for over 20 years, it is nice to hear someone speaking like this.” – Ray
  • “I have served my country most of my life as a veteran and with the US Treasury. I am born and raised Oregonian as my family has been for a century. I can’t say any of us have seen a spotted owl, but we have certainly seen the social, moral and financial decline of our home. What are we to do?” – Joshua
  • “I strongly disagree with your wilderness scenario. Please provide any peer reviewed study that reflects your opinion that a wilderness designation leads to destruction of that ecosystem.” – Linda
  • “I grew up in the 30’s & 40’s as a daughter of a timber faller, living in rural Washington state. I don’t ever recall forest fires in that time span…  So, there is truth in what you mentioned about this was their lively hood. Maybe this is what we need to get back to taking care of our natural resources.”  – June
  • “This is a very direct and honest appraisal of the current situation. I do find a couple of problems with it, however. First, common sense went out the door several decades ago.” – Brad
  • “While I agree with most of your comments, I disagree on the debris [in streambeds comments]. Back when they shut down logging to save Spotted Owl, I was a logger, when they shut down all logging. They hired us to remove all the debris in the screams for fish habitat. They found out the fish needed that debris in the creeks to create pools so they could lay eggs and hatch. So, the forest service paid us to put debris back into the streams.” – Jim
  • “Sisters economic engine is tourism and we have been affected by the smoke in Central Oregon. I appreciate your thoughts and comments on failed forest policy that is so affecting our businesses in the west.” – Judy

My claim is basic: bad policy lies at the at the root of our mega-fire problems.

We know that wildfires are often caused by either natural phenomenon, such as lightning, or human interactions in our forested lands. However, wildfires are not like the natural disasters occurring from the hurricanes and tornadoes of the Gulf coast. The difference between fire events and tornadoes is that we can exercise far more control and management, both before and after the event. This is where policy is key. It is the most essential and effective tool in our stewardship toolbox.

The mega-fires that are ravaging the Western states are typically on federal land and this is directly related to USFS policy. Fewer trees are being removed from federal lands. As a result, there is more forest debris with tons of dead and dying trees cluttering the forest floor. Decades of of mismanagement has allowed these fuels to accumulate and this debris is the fuel for wildfires.

In the complex forest landscapes across Oregon, any “one-size-fits-all” policy would be inappropriate. Sometimes grasses should be promoted, sometimes not. Some acreage should be thinned to 30 trees per acre, others 100, an others still more. Additionally, our forest management policy and fire suppression efforts, need to structured with an appropriate mix of incentives. The current incentive structure for funding and managing large-scale fire complexes is perverse and the “one-size” format is detrimental to the well-being of our wildlife, watersheds, forests and ourselves.

Now is the time to pressure Washington. We should give states greater autonomy in managing these lands or return these public lands back to the states. Our federal bureaucracies are proving that they are too expensive, slow and unyielding when it comes to managing the landscape to our high expectations.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense, No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Posted on

A Thought Experiment

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, September 13, 2017 by devadmin

When it comes to forest policy, the public sphere is often filled with demands that our wilderness areas need absolute protection from human encroachment.

In Southern Oregon, we see these same demands flourish with claims that expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument would preserve biodiversity and protect these forests for generations to come.

The problem with this narrative is that current evidence runs contrary to this Utopian hope.

How can I say that? Let’s play a thought experiment with our forests.

We’ll let the “protect the wilderness” experimenters loose on a million acres of Oregon forest. During the first year, there would be hikers, campers and just everyday folks enjoying the great outdoors.

After a couple of years, the wilderness would become extremely difficult to navigate without roads built and maintained by loggers. In subsequent years only the hardiest would bother to take the kids camping because of the danger and difficulty in navigating the wildlands of an overgrown and brushy forest.

Fuel loads grow

Without any human intervention, thinning efforts or grazing permits allowed, the fuel loads would build until lightning storms cause a mega-fire that is typical for unmanaged wilderness. The wilderness designation would dictate that lightning caused fires would be permitted to play out, as nearly as possible, their ecological role within a wilderness area. Meaning, “let it burn.”

So, after several years, the remaining forests would be marginal at best; wildlife habitat would be destroyed; streams and watersheds would be polluted with ash, dirt and debris; and downstream fish habitat would be fouled.

Tourism would see significant declines as people naturally avoid vacationing in smoke-filled Oregon. The carbon emissions from these mega-fires would harm our human populations and healthcare costs for particulate matter inhalation would be significant.

Now, let’s take a million acres and manage it for sustainable yield logging and maintain it in a way that would not only supply lumber, but also recreation, benefiting the public with areas for camping, hunting, hiking, picking berries, winter snow sports, and just enjoying the accessible wilderness.

Until the early 1970’s forests were managed by the loggers. They would harvest trees, thin forests, allow grazing, re-plant and keep wildfires contained because this was their livelihood.  They would cut access roads and the public would gain by this accessibility.

Repeating this policy would sustain the forest for generations, giving the newly planted trees time to grow into usable timber. Our summer air would be breathable again and we would be able to enjoy the natural beauty of our state. Tourism and prosperity would increase as folks would be confident that their vacation would not be shadowed by smoke.

 Benefits worthwhile

Additionally, as byproducts of sustainable-yield forestry, there would be high employment in forestry operations, milling, freight hauling, home construction, heavy equipment, and thousands of other subsequent opportunities. This would generate tertiary benefits through the direct creation of wealth from the astute utilization of our natural resources. Additionally, reducing the size and scope of mega-fire incidents leads directly to increased CO2 sequestration because healthy forests absorb vast quantities of CO2.

Now, my forest scenario might have its own Utopian twist but, today, we see the dire results from the “protect the wilderness” experimenters via improper and unrealistic forest practices.  Our communities pick up the tab and suffer the consequences of this “let it burn” policy through the destruction of assets, loss of watersheds and wildlife habitat, loss of recreational opportunity and degraded forest resources.

The benefits in my scenario come from the same land that the “protect the wilderness” experimenters used. The difference is in policy – policy aimed at the sagacious utilization of our natural resources that would generate benefits for the land, wildlife, our watersheds and all Americans.

Unfortunately, we are living amid policies dictated by the “protect the wilderness” experimenters and it is not pretty.

Fires get worse

Up until the 1980s, the average duration of wildfires was just six days. The number of distinct fires or ignitions hasn’t changed over time but wildfires, today, are much larger and last much longer. Today, the average fire lasts 52 days, or nearly two months. The Chetco Bar fire is estimated to double the 52-day average, with nearly four months of burn.

Last winter was a record-setting winter for cold, snow and rain. The drought is over; our reservoirs and dams are full; rivers and streams are still flowing with snowmelt. Could it be that these extraordinary burn rates are directly related to policy and not to global warming?

The overall solution is not complicated — in fact it’s simple. Let’s allow balanced human wisdom, ingenuity, and expertise a voice at the table to bring common sense and local control back to our forest management.

Or, better yet, let’s throw this failed policy into the fire.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28