Dick Rowland Image The Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday 1/12/03 revealed the results of its annual survey of legislators. Their analysis emphasized that few back export of prisoners or legalized gambling. A complete page was devoted to the results of the survey on 25 separate issues. What was not prominently mentioned but was particularly revealing were three important facts: Only three legislators answered every question — Rep. Brian Blundell and Senators Melodie Williams Aduja and Sam Slom. That seems to show respect, confidence and sincerity. Ten out of 76 legislators did not answer any of the questions. Only four of the responders indicated they favored any kind of tax increase. Why revealing? Only three legislators out of 76 are willing to frankly reveal their positions. Then 10 of 76 seem to be saying that they don’t want to reveal anything at all to the people of Hawaii. And finally, out of 66 responders, only four favor any tax increase at all. Thus, the good news is that any tax increase looks to face hard times and the bad news is that 10 are careless, could not care less or are arrogant. ”Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or by phone at (808) 487-4959. More information about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be found at its Web site at” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org
Looking for Money – This Way to Free Money
They say that no one ever remembers that you were right, but boy, if you were wrong, they sure will remind you of it. Well, the most recent Tax Review Commission report validates everything that has been said about the rash of tax credits lawmakers approved in the past few years targeted as business tax incentives. As a result of these credits, the Commission believes that the state’s tax structure has been severely compromised as there are no reasonable limits set on these credits or mechanisms to provide accountability. The current Commission notes that since the last Commission met in 1997, the number of tax credits have doubled and have tended to be wide-ranging in application with unlimited amounts. They point out that in some cases, a taxpayer may benefit from a tax credit that is 200 percent of the amount invested or more. In some cases, some of the legislation allows the allocation of credits among partners without regard to which of the partners may have invested in the particular project that is granted the credit. The result is that it has become more and more difficult to forecast state tax revenues and the Commission suggests that these credits may be a major cause of present and future revenue shortfalls. The Commission notes that tax incentives may be viewed as an effective way to give money away in order to get the taxpayer to engage in a specific behavior, but the system itself is not particularly equipped to enforce compliance or determine whether an activity meets the technical level required for the incentive. An example the Commission cites is the fact that under the recently enacted ethanol production credit, it is quite possible that an investor in such a facility could get up to 240 percent of the amount invested. The Commission also levied its lance at the much touted high-technology tax credit. It noted that while the high-tech credit was originally patterned after the federal research and development credit with the hope that it would foster technology businesses and investments, as enacted, the current credit is not limited to research and development as defined under the federal law. Instead the credit is for general business activity with generous allowances and no accountability. The Commission concludes that the result is a potential for tremendous revenue losses without any identifiable benefit to the state. Some specific examples cited by the Commission of the magnitude of the generosity of the high-tech credit include a 100 percent credit for movies made in Hawaii, the possibility of allowing a partner to take the high-tech credit even though that partner may not have contributed the capital that qualified the partnership for the credit, and structuring a partnership for a project that qualifies for the $2 million tax credit where 100 percent of the cost of the project can be recovered. And because the qualifying definition for a high-technology activity only requires that more than 50 percent of the activity be actually high tech, the Commission points out that the taxpayer could conceivably receive 200 percent of what is actually invested in the high-tech activity. No doubt the boosters of the high-technology credit will claim that it is because of Act 221 that Hawaii will attract new high-technology businesses. The real question is, at what cost? The taxpayers of Hawaii are being asked to subsidize untold millions of dollars of tax credits without knowing whether or not these businesses will actually create the jobs that supporters of the credit tout. Will, in fact, many of the businesses that avail themselves of the credit disappear when the credit disappears? Will those businesses take advantage of the credit, create a product or service and then move somewhere else because it is just too expensive to stay and do business in Hawaii? In their recommendation on this particular credit, the Commission calls for a cost benefit study whenever lawmakers consider such credits. The Commission also recommends that businesses that get the 100 percent tax credit for the $2 million invested be required to report back to the Legislature to justify the investment costs on which the credit is based. Similarly, the allocation of the credit among a group of investors or partners should be based on the economic substance or contribution made that qualified for the credit. In short, the Commission notes that the present targeted business tax incentives lack accountability and create something of a “black hole” in state fiscal responsibility. What is scary is that both the administration and the Legislature will be back this session to enact more of these “black holes” at the expense of all taxpayers. ”Lowell L. Kalapa is the president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, a private, non-profit educational organization. For more information, please call 536-4587 or log on to” https://www.tfhawaii.org
Honolulu Advertiser’s Legislator Survey Results Reveal More Than Answers
Dick Rowland Image The Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday 1/12/03 revealed the results of its annual survey of legislators. Their analysis emphasized that few back export of prisoners or legalized gambling. A complete page was devoted to the results of the survey on 25 separate issues. What was not prominently mentioned but was particularly revealing were three important facts: Only three legislators answered every question — Rep. Brian Blundell and Senators Melodie Williams Aduja and Sam Slom. That seems to show respect, confidence and sincerity. Ten out of 76 legislators did not answer any of the questions. Only four of the responders indicated they favored any kind of tax increase. Why revealing? Only three legislators out of 76 are willing to frankly reveal their positions. Then 10 of 76 seem to be saying that they don’t want to reveal anything at all to the people of Hawaii. And finally, out of 66 responders, only four favor any tax increase at all. Thus, the good news is that any tax increase looks to face hard times and the bad news is that 10 are careless, could not care less or are arrogant. ”Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or by phone at (808) 487-4959. More information about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be found at its Web site at” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org
Don't Weaken Media Ownership Regulations-Open Letter to the FCC
Members of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States are deeply concerned that the Federal Communications Commission’s impending biennial review of rules designed to protect the public from concentrated ownership of media outlets may result in steps that will severely weaken existing rules designed to protect the public’s first amendment rights to diverse media.
Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there has been a general trend toward greater concentration of ownership in private hands, justified by the notion that diversity may be defined simply in terms of numbers of outlets, and evaluated in increasingly narrow terms of commercial interests and private ownership. Far from increasing and expanding upon the marketplace of ideas and offering the public greater choice of outlets, the result has been to concentrate programming designed to support owners’ financial interests, with fewer resources available for locally owned production and public access.
Given that the public holds ownership of the airwaves, the FCC was created and given a mandate to promote competition, diversity of ownership and access for local broadcasters. We are concerned that in the upcoming review (Docket No. 02-277), current guidelines concerning diversity and concentration of ownership will be defined in such a way as to limit the consideration of diversity to the criterion defined in the interests of commercial competition, and that the definition of locally-owned media may be expanded to include network-owned chain properties.
There currently exist more media outlets than ever before; however, studies demonstrate that media consolidation has had a negative effect on media diversity and local access to media outlets. True diversity of media is vital to the public interest in maintaining democracy and cannot rest solely on the whims of the marketplace.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion of 1945 (Associated Press vs. United States): “[The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the
widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, … [and] a condition for a free society…. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.”
We urge the FCC to adhere to the guidelines expressed in the commission’s original mandate, and to further strengthen such guidelines to effectively ensure public access to the media and true diversity of ownership.
”’Holly Hart is the head of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States located at 1314 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN”’
”Grassroots media organizations opposing FCC deregulation of media:”
*Prometheus Radio Project, https://www.prometheusradio.org/
*Media Tank https://www.mediatank.org/
”Other Reading:”
*”FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting ‘Action Alert,’ Dec. 5, 2002 https://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html
*”Time Warner Could Strangle the Internet: When competition is limited and free access isn’t guaranteed, choices can easily dwindle” by Stacy Mitchell. Portland Press Herald (Maine), Jan. 1, 2003. https://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/030101timewarner.shtml
*Telecommunications industry contributions to political campaigns: The Center for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=C2200
Don’t Weaken Media Ownership Regulations-Open Letter to the FCC
Members of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States are deeply concerned that the Federal Communications Commission’s impending biennial review of rules designed to protect the public from concentrated ownership of media outlets may result in steps that will severely weaken existing rules designed to protect the public’s first amendment rights to diverse media.
Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there has been a general trend toward greater concentration of ownership in private hands, justified by the notion that diversity may be defined simply in terms of numbers of outlets, and evaluated in increasingly narrow terms of commercial interests and private ownership. Far from increasing and expanding upon the marketplace of ideas and offering the public greater choice of outlets, the result has been to concentrate programming designed to support owners’ financial interests, with fewer resources available for locally owned production and public access.
Given that the public holds ownership of the airwaves, the FCC was created and given a mandate to promote competition, diversity of ownership and access for local broadcasters. We are concerned that in the upcoming review (Docket No. 02-277), current guidelines concerning diversity and concentration of ownership will be defined in such a way as to limit the consideration of diversity to the criterion defined in the interests of commercial competition, and that the definition of locally-owned media may be expanded to include network-owned chain properties.
There currently exist more media outlets than ever before; however, studies demonstrate that media consolidation has had a negative effect on media diversity and local access to media outlets. True diversity of media is vital to the public interest in maintaining democracy and cannot rest solely on the whims of the marketplace.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion of 1945 (Associated Press vs. United States): “[The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the
widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, … [and] a condition for a free society…. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.”
We urge the FCC to adhere to the guidelines expressed in the commission’s original mandate, and to further strengthen such guidelines to effectively ensure public access to the media and true diversity of ownership.
”’Holly Hart is the head of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States located at 1314 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN”’
”Grassroots media organizations opposing FCC deregulation of media:”
*Prometheus Radio Project, https://www.prometheusradio.org/
*Media Tank https://www.mediatank.org/
”Other Reading:”
*”FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting ‘Action Alert,’ Dec. 5, 2002 https://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html
*”Time Warner Could Strangle the Internet: When competition is limited and free access isn’t guaranteed, choices can easily dwindle” by Stacy Mitchell. Portland Press Herald (Maine), Jan. 1, 2003. https://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/030101timewarner.shtml
*Telecommunications industry contributions to political campaigns: The Center for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=C2200
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 20, 2003-Businesses and Interest Groups Give Little to Political Campaigns; Nuclear Energy is Safe, Reliable; Smart Growth Takes Hits
“Dick Rowland Image”
”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”
– Businesses and Interest Groups Give Little to Political
Campaigns
Industries spend much more on lobbying than they do on political
campaigns. According to a new study in the Journal of Economic
Perspectives, around 80 percent of campaign contributions are from
individuals. Businesses contribute so little because they receive very little for their money — so contributing more is fruitless.
*Individuals, organizations and companies gave a total of nearly $3 billion to national campaigns in 1999 and 2000 — equivalent to 0.15 percent of annual federal spending.
*Contributions by individuals average around $115.
*Forty percent of all Fortune 500 companies do not even have a political action committee — and the average corporate PAC gives only about $1,400 to legislators, far below the legal limit.
*Organizations spend 10 times as much on lobbying as on direct campaign contributions.
The study challenges the common wisdom that corporate money runs
politics. It finds that politicians’ votes depend almost entirely on
their beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party.
Contributions can help a company’s or an industry’s lobbyists gain
access to legislators. The lobbyists can then make their arguments —
and they often can then provide the politician with essential information.
Source: Alan B. Krueger (Princeton University), “Economic Scene:
Lobbying by Businesses Overwhelms their Campaign Contributions,” New York Times, September 19, 2002.
Above article is from www.ncpa.org Daily Policy Digest 9/19/02.
– Nuclear Energy is Safe, Reliable
Despite the countless scare stories about accidents at nuclear reactors, nuclear energy is the safest way to generate electricity, experts say. But expansion of nuclear power has been stalled in the United States because of media-fed perceptions that nuclear power is unsafe.
Among the points nuclear energy advocates make in support of its safety:
*Radiation from American nuclear plants has not harmed anyone, and the chances of a nuclear reactor meltdown are miniscule.
*Per kilowatt of energy produced, more people are killed by fossil fuel.
*An incident like that at Chernobyl is even more unlikely, as the Chernobyl design was rejected as unsafe by the U.S. 50 years ago.
*A new type of reactor called a pebble bed reactor, one of which will be built in South Africa, is even safer, say experts, due to its design.
Source: The Energy Advocate: A monthly Newsletter Promoting Energy and Technology, May 2002 (Vol. 6, No. 10).
For more on Energy Advocate, see https://www.energyadvocate.com/
”Roots (Food for Thought)”
Smart Growth Takes Hits
While still a dominant political force in many states and metropolitan areas, cracks in the smart-growth movement are growing wider.
Author: Randal O’Toole
Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2002
Since the Sept. 11 attack on the densest part of America (when
counting job density), numerous commentators have pointed out the idea of density suddenly doesn’t seem so attractive. Smart-growth advocates have come up with rather lame responses to this. University of Pennsylvania urban planner Mark Alan Hughes, for example, says terrorism proves we should live in high-density cities so we can be close to hospitals when terrorists attack. That is hardly reassuring — especially if the roads between you and the hospitals are gridlocked.
Smart Growth Bad for Salmon
Aside from terrorism worries, smart growth has suffered blows from other quarters. In the Northwest, for example, it turns out smart growth is incompatible with saving salmon.
According to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists,
protecting fish requires that no more than 10 percent of new
developments should be “impermeable,” i.e., covered with pavement or buildings. Implementing this rule, admits NFMS officials, will require “sprawl.”
This calls into question Oregon’s strict smart-growth rules. “In most
areas,” says NFMS biologist Spencer Hovcamp, Oregon land-use policies “have little likelihood of success” in helping to recover salmon.
In response, Mike Burton, the director of Metro (Portland’s regional
planning agency and a leading smart-growth supporter), says state
agencies and the Legislature need to “take a second look at Oregon’s
land-use policies.” This comment has the effect of deflecting any blame for harming salmon habitat to someone other than Metro.
Suburbs Attracting Minorities
Meanwhile, the idea that low-density suburbs unjustly concentrate poor people and minorities in the cities is being blown away by 2000 Census results. In the Portland area, for example, the Census has shown that “growing numbers of Latino, African American, and Asian families bought homes in scattered Portland and suburban neighborhoods during the 1990s, increasing racial and ethnic diversity throughout the region.”
From 1990 to 2000, the share of the region’s African Americans
concentrated in Northeast Portland (the area people called “the ghetto” in the 1960s) fell from 60 to 48 percent — which means the rest moved to the suburbs or other Portland neighborhoods. The number of African-American families who owned their own homes grew by 27 percent. Hispanics and other minorities are also dispersing. I am sure similar numbers can be found for other urban areas.
Portland Planning “is in Trouble”
A recent draft report from a Portland State University professor says, “The urban transportation planning process in Portland is in trouble.” The report, A Critique of the Urban Transportation Planning Process: The Performance of Portland’s 2000 Regional Transportation Plan, is by Prof. Kenneth Dueker of the Urban Studies and Planning Department.
According to Dueker, Portland’s Metro predicts transit’s share of
regional travel will double over the next 20 years. Many other
metropolitan planning organizations are projecting a decline in
transit’s share, and the average projection for similar-sized urban
areas is just a 14 percent increase. “No other city comes close” to
Metro’s estimate, which Dueker considers to be “wishfully optimistic or unrealistic.”
Dueker observes Metro plans to make capital investments in transit equal to $1.18 per projected transit trip, while investments in highways will equal only $0.05 per auto trip. The result, Metro projects, will be “a 560 percent increase in congested hours in the PM peak period.” This plan is “unsustainable,” says Dueker, because “people will not tolerate” that level of congestion.
Portland “planners have a faith in new urbanism that is blind to what reasonable forecasts tell them.” Dueker predicts Metro’s plan will lead to “backlashes,” including “opposition to upzoning proposals, the flight of families seeking the space they need and can afford, and ballot initiatives to finance and build roads.”
Congestion Leads to More Roads
Is Dueker’s prediction accurate? We can get an idea from another growing region that decided to stop building roads in order to discourage growth.
Years ago, Santa Cruz County, California, decided not to expand the
four-lane Highway 1. The policy didn’t do much to curtail traffic: In
the past decade, highway traffic grew by nearly 40 percent. The result was “agonizing stop-and-go conditions” that overflowed into
neighborhoods, sometimes “trapping residents in their homes for hours at a time.”
In response to pressure from a variety of sources, the county commission recently voted 8 to 2 to expand the highway by two lanes. Among the supporters of expansion was the county’s transit district, which is enthused the new lanes will be bus-and-carpool lanes.
Conclusions
Smart growth is still the dominant political force in many states and
metropolitan areas. But the cracks in the movement’s facade are growing wider.
Smart-growth advocates express concern about congestion and housing affordability. But as more people realize the real effects of smart growth are to increase congestion to discourage driving, and increase housing costs to discourage low-density development, support for the movement will eventually fade away.
Randal O’Toole is senior economist with the Thoreau Institute and author of the recent book, The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths. He can be reached by email at: mailto:rot@ti.org See the Institute’s Web site at: https://www.ti.org
Above article is from Environment and Climate News 1/02 See https://www.heartland.org/ for details. For free subscription to Environment and Climate News, please give Dick Rowland a call at (808) 487-4959.
”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”
If, on the one hand, we must speak of solidarity, of establishing rules to help those worse off than we are, then, on the other hand, we cannot ignore the two values of responsibility and liberty. To think, as happens more frequently, “I pay my taxes, so the state can do it,” is a tremendous mistake. It is not the state that must deal with our neighbors; we all must do it. There is one thing I never tire of repeating in public meetings everywhere in Italy. We ourselves must carry the burden for our brothers who are ill. We ourselves as persons and indivuduals must feel the responsibility over and above the United Nations, the government, and the multinationals. It is very true that all this runs counter to human egoism.
And why was development born in the West? Because the West, thanks to centuries of the Gospel, of Christianity, of preaching the importance of the concept of the person — all this has given birth to liberty, and with liberty comes industrialization and scientific discovery. Without liberty, it would not have been possible. It is not sufficient to import the Western model through laws alone; a mentality needs to be created that is fertile for development. – Father Piero Gheddo, translated by Father Robert Sirico
”’See Web site”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’
Don't Weaken Media Ownership Regulations-Open Letter to the FCC
Members of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States are deeply concerned that the Federal Communications Commission’s impending biennial review of rules designed to protect the public from concentrated ownership of media outlets may result in steps that will severely weaken existing rules designed to protect the public’s first amendment rights to diverse media. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there has been a general trend toward greater concentration of ownership in private hands, justified by the notion that diversity may be defined simply in terms of numbers of outlets, and evaluated in increasingly narrow terms of commercial interests and private ownership. Far from increasing and expanding upon the marketplace of ideas and offering the public greater choice of outlets, the result has been to concentrate programming designed to support owners’ financial interests, with fewer resources available for locally owned production and public access. Given that the public holds ownership of the airwaves, the FCC was created and given a mandate to promote competition, diversity of ownership and access for local broadcasters. We are concerned that in the upcoming review (Docket No. 02-277), current guidelines concerning diversity and concentration of ownership will be defined in such a way as to limit the consideration of diversity to the criterion defined in the interests of commercial competition, and that the definition of locally-owned media may be expanded to include network-owned chain properties. There currently exist more media outlets than ever before; however, studies demonstrate that media consolidation has had a negative effect on media diversity and local access to media outlets. True diversity of media is vital to the public interest in maintaining democracy and cannot rest solely on the whims of the marketplace. In the Supreme Court’s opinion of 1945 (Associated Press vs. United States): “[The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, … [and] a condition for a free society…. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.” We urge the FCC to adhere to the guidelines expressed in the commission’s original mandate, and to further strengthen such guidelines to effectively ensure public access to the media and true diversity of ownership. ”Holly Hart is the head of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States located at 1314 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN” ‘Grassroots media organizations opposing FCC deregulation of media:’ *Prometheus Radio Project, https://www.prometheusradio.org/ *Media Tank https://www.mediatank.org/ ‘Other Reading:’ *”FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting ‘Action Alert,’ Dec. 5, 2002 https://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html *”Time Warner Could Strangle the Internet: When competition is limited and free access isn’t guaranteed, choices can easily dwindle” by Stacy Mitchell. Portland Press Herald (Maine), Jan. 1, 2003. https://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/030101timewarner.shtml *Telecommunications industry contributions to political campaigns: The Center for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=C2200
Don’t Weaken Media Ownership Regulations-Open Letter to the FCC
Members of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States are deeply concerned that the Federal Communications Commission’s impending biennial review of rules designed to protect the public from concentrated ownership of media outlets may result in steps that will severely weaken existing rules designed to protect the public’s first amendment rights to diverse media. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there has been a general trend toward greater concentration of ownership in private hands, justified by the notion that diversity may be defined simply in terms of numbers of outlets, and evaluated in increasingly narrow terms of commercial interests and private ownership. Far from increasing and expanding upon the marketplace of ideas and offering the public greater choice of outlets, the result has been to concentrate programming designed to support owners’ financial interests, with fewer resources available for locally owned production and public access. Given that the public holds ownership of the airwaves, the FCC was created and given a mandate to promote competition, diversity of ownership and access for local broadcasters. We are concerned that in the upcoming review (Docket No. 02-277), current guidelines concerning diversity and concentration of ownership will be defined in such a way as to limit the consideration of diversity to the criterion defined in the interests of commercial competition, and that the definition of locally-owned media may be expanded to include network-owned chain properties. There currently exist more media outlets than ever before; however, studies demonstrate that media consolidation has had a negative effect on media diversity and local access to media outlets. True diversity of media is vital to the public interest in maintaining democracy and cannot rest solely on the whims of the marketplace. In the Supreme Court’s opinion of 1945 (Associated Press vs. United States): “[The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, … [and] a condition for a free society…. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.” We urge the FCC to adhere to the guidelines expressed in the commission’s original mandate, and to further strengthen such guidelines to effectively ensure public access to the media and true diversity of ownership. ”Holly Hart is the head of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States located at 1314 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN” ‘Grassroots media organizations opposing FCC deregulation of media:’ *Prometheus Radio Project, https://www.prometheusradio.org/ *Media Tank https://www.mediatank.org/ ‘Other Reading:’ *”FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting ‘Action Alert,’ Dec. 5, 2002 https://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html *”Time Warner Could Strangle the Internet: When competition is limited and free access isn’t guaranteed, choices can easily dwindle” by Stacy Mitchell. Portland Press Herald (Maine), Jan. 1, 2003. https://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/030101timewarner.shtml *Telecommunications industry contributions to political campaigns: The Center for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=C2200
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 20, 2003-Businesses and Interest Groups Give Little to Political Campaigns; Nuclear Energy is Safe, Reliable; Smart Growth Takes Hits
Dick Rowland Image ‘Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)’ – Businesses and Interest Groups Give Little to Political Campaigns Industries spend much more on lobbying than they do on political campaigns. According to a new study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, around 80 percent of campaign contributions are from individuals. Businesses contribute so little because they receive very little for their money — so contributing more is fruitless. *Individuals, organizations and companies gave a total of nearly $3 billion to national campaigns in 1999 and 2000 — equivalent to 0.15 percent of annual federal spending. *Contributions by individuals average around $115. *Forty percent of all Fortune 500 companies do not even have a political action committee — and the average corporate PAC gives only about $1,400 to legislators, far below the legal limit. *Organizations spend 10 times as much on lobbying as on direct campaign contributions. The study challenges the common wisdom that corporate money runs politics. It finds that politicians’ votes depend almost entirely on their beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party. Contributions can help a company’s or an industry’s lobbyists gain access to legislators. The lobbyists can then make their arguments — and they often can then provide the politician with essential information. Source: Alan B. Krueger (Princeton University), “Economic Scene: Lobbying by Businesses Overwhelms their Campaign Contributions,” New York Times, September 19, 2002. Above article is from www.ncpa.org Daily Policy Digest 9/19/02. – Nuclear Energy is Safe, Reliable Despite the countless scare stories about accidents at nuclear reactors, nuclear energy is the safest way to generate electricity, experts say. But expansion of nuclear power has been stalled in the United States because of media-fed perceptions that nuclear power is unsafe. Among the points nuclear energy advocates make in support of its safety: *Radiation from American nuclear plants has not harmed anyone, and the chances of a nuclear reactor meltdown are miniscule. *Per kilowatt of energy produced, more people are killed by fossil fuel. *An incident like that at Chernobyl is even more unlikely, as the Chernobyl design was rejected as unsafe by the U.S. 50 years ago. *A new type of reactor called a pebble bed reactor, one of which will be built in South Africa, is even safer, say experts, due to its design. Source: The Energy Advocate: A monthly Newsletter Promoting Energy and Technology, May 2002 (Vol. 6, No. 10). For more on Energy Advocate, see https://www.energyadvocate.com/ ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ Smart Growth Takes Hits While still a dominant political force in many states and metropolitan areas, cracks in the smart-growth movement are growing wider. Author: Randal O’Toole Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2002 Since the Sept. 11 attack on the densest part of America (when counting job density), numerous commentators have pointed out the idea of density suddenly doesn’t seem so attractive. Smart-growth advocates have come up with rather lame responses to this. University of Pennsylvania urban planner Mark Alan Hughes, for example, says terrorism proves we should live in high-density cities so we can be close to hospitals when terrorists attack. That is hardly reassuring — especially if the roads between you and the hospitals are gridlocked. Smart Growth Bad for Salmon Aside from terrorism worries, smart growth has suffered blows from other quarters. In the Northwest, for example, it turns out smart growth is incompatible with saving salmon. According to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists, protecting fish requires that no more than 10 percent of new developments should be “impermeable,” i.e., covered with pavement or buildings. Implementing this rule, admits NFMS officials, will require “sprawl.” This calls into question Oregon’s strict smart-growth rules. “In most areas,” says NFMS biologist Spencer Hovcamp, Oregon land-use policies “have little likelihood of success” in helping to recover salmon. In response, Mike Burton, the director of Metro (Portland’s regional planning agency and a leading smart-growth supporter), says state agencies and the Legislature need to “take a second look at Oregon’s land-use policies.” This comment has the effect of deflecting any blame for harming salmon habitat to someone other than Metro. Suburbs Attracting Minorities Meanwhile, the idea that low-density suburbs unjustly concentrate poor people and minorities in the cities is being blown away by 2000 Census results. In the Portland area, for example, the Census has shown that “growing numbers of Latino, African American, and Asian families bought homes in scattered Portland and suburban neighborhoods during the 1990s, increasing racial and ethnic diversity throughout the region.” From 1990 to 2000, the share of the region’s African Americans concentrated in Northeast Portland (the area people called “the ghetto” in the 1960s) fell from 60 to 48 percent — which means the rest moved to the suburbs or other Portland neighborhoods. The number of African-American families who owned their own homes grew by 27 percent. Hispanics and other minorities are also dispersing. I am sure similar numbers can be found for other urban areas. Portland Planning “is in Trouble” A recent draft report from a Portland State University professor says, “The urban transportation planning process in Portland is in trouble.” The report, A Critique of the Urban Transportation Planning Process: The Performance of Portland’s 2000 Regional Transportation Plan, is by Prof. Kenneth Dueker of the Urban Studies and Planning Department. According to Dueker, Portland’s Metro predicts transit’s share of regional travel will double over the next 20 years. Many other metropolitan planning organizations are projecting a decline in transit’s share, and the average projection for similar-sized urban areas is just a 14 percent increase. “No other city comes close” to Metro’s estimate, which Dueker considers to be “wishfully optimistic or unrealistic.” Dueker observes Metro plans to make capital investments in transit equal to $1.18 per projected transit trip, while investments in highways will equal only $0.05 per auto trip. The result, Metro projects, will be “a 560 percent increase in congested hours in the PM peak period.” This plan is “unsustainable,” says Dueker, because “people will not tolerate” that level of congestion. Portland “planners have a faith in new urbanism that is blind to what reasonable forecasts tell them.” Dueker predicts Metro’s plan will lead to “backlashes,” including “opposition to upzoning proposals, the flight of families seeking the space they need and can afford, and ballot initiatives to finance and build roads.” Congestion Leads to More Roads Is Dueker’s prediction accurate? We can get an idea from another growing region that decided to stop building roads in order to discourage growth. Years ago, Santa Cruz County, California, decided not to expand the four-lane Highway 1. The policy didn’t do much to curtail traffic: In the past decade, highway traffic grew by nearly 40 percent. The result was “agonizing stop-and-go conditions” that overflowed into neighborhoods, sometimes “trapping residents in their homes for hours at a time.” In response to pressure from a variety of sources, the county commission recently voted 8 to 2 to expand the highway by two lanes. Among the supporters of expansion was the county’s transit district, which is enthused the new lanes will be bus-and-carpool lanes. Conclusions Smart growth is still the dominant political force in many states and metropolitan areas. But the cracks in the movement’s facade are growing wider. Smart-growth advocates express concern about congestion and housing affordability. But as more people realize the real effects of smart growth are to increase congestion to discourage driving, and increase housing costs to discourage low-density development, support for the movement will eventually fade away. Randal O’Toole is senior economist with the Thoreau Institute and author of the recent book, The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths. He can be reached by email at: mailto:rot@ti.org See the Institute’s Web site at: https://www.ti.org Above article is from Environment and Climate News 1/02 See https://www.heartland.org/ for details. For free subscription to Environment and Climate News, please give Dick Rowland a call at (808) 487-4959. ‘Evergreen (Today’s Quote)’ If, on the one hand, we must speak of solidarity, of establishing rules to help those worse off than we are, then, on the other hand, we cannot ignore the two values of responsibility and liberty. To think, as happens more frequently, “I pay my taxes, so the state can do it,” is a tremendous mistake. It is not the state that must deal with our neighbors; we all must do it. There is one thing I never tire of repeating in public meetings everywhere in Italy. We ourselves must carry the burden for our brothers who are ill. We ourselves as persons and indivuduals must feel the responsibility over and above the United Nations, the government, and the multinationals. It is very true that all this runs counter to human egoism. And why was development born in the West? Because the West, thanks to centuries of the Gospel, of Christianity, of preaching the importance of the concept of the person — all this has given birth to liberty, and with liberty comes industrialization and scientific discovery. Without liberty, it would not have been possible. It is not sufficient to import the Western model through laws alone; a mentality needs to be created that is fertile for development. – Father Piero Gheddo, translated by Father Robert Sirico ”See Web site” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”
Honolulu Advertiser’s Legislator Survey Results Reveal More Than Answers
“Dick Rowland Image”
The Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday 1/12/03 revealed the results of its annual survey of legislators.
Their analysis emphasized that few back export of prisoners or legalized gambling. A complete page was devoted to the results of the survey on 25 separate issues.
What was not prominently mentioned but was particularly revealing were three important facts:
Only three legislators answered every question — Rep. Brian Blundell and Senators Melodie Williams Aduja and Sam Slom. That seems to show respect, confidence and sincerity.
Ten out of 76 legislators did not answer any of the questions. Only four of the responders indicated they favored any kind of tax increase.
Why revealing? Only three legislators out of 76 are willing to frankly reveal their positions. Then 10 of 76 seem to be saying that they don’t want to reveal anything at all to the people of Hawaii. And finally, out of 66 responders, only four favor any tax increase at all.
Thus, the good news is that any tax increase looks to face hard times and the bad news is that 10 are careless, could not care less or are arrogant.
”’Richard O. Rowland is president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or by phone at (808) 487-4959. More information about the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii can be found at its Web site at”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org