Spending

During the 1870s, the federal government adopted policies encouraging the killing of the North American buffalo in order to deplete the food source of the Native Americans, a tactic used to expand the government’s authority across the West.

Today, in a continued effort to promote and secure its relevance, the federal government, in breach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, has authorized the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to spend $3.5 million massacring 3600 barred owls in Oregon under the auspices of spotted owl protection – an animal listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The news of this federal action and the government’s “above the law” response to control natural fluctuations does not come as a surprise to many of us Oregonians who everyday perform the balancing act of providing for our families, sustaining our businesses and ranches, and acting as stewards for sustainable future use of our land. Over the years and centuries, federal responses to local issues have resulted in wasteful spending, irresponsible action, and the decimation of people and animals alike. Yet a concentrated majority in this state has decided that Washington D.C. is best suited to handling our business, ranching and local environmental affairs.

Oregon’s counties and communities face a new federal intervention: an effort to protect the sage grouse. An environmental impact statement is currently being pushed through federal court to determine whether the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) should cordon off hundreds of thousands of acres of land usually reserved for ranching activities.

There is clear consensus among the experts and the BLM that sage grouse numbers are not a problem in Oregon. The disappearance of the bird has predominantly occurred in Idaho and Utah. Many ranchers in Oregon are aware of the bird’s habitat and steer their herds clear of areas where their dwelling is probable.

Yet the federal government has advertised that it is the most effective source for balancing interests – that somehow the sage grouse’s viability must be protected at the federal level from cattle-ranching activities (which actually have a positive impact on sage grouse habitat as well through soil regeneration that aids habitat growth, much like the buffalo herds’ contribution to the fertility of the Great Plains).

Eastern Oregon, prior to the pioneers, was a large swathe of grassland. With the covered wagons clung the sage seeds that spread their roots across the land. Our ever-changing ecosystem has seen the rise and fall of species across the span of earth’s history. Yet our government is attempting to play God and legislate control over a single element to an incomprehensible equation – a futile and wasteful task that does more harm than good, as we saw from the carcasses of buffalo, and see from the slaughter of an owl.

Our federal government has ground to a halt. Again. Republicans and Democrats were unable to meet a deadline to fund the government Monday night. While a group of “combative” Republicans are largely bearing responsibility for the impasse in Congress due to their hawkish advocacy to defund the Affordable Care Act, the reality is the factions in Congress are more varied and deeply divided than ever.

Both parties are to blame for this stalemate, and the result may very well be an ever-divided Congress where each party will blame the other for their unwillingness to negotiate. On the one hand, Republicans are claiming they want to reign in spending but are unwilling to compromise when it comes to military budgets and spending on our overseas police power – a capacity that is becoming increasingly disfavored by the public. And, indeed, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest contingent that will be affected by the shutdown. On the other hand, Democrats spearheaded a bill that is not feasible to fund given the current economic crisis because the government is strictly not generating enough revenue to support such a program short of spending our future away.

Our government’s sole focus right now should be on economic improvement. While the Affordable Care Act promotes a noble purpose, the fact of the matter is that our government cannot afford to pay for it. Our federal programs, such as Social Security, are already failing for lack of funding and mismanagement. There is little support for the idea that the Affordable Care Act would face any more promising future.

Economic improvement will come from taking military spending and re-investing those dollars here on the home front where our infrastructure and education are sorely lacking. Economic improvement will stem from creating a positive climate for small business and entrepreneurship by removing barriers to entry and by encouraging smaller, more flexible entities. These entities will, in turn, create the types of jobs we want in our society – the types based on relationships and accountability. And, finally, at the heart of economic improvement, is the idea that we decrease the stratification of wealth in our society. Simplifying the tax code is essential for leveling the playing field for all people. Complexities in the code create the types of loopholes that allow for corporate exploitation and tax shelters for the wealthy.

There are very certain and definite roles for our federal government. The services Washington D.C. provide through the unification of essential interstate laws and international treaties should be primary but focused. We must be realistic in what we can and cannot sustainably afford at that level. And let’s be honest, Cover Oregon is doing and would do a better job at providing health care for our citizens than any federal program. If our federal government is unable to afford Social Security and Medicare, then what good will the Affordable Care Act do for us when we ultimately cannot afford to pay the doctors?

Will it take a nationwide default to provide the political impetus to reform? That is a possibility. But blaming one party or the other is only fuel for a divisive fire. The stopgap just may be to practice viewing this shutdown from an opposing point of view.