In response to On the Ranch and Secondary Poisoning of Wildlife
We must do what we can to support agriculture & the Williamson
Act is paramount to keep our country with food!!
The
Secondary Poisoning of Wildlife article was very informative...and so true as
to our nature's balance that so many do not think of. I read the journal from
front to back as soon as I receive it but was interested in assembling our own
owl nesting boxes.
Thanks,
-Lunn
I
continue to enjoy the journal from cover to cover
Thank you, Lunn. We take our job of providing information to
the public very seriously. We’re glad it was helpful. -NCH
In Response to facts about pet foods letter:
In response to the letter from Hazel Mortinson Facts about pet
foods. I was unable to access the website mentioned in the letter to get the
recipe for the dog food. Can I possibly get the correct website??? I am very
interested in making my own pet food. Thanks
-dmangino
Thank you for writing in. Try this website: www.cycle-of-life.com
-MLM
To
the Editor:
I
just finished reading Harris Sherline’s Opinion column in which he goes out on
the proverbial limb and asserts that Americans are “over-taxed and under-served
by their government.”
Few
will disagree.
The
real crux of the issue is not, however, how heavily we are taxed but to what
purpose our tax dollars are put.
A
recent article in Kiplinger’s puts the issue into perspective. The 2.7 trillion
dollars collected in Federal taxes last year were roughly divvied up as
follows:
-21%
to Social Security
-20%
to military spending
-15%
to Medicare
-16%
to programs aiding the needy (Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc)
-10%
to interest payments on the ballooning national debt
-4%
to Health and Education programs
-4%
to military and government retirement programs
-3%
to veterans’ benefits
-6%
to a potpourri of miscellaneous programs
How
one would prefer to see his taxes used essentially defines his politics. I
would like to see my money spent on “people” programs (sometimes called
entitlements) and not on questionable foreign wars. I would also like to see a
return to the type of fiscal responsibility that existed before our current
government nearly doubled the national debt from 5.6 trillion to over 9 trillion
dollars.
Others,
of course, would choose the opposite approach.
The
day will never come, but wouldn’t it be interesting to see what would happen if
Americans were allowed to designate the uses of their tax dollars and directly
choose the programs that they would like to see supported?
I
suspect we would all be surprised by the result.
-Michael
Clear, Solvang
The
corrupt tribal contribution loophole McCain & Congress refuse to close
By Kathryn Bowen - May 21, 2007
The Father of “Campaign Finance Reform” refuses to close the
corrupt loophole of tribal contributions in U.S. campaigns as he embarks on his
own presidential run.
Sen. John McCain chaired the Senate Indian Affairs Committee
investigation into the Jack Abramoff case and has vowed not to accept tribal
money. However, for his own Presidential run, McCain will accept donations from
lobbyists representing tribal clients.
The issue of tribal money has been repeatedly raised to him by
many colleagues in the House and Senate, along with thousands of citizens
across the country. McCain has had ample opportunity to close the valve
on tribal contributions in order to head off additional Abramoff
scandals. Yet, he deliberately leaves the faucet running while this largesse
of gambling dollars continues to shower more than willing congressional
recipients with cash for their campaigns.
Members of Congress recognize that casino tribes are the largest
contributors to state and federal elections, but apparently favor “cash over
conscience” considering the McCain-Feingold bill’s tribal loophole remains
untouched. Over $21 Million Dollars have changed hands in the last two
federal election cycles between casino tribes and ambitious political
candidates.
With tribes not required by law to report campaign
contributions, disclosure of funds comes only if candidates report donations
received from Indian tribes. No checks and balances, no monitoring, and
no disclosure mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with minimal limits
set on tribal contributions from a rapidly growing $23 Billion “corporate”
industry that is able to shield itself behind “sovereign” government status.
The Federal Election Commission has made no attempt to improve
disclosure of tribal contributions and searches for tribal donations are an
endless maze of over 1,976 variations of 211 tribe names. According to
Political Money Line, the filings of tribal donations included 78 variations
alone for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, one of the largest
contributors to both state and federal elections.
By law, local governments, like counties and cities, cannot make
financial contributions to political candidates. So why is it our U.S. elected
officials are taking massive contributions from tax-exempt casino tribes
asserting their “tribal government” status?
Even if there is a legal loophole allowing Indian tribes to
conveniently exist as formal governments for everything except elections,
evading U.S. laws intended to preserve the integrity of our political process
cannot be allowed to continue.
In Sacramento, the majority of elected officials have taken
substantial contributions from gambling tribes. In fact, $429,600 was
poured into the campaigns of the fifteen assembly members who sit on the
committee holding hearings on multi-billion dollar compact deals with the State
and will be key in deciding the fate of the compacts.
How can state elected officials (who accept huge
contributions and then vote in their capacity as state government
representatives on contracts guaranteeing tribes gambling monopolies) get away
with this gargantuan conflict of interest?
Congressional and presidential candidates have found an
unregulated cache that all recent reforms have tried to address and only
Congress has the power to change it. Tantamount to the fox guarding the
hen house.
As casino tribes continue to negotiate for gambling monopoly
compacts with our governments, they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity from
suit, have no independent auditing or investigative oversight, and escape
any requirement to divulge their financial records, even to their own
membership.
While casino tribes continue with excessive demands for gambling
expansion throughout the country, our elected officials continue to stick their
greedy hands out to yet another special interest lobby that happens to be
comfortably suited with a monopoly to “print” money that flows right back into
the pockets of Congress.
It is astounding that one of the largest scandals to hit
Washington, including members of Congress and $70 million dollars of spending
by tribal interests via Jack Abramoff, continues to be swept under the
congressional rug.
There is even a bigger question lurking for presidential
candidates.
Should they accept tribal contributions when it might impede
their ability to impartially handle the federal “trust” issue now pending in
federal court? According to Alberto Gonzales, this issue is potentially
carrying a price tag of over $200 billion for American taxpayers.
When Gonzales presented the 2006 budget for the Department of
Justice, he requested $7.4 million and 18 positions to defend the United States
in lawsuits filed by Indian Tribes. He stated the U.S. government’s
potential liability would be more than $200 billion dollars.
The August Democratic Presidential debate, dubbed “Prez on the
Rez”, is planned for the first time in history in “Indian Country.”
The question must be asked of candidates seeking the highest
office in the United States.
Is accepting multi-millions of dollars from "sovereign
nations" not bound by the U.S. Constitution continue to remain outside
regulatory laws and are not subject to fair taxation within our borders in the
best interest of our country?