Author: Jay R. VanOrman
This essay is an attempt at describing why the Swamp is so hard to drain. There are many other articles, tweets, threads, working out the details of the #DeepState, so I will not be working from that angle. What I hope to show is that the entrenched bureaucracies, acting in concert sometimes with the Deep State, but acting for their own benefit, work to make the act of draining the Swamp as difficult, if not totally impossible, to drain to our satisfaction.
What is a Six Figure Cat Herder? I define it as a bureaucrat who gets paid in salary and benefits, more than $100,000 per year. There is no such thing as a cat herder to begin with, and the six figure variety, to me, is often worse than useless. Their actions are a detriment to the functioning of government, and of little to no value to the people they are paid to serve. Spending all day almost every day in interminable meetings and drinking coffee, they seek to complicate things to prove that they are instrumental and absolutely vital to the functioning of government. They do not share information willingly with their subordinates, or superiors. Knowledge is power. So by making any information vital to the workings of their agency proprietary as it were, they hold more power than their job would otherwise allow.
I agree with the sentiment of removing these people from positions of power. But then how do we get government to actually work for the people? The cat herders have successfully blocked anyone else from knowing how to make the bureaus work. They hire only those who are in lockstep agreement, and have shown a willingness to be corrupt in order to get the next higher position. Go look at some government job applications, and tell me if you are qualified to get a job.
Another thing you may not know is that six figure cat herders only talk about training. They don’t actually train the employees. You’ll get the annual safety trainings or training that another department offers, but there won’t be anything that’s actually job related. And what they talk about between themselves is how much money they are saving by not offering any training to the employees. Why don’t they train their people? For fear the workers would then be qualified to get a better job and leave. It’s hard to write job performance evaluations that state the worker is so stupid, the supervisor is amazed they got their job to begin with, if said worker is qualified for much better jobs than currently employs them. This part is what makes it so difficult for Trump supporters to assume positions within government to Make America Great Again.
Mission Creep: a popular phrase used to describe how a bureaucracy, after establishing its ability to carry out its original intent, discovers new ways of gaining more power and ability. To me, this is what Obama did with $10 trillion dollars of borrowed money. He enabled federal bureaucracies to overachieve.
Technological illiteracy: you have heard how air traffic controllers operate a system that was invented more than a half century ago. That the Department of Defense still uses floppy discs from the 1970s to operate our most advanced weapons systems, like ballistic missiles. Government employees are even still writing down the time they worked on paper cards. Yet they will throw millions of dollars at a computer program that not one of them understand, cannot fix, and have no way to improve the system once in operation. It would have been cheaper to fully train a new hire to learn from scratch computer programming and to create a system than it is to buy one off the shelf, or have a proprietary system made for them. But because of what I just wrote, they can’t do that. Six figure cat herders assume those people would leave for better pay, if they got the training.
There is a Lack of congressional oversight. This part is where I am not in full agreement with those seeking term limits on congressmen. The phrase that needs be kept in mind here is “Institutional Memory” Term limits ends institutional memory. This would allow bureaucracies, who have little oversight now, to be almost completely outside the controls of government. Maybe you have heard the ruckus over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Term limits means more of this same agency run amok. AS it stands now, there are over 500,000 employees of the federal government in and around the Washington DC area. There are 535 members of congress to oversee all those employees and those who work outside the area. I can’t imagine the level of dysfunction term limits would unleash.
Inertia. The phrase here is “this is how it’s always been done” If no new thoughts are allowed, when things break down, because the old system isn’t working anymore, you have only chaos to turn to. This leads to the other thought that crisis management means your management team always manages to get themselves into a new crisis. I have worked under those conditions in the private sector a time or two. I am so glad I don’t work in those places anymore. Most of them have since gone out of business, or new management was put in place to stop the bleeding. But management doesn’t get fired in government, nor is it changed, except by an act of congress. And probably takes 60 votes in the senate to do that. Which means it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.
I don’t know if you ever read it, but former senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma wrote a report titled Back in Black. It was a blueprint to cut $6 trillion of the federal debt. Good luck finding it to read now. The last time I tried to find it, Internet search engines were no help. But mostly the means of effecting this reduction was by removing inertia from government. It sought to eliminate duplicate programs, of which there are literally hundreds, end welfare for the wealthy, end programs that are ineffective and merge programs that actually worked as planned, with programs that were not living up to their advertising, but were in the same line of work.
All decisions must go through Washington DC. This really got going under Bill Clinton. Yes the big decisions always went to the capitol, but local managers used to have discretion as to how their agencies operated at the local level. This is micromanagement of the very worst order. All the local knowledge, all the years of experience mean nothing to the czars in charge back in DC. I only know this because I was told this by someone who worked in government all his life. He watched it happen. There was nothing he could do to prevent it. The Clintons decided they needed more control, and they made it happen. Bush didn’t stop it, he just rode along thinking along those lines of inertia.
The only thing I can think of how to end this practice is to stop treating everyone who is not in Washington DC as if they are too stupid to do their own job. Let those who have worked in an area for twenty or thirty years be able to make their own decision based on what they know about the people they serve.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
Our founding fathers did not think there would be a permanent political class in America. Nothing was written into the constitution to stop people from being elected to office until after FDR died. They thought people would serve in office for a time and then go back to their day jobs. But they also thought that there would be people other than lawyers running for office.
Sadly, no one has enough seed capital to run for state offices, let alone national offices, unless they have some serious cash set aside.
While many states have enacted term limits on elective office, has it actually made things better? Is California a shining example of term limits working? Seems they are crazier than ever to me. According to ballotpedia, 6 states have thrown away term limits already. But I doubt any of them did it for the reasons I am writing this article.
Why I am writing this piece is because I see a lot of people are in favor of using term limits as a tool to drain the swamp. I’d love to drain the swamp too. But I don’t want to drain one swamp only to find there is another swamp right underneath it. What I am going to do here, is show you why term limits only sounds nice, but won’t drain any swamp. Then I am going to show you a way out of this permanent mess. You probably won’t like it. It’s thinking way outside the box. But to me, thinking inside the box has got US exactly where we are today. All the best minds we have, only got us to where we have a Deep State doing its best to run the country outside of law and constitution.
Term limits would make it easier for the Deep State work its will. Most people probably think of the Deep State as those in the CIA, FBI, and the rest of the 17 intelligence agencies we have. I tend to add to them, the bureaucrats who actually run government. They, who are large and in charge, I call 6 figure cat herders. They may be in charge, but overall they are worse than useless to me. Their most outstanding trait is making life more difficult for everyone who has to follow the rules they make; that and going to meetings, lots and lots of meetings. Term limits will not affect them. If anything putting term limits in place will remove the people who may actually know how government operates, so these people will be left to guard the henhouse. You may know what happens when you leave a fox to guard the chickens, but do you know what happens when you let a weasel do the same job? Not a pretty sight is it? This is your government, run by weasels. That is my biggest fear of actually having term limits in place. There are others.
So what happens after term limits has been applied, and it’s time to elect someone new to office? There is no incumbent from either party. Who will be chosen to run? It is my assumption that the person chosen to run will be the person who is the most effective at fundraising, or who has a large amount of cash to jump start a political campaign. It seems like we are going to be getting more lawyers all over again. So now you have more lawyers, and a bureaucracy that no one has any idea on how to rein it in. I can’t be the only one who has a problem with this. My last point is that even if we get term limits, will you have a personal relationship with your representative? More important, will they know you?
This is why my solution to the current problems we face, is not to enact term limits, but to restore the same ratio of voting citizens as established after the US census of 1790 30,000 citizens per member of the House of Representatives
This is why my solution to the current problems we face, is not to enact term limits, but to restore the same ratio of voting citizens as established after the US census of 1790 30,000 citizens per member of the House of Representatives Page 3 of the following document shows the total US population was less than 4 million people.
This number includes everyone, not just while males of voting age. Current population of the United States according to the census bureau is 326,172,099, but it keeps scrolling up, so it will be somewhat higher when you read this. Diving this number by 30,000 gives us 10,872.4033 members of congress. This Act says we can’t do that. This Act is why there are 435 House members and not the 10,872 we should have.
Most people, when I tell them my idea, say congress would never get anything done. My rebuttal to this; what good is $20 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities? How good are they at performing their job of congressional oversight of the administration? I wish congress did their job better. But they haven’t. But having 10,872 people chasing after 6 figure cat herders seems better than what we have. We might even be able to have people other than lawyers in office.
For me, the added bonus is when I imagine lobbyists and those who bankroll campaigns expecting special favors, thinking of them trying to buy enough members of congress to get their will enacted. Now there would be some fine cat herding.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
First off, let’s make sure we are talking about apples and not disguised bananas. I’ll be using numbers from these documents to make my points, and refer you to them for further understanding. What I’m looking to do here in this article is to make my arguments for tax reform, and why it is a difficult thing to get through the swamp of Washington DC.
To me the originators of this tax reform plan put for by president Trump; Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Steven Moore, Art Laffer, are all my economic heroes. I believe what they say, as they speak the truth, and have been right every time since the late 80s when I first saw Mr. Kudlow on CNBC TV. They created this plan with growth being a fundamental part of the process. If any of you haven’t noticed, America’s population continues to grow larger, and if growth is not part of any tax plan, we will keep seeing more and more people left behind, living on the streets because there are not enough jobs to keep everybody working on their own American Dream. Zero Growth policies mean that anyone that turns 18 needs to move away, because there will be nothing for you where you grew up. You’ll need to wait for someone to die to start your life.
What we have had thrust upon us since the beginning of the Great Recession are policies that limit growth in the most egregious manner. In the name of efficiency we have had Too Big to Fail, Targeted Asset Relief Program, which kept broken banks afloat, who then turned around and made themselves even larger. Small businesses had a hard time making payroll, as the only banks with money, had money because of the government throwing billions of dollars at them. But instead of helping stimulate the economy, these too big banks bought up other banks, so the money went to shareholders, not small businesses that needed lines of credit to help when accounts receivable are not quite keeping up with accounts payable. Wall Street did fabulously well, while Main Street was dying on the vine. So stock markets look great, but you drive down any small town’s main drag and you saw so many empty store fronts. Zero Growth and high tax/high regulation policies in liberal/Democrat controlled cities exacerbated these problems.
What we saw as a result were homeless people who had lost jobs, then lost hope, because there was nothing available that could make up for the losses incurred. Obama phones sound like a nice idea, until you have to either make a smart phone plan payment or eat. Too many people lost out on jobs because of the poor choices they were left with. Eight years of Obama’s failed policies left US with a population growing faster than 2%, but economic growth barely able to meet 2% growth on any consistent basis. We may not have been in a recession technically, but we were not doing enough to get people back to work in any meaningful manner.
While this economic malaise was eating away at America’s vitality, record tax receipts by the government kept congress from having to do any heavy lifting of reforming the damaged system of taxation. Yet, deficits continued to outpace tax receipts. This by definition is the picture of unsustainability. Many people have argued with me that all we needed to do was either print more money or sell more government treasury bonds. I always asked them, what keeps those outside entities buying these securities? What will happen when they decide they have had enough US government bonds? I never got an answer. They were assuming that there would always be a buyer. I try not to make assumptions like that.
Congress being what they are, it took this long before president Trump could even begin to put forth his plan to congress. Until the 1st day of this month of October, 2017, this has been a federal budget signed by president Obama. We have had a continuing resolution keeping government open to now.
A large sticking point with some members of congress on the Republican side arises from eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes from the federal tax. If you refer now to the two linked provided in this article, you can simply multiply the standard deduction on the second page of the Form 1040 pdf by two. If you only earn money like me, and not like a person in the 1%, this new doubled standard deduction will more than offset this loss of a past deduction. My mortgage is nearing the point where the interest payments and any other items that I could deduct, were nearing any possibility of me being able to write them off. So my future refunds would be likely greatly diminished. My only hope to reduce my current tax burden by throwing as much money allowed under current rules into any tax deferred retirement account. I honestly don’t know if I could do that, and still pay my current bills, all while being forced to maintain a Zero Deductions on my I-9 form; where the government takes the maximum amount from my paycheck.
If you live in a state like I do, that has an income tax, and you are currently able to deduct that, please use the links provided and see where your tax situation falls, if doubling the standard deduction will allow you to keep more of your money.
House chair of the Ways and Means committee Kevin Brady, seems to want to end that tax deferred status. While I now have any retirement money going into retirement accounts on a post-tax basis, I do not think that this should be taken from everyone. Some people are better able to take advantage of these tax rates than I am. I cannot add more monies to the retirement accounts to reduce my taxable income to a lesser bracket now, and after retirement I want to have to pay as little tax as possible. But that’s me; you choose what’s best for you. I just don’t think your choices should be eliminated.
Before I finish writing this, I would like to touch upon the repatriation of capital by US corporations in overseas accounts. You should know by now, that many American companies leave their foreign profits outside the US for tax purposes. I would not want to repatriate any profits I made overseas, after paying foreign taxes only to have Uncle Sam take another 39.6% away. That just seems to be the prudent fiduciary responsibility of a company to its shareholders. But president Trump’s tax reform plan seeks to repatriate these monies to the US under more favorable conditions that now exist. This will make it easier for companies to invest in new plants and employees inside the US than current federal policy allows.
I would be in favor of taking the repatriation tax, and putting it all into domestic infrastructure development. We are going to need better roads and bridges in the future as growth demands more out of existing infrastructure. I think this would be an easier sell than making the gas tax higher. I fear any increase in the gas tax will be absorbed by bicycle lanes and other feel good spending, and not help our weakened roads and bridges one whit.
One last thing; once you have determined what will be your tax situation let your congressman know about how tax reform will impact you. I think they have their ears open to this subject right now.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
I do not own a gun. Yet I think this God given right is so important that I am a lifetime member of the NRA. I think there are already too many restrictions on gun owners. And too many lives are lost in cities where gun control is the law of the land.
Trying to make safe spaces for some, leads to no safe places for anyone. I think instead of trying to take away our rights, I think the gun control nuts should work on overcoming their fear.
I do not plan on writing anything that is a defense of the second amendment. The whole point of the constitution for the United States is to limit the power of the federal government, not to tell the citizens what rights the government allows. I think the founding fathers left things deliberately a bit on the ambiguous side, because they weren’t all lawyers, like everyone in congress today seems to be. Legislative lawyers, journalistic lawyers, lawyers in every courtroom, lawyers behind every PR firm; 450,000 in America alone, 1 out of 7 attorneys on earth are American lawyers. And look at what their combined legal brilliance has brought to US. You couldn’t make US crazier if you tried.
Because the writers and signers of the constitution were not all lawyers, they left room for common sense to be applied to all situations pertaining to citizens and the government they create. They allowed for people to be people, imperfect and incomplete, but responsible for their own thoughts and actions. Now, if you have enough money or political connections, you may be able to avoid any repercussions of your misdeeds, or so it seems from here.
Too much legislation gets passed into law that only serves to make lawmakers feel good. I’ll use Oregon ban of phosphate in dishwashing and laundry compounds as an example. My mother was elected as a state representative, and I argued with her about the uselessness of the bill. But she acted as she always does, she knows more than I, even if she has nowhere near the college science credits to her name as I have. I tried to teach her that phosphate is a rock cycle agricultural nutrient, not a water cycle nutrient like nitrogen or potassium. I tried to tell her that any phosphate that goes to a septic tank will stay in the ground near the drain field. That it will be used by the bacteria of a water treatment plant, before being discharged into any waterways. Did that make any difference? Not at all, she was going to vote to make herself feel good, and she did. So now I have a bag of trisodium phosphate that I add to my wash, when things get really dirty and stained.
Feel good legislators should really think about the law of unintended consequences before they even think of proposing any knee jerk reaction legislation. But I am sure that more than anything, it is just a tool to get campaign donations flowing to their re-election war chest. Let them throw money around like drunken sailors. It only matters when it gets to legislation or to the courts.
We have already done the best we could by electing Donald Trump president. He is appointing constitutional judges for every open seat he can. The only thing we can do now, is support him, and to be aware that George Soros will be trying to buy district attorney positions through the ballot next year, all across America. It’s the Das who decide who goes to trial, and who does not get prosecuted, even if you thought only James Comey could keep people from going to jail who need to be in jail.
Really, all we need to do now is stand our ground. It is the law of the land, and will only be different if we decide it is not in our interests any longer. I cannot imagine it will ever not be in our interest to give up our right to bear arms.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
I know I am late to this party, and the only reason I am writing about this, is that no one is asking the questions I want answered. Aside from the whole thing seeming to be one big distraction from other events, the senator Menendez trial, tax reform, and the devastation in Puerto Rico from hurricane Maria; it looks like a globalists paid for protest. The actions of the players and the NFL in general did not start at the first game of the season, but after the stock market had a bit of a downturn.
Do you know anyone who is for bad cops? I don’t. I have always thought being pulled over for driving while Black, to be disgusting. It’s Stalinist, show me a man, I’ll show you a crime, kind of thing. It’s an abuse of power and authority. It ruins any chance of cooperation and community policing a police force may hope to establish. It’s a sign of corruption, and who knows how bad that corruption extends, in either the individual cop, or the police force of a city. There is no way to know. It does not make a city safer, and through the “catch and release” programs everywhere, does not keep anyone in jail, if they need to be there.
Taking a knee was originally in response to that wasn’t it? Today it seems more of an “I hate America” stance, than to protest against bad cops. Someone was fed a line of bull, if they thought hating everyone was a way to win friends and influence people. It’s completely counterproductive. So whoever fed this, had this other outcome in mind, but sold it to the gullible as a reasonable approach. Please remember, NFL athletes were not given a free ride through college based on academic achievement.
I grew up in a less affluent community. It was very white too. But guess what, as teenagers we knew which cops liked to do the pull you over to see what crime you committed, just like Black communities say they suffer. Have you heard the phrase “pull me over primer?” If you drove a car that did not have a nice coat of paint, but had only a primer coat, or just spots of primer here and there on your car, you would probably get pulled over, because you were too poor to afford either a good car, or have the car you owned fixed completely. In July of 1992, I was pulled over 13 times. I never got a ticket, because nothing was wrong with my car or my driving, but I worked late at night, and had to drive far to get to work and back, and I owned a car in “pull me over primer.” So I do have an idea of what the original intent of what the NFL players may be complaining about. I’m just not sure if they know what they are protesting. I feel confident they have not thought about making their wishes known in a more productive manner. They are stuck in making a reaction, than in making positive changes.
I can’t say with certainty what could have been done to draw attention to the issue of discriminatory policing in a more productive way. But even I know you get better results from the powers that be, by offering a hand in friendship, than sticking a middle finger in their face. Although I think we voted that way last November. We are all tired of being preyed upon by those in power. We’ve been fed too many broken promises that if we act in specific ways, things will change for the better, only to be met with the most disappointing of results. I think we know now, that those in power do not have the guts to make the tough negotiations required to fix the problem, any problem. They just want the noise to die down, and will do whatever it takes to do as little as possible, unless they are benefitting from the disruption.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
This will not be an easy task for you. You are going to need other tactics than calling me names, ending the discussion by saying “science” or threatening to put me in jail. Those actions make me want to drag my feet in the dirt hard, and not listen to anything more you might say. Don’t tell me things like I need to do my part; when you fly in a private jet. Don’t tell me I have a closed mind.
I really don’t want to see your hockey stick. That is just a non-starter with me. If what you say is true, you can find other ways of proving to me climate change is caused by our actions as a species. It would also be helpful to your argument to avoid citing temperature data. It seems to have been changed from its original numbers. Also, the locations of many official temperature readings are not in the same location, nor the same type of physical environment they were originally set up a century or more ago.
I would rather focus on the positive things you could do, to convince me that anthropogenic climate change is real. I am not going to even bother trying to counter any of your arguments with climate change is not a real thing. The ice age ended. I think that is proof enough the climate changes. But for all the arguments I have heard of man-made climate change, you would think primitive man melted all the glaciers when he discovered fire. I’m pretty sure natural lightning made more fires back then, than any Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, or Homo sapiens tribe may have started.
You could tell me how many parts per million of carbon dioxide gas are present, but that alone will not be enough. You will need to include parts per million of water vapor and methane, both of which are far more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2 is. I would have thought modern agriculture would have had an impact that would have at least been a part of the discussion. Oh, and then there’s bread, beer, wine, soda pop, and a lot of other things that make carbon dioxide gas, that are not part of your solution to stopping climate change. Any attempt you make to convince me, should at least address these things, otherwise what you are selling me is snake oil.
Something you could tell me is the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere in relation to climate change. As oxygen is consumed to make CO2, its partial pressure decreases, while CO2’s goes up. I haven’t been able to find any source that shows this is changing. You see, I think that we would be having a hard time breathing, before anything man has done will affect the climate in any appreciable manner.
One last thing I would like to know, what are you planning on doing if you’re wrong? What if, for all the money spent implementing the Paris Accord, the climate still changes, and then what? If you do not take that into account, what do you plan to do when the waters rise? Sit back and eat popcorn?
I do not mention everything that gives me pause about climate change here. I do not feel like re-inventing the wheel, there are plenty of other people who make valid points that I have not touched upon. But my questions are ones that I have asked people who have resorted to calling me names, and asserted things about my mother; but never answered me. I do plenty of things to reduce my ‘carbon footprint’ not because I am a true believer, but because it is cheaper for me.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
Here out west, the Endangered Species Act, while itself a good thing, has costly strings attached. Too often the cost of the strings is made worse because it just sounds like a good idea. So far the endangered salmon have come across things not intended by nature or the Endangered Species Act, as well as the normal things the imperil the life of the fish.
Caspian terns have taken up a sandy island near the mouth of the Columbia River. They are not a native species to Oregon or Washington State, let alone to North America. In fact they do come from the Caspian Sea area of Asia. They are almost half a world away from where they are normally to be found.
These birds feed on the endangered salmon; and environmentalists have successfully blocked any attempts at reducing, or removing this non-native predator. They breed on an island, that has only been in existence since the dams on the Columbia River slowed the spring floods down, letting silt and sand build up into impermanent islands.
California Sea Lions have also relocated to Oregon, swimming up the Columbia River as far as Bonneville dam, about 150 miles from the Pacific Ocean.
Oregon already has their own native Sea Lion species, the Steller’s sea lion; these are not as large or aggressive as the Californians. So salmon are not the only species in conflict with the invasive non-natives.
While the Caspian terns prey on the juvenile fingerlings on their way to the sea, the sea lions eat the mature returning fish. Sea lions are also rather peculiar in their eating habits. They often bite a salmon in the belly, eating the roe of the females. They do not eat the entire salmon, so they need to kill many more than one fish to satisfy the needs of each sea lion.
The Marina Mammals Act says nothing can be done with them either.
Salmon still have more enemies. The hydroelectric dams they must pass through on the way to and from the ocean take their toll. But now wind energy places the salmon in danger. In order to meet contract requirements, the Bonneville Power Administration, the federal agency which regulates the dams of the Columbia, must discharge water, without making electricity, downstream.
There was a court case two years ago, but I have yet to find the resolution to this case anywhere. The BPA cited the Endangered Species Act, in the case, as making electricity was less harmful to the fish than direct discharge of the river. It seems hard to believe, but salmon can suffer from the bends too. The bends, also called caisson disease, is when nitrogen bubbles become trapped in blood vessels, causing extreme pain, and sometimes death.
What the BPA did, and what brought the lawsuit, was to make electricity, not spill water, as per the wind farmers’ contract. The BPA says making electricity out of falling water causes less nitrogen to be entrained in the water, reducing potential harm to the fingerlings.
Lastly we have our final foe for salmon; cows. This is probably the easiest of the threats to mitigate, but also the one the government likes to hit people the hardest. You see cows like to get a drink of water now and then. But sometimes that water is a river or creek that salmon use to spawn. Cows can easily make a mess of the stream, just getting a drink of water. They feet can churn a clear rocky stream bed into a muddy wallow in a shirt amount of time.
Funny thing is, the federal government owns most of the states of Washington and Oregon. But they more often take harmful actions against the persons who they give grazing rights, than take mitigating steps to protect salmon habitat. Seems the money they collect in those fees, are not allowed to do much more than feed Washington DC.
I wish I felt confident that the environmentalists actually had solutions for the salmon in mind when they sue the government and private parties, but what keeps becoming reality does not agree with their stated purposes. After the salmon eggs hatch, and the fry are large enough to be released into the wild, their adipose fins are clipped off, to make them different from wild salmon not reared in a fish hatchery. Then they are trucked around dams to limit the damages caused by the turbines making electricity. This may be the low cost option of meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Fish screens that prevent all, or almost all fish kills have not been invented yet. But it surprises me that nothing can be done to reduce the threats caused by non-native species.
Why are we not inviting Sea World to train killer whales to hunt sea lions? Why haven’t the Native Americans who used to eat sea lions not been asked to hunt them? Why are we protecting invasive birds that live on an impermanent island? Why doesn’t the federal government help the salmon as much as they go after cattle ranchers?
This seems to be the same pattern the Left uses in all their politics. Make something a victim, force everyone to change their lifestyle to accommodate said victim, and let other predators have their way, being incapable of dealing with this new problem. Meanwhile the original victim languishes.
Author: Jay R. VanOrman
I earned a bachelor’s degree in English shortly before my 50th birthday. I have enough science credits, that if they gave them, I could have had a BS in English. I try to play well with others, but I aim to be a good man, not a nice man. I normally think outside the box. I’m a Navy veteran, and I do for a living what they once trained me to do.