|
Can't get your oil rigs into the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge? Draw up a seven-year budget
plan that assumes billions in revenue from oil-and-gas
leasing in the refuge - never mind that drilling in the
refuge is against the law - and hope nobody notices. By the
time Clinton gets the 1996 budget, he'll have no choice but
to go along. Ideal for initiatives that have previously lost
on their own merits, as this one did in 1991.
A proven winner given a new wrinkle in the 104th Congress.
Simply attach your unwanted provision to a wholly unrelated
"host" bill, preferably one that authorizes spending for the
president's pet programs.
Although this tactic failed when Clinton used his first veto
to block the "logging without laws" provision in the so-
called rescissions bill, the president's resolve wavered
even before the bill reached his desk a second time.
Perfected in the Contract With America, this maneuver
involves distracting voters' attention with a lot of
Constitution-thumping rhetoric about private property,
excessive government, and the like. Jump up and down about
"takings," for example - while trying to take away hard-won
environmental rights.
Based on a popular marketing ploy, this is a favorite of
many members of Congress. As the name implies, it involves
advertising a product your customers want, then sending them
home with something that turns their skin green. Current
examples include alleged "reauthorizations" of the Clean
Water and Endangered Species acts, critically important laws
that will - if some in Congress have their way - end up
polluting water and endangering species.
Are there still some pesky environmental regulations the EPA
insists on enforcing? No problem. Cut the agency's budget by
a third.
Peeved that the 103rd Congress actually enacted one
environmental bill, the California Desert Protection Act?
Don't appropriate the money needed to implement it.
In other words: You can't always get what you want. But you
can always squeeze the funding.
Up to Top
|
