[From the Walnut Creek Democratic Club Newsletter, augmented with recently available information]
It was interesting to see on October 18, 1995 a Reader's Forum message from Donald Lively of Lafayette slamming "October 13's sophmoric editorial blast at Bill Bakers's 'environmental record'...". In particular that "The bulleted items label the editorialist as ... part of the elitist cabal of policy monks, journalists, educators and politicians that decides what's so because it says so." What were the bulleted items? Only several items from BB's anti-environmental voting record and bills to which he gave his support as paraphrased above. In other words, only factual matters of public record. These items are not so because only the Times editor says it is so. Since the wounded closed minders are now howling I urge you to write to the times in support of their more open and balanced policy. To be effective in influencing your fellow voters, you should keep informed of the various messages flying about and you must know and be able to cite the facts, for the voters we wish to influence may not be paying close attention to the whole picture.
"I prayed that my enemies would make themselves look foolish, and my prayers were
answered" - Voltair.
As you and I share a dedication to our environment, I want to dispell the myths
surrounding the priority the new Congress has placed on environmental protection.
It is crucial that Congress work to prevent pollution, preserve our natural
resources and the integrity of our public assets, control waste disposal, and
fight all exploitation of our environment. Thes principles are embodied in the
"Environmental Bill of Rights," and I am committed to their implementation through
effective public policies. While it is regrettable that some have used
environmental issues for political purposes, I have pledged to wade through
partisan politics and focus my energies on protecting the environment.
I oppose any retreat from our efforts to clean-up the environment. We must do
all we can to guarantee a healthy envionment for future generations. States and
local communities need to be given both the authority and flexibility to make
established environmental policies work. In 1993, Environmental Protection
Administrator (EPA) Carrol Browner identified the great frustration felt in state
governments with burdensome federal guidelines:
One of our central environmental priorities is pollution prevention. In working to
maintain effective clean water policies and overall anti-pollution efforts, we have
established strict standards. While we rely on local communities to find the most
effective solutions to environmental problems, Congress is providing $4.8 billion for
the EPA in 1996 to oversee adherence to these standards.
Congress has also maintained federal funding of most of our national parks and
wildlife areas at 1995 levels in order to preserve our national heritage. On a
personal level, I have continued my effort to provide incentives to businesses
and communities to establish and maintain wetlands areas. Currently, I am working
to secure increased funding for wetlands projects so that Congress can join local
community members in playing a greater role in wetlands and natural heritage
preservation.
I have used my postion on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the Science Committee to conserve our natural resources by controlling waste.
I have integrated my activities on both committees to call for alternative fuel
and energy efficiency research. Further, I succeeded in preserving $25 million
for the Bay Area to continue to seek creative solutions to our energy and
pollution problems. Once again, I believe that we must encourage local
government's inventive responses to our environmental needs.
Finally, you should know that I support steps to reduce general environmental
exploitation by making thouse who damage the environment directly responsible
for environmental cleanup. Under the Superfund Reform plan just introduced,
we have streamlined the way major polluters are identified, and have enabled
companies to provide funds to begin cleanup. Under the current plan, polluters
have been embroiled in lawsuits and have not paid for site cleanup. The reform
plan will force responsible parties to pay their fair share, but will not punish
those who have not contributed to a site's environmental damage.
Our plans to improve our nation's environment start with you. We believe that
by establishing guidelines local governments can follow, those who are most
affected by environmental regulations can decide how best to implement them.
While providing ample EPA guidence, we will look to our communities to preserve
our environment while providing for both prosperity and environmental stewardship.
I hope you will join me in our efforts to preserve our precious natural resources.
As I continue to work to improve the quality of the environment, please feel free
to contact me to share your thoughts on this vital issue.
Member of Congress.
Bill Baker turns green?
Well, B.B. must have a mole inside the Times. Our household received a letter
from Mr. Baker Friday, Oct 16th, dated Oct 12, reprinted in its entirety below.
We don't have a cancellation date since it was sent under his franking privelage
(in other words, you and I paid for the postage and a lot more). Note that this is
a targeted mailing, sent probably because some environmental organizations have
recieved contributions from the recipient. I am printing it here not as a service
to him, but to warn you what we will be up against next year. This man would
probably attempt to paint oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge
as an park improvement! This is a perfect example of why we must go one on one
with the voters.From our current Congessional (un)Representative: Bill Baker (on Congressional
letterhead):
Dear Mrs. ...:
So, you see what we are up against! This is a carefully crafted and narrowly targeted
letter. Note that the impression cast by the document is in its entirety
false, being
completely contrary to his actual recorded votes, public statements, endorsors and
sponsors; yet there is no sentence in the letter to point to that can be proven to
be such an outragous lie as is the whole. Each word has been carefully placed
to mislead the naive reader. In this case the whole is a greater lie than the sum of
its parts. We are armed, however, with BB's voting record. Lets hoist him by that
petard!
When I worked at the state level, I was constantly faced with rigid rules that made
doing something 100 times more difficult and expensive than it needed to be. It makes
no sense to have a program that raises costs while doing nothing to reduce
environmental threats.
The new congress has responded to Secretary Browner's call for flexibility. However,
the changes she has advocated have been criticized on a purely partisan level. Our
nation's natural resources should not be the subject of ongoing political wrangling.
Sincerely,
Bill Baker
First year (1993-94): 25Second year (94-95): 8 (With a Thumbs Down mark!)
First 100 days (1995) 0 (Yes, a ZERO!)
Third Year (95-96) 0 (Do you see a pattern here?)
This fits into a general strategy of Bill Baker. He has to address this dilemma: How can he serve his financial and political masters (the big industrial poluters that contribute to his campaign, either directly, through Political Action Committees, or through "private donations"), when poles of his constitutional constutents (the citizens of this district of every age, affiliation and belief) have consistently shown environmental preservation, protection and enhancment to be at the top of their priorities?
Now even BB knows that he cannot serve two masters, so he has decided to serve one and deceive the other (you guess which is which). His clever ploy is to voice "support" for environmental concerns while voting against every bill that his corporate sponsors percieve as hurting themselves. His explainations for these votes are that there was some defect (however small) that prevented him from voting for the bill in question.
For example, the non partisan League of Conservation Voters has identified six House bills of great importance to conservation minded voters. (See their "Votes '95") . The LCV marks each representative's vote with a "+" (pro environment) or "-"
Mohave National Park Preserve funding, Tongas National Forest, Mining Law, etc.
Baker: "-" ... House Vote: "+" (230 to 199)
Weakening Wetlands Enforcement, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc. Allows pesticide concentration in processed food. Blindfolds the public to knowlege of toxic releases.
Baker: "-" ... House Vote: "+" (227 to 194)
Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air, Toxics, Pesticides in Foods.
Baker: "-" ... House Vote: "-" (210 to 210)
Baker: "-" ... House Vote: "+" (271 to 153)
Baker: "-" ... House Vote: "-" (166 to 225)
Toxics, polution, wetlands loss, etc.
Baker: "-" ... House Vote: "-" (240 to 185)
Join a Democratic Club!