Conservatives Angered By Environmental Provision

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | June 18, 2002 | Audrey Hudson and Amy Fagan

[AAABEST]

The provision gives a 25 percent discount on capital-gains tax to private property owners who sell their land to environmental groups or the government, instead of to other private parties.

Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, called the environmental tax break a "dangerous concept" that "favors conservationists over churches, schools and orphanages."

[AAABEST]

In addition to these tax breaks, many of these left-wing green NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) are receiving huge bags of tax money with which to wage war on us and our neighbors.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE

[AAABEST]

Eco-war ping

[BOBTHENAILER]

Thanks a million for the Ping. Bookmarked for immediate usage.

[Guillermo]

Which way will Bush and Lott go?

One can only imagine...

[Commiewatcher]

"The solution is to reduce the capital-gains tax to 15 percent, period," Mr. Nickles said.

Reduce it to ZERO, period.

[AAABEST]

Hey Bob.

I've been reading your posts on Grampa Dave's threads, your posts are right on the money.

[countrydummy]

thanks for the ping! Unbelieveable! Mike Hardiman is 100% right!

[Theyknow]

When will these wackos learn that the environment will be best protected by those who own it! All we want is equality!

[MissAmericanPie]

Yeah, well we deserve it when we can't even wring a protest phone call out of conservative "activists".

[Squawk 8888]

In its own twisted way it makes sense. Environmentalism is a religion after all (belief in the absence of facts), therefore enviro groups share the same legal standing as churches.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Ben Ficklin]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this provision is already dead.

Freepers and property rights activist such as Carol LaGrasse need to realize that there are many larger property owners that do not want their property broken up/developed sometime down the road. For them, the outright sale to a trust or the environmental easement is the tool to prevent that.

In the past, groups/associations associated with property rights opposed these activities but they now endorse them. One such group is the Tezas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Assoc.

The Valles Caldera(previously known as the Baca Ranch) in Northern NM is a good example of what can be done. The Dunigan Family sold this working/hunting ranch to the Forest Service to remain a working/hunting ranch.

For those that want to bad-mouth Bush for offering a discount on the Capital Gains Tax for transaction such as this, remember that the liberals said it was nothing more than an attempt to eventually cut the Capital Gains Tax on ALL real estate sales.

[Red Jones]

there's no excuse for george bush supporting this stuff. Evidently he will whore out nation out endlessly to make it look like his agenda is somehow making progress.

[fone]

Check this out. Dateline: New Jersey

*snip*About $433 million has been spent by state and local government to buy the development rights on farms since 1983. That includes $4.6 million in Monmouth County and $4.4 million in Ocean County.
Meanwhile, the state Department of Environmental Protection has spent $440 million in 1997 to acquire land. That's not to mention the $48 million raised annually for open space preservation by the coun-ties, or the open space taxes sup-ported in 179 municipalities.
In 1998, when then-Gov. Christie Whitman asked voters to approve the spending of $98 million a year for 10 years to preserve open space, the measure passed by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio.*end snip*

Here in 3 short paragraphs we can document almost a billion dollars of taxpayer money spent in one state to, in essence, put the land in the governments' hands.

Make no mistake about it, this is going on across the nation and will continue regardless if this federal bill passes or not.

[brityank]

They can't defend this stuff in public, so they are trying to sneak it through in an unrelated bill.

This BS is a major problem with both Republican and Democrat Bill Operations in both Houses. How many times have you seen or heard: " ... Bill for ... blah blah ... and other purposes!" Several Bills have been stripped of their original wording and purposes and had others inserted, retaining the same Bill No., Calendar position, Sponsor/Cosponsor listings; and then pushed through ~ and when queried those voting claim they didn't know ... ... and had they known wouldn't have voted that way but it's too late now.

I suggest an Amendment may be in order to prevent insertion of non-relevant law, rules, or regulations in any Bill assigned to the respective Calendars.

P.S. I have a sharpened pitchfork; it's getting close.

[brityank]

Ping.

[AAABEST]

Here in 3 short paragraphs we can document almost a billion dollars of taxpayer money spent in one state to

I wish the envirals in my state had only 1 billion. Here in Florida they've been given over 8 billion for "Everglades Restoration". Imagine the fun we're having with them down here.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I think it is still alive as they were trying to tack it on to a different bill (Homeland Security) at one point. I have no problem with this. If that's the way they want to play the game, then they will have to deal with the grass roots reaction. The problem I have with this, is that this is another example of social engineering and property management by the government using the tax laws. Granted, these people can sell to whoever they want to, that's free enterprise. But why should the seller to an envirocommie group get a tax break instead of a property owner wanting to sell to someone who wishes to build a hospital or a school? The issue I have is .gov interference with the private enterprise system again. The slippery slope is greased. And I can see a terrifying pattern of restricting our freedom of movement in this country. If you or I want to buy a farm, a ranch, or a home in the country soon, we will end up having to have an "enviromentalist background check" to insure we've never obliterated a cockroach or a flea. Mark my words, that day is coming. Unless of course you just want to move from city to city. Then that's ok. There is a tinge of the grand design to restore the urban areas by squeezing us out of the boonies. But that would be communism then, wouldn't it?

[Black Agnes]

Is Max Baucus of MT trying to KILL his state? Why do they keep electing him????

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Thanks for the ping AAA, I forgot to include you in my post...