FREE THOUGHTS
OPINIONS WE
COULDN'T KEEP
TO OURSELVES
National Referendums in the U.S. ...Why Not?
In other countries, citizens vote, bindingly, on national issues.
In Denmark a few years back, the people voted not to join the European Economic Community (EEC) until changes favorable to the Danes were made in the treaty. Changes were made, another national referendum was held and only then did the citizens of Denmark decide to join the EEC.
When the United States faced entry into a similar economic treaty, NAFTA, the decision was left up to the U.S. Congress and the Clinton Administration. The strongest voice to break the corporate media barrier on NAFTA, coming out against the treaty, was that of Ross Perot. This is like sending Ronald McDonald to a beef convention to argue on behalf of vegetarianism. It's no wonder Congress voted to sign on. All other efforts to stop the treaty, particularly those on behalf of environmental and labor groups, were unjustifiably ignored. Do you think NAFTA would've passed if the citizens of the U.S. had been given the opportunity to vote on the issue?
Around the same time the votes were being counted in Denmark, a national referendum took place in New Zealand. There the citizens voted on the very political structure which governed them. The majority of New Zealanders decided to abolish their two party system in favor of a proportional representation system. Their former system, similar to that of the present day United States, was judged to have not withstood the test of time: It was easy to corrupt and social progress was all too often stagnated. The proportional system they switched to allows any political party that can gather 15% or more of the vote to have a proportional number of seats in the New Zealand legislative body. New ideas can now enter their system much earlier as a result. What would happen here in the U.S. if the voters could say "see ya!" to the decrepit and boring Democrat vs. Republican routine?
Now take this notion a step further. What if, within the confines of the constitution, every major national issue was put to the vote of the American public? This way we'd learn how U.S. citizens truly felt about the issues instead of relying on deceptive polls that often measure half-baked prejudices rather than the ideas which result from real political involvement. What if American voters had the final say on healthcare, defense spending and public education? It's not surprising to find that in Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland and other countries with periodic national referendums, there are also things such as: little or no military spending, guaranteed publically-funded healthcare, and higher education free of tuition and the need for student loans. The citizens of these nations pay for this type of system out of their taxes and they do so willingly. We know this for a fact: they themselves decided what their taxes would be spent on when they were at the polls.
What do we Americans get for our tax dollars?
A big, fat, bloated military. Next time you read about a military base closing here at home or abroad, and you thank your lucky stars that they're finally cutting the military budget, remember there are still new weapons systems being developed and top secret space shuttle missions going up now and again. Even Dan Rather will tell you, right there on the evening news, when space shuttle missions are top secret. Accepting this, we can ask ourselves two questions. First, what the hell are they doing up there that we can't know about? Next, who the hell is paying for it? We can only speculate on the answer to the first question, but number two is easy: You, the taxpayer, are footing the bill for all space shuttle missions, top secret or not, and these missions are costing you a fortune.
Running a distant second to the military in the "sucking up of our tax dollars" category is the penalizing of the American people for national debt, not to mention passing on to them the cost of every banking scandal, from sea to shining sea.
Our taxes are not being used to benefit American society. Putting the vote to the people could change all this. However, as long as the decisions are left to politicians who get elected thanks mainly to the corporate financing of their campaigns and not because of any real public debate....we may never know.
How can the American people consider the U.S. political system the best one around when it doesn't allow it's own citizens the vote on national issues?
-Matt Robesch
Urban Sprawl Pushes Farmers to the Limit
The people of King County want to save farmland threatened by urban sprawl. That's why voters passed a bond measure some years ago to enable the county to set up its Farmlands Preservation Program.
Now, King County Councilman Chris Vance, chair of the Growth Management, Housing and Environment Committee, wants to chip away at our remaining open space. He wants to amend the county Comprehensive Plan to allow some farmland in the Lower Green River Valley near Auburn and Kent to convert to light-industrial/manufacturing use.
Bob Tidball owns a farm adjacent to the properties up for conversion. He runs a U-Pick berry patch popular with local urban residents. Tidball figures that people come to his farm because he doesn't spray the berries with chemicals, but also for the increasingly rare pleasure of visiting a working farm close to home. "I was amazed this year by the number of first-time berry pickers who had never before visited a farm," he wrote in a letter to the council. "Some did not realize that you have to stoop over to pick a strawberry."
Farmers in the area raise everything from flowers to quarter-horses. But they are feeling the pressure from urban encroachment. Tidball's worries are very direct: he fears that development on neighboring property will cause water runoff that may ruin his land for farming, since it is already prone to a high water table. Other farmland supporters share his concern. Far from rezoning for development, some land in the Lower Green River Valley may deserve to be reclassified as wetlands.
Tidball's commitment to farming led him to join the King County Farmland Preservation Program, and now he is asking the Council to hold up its end of the deal. Farmland owners are tempted to put their land to more profitable use, and Tidball's neighbors have enlisted Councilman Vance, a resident of Kent, to help them join the wave of development hitting the area. But county planners have a mandate from the voters to seek ways to keep farmland healthy and productive.
"When I entered my land in the Preservation Program," Tidball told the Council, "I committed myself to preservation of an agricultural resource. The County, having created and administered the program, should be likewise committed just as the voters desired." If the Council lets Tidball down, it will send a discouraging message to others struggling to stay in farming.
The King County Council will vote very soon on whether two parcels by Tidball's land should be rezoned-and it may soon also consider rezoning a third parcel of agricultural land for the construction of a park and ride lot.
If you don't think that parking lots and factory buildings make the best use of what little farmland we have left, call Chris Vance at 296-1013 and let him know. Cynthia Sullivan (296-1002), the vice-chair of the Growth Management Committee, should also hear your opinion. Other members include Larry Phillips, Bruce Laing, Brian Derdowski, Pete von Reichbauer and Jane Hague. Call them up and let them know that we still care about the land, and we expect them to care, too.
-Helen Wheatley
Seattle Farm Bill Action Group
[Home]
[This Issue's Directory]
[WFP Index]
[WFP Back Issues]
[E-Mail WFP]
Contents on this page were published in the October/November, 1994 edition of the Washington Free
Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1994 WFP Collective, Inc.
