Walker's Management Plan: New Players, Changed Rules
That's the blueprint for Scott Walker, his appointees and GOP legislators as they radically turn the state towards private interest domination as applied to new legislation, labor contracts, rule-making authority, voting rights, wetlands protections and enforcing - - or ignoring - - existing rules, law and tradition.
Cathy Stepp, the DNR-Secretary designee and home builder who had bashed the DNR as a special interest/self-interested observer, laid out the strategy and its justification perhaps inadverantly in her now infamous-blog rant in 2009 against the DNR, state government in general and "the democrats (sic) game plan," which she ended with these telling paragraphs:
"O'k, I went waaay wordier than I intended, but here's some language that was inserted into this BudgetPig that should scare everyone--regarding one of our agencies, the Department of Commerce: "it may promulgate the initial rules as emergency rules without the finding of emergency."
Why should this scare you? When (not if, I said WHEN) they give this authority to the DNR there will be more of a whooshing sound as businesses run for the borders.
It's always the fine print in these things that have the heaviest hit.
Just another example of the democrats game plan: Change the Rules to Fit the Players.
Shout it with me, now: HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS DEMOCRAT."
4 comments:
I am looking forward to watching how the new DNR secretary works out. She does not have the power to eliminate or change environmental laws or the purpose of the DNR. She does set the tone for the agency in how it carries out it function. Within the current DNR there is an increasing attitude that they are environmental super-heroes protecting the fragile environment from evil people. The public trust doctrine and traditional conservation philosophy protected the environment for people to use and enjoy, not to exclude their use and enjoyment.
Nature worship environmentalism has crept into the inner workings of the DNR. Protecting the environment from the people as opposed to protecting the environment for the people. In both cases the environment will be protected. People will enjoy more personal freedom, however, under one situation rather than the other.
I wish her well
"Nature worship environmentalism" is a silly slap at people doing their jobs. Read the Public Trust Doctrine again.
The DNR’s own website on climate change is a prime example that environmentalism silly science has not only crept into the agency, but it is fully embraced and promoted as fact.
Climate change is silly only in Fox News directives.
Post a Comment