🚀 go-pugleaf

      
   Information and strategy from anti-nature "Wise Use", much deleted:   

 
 U> Representatives and ten in the Senate.  Issues covered include the 


 U> million acres of new Wilderness Areas in California and Montana, 
 U> and other Federal land use controls.


 U> Three Senate races provide clear choices between defenders
 U> and opponents of property rights.  In California, Senator Dianne
 U> Feinstein (D CA) scored 10% on the Private Property Vote Index.
 U> Her opponent, Rep. Michael Huffington (R CA) scored 92%.  


 U> In Oklahoma, Republican Senate nominee Rep. Jim Inhoff 
 U> scored 100%, while Democratic nominee Rep. Dave McCurdy scored 0%.
 U> And in Arizona, Republican nominee Jon Kyle scored 93%, while 
 U> Democratic nominee Rep. Sam Coppersmith scored 0%. 


 U> "We believe that the 1994 elections are going to send a
 U> strong message to the 104th Congress in support of protecting
 U> property rights.  The League's Congressional Vote Index will
 U> help voters distinguish between incumbents who merely claim 
 U> they support property rights and those who actually vote to
 U> defend property rights," Cushman concluded.

 U> PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX

 U> Published by the
 U> LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS
 U> ***************************************************************
 U> Battle Ground, WA 89605

 U> The 1993 94 Index tabulates 14 key roll call votes in the House and 10
 U> in the Senate.  It also presents a cumulative percentage score for each
 U> Member of Congress.
 
 U> In other words, the tide may at last be turning.

 U> This is most obvious in the area of regulatory takings.  The
 U> Endangered Species Act and Section 404 wetlands regulation are now
 U> hitting all across the country, and angry constituents are making their
 U> elected representatives take notice.  The House debate on the National
 U> Biological Survey was, in fact, largely about the Endangered Species
 U> Act. 
 U> While no substantive victories on regulatory takings have yet been
 U> won, this is merely because no opportunities arose during the 103rd
 U> Congress.  After the debate on the National Biological Survey, the
 U> enemies of private property rights saw which way the tide was running
 U> and decided not to proceed with re authorizing the Endangered Species
 U> Act or the Clean Water Act (which includes wetland regulation).  They
 U> were simply afraid of losing roll call votes on the House and Senate
 U> floor. 
 U> Thus, there is cause for hope in regard to regulatory takings. 
 U> Whether this hope is realized in the 104th Congress depends, in our
 U> view, on whether the grass roots property rights movement keeps working
 U> until victory is achieved or assumes victory 
 U> and relaxes.


 U> One aspect of the Index's vote ratings that stands out is the large
 U> number of very high and very low scores.  There are fewer middling

 U> Two hundred sixty one grassroots organizations had joined
 U> the League of Private Property Voters at press time to officially
 U> sponsor this Congressional Vote Index because we all believe that
 U> property rights are important.  The index is offered as an educational
 U> tool.  To get the most benefit out of it, it is perhaps useful to
 U> consider briefly why property rights and private property ownership are
 U> so important.  
 
 U> There are five broad reasons.  First, secure and
 U> enforceable property rights are necessary for civil order.  When
 U> property ownership becomes vague and unsettled, strife and social
 U> breakdown soon follow. 
 
 U> Second, our free market economy is based on secure and enforceable
 U> property rights.  Our prosperity depends on private property ownership.

 U> Third, private property is what allows people to pursue their own
 U> goals, independent of the state or society.  Without the ability to own
 U> property, the personal achievement of individuality is put out of reach
 U> for all but a few. 
 U> So far we have stated the obvious.  The other two important rules of
 U> private property are not widely recognized:

 U> Fourth, protecting the environment requires private property rights. 

 U> Fifth and most importantly, our system of limited government.,
 U> including our constitutional rights, survives because of the widespread
 U> ownership of property.  Property is power.  If the government owned or
 U> controlled all the property, it would possess all of the power.


 U> CHAMPIONS AND ENEMIES

 U> The League of Private Property Voters honors 111 Representatives
 U> and 35 Senators as Champions of Private Property 
 U> Rights in recognition of their scoring 75% or above in the 
 U> 1993 94 Vote Index.  44 Representatives and 28 Senators 
 U> achieved perfect 100% ratings.

 U> 232 Representatives and 55 Senators deserve the title of Enemies
 U> of Private Property Rights for scoring 30% or below.  49
 U> Representatives and 33 Senators scored 0%.

  The "hitlist divide-and-conquore strategy" of the Republican Party 
  and Newt proved very effective, didn't it?.  Hmmmmm.... 

 U> 1995 PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX   

 U> UNITED STATES SENATE 
 U> (1993 1994 Senate Votes)


 U> LEAGUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VOTERS 
 U> CONGRESSIONAL VOTE SCORECARD     08/02/94 

 U> The votes listed below show how Congress supported (S) or opposed
 U> (O) the League of Private Property Voters support position taken on the
 U> following votes. A description of each vote is listed below the
 U> issue.  Check to see whether your Senator supported (S) or  opposed (O)
 U> the League Support Position (private property position).   

Alabama
 U> Heflin H (D)           O  O  S  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     20   20
   Shelby R (D)            S  S  S  S  O  O  O  ?  ?  ?     57   40

Alaska
   Murkowski F (R)         S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100
   Stevens T (R)           S  S  S  S  S  ?  S  S  S  S    100   90

Arizona
   DeConcini D (D)         S  S  O  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     30   30
   McCain J (R)            S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100

Arkansas
   Bumpers D (D)           O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Pryor D (D)             O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0

California
   Boxer B (D)             O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Feinstein D (D)         O  O  O  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     10   10

Colorado
   Brown H (R)             S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100
   Campbell B (D)          O  O  S  S  S  S  S  O  O  O     50   50

Connecticut
   Dodd C (D)              O  O  O  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     10   10
   Lieberman J (D)         O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0

Florida
   Graham B (D)            O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Mack C (R)              S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100

Idaho
   Craig L (R)             S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100
   Kempthorne D (R)        S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100

Illinois
   Moseley Braun C (D)     O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Simon P (D)             O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0

Kansas
   Dole B (R)              S  S  S  S  ?  S  S  S  S  S    100   90
   Kassebaum N (R)         S  O  S  S  S  S  S  S  O  O     70   70


Massachusetts
   Kennedy E (D)           O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Kerry J (D)             O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0

Michigan
   Levin C (D)             O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Riegle D (D)            O  O  O  O  O  ?  O  O  O  O      0    0


Missouri
   Bond C (R)              S  S  S  S  S  S  S  ?  ?  O     88   70
   Danforth J (R)          S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  O     90   90


Nevada
   Bryan R (D)             O  O  S  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     20   20
   Reid H (D)              O  O  S  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     20   20

New Jersey
   Bradley B (D)           O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Lautenberg F (D)        O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0


New York
   D'Amato A (R)           S  S  S  S  ?  S  S  S  S  S    100   90
   Moynihan D (D)          O  O  O  S  O  O  O  O  O  O     10   10

North Carolina
   Faircloth L (R)         S  S  ?  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100   90
   Helms J (R)             S  S  S  S  ?  S  S  S  S  S    100   90

Ohio
   Glenn J (D)             O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Metzenbaum H (D)        O  O  O  O  O  ?  O  O  O  O      0    0

Oregon
   Hatfield M (R)          S  O  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  O     80   80
   Packwood B (R)          S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100

Texas
   Gramm P (R)             S  S  S  ?  S  S  S  S  S  S    100   90
   Hutchison K (R)         I  I  I  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100
   Krueger B (D)           O  O  ?  I  I  I  I  I  I  I      0    0

Utah
   Bennett R (R)           S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100
   Hatch O (R)             S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100

Vermont
   Jeffords J (R)          O  O  O  O  ?  S  S  O  O  O     22   20
   Leahy P (D)             O  O  O  O  O  ?  O  O  O  O      0    0

Virginia
   Robb C (D)              O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Warner J (R)            S  O  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  O     80   80

Washington
   Gorton S (R)            S  S  S  S  S  S  S  O  S  O     80   80
   Murray P (D)            O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0

West Virginia
   Byrd R (D)              O  O  O  O  O  O  O  S  O  S     20   20
   Rockefeller J (D)       O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0

Wisconsin
   Feingold R (D)          O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O      0    0
   Kohl H (D)              O  O  S  O  O  O  O  O  O  O     10   10

Wyoming
   Simpson A (R)           S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100
   Wallop M (R)            S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S  S    100  100

... "Scotty, beam us down more whiskey and proceed to Rigel VII"