|
November 11, 2004
> I am interested in someone filling me in on the purpose and origin of the National Forest foundation. Is it governmental?
Scott replied:
Yes, it is governmental. It was recreated by the National Forest Foundation Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 583j - 583j-8, November 16, 1990, and amended 1993.
The National Forest Foundation is one of several analogous foundations created at about the same time. Others include the National Parks Foundation, the National Environmental Education Training Foundation and the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. All are, in my opinion, "Black Hat". NEETF is perhaps the very worst of the bunch http://www.neetf.org --- they are Astroturf at it's very worst. NPF is the most commercially offensive of them all http://www.nationalparks.org. NPF has degraded into a marketing ploy (and tax avoidance scheme) for it's five major corporate sponsors Ford, Kodak, Time, Discovery and American Airlines.
Here's the basic authorization info for the NFF:
NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION ACT 16 U.S.C. §§ 583j - 583j-8, November 16, 1990, as amended 1993.
Overview. This Act establishes a National Forest Foundation to benefit the activities of the U.S. Forest Service.
Establishment and Purposes of Foundation. The Act establishes a non-profit National Forest Foundation to encourage, accept and administer private gifts of money and property for the benefit of the U.S. Forest Service, and to conduct activities that further the purposes and programs of the National Forest System. The Foundation is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors, a majority of whom must have education or experience in natural or cultural resource management, law or research, and must represent diverse points of view relating to natural and cultural resource issues. Foundation activities are supplemental to and do not preempt any authority or responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service. §§ 583j-583j-7.
Appropriations Authorized. For administrative services and support for the Foundation, Congress authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000. During the 5-year period beginning October 1992, Congress authorized $1,000,000 annually to the Secretary of Agriculture to be made available to the Foundation to match private contributions on a one-for-one basis. § 583j-8.
> If so, why does our government sponsor a "tax deductible" foundation?
You've asked the correct question.
The idea behind each of these foundations was that Congress would NOT give tax money directly to the National Park Service, US Forest Service or US Fish and Wildlife Service. It would starve the allocated budgets for these agencies and FORCE them to seek privatized solutions. Congress would instead make that tax money available to these agencies ONLY when matched by a non-federal contribution. The promoters of these foundations would say that by doing this they were "leveraging tax dollars and making them go further."
In reality, each and every one of these foundations were part of the Reagan (and then George Bush Sr.) efforts to defederalize government. They are, each and every one, efforts to promote privatization, to give tax breaks to corporate sponsors and to use and abuse the enormous goodwill the US public has for the iconic images of our National Parks and other public treasures.
Instead of funding the agencies directly, Congress has begun moving tax dollars into programs that allow the agencies to access that money ONLY in partnership with other entities. In fact, the NFF's website stated clearly in BOLD type:
The NFF MAP does not support projects that are seeking general operating support or cannot produce at least a 1:1 non-federal cash match.
So if anyone is thinking about getting a $50,000 grant from the NFF, do understand that you're going to have to spend $50,000 of your own money in support of work that the USFS should be doing in the first place!
For an analogous situation consider of the Recreation Trails Program or TEA-21. Through these boondoggles, a private sector "partner" can put up a mere 5% of the cost of a project and make a grant proposal. The highway department will put up 80% of the project cost and, another federal agency can put up the rest. In practice what this means is that the USFS has no money with which to do projects and has been told that they must be responsible to potential partnerships. So when the local snowmobile club wants to purchase a new groomer, they simply go to the USFS and say "Hey Mr. Forest Ranger. How'd you like to be able to report to Congress that even without proper funding, you're able to get works done. We'll put up $5000 toward the $100,000 purchase price of a new groomer if you'll partner with us and put up another $15,000. Together we'll apply for an $80,000 grant from the Federal Highway Administration Authority and with the $100,000 we'll but a new groomer that with which the XYZ snowmobile club will groom USFS trails".
The USFS is PROHIBITED from directly applying to the FHWA for a grant. Federal land management agency MUST have a private partner in order to access these new pots of money. And this is how privatization works. NFF is, as I've tried to make clear, little more than a privatization tool.
So getting back to the question posed at the start of this reply, "why does our government sponsor a "tax deductible" foundation?" --- it does so in order to DEPRIVE the agencies of direct access to tax dollars paid by the American people and to force a privatization agenda upon those agencies.
Now please note that the American Recreation's President, Derrick Crandall was the President of the National Forest Foundation until February 17, 1995. For $2, I was able to purchase that documentation from the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission. I believe it helps one's understanding to know that the wise-use movement is solidly behind these Congressionally approved programs.
Please also note that the National Forest Foundation is a big booster of ARC's policies. Both the NFF and the NPF are great boosters of fee-demo. They are an enormous booster of partnerships.... which now makes them boosters of the free-market ideologues that have seized control of our Federal Government.
Perhaps the most controversial partnership the NFF has engaged in was cutting a deal with Subaru in which the FS got the use of 34 new Subaru "Forester" vehicles and Subaru got the exclusive commercial use of Smokey Bear. NFF was desperately in need of private sector money to match the federal dollars Congress has given them. NFF was so desperate, they cut a deal that created a scandal which almost brought about their demise. In fact, in the aftermath of this scandal, the NFF website was taken off the internet and remained down for 18 months during which time the NFF underwent a major overhaul.
You can, and I hope will, read the congressionally testimony of Testimony of Roger C. Viadero, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture about this scandal at this link.
Viadero pulled few punches. I try to pull few punches.
Scott
|
- Various 
